The recent surprise joint statement by the Victorian and NSW premiers Daniel Andrews and Dominic Perrottet of their long-term policy commitment to early childhood education is a powerful example of competitive federalism. This style of federalism showcases state policy reforms stimulating other states and the federal government into thinking and acting differently.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Andrews-Perrottet bonding is even more powerful given they lead governments of different political stripes - Labor and Coalition. In this sense, competitive federalism can be said to morphing with a creative version of co-operative federalism. Historically co-operative federalism has been discussed more vertically between the federal and state governments, as opposed to horizontally amongst state governments of different political persuasions.
Throughout Australia's history many advocates for gender equality have been skeptical about the capacity of federalism, or federal institutions, to deliver meaningful and full equality for women. Going back to the very framing of Australia's constitution some suffragists supported the push for federation; others doubted that dividing government along territorial lines would be in women's interests.
Rose Scott was one such sceptic. Scott initially signed the Women's Suffrage League petition to the 1897 Constitutional Convention. After the convention decided, however, to exclude women's suffrage from the draft constitution she became an avid 'anti-Billite.' She was also concerned that the newly formed nation-state was focused primarily on armies and government buildings, seen as expressions of male power and authority, at the expense of matters of higher priority to women. More practically for Scott, federation would take decision-making to a 'faraway Federal Parliament' out of the reach of ordinary people including, importantly, the 'mothers of the nation' - ordinary women whose responsibilities in the private sphere would make it difficult to bridge the geographical distance. She denounced the creation of Federal Parliament as the promotion of self-interested individuals at the expense of more communal and inter-personal values. She was, indeed, prescient in predicting the practical difficulties for women and men with young children and growing families considering standing for the Commonwealth Parliament.
Scott was wary too of the Senate as the states' house arguing it would be undemocratic, with the smaller states dominating the larger, and the cost of activities of the men of smaller states being borne by the unrepresented women of more populous colonies.
One wonders, then, how she would view the Andrews-Perrottet announcement? Here the larger states of Victoria and NSW are promoting policies that take into account the needs of women. It has been hailed as a positive step from all sectors advocating for gender equality including Chief Executive Women, and the Parenthood. The policy is also consistent with the domestic and international work of the Thrive by Five Foundation. It also resonates with the evidence from the Grattan Institute and it certainly echoes the work of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation at the University of Canberra which has been promoting a holistic approach to gender equality, with a strategic direction of 'sharing the load', 'sharing the benefits' and sharing the power.' Having an extra year of public education assists parents in their balancing of caring responsibilities and a productive working life.
The word 'parents' is important because the push towards equality must occur in all aspects of the home, workplace and public life. This begins right from the start of life - and policies around parental leave must also be improved for equality to be embedded in public policy. NSW also began to lead the way on parental leave at the same time as the announcement about early childhood education. Both parents working in the NSW public sector will be eligible to receive at least 14 weeks of paid parental leave as part of the state government's overhaul of its paid parental leave scheme. This would change the present system where paid parental leave is only available to one spouse at a time. From October, in NSW there will be no distinction between a primary or secondary-carer which will mean that every parent working in the public sector, including teachers, nurses, and firefighters, will be entitled to the 14 weeks. Even more importantly, in helping to encourage men to take leave, parents will also be offered an additional two weeks of bonus leave if paid parental leave entitlements are more equally shared between partners.
This change in parental leave policy is also being considered by the Federal government, with Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth announcing men could access up to 20 weeks of commonwealth-funded paid parental leave in the first two years of a child's life, with discussions starting with business to determine how to assist and encourage more fathers to stay at home and look after young children. It is one thing for both parents to have the opportunity, it is another to take up that offering if your workplace doesn't support the move culturally. Removing the language of primary and secondary-carers and changing it to 'parents' reinforces the value of shared parental care. These changes, linking the economic framework with the values of shared care are essential to embedding gender equality in all aspects of Australian life.
It is not only in the areas of gender equity policy that competitive federalism can lead to better policy outcomes. Last Tuesday, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced she will ban lobbyists who have worked on election campaigns from doing deals with the Queensland government, and she has also confirmed that her government will release secret state cabinet decisions within 30 days of their making. These announcements follow the publication of Peter Coaldrake's review of culture and accountability in the public sector. The review also highlighted that Queensland's integrity issues were shared by governments across the country and that Ms Palaszczuk had an opportunity to lead the way nationally on improving transparency in politics.
With the arrival of the most women ever in Australia's Federal Parliament after the federal election, and with the rise of women in all parliaments throughout the country - as seen this past week with the Victorian government Cabinet having more than half women and the ACT government Cabinet having had that for some time - will the greater entry of these women into the power centres of federalism result in an obvious change in governmental policy priorities? Problems relating to welfare reform, equal pay, childcare and violence against women, all of which cross jurisdictional boundaries and require intergovernmental coordination, have historically received only tangential attention within the intergovernmental processes.
Will having more women in cabinets and parliaments, and an understanding that women's voting power is meaningful, mean our politicians and public servants will be open to a consistent gender analysis of policy? In the absence of such an analysis, the differential impact of reforms such as changes to employment opportunities, transport availability, and the viability of local and regional centres, for example, has meant problems arising from different lived experiences have not been sufficiently examined or addressed.
Rose Scott pointed out that women need to be wary of federalism because issues impacting more heavily on women's lives can easily fall between the cracks of divided jurisdictions that are dominated by men. Her position has in many senses been vindicated since then, but perhaps for not much longer. Will cabinets of over half women and the highest ever number of women in Federal Parliament finally mark a change to this view? Was it the knowledge of the power of women voters that encouraged Daniel Andrews and Dominic Perrottet with elections ahead of them to improving policy around early-childhood education? Having women and men who have juggled these issues in their own lives, like Minister Rishworth and her husband, certainly gives hope to the end of Rose Scott's predictions about Federation's negative impact on women. With a Federation that is competitive about policies that improve transparency and accountability and puts systems in place to encourage equality in all our lives, is the Federation wheel now turning from a negative to a plus?
- Kim Rubenstein is a professor in the faculty of Business Government and Law at the University of Canberra and director (academic) of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation.