Division of power between the centre and provinces:

Lessons from Australian Democracy for Sri Lanka

Dr. Siri GAMAGE

REFORM: At a time when Sri Lankan parliamentarians are considering proposals for constitutional reform on the basis of the ideas submitted by the expert panel, it is useful to look at the model operating in an advanced democracy such as Australia.

Not that the model can be replicated in full in Sri Lanka but comparisons with advance democracies can be useful for a balanced debate and careful reflection.

Australia and Sri Lanka have both been colonies of the British Empire. They share similar colonial histories, administrative features, judicial, educational and religious institutional features.

However, after independence the two countries have gone in different directions, i.e., Sri Lanka obtaining full independence and Australia becoming a federation out of previously existing internal colonies yet retaining significant features of the colonial rule including the retention of the Queen of England as the head of state.

Differences

Notwithstanding these differences, comparisons can be made about the system of democratic governance, particularly in terms of the nature of relations between the Federal or Central government and those of the States and Territories.

A country with a similar population to Sri Lanka, Australia has six States and two territories. Territories are units that do not have the status of the States.

The capital of the country, Canberra is one such territory. Northern territory with a substantial Aboriginal or indigenous Australian population is the other. The six States are Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania.

The Central or Federal government has two chambers in its legislative branch or the parliament: the lower house - the house of representatives with members elected at a general election representing federal electorates, and the Senate or the upper house with senators representing the states and territories.

Each state has been allocated an equal number of senate seats (12). Territories can elect two senators each. The total number of senators in the senate is 76. At general elections voters vote for a certain percentage of senators (usually half).

There is a separate ballot paper for electing senators at each election (In other words, at general elections all senate seats don't become vacant in order to ensure continuity). The main task of the senate is to vet legislation that is passed through the lower house. If there is a majority of members voting against a certain bill in the senate, it has to go back to the lower house for re-consideration.

A good example of this happening is when the governing coalition submitted a bill this year to declare all Australian territories as non-immigration zones (currently only parts of the country, especially outlying remote islands etc. are declared as such).

The governing liberal-national parties could not muster a majority vote in the senate for this bill because several of its own members also crossed the floor against it. The senate has the powers to initiate bills as well, except money bills.

One positive aspect of this arrangement is that the elections allow minor parties or independents to get elected to the Senate.

This is not easy in the case of the lower house as it requires a lot of resources and the support of a main party machinery to muster enough voter support by an individual candidate.

For example, for many years smaller parties like the Democrats and the Greens used to hold majority votes in the senate along with the Labour Party.

Thus when the current government submitted important bills such as the introduction of GST, the governing party (even though they had the majority in the lower house) had to enter into negotiations with the senate members to make the bill acceptable to the senate.

In effect some useful amendments were effected. However, after the last election the governing parties hold the majority in the senate also. Yet at times its own members vote against some of the bills presented, making democracy work for the benefit of the population.

In the majority report submitted to the all-party conference in Sri Lanka, there is reference to a second chamber consisting of members elected from the provincial legislatures.

In comparison to the Australian example, here the difference lies in the fact that the people at a general election are not able to directly elect them.

If the second chamber's task is to vet the legislation pertaining to the central government's areas of authority, it makes little sense for a second chamber consisting of members elected only by the provincial legislatures to do this task.

Such a practice has the potential to muddy the waters. There needs to be clear division of labour as well as authority between the centre and provinces. If this proposal is to go ahead, the central government also can demand a similar provision in the case of provincial legislature/s.

Thus this proposal needs to be carefully examined and scrutinised in comparison to the direct election model as found in Australia.

In Australia, the states have Premiers and cabinets as well as a parliament with a dual chamber (except in Queensland) with members elected by the voters at a state election.

To a greater extent, the state system of governance is a replication of the federal system as most of the states also have an upper house as in the federal parliament. The territories have Chief Ministers instead of Premiers at the helm.

This signifies the limitations in powers that the territories have in comparison to the states as well as in comparison to the authority that the federal government has over the unit of administration.

