Rethinking overlap and duplication: Federalism and Environmental Assessment in
AustraliaPoliticians, policy makers and academics have long been troubled by the overlap and duplication, which characterises many federal systems. Overlap and duplication is, according to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, "... one of the core problems at the moment [with] the way the federation works. It's duplication, overlap, cost shift, blame shift" (RuddIs this condemnation of overlap warranted? Is it always to be one of the drawbacks of federalism, or are there circumstances in which it is a strength? In Canada, Brown (1994), and Armit and Bourgault (1995) suggest the problem has been exaggerated, the costs overstated, and the advantages undervalued. In Australia, Walsh (2008, and Pincus ( 2008), point to the potential economic benefit. US scholars also emphasis the strengths of a multi-level system which involves different levels of government. For example, Esty (1996) The problem of overlap -in health, in education, in business regulation, and in energy and transport -is a theme he returned to regularly in his first few months in office (Rudd 2008a,c,d,e; also Rudd 2007). And he is not the only one. In Australia, both Prime Ministers and Premiers have railed against overlap and duplication as the cause of low productivity, poor service delivery and business frustration (See for example, Howard 2005a,b,c; Brumby 2008; Bligh 2008). Nor is it a new concern. Nearly 80 years ago, Warner (1930. 120) observed "the existence of two independent systems of governmental activity causes expensive duplication and endless conflicts" (see also Whitlam 1983). More recently the elimination of overlap and duplication was one of the prime motivating forces behind
