The Australian Infrastructure Department has called for metropolitan scale governance in Australia’s largest city. The new report of the Commonwealth Statutory Infrastructure Institutions aims to determine the prospects for Sydney and Melbourne over the next 25 years, and identifying integrated governance and leadership is key to success.
The report identifies the role of state governments in metropolitan planning and infrastructure provision, as well as the role of local governments in planning policy implementation and local services. However, it believes that our fast-growing cities face the risk of fragmentation of local councils and disconnection of infrastructure.
Australian infrastructure companies suggest that larger management entities can hire employees with advanced skills. The result is more efficient infrastructure delivery and operations and better strategic planning. The agency argues that these entities can more easily work with state and federal agencies in metropolitan and regional planning.
To support its claims, the report cites OECD research that links higher productivity to reduced governance. The main measure in this regard is the number of local governments in a city (30 or more councils in Melbourne and Sydney).
Australian infrastructure wisely avoids defining governance models. Instead, it provides examples of integrated governance elsewhere.
These models include the Greater London Authority, located above the London Municipality, the Auckland City Council, which consisted of seven local and regional authorities in 2010, and Brisbane City, which was composed of 20 counties and municipalities in 1924. Although not directly recognized, the recently established Greater Sydney Committee is considered a step towards greater integration.
For decades, scholars and practitioners have been calling for governance reforms in Australia’s big cities to achieve democratic planning. What insights might this idea provide?
How does our city achieve this?
The first step is to understand history. Both Sydney and Melbourne used to like the integration and supervision of metropolitan institutions.
For example, Cumberland developed Sydney’s first metropolitan plan in 1948. The Melbourne Metropolitan Work Committee (MMBW) played a very important role in the development of the city. It can be said that the road organizations in each city have a strong influence on post-war development through highway construction.
In the absence of a democratic foundation, metropolitan institutions may prefer technocratic management. Cumberland attracted representatives of local councils, but was replaced by a national planning agency under the control of a minister in 1964. MMBW was originally composed of representatives of local councils, and later increased ministerial appointments, but was changed to public in the 1980s. The concept of the department. . Its functions are replaced by the Water Authority and the National Planning Department under the direction of the Minister. The lack of metropolitan democracy in recent decades means that national political decision-making has dominated planning in Sydney and Melbourne. The Planning Minister has extensive authority to write metropolitan plans and rule major development applications. In 2002, Melbourne’s 2030 Metropolitan Strategy was notorious for its continued highway city development, although it conducted extensive public consultation, showing greater preference for public transportation. While the state’s centralized planning governance model provides some democratic oversight – ministers can be removed during state elections – it also allows programs to be attracted to strong donor interests, such as private developers or infrastructure supporters. This problem is exacerbated when the national treasury encourages “market-led” proposals for major projects.
Ministerial politicization also turned the plan into partisan competition. The result is a series of plans, usually empty, and each new minister will abandon these plans. The city has become an important part of different strategies in a short time. The possibility of establishing long-term consistency is small.
To make matters worse, in order to cope with the political advantage of the election, infrastructure projects may be announced out of order or unplanned, thus increasing inconsistency. For example, Melbourne lacks a regulatory transportation plan. Instead, political parties have implemented several major transportation projects without due consideration of their strategic objectives or alternatives.
Politicization also means avoiding basic urban problems. Transportation planning is an example. Improving urban productivity requires a shift from road to public transportation, but the minister is usually the captive of the road hall.
Even in the case of independent infrastructure agencies making recommendations on planning strategies, it is easy for ministers to ignore their mismatches in democratic geography due to the Minister of State’s rule over the metropolitan municipality.
Then, metropolitan governance may avoid the flaws of the technocratic model while ensuring full democratic participation and limiting the prospects for political capture? What principles can the integrated governance model follow?
Given the pressures and pressures facing cities, there is an urgent need to include principles of democracy, sustainability and equity in governance arrangements. It is necessary to establish a new planning authority model between the overall state legislative framework and local administration and services. Its goal should be to establish a metropolitan management body to make effective representative decisions on urban strategies and investments.
As I said before (with Brendan Gleeson and Marcus Spiller), the case of the independent “committee” model is convincing, but so is the opportunity to improve urban democracy. Whether the metropolitan agency attracts representatives of local municipalities or whether it has its own electoral jurisdiction and mechanisms is worthy of more consideration. The operation of the Greater London Authority is based on an electoral structure separate from national governments and local municipalities. The Auckland City Council is also separated from the national government and operates through a representative local ward structure. The Greater Vancouver area is a consortium of 21 municipalities, a constituency and an indigenous agency that is responsible for planning and providing regional services.
For Australian cities, the combination of local representatives (through electoral colleges or other political representatives) seems to be feasible.
The mayor’s question is also very relevant. Auckland, London and Brisbane each directly select a metropolitan mayor who provides leadership throughout the city. This creates a highly democratic accountability at the metropolitan level and provides a focal point for urban dialogue. This is not the case for the Sydney or Melbourne Mayor representing a single municipality.
Recognize indigenous sovereignty
Another fundamental consideration in metropolitan governance is indigenous sovereignty. This sovereignty is voluntarily abandoned anywhere in Australia. Any metropolitan governance arrangement should recognize the sovereignty of no indigenous people.
Similarly, there are such models overseas. The Vancouver area provides local indigenous inputs. The Auckland City Council includes an independent statutory committee to advise on Maori issues.
In Australia, Victoria has recently established joint management of the Birrarung (Yarra) catchment covering most parts of Melbourne. Therefore, the basic principles of indigenous investment in urban governance are recognized in the policy. Aboriginal metropolitan representatives are accompanied by a treaty that may pay rents for urban occupations under the treaty and use proceeds to support the progress of the aborigines.
What about state and federal roles?
What role does the state government play in metropolitan governance? The state should set a legislative background, so planning laws are democratic, inclusive and sustainable. It should also provide financing arrangements for urban infrastructure.
Finally, the role of the national government is still of practical significance. As a signatory to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and the New Urban Agenda (NUA), the Australian Government has accepted the role of developing a national urban policy.
The government issued a national urban policy in 2011, but it seems to have forgotten it. Returning to temporary city transactions is not enough.
The federal government has a clear role in developing Australia’s urban responsibilities and working with state and metropolitan governments in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda. Australia’s large and growing city needs more democratic, sustainable and inclusive urban governance. To achieve this goal, we must take a representative arrangement to enable our city to determine its future as a metropolitan municipality.