Australia’s Constitution imposes constraints and rigidities on wellbeing policies, writes Michelle Baddeley.
Ultimately, the powers of Australia’s executive government are constrained by the Australian Constitution – which is designed to ensure that government operates according to principles of democratic accountability, and representative, responsible government – enabled by parliamentary vibrancy.
Specifically, the ambit of federal executive power is constrained by Australia’s Constitution and the legislative heads of power under which the federal government can exercise its executive power on behalf of Australia’s Commonwealth.
Section 51 of the Australian Constitution limits this exercise of federal executive power to very specific spheres. Insofar as wellbeing is largely equated with health, the Constitution does not vest any specific legislative power for the federal parliament in this field; the state and territory governments have primary responsibility for health.
Other heads of power which might be leveraged to sustain wellbeing policies are limited – though heads of power associated with census and statistics and social security could potentially be leveraged.
In addition, the rigidity of Australia’s Constitution is an all but insurmountable obstacle: Section 128 of the Constitution stipulates that any constitutional change requires a national referendum delivering a vote not just of the majority of voters but also of majorities within a majority of states.
The rigidity of Australia’s Constitution is an all but insurmountable obstacle.
One illustration of the rigidities imposed by Australia’s Constitution was the failure of the Voice Referendum in October 2023.
This referendum was about constitutionally enshrining an Indigenous Voice to Parliament and was advocated as part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a means for Indigenous communities to have more say in the formulation of government policies to address entrenched Indigenous disadvantages and wide gaps in terms of wellbeing and prosperity relative to other Australians.
Approximately 60 per cent of Australian voters voted against this change – potentially setting back initiatives to improve Indigenous wellbeing for many years to come.
Perhaps reflecting this hurdle imposed by Australia’s constitutionally driven federal system, key wellbeing policy initiatives have been spearheaded by many state and territory governments – for example the New South Wales state government Economic Stewardship Framework and outcome budgeting approach, and Victoria’s public health and wellbeing plan.
Until recently, these policy initiatives have not been coordinated or rolled out on a national scale by the federal government. Thus, Australia’s wellbeing policies have been piecemeal, a situation which might change with the introduction of the federal government’s wellbeing framework.
Australia’s wellbeing policies have been piecemeal.
Notwithstanding the wellbeing policy constraints outlined here, the potential for Australia to develop strong and effective wellbeing policies for the long term is relatively good. Australia has a relatively robust democracy and a highly educated population. Australia is resource rich, technologically capable, and well placed to deal with the energy crisis.
Actionable points for wellbeing policy in Australia include the following:
Harness the depth of Indigenous ecological knowledge to effectively and comprehensively manage environmental/ecological challenges.
Focus on geographical and climate-based advantages by investing in renewable technologies to limit the impacts of environmental degradation on the quality of life.
Further develop and implement the wellbeing framework that was introduced by the federal government in 2023 and continue policy dialogue via established systems for open and transparent public inquiries by the royal commissions.
Enact the recommendations for the overhaul of monetary policy from a recent Reserve Bank review, which might lead to a better approach to monetary policy which is not so disadvantageous to those suffering from disproportionate wellbeing challenges because they are at the bottom of the income and wealth scales.
Finally, build on these initiatives, implement successful wellbeing policies that leverage Australia’s unique characteristics and natural advantages and prioritise policies to promote wellbeing amongst disadvantaged groups.
An extract from Wellbeing and Policy Evidence for Action published by Taylor & Francis
Leave a Reply