Why Australia's states are doomed

Regionalists usually propose that the present three levels of government be reduced to two. There are at least three reasons why fewer levels would not mean less democracy. First, the present three levels would be more accurately described as "two and a bit" because of the lack of autonomy for local governments. Second, overlap between Federal and State responsibilities means that the will of the people expressed at State level can be frustrated at Federal level. Third, complexity is increased by an extra level, and increased further by overlapping responsibilities and lack of autonomy. A more complex system of government is harder for the people to understand and consequently harder for them to influence.

Walker complains that unelected international bodies can impose their will on sovereign nations, but fails to relate this problem to the existence of the States or to federalism in general. If he is suggesting that the present federal system restrains international agencies because policies implemented at State level are beyond the reach of treaties, I deny it, because s.96 of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to dictate terms to the States by attaching conditions to grants. (While I cannot speak for other regionalists on this point, my preferred constitutional model would do away with s.96 and prevent the circumstances under which I would consider the use of s.96 to be justified under the present system).

"Voice is more effective in small than in large political units – one vote is more likely to be decisive in an electorate of 100 than in an electorate of 1000 or 1 million," says Walker. This is a convincing argument for breaking the States into smaller units. But the units must be big enough to make a difference – it's no use having a voice in a government with no teeth. For the purpose of giving effective voice to the individual voter, the States are definitely too big, while most of the present local governments are arguably too small and certainly too weak. The regional government proposal is an attempt to strike a reasonable compromise.

5. The federal division of powers protects liberty

Walker notes that "The existence of independent state court structures prevents a national government from filling all the courts in the land with judges believed to be its supporters." But it doesn't stop the government of each State from stacking the courts of that State. Such abuses could be prevented by requiring bipartisan parliamentary approval of all judicial appointments. But the same political parties that extol the safeguard of multiple judiciaries would not support bipartisan appointment, because that would take away their opportunity to stack the courts wherever and whenever they happen to hold executive power.

Walker gives a catalogue of Federal assaults on personal liberty, but fails to mention two more serious violations of human rights, namely the failure to compensate home owners whose homes are devalued relative to other homes in consequence of government decisions, and the failure to reimburse the legal costs of persons acquitted of criminal offences. These violations are mostly committed by the States. Walker concludes that Australia "has much to fear from any further concentration of government power," but fails to acknowledge that regionalists would break up the present concentration of power in State capitals.

"In a properly working federation," says Walker, "a national government seeking to implement a uniform policy in an area where it has no constitutional power must learn to proceed by negotiating and seeking consensus, not by diktat, bribery or menaces." Has he forgotten s.96, or is the system that he is defending not a properly working federation?

6. Better supervision of government

"Citizens can exercise more effective control over government officials when everything is on a smaller scale," says Walker. "Rent-seeking is easier in large than in small governments." Again, these are compelling arguments for breaking the States into smaller autonomous units.

7. Stability

"Federations are exceptionally stable," says Walker. Perhaps that's another reason why so many regionalists are federalists.

8. Fail-safe design

Walker submits that federalism makes it harder "for any one group of politicians to ruin the entire economy at once." Or for any one group of voters to rescue the entire economy at once? But again the same arguments apply to a federation of regions.

9. Competition and efficiency in government

Walker complains that government programs tend to be administered so as to create a surplus that can be used in the interests of the administrators, and that this tendency is greater if a government has monopoly power. Presumably this argument applies as much to subnational governments as to national governments, in which case the only remedy is to limit and impede the autonomy of the subnational units. This is the antithesis of all that Walker espouses.

"Small entrepreneurs need simpler and less intrusive government, union structures and taxes, " says Walker. In that case, all business regulations and enterprise-level taxes should be imposed by the same level of government, all industrial awards should be national, and the division of powers between levels of government should be clear-cut. Regionalists have long been aware of these needs.

Walker alleges that the redundancy of 576 state parliamentarians plus their supporting bureaucracies would not be a net saving. To support this claim, he belatedly acknowledges that "Centralists [sic] always suggest replacing the six states with `regions', between 20 and 37 in number." He has not found it convenient to mention the regions before. And nowhere does he find it convenient to mention local governments. Needless to say, the regions are meant to replace not only State governments, but also local governments (or most of them; some regionalists, not including this writer, would allow the largest cities to be further divided into boroughs). The proposal is not to replace half-a-dozen governments with a few dozen, but to replace several hundred with a few dozen.