ViewpointAn argument for metropolitan government in Australia
Section snippets
The Australian backdrop
It has been noted that State governments are ‘directly responsible’ for planning and service delivery in Australia's metropolitan regions. During constitutional negotiations in the 1890s the ‘accepted view [was] … that local or municipal matters would remain within the ambit of State governments’ (Aulich & Pietsch, 2002: 16).2
The international context: neoliberalism and metropolitan governance
The world changed in the early 1990s. Whereas former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2009) associates the neoliberal ‘epoch’ with Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and John Howard, among others, neoliberal hegemony emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the demise of the socialist alternative. Foremost harbingers of neoliberal hegemony were Eric Hobsbawm's (1994) The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991 and Francis Fukuyama's (1992) The End of History and the
A note on global cities and centralisation in Australia
The currency of globalisation and global cities is such that it seems a necessary machismo for government. All of Australia's States except Tasmania, and also the Northern Territory, believe that their capital cities are, or should become, global or world cities.
- •
The New South Wales Department of Planning and the Environment titled its 2014 strategic plan for metropolitan Sydney, ‘A STRONG GLOBAL CITY’, noting that ‘Sydney is an iconic global city and it is growing’.
- •
The State of Victoria's Plan
A framework for metropolitan government
Informed by international experience, Jane-Frances Kelly (2010: 4) questions whether ‘the institutions which govern and manage our cities have sufficiently evolved’. Kelly and Donegan (2015: no page no.) hold that Australia's cities ‘are broken’ and ‘are no longer keeping up with changes in how we live and how our economy works’. Needless to say I agree with the view that Australia's cities are insufficiently evolved and argue the need for evolution towards metropolitan government.
The process
Conclusion
Australia's constitutional negotiations had to do with the ‘politics of integrating six colonies’ that centered on ‘the federal idea’ (Appleby et al., 2012: 1), with the colonies conceding as little power and fiscal resources as possible to the Federal government. In this the colonies singularly failed, with primary responsibility for this outcome being the centralization of tax revenue and various High Court decisions (see Phillimore & Harwood, 2015). Intergovernmental relations in Australia
References (39)
- et al.
What makes cities more productive? Evidence on the role of urban governance from five OECD countries. OECD regional development working papers, 2014/05
(2014) - et al.
Australian federalism: Past, present and future tense
- et al.
Left on the shelf: Local government and the Australian constitution
Australian Journal of Public Administration
(2002) Fiscal decentralisation and macroeconomic performance in Australia
Globalisation as reterritorialisation: The re-scaling of urban governance in the European Union
Urban Studies
(1999)New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood
(2004)Our localism: Part 1 — The structure of local government law
Columbia Law Review
(1990)- et al.
Federalism and regionalism in Australia new approaches, new institutions?
(2007) Review of capital city strategic planning systems
(2012)Report by the comptroller and auditor general