An interesting feature of the current situation is that the federal government over the last 10 years has been led by Liberal-National Coalition, a conservative alliance of two main parties whereas Labour Party has led the states and territories for the most part.

Healthy balance

Commentators on Australian politics indicate that this is a healthy balance between the two tiers of governance, and if one political party or coalition secures power in states-territories as well as in the federal government it can become a (democratic) dictatorship or the parties in power will get enormous power. Thus the distribution of power between parties in federal-provincial context is seen as a desirable outcome.

The powers and the tasks of the federal and state-territory governments are clearly defined. The constitution promulgated in 1901 when Australia became a federated nation with a system of national and provincial governance serves as the blueprint for governance and resolving conflicts arising in day-to-day operations.

The High Court has the power to examine complaints that comes before it in regard to the constitutionality or otherwise of any legislation brought by the federal government.

A good example is that this year the federal government introduced an industrial relations act that the trade unions and many others believed contained draconian changes in regard to worker rights.

The ACTU - the umbrella organization of trade unions - lodged a complaint in the High Court along with several state premiers challenging this act. The decision of the High Court came out in favour of the federal government.

Responsibility

There are subjects or tasks that the federal government is responsible and those that the states and territories are responsible.

For example, defence, foreign affairs, customs and immigration, national security, national budget are the responsibility of the federal government. School education, police, hospitals are the responsibility of the states and territories.

Judiciary has federal and state-territory incarnations. The revenue coming from the GST (Goods and Services Tax -currently 10 per cent) goes to the states and territories but is collected by the Federal Government and distributed to the states.

The federal government secures its revenue from the personal and company income tax regime and various other taxes, e.g., excise. States also can generate their own taxes in areas of their responsibility. Federal government distributes a part of its income to the states and territories for defined areas of activity.

For example, the states and territories get funds for running hospitals from the federal government. Federal government funds universities directly. Often there are grievances advanced by the states and territories over the amount of funds received from the federal or commonwealth government.

These issues are resolved when the leaders and treasurers of the states meet with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of the federal government annually in the premiers' conference or the meeting of the Commonwealth and State leaders (COAG).

Issues to do with commonwealth or federal government and the states and territories are often resolved at this meeting in a somewhat cordial manner.

Primary among these issues are to do with the funding allocations between the centre and the states. When Australia had to respond to the threats of terrorism, leaders of the federal and state-territory governments made decisions in a collective spirit, while ironing out differences of opinion.

One of the contentious arguments in Sri Lanka in the matter of demarcating units of devolution is whether to define such units - whether they are provinces or districts- on the basis of ethnicity, language, culture, etc., of the people living in a given unit.

Often this is the case in discussions about the northern and eastern provinces, and to some extent in regard to the rights of the Muslim and Sinhala minorities in those provinces.

In the reports submitted by the expert panel there are different views about this aspect. In the Australian case, even though the rights of the Aboriginal people in matters of governance is a contentious issue, no significance has been attached to this aspect in formulating the governance structure.

Perhaps this implies the subjugated and dispossessed nature of the Aborigines in Australia (even while they are free to enjoy the democratic rights that other Australians enjoy), compared to the independence enjoyed by the Sri Lankan Tamil, Muslim and other minorities without such subjugation and dispossession.

In the history of Australian federal parliament there has been only one or two senators and certainly no members of lower house coming from the Aboriginal background. Even the most recent example of the Senator with Aboriginal descent came from the Australian Democratic Party - a minor party represented in the senate.

He was able to win a senate seat not necessarily because of a crucial Aboriginal vote but because he contested as a member of a recognised generalist party, thus drawing the votes based on party allegiance.

There are no designated seats or nominated seats allocated to Aborigines in either of the federal parliaments or State and Territory parliaments - even though there are strong grounds for allowing this.

In Australia, the voting system is a preferential system where the voter has to enumerate the preferred candidates in the voting paper. To be elected to a seat in the lower house, one has to obtain more than 50 per cent of the votes.

