The centralisation referendums: do seem to skew the impression that it is difficult to change the constitution, when it is better explained that the people were wisely rejecting the expansion in scope of the federal government.
It also appears that due to the inability of the federal government to expand via referendum, they found other means to increase centralisation. As you mentioned centralising tax was one method, the other is the High Court adopting a centralist doctrine (most high court appointees are political not specialist) and aiding the expansion of the federal government at every step. The meaning of excise being a good example and the corporations power another.
It is interesting to note that even sixty years ago Workchoices probably would have required a referendum to go ahead. In the current environment with the House, Senate and High Court predisposed to federal power, there was no thought for the need. IIRC the Senate judged it constitutional though NSW, WA and Tasmania are challenging it in the courts.
cam
Comments