Federal systems of government - Why they are not as bad as you think

This video discusses some of the myths about federalism, its advantages and how it could be made to work better.
It starts by addressing the strongly held view that Australia is over-governed because it has three levels of government. It explains how most Western democracies have at least three, and sometimes four, levels of government. It also notes that geographically large countries have at least three levels of government for good reasons.
It then draws on the paper by Professors Glenn Withers and Anne Twomey, 'Australia's Federal Future', published by the Council for the Australian Federation in 2007 (www.caf.gov.au...) to show that federations can be more economically efficient than unitary states, particularly if they are decentralised.
It discusses the benefits of federalism, including that federalism operates as a check on concentrated power, provides greater choice and diversity, allows the customisation of policies to meet different needs, supports comparison and improvement, and functions as a laboratory for innovation.
It ends by critiquing proposals that the States and local government be replaced by one level of 50 or so regional governments.

[@bernardsulman1506]

Prior to COVID i was an "abolish the states" type. Since COVID my position is completely flipped, I appreciate the system we have and want to preserve the federal system. (from WA).

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

That's interesting. During COVID, there was a lot of media commentary that the federation was 'fractured' because States did different things - whereas I saw it as the federation actually working, because each State could take into account its own circumstances and decide accordingly.

[@sheriff0017]

​@@constitutionalclarion1901I think what you were seeing in the media is the midwits doing all the reporting.

[@ivancarstensen8187]

I think the Federal system has served Australia fairly well since federation. There has been times that you can argue against the system but no system is perfect. Our biggest problem with the Federal and State systems has been the dumbing down of the 2 main political parties over the last 30 or so years. Self interest and external control of the Liberal & Labour parties that has resulted in the exclusion of representatives that put the country ahead of their own self interests (the opposite of what we currently have) and is leading our country down the path to relegation to 3rd nation status. The wealth of the nation is now concentrated to a ever reducing percentage of its' citizens at the expense of the majority.

[@AlexBaz143]

I’ll admit I was sceptical, I’ve always been against the idea of states having as much power as they do. But I can admit (begrudgingly) that’s the country’s leading constitutional professor knows more about constitutional arrangements than I do.😂

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad I have turned around a little scepticism.

[@PhilRable]

What I would have given to have lectures like this when I was at university, what a benefit to have someone like this to help us understand stuff

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Well, I'm here now, and I'm free!

[@patrickobrian9669]

I think the repealing of death duties across Australia is a good example of a policy change in one state pressuring other governments (federal and state) to follow suit. It's difficult to imagine a central government repealing an estate tax of it's own accord, especially considering the deceased person by definition can't vote in future elections.

[@nathanhallisey441]

I started work at 4.45am this morning in the truck. Time for a 30 minute break. Saw this and thought yes I will watch this. Well said.

[@galear1]

Thank you for this video. I get so tired of people braying about our country being overgoverned. As a Tasmanian, I'm especially horrified by proposals to abolish the states. We are in fact under-represented at both the federal and state levels: the House of Representatives is absurdly small, as is our House of Assembly in Tasmania. On top of that, the relentless push by states to amalgamate councils dilutes local representation and feeds dissatisfaction with local government. If power is not to become oppressive and bureaucratic, it must be dispersed and made responsive through adequate representation.

[@aoikk9966]

@@andrewbrooks2913 You are not an Australian you are an Earthan who lives in Australia.

[@galear1]

@@aoikk9966 Quite.

[@aoikk9966]

What in your opinion would be the best changes to our tax policy to allow for State governments to collect the required revenue to run education and health as they currently do without the need to receive money from the federal government. I do feel like a lot of people who claim we are over governed appear to have a distaste for a specific level of government which has given them grievances with a particular law or regulation.

[@markcanaway6778]

I just want to say these videos are fantastic , the only thing that find disappointing about them is the low number of people viewing them, people need to get involved and learn all of this because at the end of the day this is what runs or ruins our lives, well done , Constitutional Clarion.

[@cheerytomato6196]

I am new to discovering them, they are awesome!!! 🙂

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Feel free to advertise me to others.

[@barryhamm3414]

During the pandemic my opinion of state governments improved greatly as each was able to implement measures particular to their individual needs.

[@HomeAutomated-v2r]

You must be JOKING. Baaaàaaaaa

[@mindi2050]

Yes, I agree. Although I thought the Victorian government was a bit heavy handed - especially when it came to Melbourne. WA was probably the best place to be during the pandemic.

[@barryhamm3414]

@@HomeAutomated-v2r Australia had a lower death rate from the pandemic than many other equivalent countries so we must have done something right.

[@Paul_Ernst]

Well argued. The problem is we dont have three levels. We have a federal government that always wants to control the states through the money, and state governments who decide what local councils can and cant do. And then local councils thinking they will make policies about Australia's relations with other countries. If only each would stay in their own lane.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Good point.

[@jancrosby6677]

Elegant, sober and articulate. Thanks once again.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are most welcome.

[@christophergame7977]

The only thing deeply wrong with the Federal constitution is that people find endless ways to subvert it in favour of centralism, excessively concentrating power in the Canberra bureaucracy, courts, and Parliament.

[@richardsaunders3743]

@@HomeAutomated-v2r As Lord Acton famously wrote: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

[@mindi2050]

I must be in the minority in Australia. I would hate the idea of Australia having an all-powerful central government. Although growing up in Sydney, I admit it wasn't until I lived in WA and Qld for relatively long periods that I fully appreciated how federalism makes sense in a country the size of Australia. But there's always plenty of room for improvement of course. Plus, I know that the people of the various former colonies wouldn't have voted 'yes' to an all-powerful central government either. Most people supported a federation.

[@billytoohey8887]

Thanks for the insight. I was in the other camp but you've won me.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Wow. Didn't expect to win too many, but it's great to know!

[@THEONLYDC]

Another amazing video as always. Could you please make an apolitical video about Scott Morrison’s Multiple Ministerial Appointments. What were the legal, conventional and moral implications of the situation?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, it's on my list!

