Voters expect the Prime Minister to lead in a crisis

The bushfires, the COVID-19 pandemic and now the floods have all raised questions about the operation of Australian federalism. The questions have included traditional ones about the role of the states and the Commonwealth government in dealing with crises, planning for the future, and executing recovery plans.

There are many legitimate questions about who has ultimate constitutional responsibility for what in areas like aged care, COVID vaccinations and bushfire and flood relief. Federalism makes the situation uncertain. There are also questions about appropriate co-operation between governments. The national cabinet mechanism emphasised such co-operation, but did not eliminate conflict. There are questions about what permissions are needed and which government should ask for assistance first. There are also questions about who should pay for what. Which government has deeper pockets, and when should the split be 50-50 or 75-25 between the federal and state and territory governments?

The whole situation is opaque and frequently messy. Even prime ministers and premiers frequently get tripped up in answering questions about who is responsible for what, when and how. That's another way to describe federalism: complex, vague and perhaps even outdated.

What is clear, though, is that the average citizen - or even the informed citizen - is ignorant of the finer points of federalism. What's more, they don't care about their ignorance.

That's why it is a difficult task at the best of times, even in a classroom, to explain federalism. Which, of course, means it is an impossible task in times of crisis when people are hurting and crying out for help. A crisis is no time for a tutorial. In the longer term, commissions of inquiry might clear away the debris of federalism, just as recovery might clear away the debris of a flood. But by then it just won't matter to the broader community.

The general population expects the Prime Minister to lead in national crises, regardless of constitutional niceties.

One popular image of federalism is that the Commonwealth and the state governments are somewhat equal partners. In this image, the power differential between the Commonwealth and the states is wished away. This old image was of "levels" of government, with the federal government clearly on top.

Pushed by advocates for increasingly powerful state governments, this older view was replaced by a newer image in which federalism was about "tiers" of government.

The meaning of levels is generally understood. Buildings have levels, with one on top of the other. It is clear who is higher up.

The meaning of tiers is less clear, because a tier is a more complex and abstract image. It may be a more faithful description of co-operative federalism, but it only serves to confuse people.

Whatever the constitutional position, in the minds of the general public the Prime Minister should lead the nation during a crisis. The public don't care that Australia is a federal, not a unitary, state.

They see the Prime Minister leading the nation in an international crisis, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and they expect him or her to do the same in a domestic one, too. No Prime Minister can escape that reasonable expectation. When they are looking as though they are trying to avoid responsibility by making excuses, they are perceived as weak leaders.

The presence of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in any operation only reinforces this expectation. The ADF is recognisably part of the federal government.

READ MORE:

If the ADF and the Minister for Defence are involved, as they have been in all three major recent crises - fires, the pandemic and floods - then this reinforces the idea that the Prime Minister must be the one in charge.

It may or may not be true that the ADF operates within Australia in the context of co-operative federalism, and that it must be invited by a state government before being deployed (just as a foreign government asks for Australian involvement in an international crisis). But that does not let national leaders off the hook.

The Prime Minister is regarded as the senior Australian leader, and is expected by the community to lead rather than to sit back. Anything else but leadership seems like passing the buck. State premiers are expected to lead too, within their sphere of influence. But the community sees them as junior in status to the Prime Minister, and treats them accordingly.

This may be unrealistic. All those various aspects of federalism (constitutional responsibilities, funding, and co-operation) should come into play in a crisis. Perhaps we should expect the federal government to observe the limitations of federalism by playing by the constitutional rules to the letter.

It may also be unfair on federal governments. It is true that the Prime Minister doesn't "hold a hose" - or a shovel, or a needle. Authority must be shared and delegated; the use of power must be authorised downwards. There are different jobs to do within a complex federal system.

But when the crunch comes, it is the PM who must rise to the occasion by exercising leadership. The sphere of influence of the Prime Minister is the whole of Australia.

That is Scott Morrison's task; it is what the community expects of him. He will take the credit when things go right.

Equally he, more than anyone else, will be held responsible if things appear to go wrong.