Australian Federal Government Model for Institutional Reform in Shangri-La

This article discusses the Australian Federal Government model for institutional reform in Shangri-La. It explores the advantages of this model, such as better supervision of the government and increased citizen participation. It also highlights the possible gaps and risks, including the challenge of adapting to a decentralized authority and potential inequalities among states. Overall, the article suggests that implementing this model can improve the economic, political, and environmental conditions of Shangri-La.

ASSIGNMENT: INSTITUTIONS LAW
AND GOVERNMENT 2019

Table of Contents
Australian Federal governmentmodel for institutional reform in Shangri-La.................................3
The key advantages of the Australian model in Shangri-La............................................................5
The possible gaps or risks in the model from Shangri-La’s perspective.........................................7
References........................................................................................................................................8

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MODEL FOR
INSTITUTIONAL REFORM IN SHANGRI-LA
Australia is stated as the Federation of 6 states which combines with 2 self-governing Territories,
have their own constitutions, laws, government and Parliament. Under the federal government
system of Australia, powers are categorized between individual states and the central
government (Fawcett and Marsh, 2017). The Parliament of Australia comprises of the Queen
represented by the Governor-General - the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Federal
Government of Australia is divided into three arms namely; the legislature, executive and
judiciary.
By considering the situation of Shangri-La, it is essential that she considers the structure and
operations of the Australian Federal System, as in this case the country should follow the same
federal structure. However, she also considers that when her son takes her place to govern the
country, his power and role under the new constitution will be very limited.The federal, state,
Northern Territory and Act governments have three arms which are; a legislature who is liable
for debating and voting on the introduction of new laws, an executive who is liable for enacting
and retaining the laws, and a judiciary who is liable for enforcing these laws (Daniell and Kay,
2017).
Federal Parliament members are selected and elected by the people. In addition, voting is
mandatory for the citizens of Australia above the age of 18. It can be said that federal parliament
and can make laws, which are inclusive of International and interstate trade, Foreign affairs,
Quarantine, Defence, Immigration, Taxation, Banking, Insurance, Marriage and divorce,

Currency, weights and measures, post and telecommunications and invalid and old age pensions
(Aroney, 2016).
Since the Shangri-La is facing the issue of the water resources of the Shangri-La river which are
inequitably distributed, and the national government is also not considering and mitigating the
environmental risks placed by climate change. In this aspect, for the current case scenario, the
Australia Federal system will be best applicable as it provides better oversight in areas wherein
waterways crosses the boundaries of state and territory (Allan, 2016). Federal government
legislation also helps in protecting the items of the Shangri-La heritage (natural, cultural and
historic) like sites and objects of significance.The federal government also raises money to
operate the country with the collection of taxes on goods and services, income, profits and
expenditures, such as trade, immigration, environment and defence (Birkland, 2015). Although
Shangri-La is enjoying a strong economy due to a steady increase in immigration, and
consequently, the federal government will help in aiding immigration, which will thereby
increase diversity and multi-culture.
A federal structure will allow the citizens of Shangri-La to make a comparison of the different
political system is working in a similar country and to act on the same comparisons by giving a
vote on their own. The advantage will come in the form of is that it will provide accommodation
of local preferences and diversity (Kay, 2017). In addition, a federal constitution will provide
Shangri-La with the flexibility to lodge variation in the base of economy, attitudes and social
tastes. Further, these traits correlate considerably with geography and state in a federation can be
implemented to local conditions in a manner that is rather difficult to conduct in a national
unitary system. Similarly, with respect to the case, if the country adopts the structure of the

