The Premier State Is More Than A Slogan

by John Warhurst - Canberra Times

NSW is not just another state. To say this may be seen by many people as a statement of the bleeding obvious. But it needs to be said. Our federal system encourages an underlying culture of state equality which means that often NSW is presented as just another state among six states and two territories. This is demonstrated in sport, for instance. NSW has just one team in the inter-state Pura Cup cricket just like the other five states. It has just one of the five Ashes Tests. And so on.

There is sometimes a hint of due deference towards NSW as the premier state or first among equals, but our federal system still serves to mask its leading role. While NSW is clearly the largest state by any measure: population, gross domestic product, number of seats in the House of Representatives, and so on, there are many times when you would not know it. This is an exaggeration, of course, but it is exaggeration to make a point.

Governance arrangements, data collection and presentation and media reporting are locked into our federal system. Federalism introduces a type of one-vote one-value into political proceedings.

At Council of Australian Governments meetings, for instance, the prime minister and treasurer sit around the table with fellow heads of government and their treasurers at what is presented to the public as a meeting of equals, no matter how small the state or territory. After the meeting the media conducts interviews with each of the premiers and more or less gives equal time to each of them.

At the recent meeting of heads of government in Canberra to discuss the water crisis, the four state premiers were treated as equals and each premier later had his turn in front of the media.

The same is true of the way federalism structures the presentation of economic statistics. Whenever the state of the economy is discussed by the media or reported on television news, the relevant statistics are presented on a state-by-state basis. Whether it is the consumer price index, the unemployment rate or average housing prices the information is presented on a state-by-state basis or, sometimes, on a capital city-by-capital city basis.

Does this matter? Surely it is just as harmless as the weather forecasts being given on a state-by-state, capital-city basis: sunny today in Sydney, but raining in Hobart.

I disagree. I am willing to admit that, when questioned, most Australians would know that Sydney is much larger than Hobart. But I think that popular presentation stemming from the federal way of looking at things means that a sort of equivalence infects the way we think about the states and the capital cities. Sunny in Sydney means that four million people are benefiting from that sun compared with the 200,000 or so suffering from the rain in Hobart. But do we think that way?

The minerals boom in Western Australia influenced the recent Australia-wide interest rate rise, despite the fact that the NSW economy is lagging and its home owners will be disproportionately hurt by the decision. This was commented upon in the media at the time but not enough attention was given to the relative number of people involved. NSW is almost four times larger than WA. The pain would be lesser if the situation was reversed.

There is practical political significance to this tendency to diminish the place of Sydney among capital cities and the place of NSW among states.

John Howard reads the national mood very well. It is his trademark. It is tempting to say that some of that ability stems from his being based in Sydney, even if it didn't seem to help Mark Latham.

Labor, on the other hand, has suffered frequently from underestimating the special needs of Sydney, in particular the consequences of the housing boom which has inflated the personal wealth and debt of Sydney-siders and made them more sensitive to taxation issues.

NSW Labor has failed regularly to convince the national office of their special situation.

Kim Beazley now has a home base in Sydney since he was re-elected as Labor leader. That is a forward step, and how it is interpreted is very important.

It should be seen not just as making life easier for Beazley, though it does mean less travel across the continent between parliamentary sittings. Flying backwards and forwards from Perth to Canberra is a killer for any MP, but particularly for a party leader.

It should not be seen either as just helping Beazley get better access to the national media, though it should mean he is better placed for personal interviews. Time differences between states make things harder too.

A more important and often-forgotten element of the Sydney base is that it gives Beazley a better understanding of how a third of the voters (almost two-thirds if Victoria is included too) are thinking. It is a better platform than Perth from which to observe the national psyche en masse.

The same is true of reporting of NSW politics. The same slide into equivalence can be seen here. The NSW election is not just another election. Morris Iemma is not just another premier and Peter Debnam is not just another opposition leader. They are our senior state leaders.

That makes the current mess in NSW Labor politics much more of a national disgrace than if it had happened in Perth or Brisbane, much less Hobart or Adelaide. The talent pool should be deeper and therefore expectations should be higher. Milton Orkopoulos, Kerry Hickey and other state ministers have damaged the nation.


John Warhurst is professor of political science at the Australian National University.