[@tobeytransport2802]

Here in Britain it’s quite complicated how many levels of government we have because we don’t like simplicity I guess. In my area I have 4 (parish, which has about 7000 people in my area which by the way is quite an urban area, then the district which has around 100,000 people, then the county which has over a million people, then the national government) But the problem is they’re all fairly weak because they’re just councils, none of them (except the national government) are like Australian States, German Lander or Swiss Cantons. Then if I go about 5 minutes to my local town I’m in the same district but the area doesn’t have a parish so the parish responsibility is taken on by the district, then if I hop on a train for about 30 minutes a few districts along I end up in a district where the county responsibilities are taken on by the district too (but culturally and ceremonially it’s in the same county) but it still might have parishes with parish responsibility… and let’s not get started on the Greater London authority, the city of London, the metropolitan areas, the regional authorities, or local government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. If you ever feel like your local government is too complex- try to learn a bit about British local government.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks for saying that. When I wrote that original paper with Glenn, I tried to check how many levels of government there were in the UK, and I gave up in despair. It depends completely on where you are situated. From an Australian perspective, it seems like complete madness, but I suppose it must work for you. Even watching television shows like 'Endeavour' left me completely mystified about the level at which the police operates in the UK.

[@tobeytransport2802]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 since 2012 in England and Wales (outside of London) the police have been overseen by directly elected police and crime commissioners which are elected in regions that sometimes correspond to counties and sometimes don’t, before this there were authorities which (I think) were made up of councillors from each council in the police area. The police areas were created in the 1960s (so Wikipedia tells me anyway) to replace individual borough and county police forces. Some police and crime commissioners now also oversee fire services, but some fire services are overseen by county councils. In London the Mayor of London appoints the police commissioner, known as ‘the Met commissioner’ and in Scotland the police are overseen by the Scottish Government/Parliament and I presume the Police Service of Northern Ireland are also overseen by the Northern Irish Executive/Assembly but I don’t know for sure. The Home Secretary on the national level also has some sort of role (I’m not really sure what) over English and Welsh police, and directly oversees the Border Force and National Crime Agency (which operates across Britain). Our government absolutely love complication.

[@sheriff0017]

Fortunately, you dropped the supranational tier of government. Unfortunately, that left your country in the hands of British politicians and civil servants.

[@MrLachlan1903]

From the interactions I've had talking to people who are cynical about the federal system, they are not advocating for removing levels of government or centralising power, more a reallocation of which powers fall under those levels. Using the principle of subsidiarity it immediately calls into question the many purviews and powers of federal government which are not included under defense, immigration and foreign affairs. @4:36 "The greater the decentrilisation of a country...the more economically efficient the country is." - OECD And I couldn't agree more, so the question must be asked, why do you think we are not over-governed and over-taxed when our federal government controls so much more beyond it's core responsibilities using the principle of subsidiarity? We have the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Department of Education, Department of Health and Aged Care, Department of Industry Science and Resources, Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry etc. etc. And you mention how we don't even need the DoE later in the video. All these examples would violate that principle, and the powers which manage the subjects of these departments would be better when handled by states and local governments. I absolutely agree with you that the prevention of a concentration of power is essential, it underpins everything a healthy society needs to operate, I just think that the greatest threat to that is the size and scope of the federal government and not hair-brained ideas of removing levels of government.

[@richardsaunders3743]

Hear! Hear!

[@rossmurray6849]

Thanks, Anne, I agree with almost all of your comments and opinions. In particular, I am quite happy to accept some level of financial inefficiency to have more decisions made closer to those who will be affected. There's one very important point which I would add. There must be realistic chances of governments at all levels to be tossed out by the voters to realise the opportunities federal system provide for competition of ideas and tailoring local policies to local conditions, etc. I don't think the federal system is working well in America because they have "red states" and "blue states" where the state government never changes. All governments become corrupt and incompetent once they've been in power for decades. The situation in Australia was similar to that up until the 1960s but our federal and all state governments have been turning over quite regularly since then. But voters will return governments that they deem as doing a reasonable job. There was one period where the Howard government (conservative) was re-elected a couple of times even though every state and territory had Labor governments which had all been re-elected too! It doesn't matter who's in power, they need to be tossed out every 10 or so years, maximum of 15, to keep them honest and engaged in delivering the voters' actual priorities.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I agree. Turnover in government is a good thing, as they can get stale and complacent. But turnover too quickly is not great, as it results in economic instability. Turnover about every 6-10 years is probably best. It is also important to have a strong Opposition to help keep Government accountable, and that doesn't happen if the Opposition knows it is always going to lose.

[@cesargodoy2920]

blue states and red states refer to there presidental choices but it's very common for blue states and red states to have governors or senators from the other party.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

Constitutionally the states have the right to raise their own taxes. Just because there is an agreement to not do so doesn’t mean that it can not be reversed.

[@mindi2050]

As I understand it, that was the original intention at Federation i.e. states would raise their own taxes. It wasn't until WW2 that the federal government took over. It may have meant to be a temporary arrangement because of the war effort. Anyway, apparently the arrangement has just stayed that way ever since.

[@brendanquinn6894]

Excellent presentation.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks!

[@shooterdownunder]

Thanks for making this video. It’s something that I would definitely consider sharing with others out there as it’s something that people need to know about.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Please do - I'm trying to build up my meagre audience.

[@trishward1813]

I love your insights into our constitutional law. It really helps to learn and understand the broader picture. I would like to thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom 😊 Please just block 🚫 the trolls because you are informing us of things I have wanted to know and understand for years but had no where that gave clarity as you do with such facts. People trying to fight facts should go to law school and not shoot the messenger. Thank you again, and If I don't understand something or need to ask you a question I would appreciate and respect that in comments is the place to come to do so. NOT TROLLING they have no purpose but to antagonise, and I am sorry for their lack of maturity, and there are more of us who are grateful to know what you share than those silly people. What you do and why you do it is important so once again I say thank you xo

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks, that's much appreciated.

[@christophergame7977]

Return the income taxing task to the States; make the State governments raise their own respective taxes. The Commonwealth has the GST.

[@williamhood5954]

Anne, you make a very good case which I agree with. Apart from improving federalism, I guess the main issue is how big should local government be. With the fairly recent controversial amalgamations in NSW (and I think earlier in VIC), what is the correct balance between economies of scale at this level and local input. Is the Brisbane City wide local government a good idea or too big? Also, should there be more states such as North Queensland? Cairns is a long way from Brisbane.

[@richardsaunders3743]

A bit o/t. In the matter of LGAs in NSW. Where LGAs are not currently divided into wards, the NSW Government ought to order a referendum in each affected LGA.

