6.4 Adjectival Federalism
And now back to federalism. Over the years there have been a number of
adjectives applied to federalism in Australia. These include cooperative feder-
alism, coordinate federalism, and pragmatic federalism. In each case the
adjective plays a particular role—it may be an aspiration as to how the Feder-
ation might work better than it actually does; or it might be an attempt to
describe the nature of a particular Federation;‘cooperative’is often used in the
former situation whilst‘pragmatic’is employed in the latter.‘Pragmatic’is not
an especially useful word for it mainly features in relation to a Federation
which works but where observers have difficulty in describing how and, more
particularly, why. It is a reminder of a well-known quip about federalism in
Canada, namely that it works well enough in practice but unfortunately not
in theory.
Sometimes there is talk of coercive federalism. This terminology is usually
employed in political rhetoric in situations where it is considered that the
central or federal government, in Australia’s case, the Commonwealth, is
unduly authoritarian in its relations with component governments of the
Federation.
Coercive federalism, however, comes closest to what might be regarded as
the most accurate descriptor of federalism in Australia, namely, bureaucratic
federalism. Federalism in Australia has never actually been so described. There
is a book entitledAdministrative Federalism, a collection of documents on
intergovernmental relations in Australia, but that name does not capture the
essential character of federalism in Australia nor, indeed, the extent to which
the practice of federalism is so much at odds with the goals and ideals of
federalism.
Those goals and ideals have a long lineage. They are partly about self-
government, autonomy, and the right of communities of varying sizes and
composition to settle their own affairs, particularly domestic and internal
affairs, as far as is possible. A second quality of federalism is a derivative,
namely the opportunity for variety and diversity: communities have not
only the right but, more importantly, the possibility of making their own
decisions about a broad range of social, industrial, commercial, educational,
and cultural activities. At a broader level, federalism is valued as a counter
to concentration of power, a major feature of a unitary state even if only
potentially rather than actually. Federalism is, also, seen as a mechanism
for combining the advantages of size for, say, purposes of defence and secur-
ity, without losing the advantages of locality and community in day-to-day
living.
All these propositions have been contested on various grounds. Some
people do not accept the idea of federalism at all. A. V. Dicey, who understood
J. R. Nethercote