This focus on decentralization in the 1940s by the allied Grouper organisation, the Catholic Rural Studies Movement, was probably orientated toward ensuring the survival of small rural and regional communities. For the ALP Industrial Groups, decentralization as a principle was worthy of support because their approach to trade union purpose was based on craft based unions representing the interest of union members as opposed to larger industry based unions which were more concerned with social and political outcomes.
Due to the onset of industrialization and technological change associated with globalization, there is now a focus on efficiency and, by extension, centralization of resources. The socio-economic consequences of this change are profound and Social Action Australia will provide a commentary on them. In the political sphere, the major political issue which will confront Australia with regard to the issue of centralization/decentralization will be the future of the Australian federation.
There can be no denying that, with technological change, centralization had to occur and was unavoidable just as industrialization was. However human beings are not wholly rational creatures driven only by efficiency. Ideas help make us unique and are often derived from history and tradition. Australia is a case in point in which its success as a nation has been predicated on being a federation of six sovereign states. The survival of this federation was part of the unique mix of socio-political factors which helped provide Australia with a sense of balance by having a federal system of government.
The geographical truth about Australia as a predominately dry continent is that socio-economic power naturally orientates toward the populous coastal based cities. The British colonies of Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania agreed to federate in the late 1890s on the basis that Sydney and Melbourne would not dominate the new nation. The assurances given these smaller states were addressed by having each state being allowed to elect twelve senators regardless of population, being constitutionally entitled to Commonwealth grants and having a federal capital which was equidistantly situated between Melbourne and Sydney.
The geographical position of the capital was intended not only to mollify the smaller states but also to address the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney. Those who believe that this rivalry is a quaint relic of a bygone era would do well to analyse the power dynamics of the Howard era. The Howard government during its long tenure in office was far more successful in centralizing power than the Whitlam government ever was. Under the previous coalition government, there was a power shift in terms of commercial and political power toward Sydney.
It was often speculated by political insiders that Howard was not really opposed to the ALP holding office in all six states because he believed that the electorate would always want to maintain a political balance by having a federal coalition government. The inside account into the machinations which brought the Howard government down is still to be fully revealed. A scenario which is yet to be fully discounted is that there were elements within the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party which did not exactly mourn Howard’s demise. This is because they wanted to see the centralization of power to continue under a new federal ALP government so that Sydney would continue to consolidate its pre-eminent position as the political power centre in Australia.
An interesting policy mix which will warrant future analysis is the degree to which power will shift away from the states due to centralist elements in ALP state governments acting in collusion with the federal government. With the Socialist Left (SL) of the ALP holding the super ministries of Education and Industrial Relations and Prime Minister Rudd’s inclination towards centralization, it will be interesting to see if this process continues apace under the new federal government.
Former prime minister (1983 to 1991), Bob Hawke, who is now resident in Sydney, has all but called for the abolition of states and identified the achievement of this outcome as the defining issue in Australian politics. Within the Australian medical profession, there are health care professionals who are already envisaging scenarios in which states will be abolished. While a degree of centralization may be needed for the sake of future economic efficiency and rationalisation, the potential for social action could be fatally impaired if Australian states are either abolished or their role emasculated. Australian states all have their unique and wonderful histories and their role in protecting the public good cannot be overstated.
The maintenance of the Australian federation has been a crucial dynamic in mollifying Melbourne -Sydney rivalry which is still and probably always will be an existing dynamic. For this reason, Victoria and New South Wales would be ill-served by any undermining of Australia’s system of federal government.
In relation to the less populous states, the reasons for maintaining Australia’s system of federal government are glaringly apparent. The South Australian state has helped maintain a political counterbalance which has prevented Melbourne from undermining South Australia’s economic viability. A geographically distant and resource rich state such as Western Australia will similarly need a state government in place to protect its interests.
Queensland is the only state in Australia in which the majority of people live outside the capital city. As a result of this demographic balance, local government in Queensland is integral to the effective functioning of civil society. Therefore, moves toward abolishing and/or undermining a federal system of government will ill-serve Queensland. Similarly Tasmania as the only island state with a small population base will not have the clout it can muster by having a state government with sovereign powers to counter a drain on its resources if power were centralized.
The other vitally important issue which will determine Australia’s future is its continuing status as an absentee constitutional monarchy. If Australia should become a republic at a federal level, then the state governments which are all separate constitutional monarchies in their own rights will have to follow by severing their links with the Crown. Neither the federal nor the state constitutions are viable without the Crown as all the constitutions would have to be re-written to codify the subsequent abolition of conventions which come with the monarchy. Any constitutional revision which results from a transition toward a republican system of government could well open the way for a centralization of power as a result of joint federal/state constitutional revision.
No one but no-one ever voluntarily surrenders power. According to this maxim, it is highly improbable that power will devolve to the people if intermediary institutions such as the Australian states are abolished. The most insidious ramification of centralization of power under the Howard government was the use of the corporation’s power under the Australian constitution to undermine the interstate basis of industrial relations and therefore adversely affect employee working conditions.
To avoid the grave problems of organizational oligarchy which have arisen such as resulted from the union amalgamation reforms of the 1990s, the integrity of Australian states must be preserved. This does not mean forgoing a sensible interchange of federal-state powers. Rather, the objective of protecting the integrity of states should be to ensure that the Australian people retain an intermediary level of government to safeguard their rights at a decentralist level. Centralization of power is antithetical to the facilitation of social action. For this reason, a prime objective of Social Action Australia will be to safeguard the integrity of the Australian federation.