An argument for metropolitan government in Australia

Abstract

The federal government of Australia seeks to determine the selection and forms of financing of infrastructure projects in cities, and to prescribe how cities are planned and managed. This role is rationalised through reference to the UK City Deals model and is made possible by vertical fiscal imbalance (the tax revenue it raises considerably exceeds its expenditure responsibilities). Referring to the Constitution, this role is assigned to state governments that are responsible for planning, infrastructure investment and service delivery in the cities. The cities themselves comprise multiple local governments that are ‘creatures’ of state government legislation. State government metropolitan strategic plans and projects inevitably serve the interests of the constituencies needed to win the next state elections. There is no recognition of a metropolitan constituency. Documenting the economic and social disadvantages arising from Australia's form of metropolitan governance, and providing an example for expensive infrastructure mishaps arising from federal and state governments prioritising different transport modes and projects, the paper argues for the creation of representative, accountable and fiscally autonomous metropolitan governments.