[@tobeytransport2802]

Outside of the devolved systems in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London- Britain (or in this case England) is pretty centralised and yet people still moan about how they phoned the council and the council said it was the job of the other council who said no it’s the job of someone else… what we need is the different levels of government to be willing to work together so if you ring one authority and they can’t deal with it they get in touch with the other one themselves and that sort of thing. I’d personally prefer it if we had more devolution, or federalism, though because it disperses power more evenly and (in theory) ensures decisions are taken at the closest level to the people that they possibly can be, although here at least it is rather dependent on a list of things each type of council (and we have a lot, county, district, London Borough, metropolitan borough, unitary authority etc) can do, the list being made by parliament/government at the national level. I’m not sure if Australia has this, Britain certainly doesn’t, but the Swiss constitution actually mentions the principle of subsidiarity.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

In Australia, it's the States that decide what local government does. We also only have one level of local government, so it is much less confusing (although we still complain about it relentlessly).

[@ddt677]

I totally agree with your opinion on de-centralization because it allows for differences across the nation, and therefore some freedom to choose an alternative.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks.

[@davidunwin7868]

Im glad you listed out the benefits of federalism. I was reflecting on having taken advantage of without explicitly considering it as an advantage at the time.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Glad it was useful.

[@williamsutter2152]

Hmm, it isn't quite true that in unitary states all institutions are concentrated in a single national capital. For instance, many unitary states like the UK have devolution which is almost like federalism as the national government devolves some powers to regional governments. In these unitary states, there are regional capitals (e.g. Scotland has the capital of Edinburgh). Some unitary states have multiple national capital cities too. For example, South Africa has three official capital cities. Namely, Cape Town is the legislative capital, Pretoria is the executive capital and Bloemfontein is the seat of the Supreme Court of Appeal, so the judicial capital. South Africa also has a fourth capital unofficially, as Johannesburg has its Constitutional Court and is hence sort of a second judicial capital. Other unitary states have a capital city that is different to their most populous city (which is often the capital of business in the country) such as New Zealand with its capital city of Wellington and most populous city of Auckland.

[@jimdonovan9961]

If you live under strata title (and half of us in Sydney will be before they're much older), that's a fourth level of government. In the USA, Home Owners' Associations comprise a FIFTH level of government with even more power than our strata OCs have.

[@karenm7449]

Thank you again. I do support Federalism. I feel like one of the best located people in Australia. Rural SA. I personally know my local and State reps. Our Federal member seems remote and far away but works hard on funding and advocacy for us. Each of them has different ideology. I struggle with duplication and inefficiency though. Our Council is staffed with people who block the efforts of Councillors (for many years now) preferring to maintain the status quo rather than looking at innovative change. Some things are downright confusing. When I visit the GP, he has to phone a person in Health SA to get permission to prescribe a drug yet when I go to radiology, Medicare decides if the scan can be bulk billed. PBS is Federal. Doctor and Nurse registration is managed Federally. Vaccines are available through all 3 systems. Could you comment please, about the Swiss system of referendums and how that affects the democratic process, and if it actually does?

[@ricochet2977]

IMO the Swiss system is perfect for the people of Switzerland because they’re highly educated and very politically motivated, I believe each of the 26 cantons have their own executives who research and help explain the proposed changes and after debate they then vote for or against, unfortunately we don’t seem to have the same interests in good governance in Australia and most just follow the crowd.

[@jasonbigg8341]

Thanks as always, look forward to your next video 🙂

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're most welcome.

[@julianlynton1]

Thank you so much for your ideas and views, very informative and interesting as always.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[@Dave_Sisson]

Okay, you have convinced me. I *was* in favour of two dozen provinces, but I now see what a disaster that could be. One topic I would like to see discussed is our gradual progress towards 'independence'. I have always thought the states/colonies became "functionally independent" when most were granted Responsible Government around the late 1850s, while others say it was as late as the Australia Acts, 130 years later. I appreciate that it's impossible to say that Australia was a colony on one date, but the next year it was fully 'independent', but a discussion of that gradual slide from an expert in constitutional law would be very interesting.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, I will certainly do that, as I've written quite a lot about it. But I'm hoping to do a second edition of a relevant book first, so it is available at the same time. These videos are therefore on the slow track at the moment.

[@Dave_Sisson]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks. I've always been surprised that Victoria could get away with willfully flouting UK policy during the American Civil War by refitting the CSS Shenandoah in a government dock and treating the crew to balls and country holidays at government expense. But I guess the Australian colonies had a similar level of responsible government to modern wealthier UK overseas territories like Bermuda, Gibraltar and the Falklands, where I understand the UK has no power over them at all.

[@THEONLYDC]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Would this book be The Veiled Sceptre?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@THEONLYDC No - it was mostly chapters in constitutional collections. The main one is 'Sue v Hill - The Evolution of Australian Independence' in Adrienne Stone and George Williams (eds), 'The High Court at the Crossroads' (Federation Press, 2000). I also wrote the chapter on 'Independence' in the Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution' (2018).

[@kevinjensen3056]

I agree with all your arguments, albeit the point about geographical separation does undermine your argument about a north Queensland goverment being undesirable. As a former north Queenslander, I can say the 2000km between Cairns makes a big difference in psychological and practical terms. A north Qld government may not be the most efficient government but it might better represent the tropics rather than one from the freezing south. I say this as a left wing voter who knows a Nth Qld government would probably benefit political conservatives. I like the federal system. Even my adopted 2nd country of the UK has some what taken this route with separate governments for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I am waiting for an English parliament to govern for England and the current national parliament to govern for the whole of the UK. I think all UK citizens would be happier.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I agree - my arguments are not completely consistent (and I did struggle with that when making the video). The problem is that one needs to balance a lot of conflicting factors and arguments to try to reach the best equilibrium. Yes, some States like Queensland and Western Australia are geographically too large, but on the other hand there would be real economic problems about dividing them up into smaller States. In the end, it's a matter of judgement about what solution is best.

[@daleford8411]

I recall from my time in Darwin there is a relatively common view that a Northern State would be tge best option. Encompassing North Queenskand, the top end and Northern WA. I think it makes some sense, but I'm not suggesting it could ever be achieved.

[@daleford8411]

Thank you As usual I feel better informed after one your videos It's a bit troubling if someone has to be wary of flaming when providing an informed and professional opinion. Please dont stop though.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks for the encouragement. Sometimes the comments are rather mentally exhausting to deal with, depending on the topic, but so far the comments on this one have been refreshingly reasonable.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Hi Professor, I really enjoyed your thoughts on the "three tears of Government" that's first year stuff, however you did enlighten me to state and federal statue responsibility. 🌏🇦🇺

[@jimgraham6722]

Agree. I am a great supporter of the three tier system. Albeit some adustments are needed with some functions flowing from the state to commonwealth and vice versa. Federation was what brought the states together as a united state, but I much prefer talk of the resulting government as a 'commonwealth' rather than federal government or worse a republic.

