In Australia, one of the somewhat unexpected consequences of the Covid-19 waves has been a conversation, albeit subdued, about the relative roles of the levels of government. Most notably, this has focussed on the roles of state and territory governments and the federal government. There are lots of federations around the world – all with their own unique ways of dealing with the inevitable issues of federation – and I freely admit that I know very little about how these federations all work. So I will confine my discussion to the one I know a bit about – Australia.

I was having a first post lockdown lunch with a trusted long time friend a month or so back and she said to me how she was a bit surprised by the powers the state government had and how central they had been to the Covid response.

It brought back memories of a survey/focus group (I can’t recall which) report from some 15 years ago, which asked about Australians’ view of the different levels of government. That report highlighted that a large proportion of the population was puzzled or uncertain about what each level of government was responsible for and how they worked together. In addition, it found that most people thought the federal government was the real seat of power and that they would characterise the relationship between the levels of government as seeing the federal government as the parent and the states and territories as the (wayward) children. My memory is that the research did not canvas views about local government.

Having spent most of my 40+ years of working life in one or other of these institutions and having had a long association in both places with federal-state relations I was neither surprised nor convinced by these results. I would add, that I have often seen a similar bias about the ability of states and territories to be evident in federal bureaucrats and politicians.

This is a far too simplistic view in my opinion. And what’s more, it fails to take into account the relative roles and responsibilities of the two tiers of government.

One way to characterise these differences is that the Federal government looks after the external affairs – trade, foreign affairs, defence etc., as well as ceded national oversight of some areas like parts of business regulation, the lion’s share of tax revenue and broad ability to direct a number of macroeconomic variables, as well as some social policy programs like pensions, unemployment benefits and the like. (Note this is not an exhaustive list). While the states and territories are primarily focussed on delivery of services – hospitals, schools, police, emergency services and transport and lots of infrastructure.

Undeniably there is plenty of overlap and scope for confusion, even among those charged with administering this system of government on occasion. That means that there are also plenty of opportunities for gaps through which things can fall, and lots of room for finger pointing when things go wrong. There are numerous examples of all of this in our 119 years of federation.

There have also been a number of attempts at reform of the federation and how it works – I can remember Lang Hancock hoeing into the debate early on in my career at a mining industry conference, where he expounded the view that the states and territories were an anchor on the prosperity of Australia and need to be abolished. I’m sure this wasn’t the first reform option floated and it certainly wasn’t the last. From competitive federalism, to cooperative federalism through to creating another state (!) (Rural and regional Victoria and NSW) to COAG and National Cabinets the list goes on since then.

I suspect that if a world wide pandemic can’t resolve the issue then maybe we should content ourselves with regular visits and some tinkering to make things work a bit better, but wholesale change? – not likely is my opinion.

There is room for more cooperation and less central government interference – especially in areas where it is arguable their level of expertise is limited. And while in my last few years in the state government I noticed a slight easing of the federal bureaucrats’ bias that they know better than the states and territories to embrace a more collegiate approach, this could have just been a sampling error on my part because my interactions were limited to a small group of federal bureaucrats. Certainly the calibre of state and territory engagement in the commonwealth-state relationship arena varies over time and this seems to depend to a large degree on the politics of the moment. But there is common ground in the same eye rolling I see in all jurisdictions from long serving senior staff about the waning influence and capability of the bureaucracy. Is this just the rose coloured glasses effect or is there more to it? Certainly our PM has not given his bureaucrats much to hang on to regarding their role in ensuring good government. Does he really think the public service not being involved in policy development only in delivery is going to serve this country well? Sure governments set the agenda – but not in isolation, not least not in isolation from a disinterested bureaucracy with years and years of policy experience to draw on. Some of the bureaucracy is also very good at pointing out to governments what needs to be done and offering options on how to improve the well-being of Australians. I mean really, this is a government that came to the last election with one policy – some tax cuts and not much more. And let me also tell you that there is a great deal more ‘policy’ to be developed than just the broad macro view of a program. 

I segued away from my main topic – apologies. I think that the reform I’d most like to see pursued in this federal-state space is one of respect and humility. Tall ask. But the powers that the states wield and the need for quite a lot more consideration of how that impacts other jurisdictions as well as the whole of Australia means that no one probably has all the answers, no one probably can see the complete picture and all players must be prepared to make concessions and to listen to others’ points of view. Some things – like dealing with national or even just cross border emergencies – flood, fire, health spring to mind – need to be resolved not put back into endless committees etc. But they also need to be flexible and open to further improvement – one advantage of the competitive federalism model was the ability to benchmark and learn from other jurisdictions.

So here’s my Christmas wish. Let’s see if we can’t acknowledge that there are great minds with great ideas worth listening to and implementing and that experience and understanding count. These ideas come from all sort of places and no one institution has a monopoly on them. Watch what others do. Learn from their mistakes and learn from their successes too.