John Howard made another
attack on the federal system
of government on radio yesterday. This is not the first time Howard has made that kind of remark. We can only assume that he believes the heavily centrist UK system, where there is nothing between London and the local councils, is the epitome of national government. What is federalism and why is it important to defend?
More British Than The British
This is what John Howard remarked on the radio;
"If we were starting Australia all over again, I wouldn't support having the existing state structure," he said. "I would actually support having a national government, and perhaps a series of regional governments having the power of, say, the Brisbane City Council (Australia's most powerful local government).Ask the Russians why centralism of power into the national capital is a bad thing. Putin has made many naked power grabs that have been anti-democratic in order to centralise executive power. Any collapse in the Australian federal system will see likely similar power plays for greater centralisation of power. It is the nature of politics that any individual who controls a political entity capable of collapsing more power to itself, will do so. A federal system recognizes that natural corruption and human fallibility by diffusing power into multiple entities. It protects against a singular collapse into tyranny and despotism. A heavily centralised power structure is much simpler for any tyrant or despot to usurp. Even with constitutional language denying that outcome, it is necessary to have multiple states of roughly equal power that are bound by a federation. Collapsing more power to Canberra is only making Australia more vulnerable to having our democracy undercut by tyranny. The Westminster System is weak in combating entropy to the centre. It gives far too much power to the informal executive, namely the Prime Minister. Removing the states would only increase the power of the Commonwealth Executive, at a time when the Commonwealth Government needs to have its wing's clipped and reminded of its constitutional boundaries and limitations. Dissolving the States and the adoption of a central government is not an option that should be considered. The federal parties that have promulgated and adopted this anti-federalism as their party platform should be censored for it. A Similar Remark From 2002 I covered a similar remark by John Howard from December of 2002 . Unfortunately the link of the interview is now dud. My comment on it was;
"But we're not starting Australia all over again, and the idea of abolishing state governments is unrealistic."
In a recent interview John Howard uttered the Hamiltonian words;My position on this has not changed from two years ago. I see great danger to liberty and democracy with the disposing of federalism as a guiding principle in Australian politics. Anti-Federalism At The Commonwealth Level John Howard is not alone in his wanting to dissolve the states. Previous to the last elections neither of the major factions, nor the two larger of the third parties had any support for federalism. The Greens and Democrats both had as their policies the dissolving of the states and replacing them regional governments that were smaller than the States. The Democrats have since removed the abolition of the states as a stated policy on their website. I have made hints that the democrats should move to the centre as a party platform. Most of their policies are very rational, and are aimed at increasing democratic participation and protecting liberty from government coercion and legislation. Being a spokes-party for federalism would be a strong step toward a return to the Don Chip - Steele Hall style of New Liberalism. The Greens have also removed the dissolving of the states from their policies on their website. I cannot find in my previous diaries on SSR or K5 where I mentioned their policies. I am backing up my memory here, and both had formal policies for removing the States and replacing them with regional governments such as the City Councils. The structure of the Australian Federal system is closer to the United States, than to Britains. We really must stop importing the British tradition of politics into Australia. It has served us ok, but Australia is not Britain. We are a federal system, not a big fat centralist system that sucks all power and money to itself. The Return of Federalism It is good to see discussion on Federalism return to Australian politics. It has become a recurring theme around the Australian political blogs. Andrew Norton of Catallaxy also published a paper for the CIS which comes down heavily in favour of Federalism in relation to Education policy. The umbilical chord of money between the Commonwealth and States is the largest inhibition to Federalist principles being returned. The Commonwealth's power to raise revenue has been used to undercut, usurp and steal the constitutional responsibilities of the States from them. The Commonwealth has been onerous in its coveting of State responsibilities. The States have been weak cuckolds in their collapse in the face of Commonwealth pressure. The Australia Constitution must contain explicit language which prohibits the Commonwealth Government raising money, and distributing money to other governments in the Australian Federation. The Commonwealth Government must also be constitutionally prohibited from under-writing or guaranteeing external loans that are for other Governments in the Federation. Governments do not tax for other governments . The under-writing of loans nearly led to civil war in 1932 when the Lang and Lyons government faced off over the Lang NSW Government refusing to pay the London Banks until they negotiated a better deal. The current furore over the States is that they aren't spending the GST monies that the Commonwealth raises in a way the Commonwealth Government wants. Money comes with strings attached. Goverments must be autonomous in their revenue raising. This requires constitutional support to ensure it is not breached by the Commonwealth. cam
"Well I suppose if we were starting Australia all over again, we'd only have... we mightn't have State Governments. But we're not starting Australia all over again. We've got to deal with the present system we have and we've all got to deal with history. And we have a State Government, we have Local Government, we have the Federal Government, and we've got to try and make the system work. I think we do have a lot of layers of Government in this country. "
I am not sure what to make of this, the Legislative in Australia has undue power as the Legislative makes up the Executive Cabinet which the Prime Minister heads. Removing State Government would make the Federal Government the dominant government arm and the Prime Minister the closest thing to a dictator or monarch possible within the Westminster system. The American Justice Gideon Tucker commented in 1866;
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."
In Australia it is especially a problem as the Executive and Legislative or so entwined through the Executive Cabinet. Without the States this singular entwining of the Executive into the Legislative would force a hegemony onto the States through legislation to be the same and offer the same services.
The states are sufficiently dissimilar that there are cultural differences between Sydney and Melbourne which are only 1000 kms apart. Queensland is different again and this doesn't take into account the regional area's views of themselves. It certainly isn't Sydney or Melbourne. Western Australia sees itself suitably different from Australia (Specifically the East) that it held a vote to secede in 1933. Many Western Australians still blame the Victorians flooding the Kalgoorlie minefields and skewing the vote .
The true problem in Australian governance is not the States, governance should occur at the local levels. The Federal Government is the problem, it is too large and has gathered too many responsibilities to itself that go beyond an explicit reading of the Australian Constitution. Other than the area's explicitly laid out in Section V of the Australian Constitution "Powers of the Parliament" there is little the Federal Government should be doing. The Australian Constitution states;
"V.107 Every power of the ... State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth ... continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth"
The Federal Government sought to neuter the states by making them dependent on Federal dollars. Initially this was done by underwriting state loans with overseas banks. This nearly led to Civil War in 1932 when the then Labor Government refused to pay any loans with London until their interest rates were renegotiated. The Federal Government had underwritten the loans and subsequently became involved through trying to first appropriate the money from NSW and then tax New South Welshmen directly. The Federal Government mobilized the Australian Military Forces in preparation and the NSW Police Force and NSW Militias armed themselves as well. The situation was defused when the Governor of NSW dismissed the Premier Jack Lang.
When Australia was an income tax based country the States had to barter and bargain with the Federal Government for budgets. Which was an effective manner by the Federal Government with which to keep the States in-line.
Another area is in gun laws. These are for the States to decide yet the Federal Government poked it's nose in and banned the import of machine guns such as the Kalishnikov and A16 through the constitutional granting of powers on trade. This is an area that is none of their business and an attempt to expand the powers of Federal Government. Gun Laws are the domain of each individual state to decide.
Comments