[@mindi2050]

Even if Australia does decide to become a parliamentary republic, we would still be the Commonwealth of Australia i.e. a federation of states. Only with an Australian at the symbolic helm of our nation - rather than a non-resident British national.

[@lazyfrogonalog]

Maybe federating could be the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Federation could be the pressure valve to the competing interests in this troubled region.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Quite a lot of federations are formed in an attempt to resolve conflicts between different racial, religious or cultural groups, but this doesn't always work! It depends upon how deep the enmities are and whether groups are prepared to cooperate.

[@Horri1977]

I wasn't for the federal system, but i think you convinced me it is a relatively adequate system.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad it helped.

[@michaelsecomb4115]

The states did a better job than the federal government during Covid. People compare the states and decide which they prefer, which is why so many southerners are moving to Qld, while Tasmania and the NT seem to be financially unviable. I would actually argue local government should be made more independent and freed from state control, since councils know their areas better than the states. Local people can best evaluate the performances of their councillors.

[@whatwhyandwhos68]

love your videos..... whether i agree or i don't. I really liked hearing your opinion!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Glad it's interesting.

[@cheerytomato6196]

Love your work!! Probably off topic but anyway. Agree the amount of government is not a problem, its human nature to become corrupted when surrounded by it that is the problem. We see politicians using knowledge from their position of power to participate in insider trading. Politicians passing legislation on sectors they are responsible for then finishing in politics and taking up board member roles with organisations that they passed policy on. The size of the government is not the problem, the corruption of politicians is the problem.

[@richardsaunders3743]

As Lord Acton famously wrote: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

[@shloidain]

We only need to look at a country like Ireland to see the problems in too much centralisation - the national government spends too much time focusing on issues that could be solved by stronger local governments.

[@neilgarrad4931]

Thanks again. Well said.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're most welcome.

[@shaz5711]

You've shared your opinion on the internet... prepare for hell. I admit, over time ive always sort of flip flopped on being pro-federation and pro-unitary, at the moment im feeling pretty pro federation and this video has helped reinforce that a bit. You acknowledge that federalism can be a bit unpopular in the public mind, but is your opinion an outlier amongst constitutional academics and scholars? Do they generally agree with you, or is there also a strong streak of anti federalism in those circles too?

[@ralfkluin6387]

Three levels (or two levels) where the local government is regulated by their respective States. In my view, the greater the division of power, this may reduce the risk of a centralised form of dictatorship. Economies of scale, in my view, this depends upon the economic philosophy, adopted in Australia by the voting public.

[@locutorest]

I am struggling to get Wikipedia to give me examples of a government of 4 or more levels. Could you supply one or two? Thank you for your excellent content. If Belgium counts as one, could you suggest two others. I just can't imagine how Belgium works.

[@braytongoodall2598]

The USSR had 4 levels I believe, since the Russian SFSR was itself federal. Though like Australia it was overcentralised relative to the notional arrangement at founding (the constituent republics had varying levels of autonomy). It's not a particularly good example but in some sense the US sees "three and a half" levels since the federal circuit courts divide the country into regions that average a bit more than 4 states each. This in practice means that federal law varies between regions. There are also interstate compacts, which can establish legislative bodies and executive authorities, but these tend to be rather limited. The British empire was surprisingly heterogenous just before the Imperial Conference 1926, so if we consider the civilisational/imperial unit as a whole I think it would count as at least 4-tiered (though heterogeneity meant that some places would've had only two tiers of governance through Westminster and the city government). I don't quite understand how British local governments work, but I'm under the impression that in some places they're split between two levels. If any of these were in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland then you'd have 4 levels of government (national, devolved, local 1, and local 2). Through the borough system, London has two levels of city governance, although since it's in England it won't count as 4-tiered governance unless the West Lothian question leads to a devolved English parliament. The constitution is yet to be written, but I expect if the East African Federation forms then Zanzibar might count (Tanzania isn't itself a federation but Zanzibar retains significant autonomy).

[@galear1]

@@locutorest USA, Canada (Ontario and Quebec): Federal, State, County, Municipal. Italy: National, Regional, Provincial, Communal. UK (varies): National, County, Local Authority, Civil Parish.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I was using the table in the back of the OECD handbook 'Making Decentralisation Work': www.oecd.org/en/publications/making-decentralisation-work_g2g9faa7-en.html.

[@locutorest]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 thank you so much!

[@sheriff0017]

​@@galear1To Italy, you can add a fifth tier - Supranational, in the form of the EU.

[@robertlotric4496]

Another terrific video. Your point about a draw back to federalism being bun fights over money is pertinent. The GST is spent by the states, maybe it should be collected by the states? Given the political sensitivities at the federal level it is difficult if not impossible to make changes to the GST. If states were to control it within their jurisdictions then it might be possible for states to increase the rate, or broaden the base in order to properly fund their services and reduce state debt. Interstate comparisons and competition would still play a moderating role on what changes voters approve at state elections.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, greater responsibility and flexibility would be better. But one of the down-sides of competition is the race to the bottom on certain matters. For example, one State says 'no death taxes' to make itself popular, and then every other State has to follow suit, or lose population, and then the States don't have sufficient revenue to fund certain services. Finding the right balance is difficult.

[@robertlotric4496]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Oh well, it looks like we are stuck with the status quo unless states also levy ‘rat run’ taxes at their borders!

[@immune2PR]

All levels are essential. local governments need to be constitutional so they are not dictated to by state governments that are only focused on city votes or maybe more smaller localised states. And caps on public servants per capita.

[@coolnath99]

i agree that federalism is good for us in australia. i hadn’t thought of some of those points but they are very good points. i guess local governments are necessary, it’s just frustrating that many seem to do a very poor job of serving their constituents. in my experience it can take weeks to get a response in regards to a planning application or something similar. a private company would go out of business if they took so long to respond to a customer. local governments seem to run more as corporations than governments except that they are monopolies. maybe there is a way to make local councils more accountable to the electors, but unfortunately unless you are in a capital city LGA or a major regional city like Geelong you generally don’t know anything about the candidates so I think most people just vote randomly or based on the one paragraph pitch that each candidate makes. Often they make crazy promises they don’t have the power to do, like “I’m going to get a new train station built”. But even though you can elect councilors, they don’t have control over the operations of the council, as far as I know and councils are run by unelected CEOs.

[@tobeytransport2802]

Just imagine how much more inefficient they’d be if every car park or bus service in the country was run by one office. Also you wanna check out British local government if you wanna see something complicated, and we’re a unitary system where about 4 councils seem to share power over about 4 matters and the national government takes responsibility over all other things (it doesn’t work very well, at least not in my experience in England).

