Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Sir Samuel Griffith ‘State of the Federation’ Symposium 2015
A special session of the Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference
Is There Life In / After the White Paper?
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Sovereign spheres? Attitudes of Australian citizens and
officials to allocation of policy responsibilities
within the federation
Rodney Smith, University of Sydney
A. J. Brown, Griffith University
Jacob Deem, Griffith University
Luke Mansillo, University of Sydney
Sir Samuel Griffith Symposium / Australian Political Studies Association
Annual Conference, University of Canberra, 29 September 2015
Australian Research Council DP140102682 ‘Confronting the Devolution Paradox’
Griffith University, University of Sydney, University of NSW,
Australian National University, Lafayette College and University of Texas
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
The White Paper on the Reform of the Federation
‘… to clarify roles responsibilities to ensure that, as far as possible, the States
and Territories are sovereign in their own sphere. The objective will be to:
•
•
•
•
reduce and end, as far as possible, the waste, duplication and second
guessing between different levels of government;
achieve a more efficient and effective federation, and in so doing, improve
national productivity;
make interacting with government simpler for citizens;
ensure our federal system:
- is better understood and valued by Australians (and the case for reform
supported);
- has clearer allocation of roles and responsibilities;
- enhances governments’ autonomy, flexibility and political accountability;
and
- supports Australia’s economic growth and international competitiveness.’
Terms of Reference (2014); Discussion Paper, June 2015, p.107
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
‘Australia’s biggest political problem’*
In Battlelines (Edition 1), Tony Abbott
acknowledged that ‘‘tackling the
dysfunctional federation turned out to
be a lost opportunity for the Howard
government’’ and saw fixing the
system as the nation’s ‘‘biggest
political problem’’.
How: Commonwealth sovereignty
wherever it deemed necessary; with a
local / community flavour.
* Tony Abbott, Battlelines (Melbourne University Press, 2009), p.110
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Question:
How do citizens and officials believe that key roles & responsibilities
should be allocated? Is it on the basis of ‘sovereign spheres’ / ‘clean
lines’-style division of responsibilities? Or something more complex?
1.
The datasets
2.
Preferences for divided (Commonwealth or State/Territory) or
shared responsibility – x 5 subject areas
3.
Distribution & variations in citizens’ views
4.
Current public servants’ views
5.
Why?
• Explicit reasons (so far, citizens)
• Culture and values, e.g. ‘subsidiarity’ (both citizens & officials)
6.
Conclusions: relevance for Green Paper / White Paper / federal reform
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
The Datasets
1) Australian Constitutional Values Survey
•
Conducted nationally in Australia by Newspoll Limited
•
Conducted by telephone 1-8 May 2008 (n=1,201), 1-14 March 2010
(n=1,100), 24 Sept–9 Oct 2012 (n=1,219), 19 Aug-2 Sept 2014 (n=1,204)
•
Stratified random sample, respondents aged 18 years and over
•
Results post-weighted to Australian Bureau of Statistics data on age,
highest level of schooling, sex, and area
•
NB: including current & former government employees (n=408):
1. Local government only, and local and state government
2. State government only
3. National (federal) and subnational experience (local and/or state)
4. Federal government only
Sub-total
Other “ever worked in government”
Never worked in government
84
193
65
66
408
104
692
1,204
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
2) Future of Australia’s Federation Survey 2015 – Federal & State Agencies
Current government officials (n=2,105)
No. of
agencies
Jurisdiction
Commonwealth
States & Territories
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
SA
Tas
ACT
NT
Subtotal
Total
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Total
staffing*
12,518
121,406
74,764
168,753+
36,689
32,440
17,630
12,320
4,289
Total
sample
Respondents
3,381
813
1107
5,354+
910
252
615
964
30
468
105
140
218
374
90
327
374
9
Overall
response
rate
13.8%
12.9%
12.7%
4.1%+
41.1%
35.7%
53.2%
38.8%
30.0%
32
468,291
10,045
1,637
16.3%
37
480,809
13,426
2,105
15.7%
* Total staffing of participating agencies. Approximate only in some instances in Vic, Tas & ACT.
+ Includes Queensland Health (agency response rate of 2.3%).
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Preferences for divided (Commonwealth or State/Territory) or
shared responsibility – x 5 subject areas
For each policy area, choose which level, or levels of government you think should be
responsible – should it be federal, state or local government, or some combination?
Policies about primary and secondary school education
Health care policies
Policies to do with the affordability of housing
Policies to do with protecting the environment
Policies about providing roads and highways
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2014 (n=1,204) (%)
At least 26%, and up to 37% of citizens see these policies as needing to be
shared between at least two levels. 55% thought at least one of these areas
should be shared; 45% would prefer just one level to be always in charge.