Australian Federal government system, then they can maximize overall satisfaction with
government.
It can be said that the federal government is also liable for forming and maintaining single
marketing characterized by the known presence of taxes and customs duties on trade in the
nation. Consequently, the federal system offers citizen various services and resources to the
government. Not like the unitary system, the federal system offers higher regional autonomy to
the individuals.
In the aspect, federalism will provide the country and its people with the capability to select their
government at State as well as national level, while ensuring that power is limited on a single
central authority (Aroney and Kincaid, 2017). Thus, the Australian federal system will be best
suitable for Shangri-La; it is because this can help the country in getting better supervision and
with this government can effectively control and handle the resources, and maintain the
diversity, heritage and culture of the nation. In addition, citizens of the nation can select the
members by giving votes, with proper justice and fairness.
THE KEY ADVANTAGES OF THE AUSTRALIAN MODEL IN SHANGRI-
LA
It has several advantages inclusive of better supervision of the government. Furthermore, the
decentralized government are able to make better decisions as compared to the centralized ones,
for various reasons. Close supervision is an aspect of lower monitoring of costs. There are some
programs and employees at the state level, and the tax revenue amounts are smaller (King, 2016).
To this note, citizens can practice more control over everything on a small scale, so in the case of
Shangri-La. Another advantage of adopting the federalism structure is stability. It is a basic

virtue in government. It can be asserted that the stable government allows people and groups to
make plans on their activities with confidence, innovation and long-term progress (Hueglin and
Fenna, 2015). In relation to the case scenario, political stability will be highly appreciated and
values, as they are more subjected to face the changes in direction in the government of the
country. The perk is one that even the federalism advocates at time overlook, and that is its value
as a mechanism of improvising through competition, the global competitiveness of a country as a
large. The federal government is the prime administrator of laws on the business structures of
Australia. It is mainly a taxing entity; it raises funds by the collection of tax on corporate profits,
income, good and service tax by other charges like customs duties and fuel exercise(Coleman,
2016).
As in the case of Shangri-La,courts have limited power to raise revenue through levying local
rates and cannot make their own laws, this will be solved by applying the Australian federal
system, as it raises funds through taxes and custom duties, it has the power to raise money
through taxation and spend the same on the country’s welfare such as education,schools, hospital
etc.(Savage, 2016).
It can be justified that federalism is beneficial for Shangri-La, due to the fact that it acts as a
protection against tyranny, as it divides the power between the state government and national
government and spreads the power of national government in between three branches that work
as a check balance on one another, is that it serves as a limit to runaway power and tyranny.
Further, the protection indulged in the country’s system against a tyrannical can be the most
significant points for the design and development of this structure (Partridge, Maddison and
Johnson, 2016).

This form of federalism integrated in the country, wherein there is sharing of power with state
government and federal government is divided into three tiers, acts as a means to ensure that all
of the power is not merely centralized to a sole individual or group, as more power held by a
single person or group can be corrupting (Hofmeister and Tayao, 2016).
Rani is advised that there could be various benefits of implementing federalism structure, such as
it can increase the participation of citizens, with no centralization of all powers to the national
government, but providing it also to the state government, which are close the common citizens,
this will thereby positively impact by increasing the ability of citizens to affect their government,
inclusive government policies and lawmaking procedures (Goss, 2017).
It also results in more effective, as when some of the government power is segregated among the
states, providing states with the power to solve problems, thus allowing more efficiency in the
system. Permitting states to form solutions for their individual problems, by making use of laws
and policies can be best suitable (Brumby and Galligan, 2015). Rani is advised to follow this
structure as it also aids conflict management, by enabling different communities to develop their
own policies, they allow for individuals with incompatible differences, or very solid
disagreements to reside in separate areas and form their own policies that would be disagreeable
to other individuals in other areas of the country.
In addition, innovativeness in law and policy would also be improvised, as in the current state of
Shangri-La law and policies practices are exercised by a single authority and with the
involvement of many state governments, different policies can be established that will help in
solving problems and even can be adopted in other states or a national level (Fenna, 2018).
Moreover, by applying this state government will be more responsive to the needs of citizens, it