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I completely understand your frustration with local government - I've felt it too. But it's still better that it's there, than having everything dealt with centrally.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

The constitution needs to be rewritten or at least seriously amended!

[@mindi2050]

I'd love to see the Australian Constitution updated - via constitutional referendums of course. Although I can't see another constitutional referendum happening any time soon. Australians seem to be scared of updating our Constitution. Especially Australians who don't have a clue what's in it. Hopefully this channel will help. Plus, better civics lessons in schools.

[@Robert-xs2mv]

@@mindi2050 most people have not got a clue what, or who, they are voting for. Or how the political system works or is mend to work

[@egrerob]

What need’s fixings you did given any examples

[@mindi2050]

@@egrerob Fixing? I'd call it a textual update - which I know can't happen without a successful referendum. There are quite a few sections of the Australian Constitution that are now redundant (spent). Other sections that make no sense (flawed) since ratifying the Westminster Act and the Australia Act 1986. Source: Parliament of Australia 'Layman's dissection of the Australian Constitution'.

[@sheriff0017]

How, and why?

[@glennsimpson7659]

One issue that concerns me is the proliferation in recent years of legislation setting up independent bodies with quasi-government powers. For example, the weekend papers advertised for a CEO of the ‘Torres Strait Authority’ which I gather is a Federal body. Why do we need a Torres Strait Authority? to whom is it answerable and how transparent is it? What do such Federal bodies do that could not be done by local government?

[@leepayk-bann3489]

Firstly valid points have been made and uniform governments at federal and state level seem to be the objective of pushing party policies through to legislation. Secondly when there are errors in people's personal records is there any recourse to a different level of government to have them amended in my sisters case say a Medicare record. Thirdly in unitary systems of government as in the old monarchies, where vast areas came under one government with huge variations in cultures is there not a case for centralised government for the sake of unity and peace? Lastly I think this is a very useful viewpoint for australias situation.

[@michaeldavis8103]

Next time, if I ever sit through Prof A.J. Brown's class where he says 3 levels of government is 1 too many, just gonna play this.

[@richardsaunders3743]

Hear! Hear!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Feel free - and send my regards to AJ, who is a lovely fellow (even if he is not a great fan of federalism).

[@glennsimpson7659]

Regrettably, the diversity that arose from separate State Industrial Relations Commissions, with lower and more flexible wages in lower cost States, was lost under the Gillard government’s Fair Work Act. So smaller States with lower cost bases now have to pay wages set by FWA at Sydney and Melbourne levels, which removed the competitive advantage previously held by such States and which offset their smaller markets and higher transport costs.

[@iwakeupsad]

Wonderful

[@yarongottlieb2797]

The goal should be (as you said) better governance, but also more governance Federal electorates remained at about 60,000-70,000 voters until the 1984 redistribution. It is now closer to 120,000. Imagine trying to run a service business assisting 120,000 people with a staff of only 4 We need the number of MPs doubled at least. That goes for the sizes of many state seats (in NSW and Vic especially) and local council that would be better served if they represented 3000 people each instead of 10,000 Also your point about the lower levels of government being a check on government over-reach is convincing, and the principle is further strengthened with our bicameral parliaments (where they exist)

[@Dave_Sisson]

The reason why more Commonwealth electorates will not be created in the foreseeable future is that the senate has to be half the size of the House of Reps. Now at the moment each state elects 6 senators at a time and we already have a Senate where minor parties and independents usually have the balance of power, making it difficult for governments to get legislation passed. If we have more seats in the House of Reps, then we have more senators, maybe 8 or 10 per state to be elected at each federal election. The semi-dysfunction of the Senate would be increased and neither Labor nor Liberal want that, so the major parties would never let it happen.

[@yarongottlieb2797]

@@Dave_Sisson Not sure what the problem of an expanded cross bench is. Our governments have to become better at negotiating rather than trying to bully the minor parties with take it or leave it tactics. A larger senate would improve democratic outcomes

[@michaelenglert985]

Thank you for the video. I learnt a lot. You mention, towards the end of the talk, that there isn't "political will" to make improvements. We see political will as separate from political capital but I think they're related. That is, our short 3 year terms of office, retard the building (and spending) of political capital. Could a 4 yr term better allow for structural improvements? Could a State increase its term of office?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

That is one of the arguments for four year terms, rather than three. Although if a term is too long (eg 5 years in the UK), it can lead to other problems of responsibility. It is hard to get the balance right. Personally, I think four years is pretty good. From recollection, I think all States either have fixed four year terms (and often this is entrenched - see my manner and form video) or a maximum four year term.

[@michaelenglert985]

@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes, you're right, only Qld and the Federal government have 3 year terms. I watched you're latest video. All this very interesting, if a bit over one's head. I agree, 4yrs might pull the Feds, both gov and opposition, away from the opinion polls for a while to work for the Common good.

[@ricochet2977]

Thank you for sharing your opinion which has made me feel that the system is good but the people operating it are not so good or is it the people who choose their representatives do so without much thought?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes - it's a bit of both.

[@marcusf.6722]

You just don't want an el supremo.

[@braytongoodall2598]

On the economic perspective, there are claims the US is too *geographically* decentralised and incurs inefficiencies this way. For instance there are highly productive cities with too little housing, which pushes people to less productive peripheral cities. Similar situation with many large towns and small cities: the US has an entire class of city size that is almost absent in Australia. There are arguments that in some cases these cities are highly efficient and in other cases inefficient. However when it comes to the federal government, the executive tends to be overcentralised since many functions are performed near Washington rather than eg the deindustrialised rust belt. This is a different matter than constitutional federalism though, rather just how tricky good governance can be.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Quite so. There are also economic inefficiencies in the US States having their own different income taxes. The problem for all federations is to get the balance right, as it can go too far in either direction.

[@williamsutter2152]

There's a part of me that would like a single national curriculum, at least when it comes to maths as I'm a high school maths tutor and the variation in curriculum between states can sometimes complicate my job given I tutor students online across all states and territories.

