Australia is a nation of cities, with over 70% of the population residing in its eight largest urban areas. Despite this, our governance structures do not directly represent our cities.
We have national, state, territory, and local governments, but none dedicated to governing our urban areas as unified entities. Among our capitals, only Brisbane City Council roughly aligns with its urban boundary. While Clover Moore is often referred to as Sydney’s mayor, the local council she leads represents less than 1% of Greater Sydney's area and population. Similarly, the City of Melbourne covers just 37 square kilometres of an urban area that spans almost 2,500 square kilometres.Ìý
For example, urban services for the Sydney metropolitan area, which covers around 12,000 square kilometres, are provided by the New South Wales government. This government, however, has broader responsibilities that extend over an area of more than 800,000 square kilometres. Most planning laws are delegated to 35 municipal councils. Consequently, decisions on Sydney’s planning are made by councillors representing a tiny part of the city, while decisions on urban services can be made by parliamentarians from areas far outside Sydney’s boundaries.Ìý
We often express outrage when councillors obstruct large housing projects in the suburbs or when politicians divert funds to vanity projects in rural areas. While these decisions might seem economically irrational, they make perfect sense when viewed through the lens of electoral boundaries. Economists frequently discuss the vertical fiscal imbalance between levels of Australian government, but less attention is paid to the democratic deficit that hampers our ability to champion urban productivity and equity.Ìý
Historically, state governments have responded to recalcitrant councils by overtaking their powers, overruling their decisions, or amalgamating them. These measures have faced community resistance, generated resentment, undermined trust, and ultimately proved ineffective.
Local councils have long complained of having too many responsibilities and too little funding. Rather than making councils bigger, a better solution could be leaving councils to administer local services and development applications while creating elected city authorities to lead strategic planning of major cities – filling a critical gap in urban governance.
The key is to make city planning a democratic exercise involving everyone across the city – rather than dividing responsibilities in ways that obscure the larger vision. The biggest challenge facing city governance is not too much government, but too little democracy.
State governments are likely to resist such changes, as they would pose an existential challenge to their power and prestige.Ìý
However, an elected city planning authority, with a mayor and elected city commissioners, funded by existing land taxes and empowered to make planning decisions, could be the best way to give all of us the right to the city.
Rob Stokes is a member of the UNSW Cities Institute’s External Advisory Committee and Industry Professor ESG, Macquarie University. He is a former NSW Minister for Infrastructure, Cities and Active Transport, and Planning and Public Spaces. This essay emerged from the Ìýand event 'What's next for City Governance', where influential thinkers considered the future of Sydney's city governance after the dissolution of the Greater Cities Commission.