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Distribution and variations
Prefer States to have
sole responsibility
(scale 0-5 policy areas)
Constant
State (relative to NSW)
Western Australia
South Australia
Victoria
Queensland
Tasmania
Age (+)
Gender (male)
Education (non-university)
Current 3-levelled system
works well
Levels of govt should be
reduced to <3
Government employee
Support ‘subsidiarity’
R2
(ACVS, n=1,204)
Prefer Commonwealth
sole responsibility
(scale 0-5)
Prefer shared
responsibilities
between 2+ levels
(scale 0-5)
B
beta
1.955***
--
B
.809***
beta
--
B
1.588***
beta
--
.338
.285
.064
.065
-.060
.044
.203
.292
.081***
.058***
.021*
.020*
-.007
.107***
.078***
.107***
-.155
-.225
-.116
.121
-.430
.017
.341
-.154
-.039***
-.039***
-.033***
.032***
-.042***
.036***
.111***
-.048***
-.181
.056
-.015
-.091
.533
-.048
-.512
-.197
-.033***
.009
-.004
-.021*
.046***
-.089***
-.149***
-.054***
.377
.140***
-.170
-.025***
.028
.008
.129
.048***
.464
.146***
-.462
-.130***
-.085
.150
-.032***
.058***
.244
-.504
.079***
-.164***
.002
.158
.001
.046***
.07
.12
*p<.05 **p<.01 *** p<.001
.07
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Current public servants’ views
ACVS 2014 (n=1,204) / Federal & State officials 2015 (n=2,105)
100%
90%
80%
70%
8.8%
8.6%
10.7%
38.2%
39.5%
13.7%
13.6%
30%
10%
0%
16.1%
45.4%
10.5%
6.6%
14.9%
15.9%
20.5%
5.1%
10.3%
2.6%
10.3%
5 policy areas
shared
4 policy areas
shared
12.7%
40%
20%
32.1%
51.3%
60%
50%
36.4%
15.4%
8.5%
5.1%
15.6%
17.1%
3 policy areas
shared
12.6%
2 policy areas
shared
11.2%
14.3%
1 policy area shared
7.0%
6.5%
16.0%
17.4%
15.5%
13.9%
All policy areas as a
sole responsibility
Housing affordability
Provision of roads and
highways
School education
Protecting the
environment
Health care
Fed officials only
National & subnat officials
State officials only
Local/state officials
Fed & State officials (total)
ACS (Employed by govt)
ACVS
Shared responsibilities
Fed officials only
National & subnat officials
State officials only
Local/state officials
Fed & State officials (total)
ACVS (Employed by govt)
ACVS
Fed officials only
National & subnat officials
Local solely responsible
State officials only
Local/state officials
Fed & State officials (total)
ACVS (Employed by govt)
ACVS
Fed officials only
National & subnat officials
State officials only
Local/state officials
Federal solely responsible
Fed & State officials (total)
ACVS (Employed by govt)
ACVS
Fed officials only
National & subnat officials
State officials only
Local/state officials
Fed & State officials (total)
ACVS (Employed by govt)
ACVS
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Current public servants’ views (by policy area)
ACVS (n=1,204) / ACVS govt employment (n=408) / Federal & State officials (n=2,105)
State solely responsible
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Why prefer ‘sole’ or ‘shared responsibility’?
• Explicit reasons given by respondents (ACVS 2014)
• Preferred responsibility for health care
250%
200%
Other
48.0%
31.8%
Cooperation, Checks
& Balances
150%
45.8%
22.2%
100%
20.0%
40.6%
54.4%
59.7%
22.5%
26.9%
Efficiency
Finance
38.0%
26.9%
50%
75.9%
55.8%
77.5%
48.7%
Equity
40.9%
Proximity
0%
State solely
responsible
Cth solely
responsible
Cth and Local
Cth and State
All three
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Why prefer ‘sole’ or ‘shared responsibility’?
• Federal & state officials (n=2,105) (2015)
• Underlying values: e.g. ‘subsidiarity’ x no. of shared policy areas
‘Thinking of the federal government as being the highest level of government, and state and
then local as being lower levels of government. Which one of the following comes closest to
your view about where decisions should be made?’
100%
It is better for decisions to be
made at the lowest level of
government competent to
deal with the decision
90%
80%
45.1%
58.3%
70%
64.0%
62.4%
60.3%
60.7%
Don't Know
60%
50%
17.2%
40%
14.6%
30%
20%
13.4%
20.7%
21.4%
24.2%
16.9%
18.3%
15.1%
3
4
5
37.8%
27.2%
10%
22.6%
0%
0
1
2
It is better for as many
decisions as possible to be
made at the higher levels of
government
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Why prefer ‘sole’ or ‘shared responsibility’?
• Federal & state officials (n=2,105) (2015)
• Underlying values: ‘subsidiarity’ x nature of govt employment
‘Thinking of the federal government as being the highest level of government, and state and
then local as being lower levels of government. Which one of the following comes closest to
your view about where decisions should be made?’
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
51.8%
54.4%
8.2%
9.1%
57.3%
44.4%
57.8%
58.7%
24.7%
21.3%
40.0%
47.6%
38.1%
21.8%
17.7%
14.3%
20.4%
23.5%
36.6%
21.4%
It is better for decisions to be
made at the lowest level of
government competent to
deal with the decision
Don't Know
30.9%
It is better for as many
decisions as possible to be
made at the higher levels of
government
Federalism, Regionalism & Devolution
Conclusions: so what replaces ‘sovereign spheres’?
1) Where does the Green Paper meet reality?
Improved/new shared frameworks in key policy areas, including more
and better “co-design”, of policy, delivery & evaluation.
2) Where is the Green Paper in fantasy-land?
• No replacement theory or principles for ‘sovereign spheres’ (yet)
• No significant administrative, legislative or institutional change to
support and prosecute “new arrangements” as a coherent strategy
• Learning the lessons of operational / regional co-operation?
• Financial sustainability & durability? Is a new IGA FFR enough?
3) Do principles, institutionalisation and durability really matter?
Yes – because political culture matters, and it repeats.
Yes – because official culture matters, and it varies.