[@basilpunton5702]

Thank you for opinion. I agree with most. The UK has become a partial federation, as the name suggests it should be. The PBE (poor bloody English) excepted. But the central government has too much power. I was an Australian Government employee and as such the thought of one central power fills me with dread. We have seen in the last few years people who wish to set in stone things like education policies. One idiot wanted all results to be on a A,B,C, ect, system: as I have never studied in that silly system but always received numerical results in my 20 years of education it struck me with horror. Because numerical results told me how much work was needed to be done to improve. The combining of tertiary education was fundamentally because of the incompetents who could not handle the relationships with the institutions. The shot-gun approach saw many stupid results that were disliked by the people on the ground. The classic was Melbourne and Ballarat, neither wanted this and parted was as soon as they could. Flexibility is the most significant factor. Central power is not flexible.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Working within a University, I can say that the relentless centralisation of everything (in the name of efficiency) is a disaster, because you cannot get anything fixed. In days of old, you would see the person face-to-face and ask them to fix it, and they would, because they would have to see you in the corridor again or in the tearoom. But once it was centralised, no one was accountable and nothing was done.

[@williamsutter2152]

While I've had my criticisms of some of your points, I have largely been persuaded by your arguments and appreciate this video. I am curious, however, what is your stance on the Senate? I personally think it should be abolished and the House of Representatives should be elected through a proportional representation system, similarly to New Zealand. The reason I suggest this is partly that the Senate has never served its original intended purpose of protecting state interests as senators almost invariably vote along party lines instead of state lines. There are potentially ways of fixing this, such as by requiring that senators cannot be party members or receive any support from a political party and instituting a single-winner voting system such as instant-runoff voting to elect them. Why a single-winner voting system? Well, that way voters would have a decent chance of being properly informed about every candidate running and their policies without needing the help of knowing their party affiliation as there'd be far fewer candidates running in each part of the country. This is not too different to how Tasmania's Legislative Council is elected, although they don't ban parties in the council to my knowledge and the chamber managed to be predominantly nonpartisan until fairly recently. But I will say I am dubious whether reforming the Senate like this would be worth it, sure it'd make it protect state interests but is that really all that important? I don't see all that much oppression of the less populous states now with a Senate that fails to protect state interests. A second part of the reason I suggest abolishing the Senate is that if we elect the House through proportional representation instead, the Senate would lose a purpose it's since gained, namely to balance the majoritarian representation provided in the House (caused by the single-winner voting system we use to elect it) with a more proportionally represented chamber. Having such a chamber provides a place where minor parties and independents can have more sway over the legislative process, hence preventing any single party from being able to dictate legislation. I would argue out of the two chambers of our federal parliament, it makes more sense for the House to be proportionally representative given it's already meant to, as closely as possible, give equal weight to all votes (as opposed to the Senate, which is meant to give equal representation to all original states, not all voters). Proportional representation further enforces this as it means that no matter how different your views are to the other voters in your electorate, your vote still has an influence on the composition of the chamber provided across the nation enough people agree share your views to warrant representation. It would also ensure that no party or coalition of parties could lose the two-party preferred vote yet still win a majority government, and believe it or not but this has happened multiple times in Australian history (e.g. in 1954, Labor won the two-party preferred vote yet lost the federal election to the Coalition, who formed a majority government. In 1990, the Coalition won the two-party preferred vote yet lost the federal election to Labor, who formed a majority government). A third reason for my believing the Senate should be abolished is that retaining the Senate leaves open the door to a constitutional crisis like that of 1975 happening again. Without a Senate, only the House could block supply and given the Westminster system requires that the government has the House's confidence, this should not happen.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Interesting arguments. But I would disagree for two reasons. First, even though the Senate does not directly represent the views of the States, with Senators largely voting on party lines, it does have a 'behind-the-scenes' effect, because States with small populations (eg Tasmania) have a proportionally greater impact in the party-room than they otherwise would, and get to influence policies there. Senators from different States do really advocate for their State in the development of party policy - but this is not necessarily seen publicly. (Independents from States can also have a big impact, when doing deals with the Government - remember Brian Harradine.) Second, if a government controls the lower House and does not have to convince an upper House to pass its laws, it can whip anything it likes through Parliament, no matter how extreme, without any scrutiny. Former colleagues who worked in the NSW Government under the old system, when the Government controlled the upper House, told me it was a complete nightmare, because laws were passed without anyone paying proper attention to them. The benefit of an upper House is that (a) it allows for proper scrutiny, particularly through a committee system; and (b) because the government knows that it will have to justify bills in the upper House and persuade members to vote for them, it is more careful about them and the laws are more reasonable and moderate, as they need to be able to persuade a range of people with different views. Overall, the quality of the resulting laws is better as a result.

[@williamsutter2152]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your thoughts. I had thought of the extra scrutiny argument, although I thought with proportional representation in the House the bills would get more thoroughly scrutinized there and the government couldn't rush it through, but your argument about party room advocacy is rather compelling.

[@ETALAL]

Thank you for this video Constitutional Clarion. However you failed to shift my view on this subject. I maintain that the shift of power from local councils to the state governments over the last 50+ years need to be reversed. The state governments have too much power and have become expensive, bloated and lack proper accountability. Again Australia's problems are with the state governments not the Federal IMHO.

[@galear1]

I agree with you about State centralism, but the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. It is the constitutionally entrenched sovereignty of the States which, to the extent that it has not been judicially eroded, prevents the Commonwealth from doing to them what the States have done to local government. Unfortunately, in Australian law, local government is entirely a creature of the States and thus lacks any such constitutional protection. The solution, however, is not to weaken the States, replacing one lot of centralisers with another, but to strengthen local government vis-a-vis state government. Easier said than done, of course, but not done at all by further subordinating the States to the Commonwealth.

[@mindi2050]

​@@galear1 I agree. Although in 1988 there was a constitutional referendum on a proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to recognize local government. As usual with constitutional referendums, it failed. But so did the 1944 referendum that included giving Australians constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech. People seem to hate change - no matter how much sense it makes.

[@galear1]

​@@mindi2050Agreed.

[@ETALAL]

Such great comments thank you both, However from a comfy chair on the North side (as I am) its easier to make a case for the states. IMHO we are Mich better off with a strong Fed and local gov. from a geopolitical perspective, Australia is going to be a big player in ASEAN in the future so long as state gov. don't get picked off by lobbyists oligarchs corporations and the werewolves of London and Wall Street. For example NSW has been I filtrated by the Boston mafia (Kristine Kenneally at. al.) who have sold off everything they can get their claws on. Even the power poles are owned by some faceless offshore entity. A strong federal government with ties to our biggest trading partners could provide a bulwark to this

[@jessQiu21]

Prof Twomey, I took note of the recent decision on the Tesseract International Pty Ltd v. Pascale Construction Pty Ltd. Case. Since then, I have been wondering about the arbitration law in Australia. Can you do a video on the Fed and state adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law into the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) and the Commercial Arbitration Acts (states)? Why can't we have one uniform Act for arbitration at the federal level?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Sorry, but that one's outside my expertise. You will need to encourage an international law person to start doing KZbin videos.