If in the counting of first preferences a candidate doesn't secure this, then the second preferences are counted until a given candidate obtains more than 50 per cent votes (50+1). There are no political parties formed on the basis of communalism or minority ethnicity in Australia.

Scattered

Even if the Aborigines, which consist of about three per cent of the overall population, establish such a party, as they are scattered throughout the country, such a party cannot win a seat unless it secures votes from the rest of the population who are non-Aboriginal.

When looking at the major political parties in Australia, those from the Anglo-Celtic background dominate them. Yet the arguments such as those advanced by the LTTE against the Sri Lankan Government as being Sinhala-dominated and therefore discriminatory toward the Tamils haven't been advanced by ethnic minorities including the expatriate Sri Lankan Tamils.

On the contrary, Sri Lankan Tamils who live in Australia follow the existing system of governance and the party system. No arguments are advanced seeking inclusion in the government on ethnicity grounds.

One good feature of the Australian system is the minimal room available for sabotaging or corrupting the electoral and voting system by clandestine means during elections. Therefore, when people vote they can be assured that their will appears in the result.

This has given way to a greater degree of trust and confidence in the system. This may be why ethnic and Aboriginal minorities are not motivated or compelled to seek ethnicity-based demands for inclusion in the system of governance.

However, the head of state still remains the Queen of England and her representative - the Governor General- carries symbolic tasks such as the grant of assent to government bills. There are state governors in the states also.

Aboriginal grievances are handled by the existing mechanisms of governance as described above. There is a Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the federal government and in the States and Territories as well.

There was a system of electing Aboriginal representatives to a body called ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) that had a policy advice and implementation role under the minister and his/her department but this was abolished by the current government recently on grounds of ineffectiveness.

Australia also has a substantial immigrant population consisting about 25 per cent or more people coming from a diversity of countries.

However, there are no specific features in the system of governance to elect representatives from them on grounds of ethnicity.

Many immigrants and their descendents are living in cities such as Sydney and Melbourne and if most of the members of a given immigrant ethnic community vote for a candidate from their own community there is high potential for such a person to win.

However, voters from given ethnic or immigrant communities vote in elections generally on matters other than their ethnicity. Nonetheless, the mobilisation of the ethnic vote has been a factor in Australian politics by those contesting from main political parties at federal and state-territory levels.

The federal and state-territory governance structure that doesn't give priority to ethnic, linguistic, religious or other matters of similar nature has cultivated a mentality among the people for allegiances to their states and territories rather than ethnicity, etc.

For example, this is visible in sporting competitions. It also appears in fields such as education where each state has its own systems. There are state allegiances, but in many respects the allegiance at the national level is stronger.

Lessons

Thus when the Sri Lankan parliamentarians are considering the proposals submitted by the expert panel, there are some lessons that can be drawn from the Australian example.

One key lesson is whether to follow a similar path as Australia in matters to do with units of devolution or to adopt another principle based on Sri Lankan history and composition of ethnic groups.

Another is whether to set up an upper house with members directly elected by the voters as in Australia or elected from the provincial legislatures as proposed by the majority report.

My own preference is for a second chamber with members directly elected by the voters alone as this reflects an advance level of democratic governance, particularly as the upper house has the capacity to vote down any legislation that its members consider not in the best interest of the nation.

If the second chamber consists of members elected from the provincial legislatures, it has the potential to bring in provincial petty politics into the second chamber and stifle legislation put forward by the central government.

Thus it can become ungovernable. Irrespective of the system in place, the central government should be allowed to govern the country without frequent interruptions by a second chamber not elected by the voters directly.

Giving a voice to the people in provinces in the central government is a necessity. The Australian system of electing senators provides ample opportunities for doing so in a direct manner because they are elected from the states. In Australia, senators usually vote along party lines, not state lines.

The writer is the Senior Lecturer, School of Professional Development and Leadership Faculty of Education, Health and Professional Studies University of New England, Australia.