can be stated that the more close government is with citizens, then they are more expected to
better respond to the citizen's needs. Further, states are more expected to react and solve citizen
needs, as compared to the national government.
THE POSSIBLE GAPS OR RISKS IN THE MODEL FROM SHANGRI-
LA’S PERSPECTIVE
Indeed, there would be potential gaps and risks presented in this model from the perspective of
Shangri-La, it is because they can face difficulty in following the new government practices, as
before they were more familiar to decentralized authority, and this tends to be unfamiliar to
them. As given that, beforehand, Rani was the hereditary ruler of the Kingdom of Shangri –La,
but when the change would be implemented different state government will be present to
exercise government policies and rules and solve the problems of citizens. The citizens may face
difficulty in doing so, as prior they only go to the single majesty for the requests of problem-
solving; now they have to go through different state governments.
There would be several risks associated with changing the government model, such as handling
situations of environment protection and saving water resources can be complex, and if not
handled optimally it can result into damage to the natural resources. In addition, the change to
institutional reform can also result in inequalities among different states as it is a state issue,
some states will make more spending, per capita, on aspects than other states, leading to disparity
(Brenton, 2018). There could be a risk of more complicated and difficult decision making, plus it
also emphasizes the risk of equality among citizens.
For Shangri-La issues can arise in the form of that the control would not be in a single hand, it is
because, with the application of constitution of Australian government, a country will be

governed by the three-tier system of Australia Federal system, in which more power is given to
the constitution, which can sometimes lead to framing of incorrect policies and conflict of
authority (Eccleston and Smith, 2015). Thus it can be stated that this change in institutional
reform can come with both risks and advantages, but if effectively managed it can improvise the
economic, political and environmental and financial conditions of Shangri-La.

REFERENCES
Allan, 2016. Only in Australia: The History, Politics and Economics of Australian
Exceptionalism. Oxford University Press, Australia.
Aroney, N. 2016. Federalism and subsidiarity: principles and processes in the reform of the
Australian Federation. Federal Law Review, 44(1), pp, 1-24.
Aroney, N., and Kincaid, J. 2017. Courts in federal countries: federalists or unitarists?.
University of Toronto Press, Australia.
Birkland, T. A. 2015. An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Routledge, Australia.
Brenton, S. 2018. Policy Capacity Within a Federation: The Case of Australia. In Policy
Capacity and Governance (pp. 337-358). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Brumby, J., and Galligan, B. 2015. The Federalism Debate. Australian Journal of Public
Administration, 74(1), pp, 82-92.
Coleman, W. (Ed.). 2016. Only in Australia: The history, politics, and economics of Australian
exceptionalism. Oxford University Press, Australia.
Daniell, K. A., and Kay, A. (Eds.). 2017. Multi-level Governance: Conceptual challenges and
case studies from Australia. ANU Press, Australia.
Eccleston, R., and Smith, H. 2015. Fixing funding in the Australian federation: issues and
options for state tax reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74(4), pp, 435-447.

Fawcett, P., and Marsh, D. 2017. Rethinking Federalism: Network Governance, Multi-level
Governance and Australian Politics. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE, 1(1). P. 57.
Fenna, A., 2018. The Centralization of Australian Federalism 1901–2010: Measurement and
Interpretation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 49(1), pp. 30-56.
Goss, R. 2017. Referenda: The Australian Experience. The Round Table, 106(5), pp. 585-587.
Hofmeister, W., and Tayao, E. (Eds.). 2016. Federalism and decentralization: perceptions for
political and institutional reforms. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Australia.
Hueglin, T. O., and Fenna, A. 2015. Comparative federalism: A systematic inquiry. University of
Toronto Press, Australia.
Kay, A. 2017. Multi-level Governance and the Study of Australian Federalism1. MULTI-LEVEL
GOVERNANCE, 1(1). P. 33.
King, D. 2016. Fiscal Tiers (Routledge Revivals): The Economics of Multi-Level Government.
Routledge, Australia.
Partridge, E., Maddison, S., and Johnson, C. 2016. Australia: Parties, Federalism and Rights
Agendas. In The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State (pp. 37-52). Routledge, Australia.
Savage, G. C. 2016. Who’s steering the ship? National curriculum reform and the re-shaping of
Australian federalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), pp, 833-850.