[@cesargodoy2920]

I find it surprising this is controversial. a big diverse country like Australia can't be run by one enity .not democratically anyways.on a silghty humorous note maybe you should run for something.your constituents would be well informed, at least and it seems like the austrailan system needs defenders.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm afraid I'd be the world's worst politician - I am terrible with names and faces, I wouldn't be prepared to ingratiate myself with people to get money, and I'd be constantly frustrated with having to comply with party discipline. I think I'm much better off participating from the outside.

[@liliya_aseeva]

Yeah. Actually I understand you. Our countries are both huge and both comprised of different types of regions. Some of them need systems which should not be present in other regions (such as polar aviation, systems of subsidies for inhabitants of northlands etc). The other way to make regions matter, especially the sparse ones, is to make an upper chamber and giving each state or region the one and only vote in this chamber. Whereas lower chamber would be population-bound. afaik (I can be wrong) Kazakhstan selected this median approach - despite retaining unitary character of the state, they elected their upper chamber and it represents regions of the country, so that three cities of Kazakhstan cannot "pull the rug" too much.

[@mindi2050]

Yes, which is why our founding fathers included an elected Senate into our parliamentary system. With an equal number of senators, regardless of the population of the state. I doubt the people of the colonies would have voted 'yes' to federation if it didn't include individual states' interests being protected.

[@vk3fbab]

Your points make absolute sense but Governments are not an endearing construct. I think of them like dentists and parking inspectors. Logically required but not favorably looked upon and wanting less of them seems like a better outcome even if our teeth are falling out. At least i don't feel like we're out of control after watching this. Great work.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I understand your feelings about it. I get pretty frustrated too at times.

[@shellyaus]

I would like to see more accountability in government, if they cause a problem, they should have to pay and not retire on a large pension, example when cutting hilltops off to put wind generators up, who pays for the restoration (if possible) when it doesn't work?

[@nadrini300]

Completely unrelated question, Prof Twomey: would it be better for the unwritten Westminster conventions to be codified so that the likes of the secret ministries controversy to not happen again? Does legislation enough suffice?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I will do a video about the secret ministries issue soon - it's on my list. In general, there are risks in codifying everything, because you lose the flexibility to adjust to current circumstances. Countries which try to do this end up with very long prescriptive Constitutions which are too brittle and break in a crisis. It's best to try for a happy medium, using both convention and law to get the best outcomes.

[@sheriff0017]

I don't think the "secret ministries issue" was anything other than a political problem. I'm resistant to even legislating "solutions" to purely political problems, let alone changing the Constitution. I doubt that any legislation, or constitutional amendment could "solve" the problem of a Prime Minister who is too controlling, or doesn't trust his cabinet colleagues.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@sheriff0017 The legislation just requires that basic information about who is appointed to a ministerial office or to administer a department is made public by being placed on an official register. That seems reasonable to me.

[@mindi2050]

​@@sheriff0017 I didn't see it as 'just a political problem'. I saw it as a constitutional problem. Apparently, there was nothing in the Australian Constitution (or even any legislation) to stop a PM from telling the GG to make him minister of multiple portfolios!! Let alone informing the surprised cabinet ministers and the public. Although admittedly there's nothing in the Australian Constitution that even makes mention of a prime minister, let alone his/her responsibilities and limitations. Or aOr a

[@sheriff0017]

​@@mindi2050 The fact that the Constitution doesn't specify anything about ministries is why this isn't a constitutional problem. If Morrison had done any official acts under any of his other ministries, the orders (etc) would have borne his name.

[@justindrew9702]

I think our system honestly is the best in the world. That’s my opinion. But technically the ACT doesn’t have a Loca government those things are just done but the territory and that has its benefits Like fix my street, no matter where you are in the ACT fox my street is the same. But important to note ACT is tiny so a third level doesn’t make sense.

[@sheriff0017]

The ACT has a local government that dresses in Territory Drag.

[@JimCullen]

This is an issue that I have a lot of complicated feelings about. There are a bunch of obvious pros and cons either way. Sometimes even the same _thing_ can be both a pro and a con, like if you think "my state has a better policy than the other state about this issue"...if that issue were taken at the national level, would it be my state or the other state whose policy was adopted?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Agreed. In the end, it's about trying to find the best balance.

[@williamsutter2152]

I will say that most countries that rank higher than Australia on the corruptions perceptions index, indicating a lower level of perceived corruption, are unitary states with the exceptions of Switzerland, Germany and Canada. Hence, I am not sure I buy that federalism stops corruption better than unitary states. Granted, the unitary states that rank better than us are all less populous.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The theory, at least, is that it makes it easier to scrutinize and expose corruption. But I guess a lot of other factors also come into play - like whether you have laws that make it hard to be corrupt, or effective anti-corruption commissions, or less discretion for politicians, and a range of other things. So it is rather hard to judge.

[@PhilRable]

Four systems of government, please explain

[@billmago7991]

I totally agree...my driveway was ruined by these large wheelie bin garbage trucks we have now. I contacted my local ward councilor and hey presto two weeks later problem solved. With a larger centralised bureaucracy and couple that i live in regional Australia nothing would have happened. Funny thing with large bureaucracies running small towns, when the first Belconnan bus interchange was developed before self governance came into effect, they had to rip it all up and re do it because some clever PS decided on a plan for the interchange from the US .Think of the money they would save with a ready made plan Problem was they drive on the RH side of the road and the busses at Belconnan couldnt do the snake like turns required to navigate the interchange because the design wouldnt work driving on the LH side of the road.😂😂😂😂.So yes to three tiers of government

[@glennsimpson7659]

Didn’t know that about the. Belconnen Bus interchange, but it always looked like East Berlin. Although I liked it better when the ACT had an Advisory Council rather than a permanent Green/left government which is convinced it is right about everything.

[@mindi2050]

​@@glennsimpson7659 I originally didn't think I would like self-government for the ACT - but it's not all bad. Yes, the old Belconnen bus interchange did have a bit of a drab grey 'East Berlin' look about it.

[@SocialDownclimber]

Was the scottish parliament devolved at the time you were writing the paper? A followup to check the effect of devolution on the cost of government would be interesting.

[@danielpage5597]

My understanding is that the UK is still considered a unitary state even after devolution because the UK parliament contains complete legislative authority over what power is given to the devolved governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The UK parliament could even abolish all of these governments if it chose to (though this seems very unlikely).

[@chegayvara1136]

@@danielpage5597 Scotland can have a little parliament, as a treat

[@--enyo--]

At least we’re not the US.

[@MrLachlan1903]

That's one way to excuse apathy and inaction.

[@nicegan8902]

I don't think this is controversial at all.

[@dryhad9253]

I don't have a problem with federalism in principle, but I do think it is unsuitable in the context we find it in Australia. A good federal structure should have a basis in real communities of interest - historically, culturally, or otherwise divided polities. The framers of our Constitution no doubt imagined that the several colonies-turned states qualified as this, but 124 years later I struggle to identify differences in state culture beyond sport and what you call a deep fried disc of potato. The main thing that remains is that which the constitutional structure itself creates: state matters are state matters because the federal Constitution leaves those matters to the states, not because the people of the various states meaningfully have different views or needs related to them. This contrasts even to relatively similar federations like the United States and Canada, where there are identifiable regional divisions (albeit not always on a clean state/provincial line). On your point about geographic size, I'm not sure you've made your case. On the one hand, if we take as read that matters in Sydney and Melbourne cannot be effectively governed from Canberra, should we not also consider that matters in Eucla or Broome cannot be effectively governed from Perth? Western Australia is also geographically larger than many sovereign nations. Even a medium sized state like New South Wales is larger than many. Yet you also dismiss the notion of dividing the country further into fifty or so regions. Well, regardless of whatever merits this proposal might or might not have, it would be constitutionally implausible - that's really my issue here: the Original States are entrenched so no matter what we might determine would be the optimal shape of a federal (or otherwise) Australia, we can't realistically implement it unless it conforms to echoes of nineteenth century colonies which would otherwise have very little meaning to modern day Australians. Thanks for sharing your opinion on this, though. I thoroughly enjoyed this format and I hope it's one you revisit.

[@doubledee9675]

You say " state matters are state matters because the federal Constitution leaves those matters to the states." I think it's more accurate to say they are State matters because the Constitution does not give them to the Commonwealth.

[@dryhad9253]

@@doubledee9675 Sure, absolutely, that is a better way of phrasing it. The point is that the paradigm exists simply because it is the prevailing paradigm, not for any preexisting or exogenous justification. The legal and administrative distinctions between the states only exist because of the constitutional structure that does not reserve those legal and administrative matters for the Commonwealth - it could in principle do otherwise but it is entrenched.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, you are right that it would be now virtually impossible to change the existing State structure, unless the Constitution was scrapped and we wrote a new one (which would probably require some kind of catastrophe, such as war, which I hope we never have to face). I did think of mentioning it, but the video was getting to long.

[@mistero4]

Dryhad, I’d have thought along similar lines, having grown up in NSW, but moving to a smaller populated and more remote state gave me a very different point of view.

[@davidliddelow5704]

You claim that federal governments are more efficient than unitary governments. Given all the overhead of having each democratic assembly this is surprising. Is it possible that since large countries tend to be federations and large counties also have more rural areas, fewer services are expected overall and this causes government to cost less?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I agree that it is not intuitive, and was quite surprised. Yes, it might have something to do with geographically large countries having larger populations and bigger economies. Ultimately, the cost of having separate legislatures is peanuts when you look at the economy as a whole. The real question is whether governments are driven to act efficiently, or whether having a monopoly, they just spend what they like.

[@normandiebryant6989]

Could it just be coincidental that unitary countries like the UK have the NHS and, at various times, publicly owned transport and utilities, making their public-servant appear more expensive, while the US, Canada and Australia have less public transport and a part-private or fully-private health system?

[@mindi2050]

@@normandiebryant6989 No. There are a lot of factors at play. For example, Germany is a federation. Public transport in Germany is ranked higher than that of the UK. So is Germany's public health care system.

[@chegayvara1136]

Regarding the smallest OECD states having only two levels of government, you have to factor in when these levels of government were developed we did not have telephones, planes, cars, radios, the internet etc in common use. Technology today allays practical concerns about removing one or more levels of government from large countries. In fact, no one starting a country from scratch today would start with three or levels of government outside of very particularist cultural reasons that certainly don't apply to Australia. As someone who has worked in pretty high level government for a decade, there a few problems that can't be fundamentally solved by centralising that government function, and nothing going the other way. I speak mainly in the American context of health, education, and tax collection/distribution. Australia does have a more sensible division of government functions, so I'm ok with the current three levels. However, considering the history of centralisation in Australian government, it seems we are not that far off from abolishing states and maintaining a Commonwealth and city/shire governments which could be more efficient and more responsive to local concerns. Perhaps its the case that three levels of government is the magic number, as four levels like in the US states is a bit of a fustercluck. I have seen terrible things happen purely because schools and police force have local (ie city or county level) control. Within the debate deciding who is responsible for what is equally important. Note: I wrote this simultaneous to your video and we converge on a few above points. Good to see they don't hand out PhDs to just anybody. Please do make more editorial style videos.

[@seanlander9321]

So, wouldn’t regional government give greater efficiencies (and representation) for Australia than the federal, state, local system?

[@mindi2050]

I thought that until I moved to WA for a few years. Suddenly state parliaments made complete sense. The people chose a federalist system in 1900. I can't see the smaller populated states ever wanting to vote themselves out of existence.

[@seanlander9321]

@@mindi2050 WA is the glaring example of how regional government would assist areas to develop because Perth sucks the life out of the state by centrist government. It’s simply ridiculous that someone in Broome for instance, has to go to Perth for court, amongst other things. Our system of government is increasing the size of our few cities at the expense of the regions and that’s creating deficiencies in the country and inefficiencies in the city.

[@mindi2050]

@@seanlander9321 OK, but WA's local governments do seem to work well within their regions of the state, serving the locals. As for criminal trials, WA has district courts throughout the state (including Broome) that conduct criminal trials. It's true that murder trials are held at the Supreme Court in Perth. Are you suggesting that with WA's relatively small populations in the regions, that WA regional courts would be well equipped to handle serious murder trials? Anyway, from what I could see, their local government systems seemed to work well for the locals. Including where I lived outside Perth. If not, they were voted out at the next local election. But if you are from WA, I am surprised you would even want to do away with the states. You're entitled to have that view of course, but it was my experience that the people of WA were very protective of their state.

[@seanlander9321]

@@mindi2050 Therein lies the problem of identity rather than rationality. However I hadn’t thought about criminal trials, my mind was on the much more mundane civil and environmental. However I do think that eventually the north of WA will be a new state, the people there are increasingly fed up with the fantastic wealth that they generate in the Pilbara being spent around Perth instead of around them, could probably also say the same for Kalgoorlie region.