And Governments don't let other Governments tax for them. The money always comes with strings attached. Peter Costello is now telling the States how they should use the GST money that the Federal Government is collecting for them. One of the states should be saying; "I am not accepting the GST, and you cannot charge the GST in the state". We probably need a Lang vs Lyons showdown to return Australia to some semblance of a Federalist system again.

Federalism

The basis for Federalism is that there are multiple political units. These consist of a centre unit and sub-units. Each of these units, including the centre is politically independent. The purpose of a Constitution is to define the roles of the centre unit and sub-units so that they do not conflict.

Australia is falling into entropy - collapsing all power into the centre . Our system is not protecting the sub-units from encroachment of the Federal Government. Over a century of a Constitutional Westminster system, the Federal Government has successfully coveted more and more State responsibilities to themselves. They have worked it so that they are the principle taxing authority for not only themselves, but the States as well. The GST is the most recent form of this.

The question needs to be asked whether a Constitutional Westminster system is capable of combating a collapse to the central political unit. Is a largely informal Constitution capable of protecting the States from the Federal Government's plundering their responsibilities and taxation authority? From one hundred and four years of Australian Federal Government, the answer is no.

When Australia becomes a Republic, it will not be enough to constitutionally shuffle in a few words here and there, and delete a couple of other words along the way. The system itself is bereft. Explicit language must be added to protect minority rights. Explicit language added to ensure there is a clear demarcation between Federal Government and State Government. Language so clear that an activist Judicial is not necessary. Finally, the responsibilities of the Prime Minister must be recognized and laid out. The Prime Minister is a constitutional submarine at the moment.

When You Tax Me You Tax You

The GST is bringing in large amounts of money. Seemingly more each year, enough that in the last budget the Federal Government was bragging how much money they were raising from it for the states. So what does Costello want the States to do?

Mr Costello said he would insist at the meeting that the states implement a second wave of GST-related tax cuts by abolishing or reducing six stamp duties, many of which are hidden in the prices paid by consumers.

They include stamp duties on:

  • Non-residential conveyancing;
  • Leases;
  • Mortgages, bonds, debentures and other loan securities;
  • Credit, instalment purchase and rental arrangements;
  • Cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes;
  • Unquoted marketable securities.

The whole thing about being the Treasurer of the Federal Government is that you can lower taxes at the Federal level. You don't need to press the States to lower taxes for you. It is likely this is just factional politics, with the Federal Government seeking to divert attention from the interest rate rise - ironically a central election promise.

But it does not change the fact that no government should accept tax monies from another government. No government should allow another government to tax for it. Once they do, they are no longer a politically independent unit. When this occurs in a Federal system, it is no longer a Federal system, but rather a centralised sovereign system with some outposts of political obstinence waiting to be cleaned up by the central authority.

Entropy to the central political unit must be defeated at all levels.

cam
More reading: Tags
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments

  • avocadia . # .
    Enough:

    I was writing something in a similar vein this week - lost the text due to a brain malfunction. Basically wondering when someone is going to say enough to the Federal Government; you can\'t have any more power.

    Latham proposed taking over the hospital system (or was it just the emergency system) and Abbott has been aching to take on aspects of health from the states. They\'ve been pushing the envelope with education; the idea of a federally mandated high school certificate curriculum was just the latest. Now we have the push to take over completely industrial relations - as opposed to the slippery-slope-creating "altenate" Federal system. And finally Costello, now content with distributing GST money raised in New South Wales to Queensland - and others - now decides to dictate the way New South Wales - and others- can raise their own money.

    I have noticed that I always seem to be talking about the Howard government. Just to be clear, this is not partisanship; I keep any partinsanship on my own site :- ) It is more a reflection that I only became interested in politics post 1996.

    Having said that, Howard seems to have abandoned the Liberal parties claim to respect state\'s rights. Enough! You cannot have any more power. Respect the constitution; stop treating it like toilet paper.
  • Partisanship: I had the surreal experience last Sunday of watching the newly elected Geoff Gallop spend 10 minutes defending federalism on Third Way (devolution) grounds.  After the ad break Peter Costello edged his way towards stealing a few more of the remaining powers away from the states.  In response, Laurie Oakes suggested he was a Whitlamite.  \"You know how to hurt a man Laurie.\"

    It\'s depressingly obvious why it\'s happening, though.  It\'s the same reason John Kerry backed states rights, against his parties tradition, while George Bush supports an anti-gay marriage amendment.  Politicians, in the normal run of things, try to accumulate more power towards whatever institution they happen to be running.
  • cam . # .
    Definately non-partisan: A Latham government would be as anti-federalist as a Howard government. All majority factions in Federal Government have been anti-federalist. Fisher had the first stable majority government and one of his orders of business was to put forward four Constitutional amendments increasing Commonwealth power for trade/commerce, industrial relations and management of monopolies.

    It has been pretty endemic throughout the history of Australian federal government which suggests it is a flaw in the system. Either as a representative model, or as a system of government which has fallen under the sway of disciplined majority factions.

    The states and federal judicial arm have also sung the anti-federalist tune as well. The states have given up many of their responsibilities willingly and the judicial has supported the encroachment of the Federal government beyond the genuine and explicit constitutional boundaries.

    At this rate we will end up like Britain with one monolithic central government in Canberra and no states/provinces to speak of - just local government at the town level. Given that a federalist model is to diffuse power between a central authority and regional authorities, that is not cool at all, and a betrayal of the what legitimacy for a federalist system there was in 1901.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    You back in Australia?: If so, I demand a \"State of China\" article/diary! The public (me) needs to know.

    cam
  • avocadia . # .
    I wonder how it came to pass: You\'d think it would be the other way around. After reading Tyranny of Distance I came away wondering how states isolated even from each other could have given up so much to a central government. And the Federal level seemed so fragile for the first decade; governments falling over in a stiff breeze. In those circumstances, how did the states not entrench more power?
  • cam . # .
    Just like the US Civil War: Decided that the federal government was the prominent authority (effectively over-throwing Virginian power), the Lang vs Lyons showdown decided in favour of the feds as well. Short of Civil War, but only because of the Governor\'s implied powers. Game cam down in favour of Lyons, rather than Lang. By sacking Lang he was ensuring that federal authority was met. Ten years later and Curtin makes the federal government the first in line to tax income over the states. You could argue that the slippery slope started when Lang lost to Lyons in the 1930s.

    cam
  • Back in Brisbane for now: Got derailed by a welcome home flu and various catch up things.  Have a few notes in mind I\'ll have to work on between job applications.
  • cam . # .
    Please enjoy your flight: Airline flights are a mixing bowl of germs through the recirculated air. We have been laid low by airline flu twice when flying back to Au.

    Look forward to your observations ...

    cam
  • avocadia . # .
    Cynic :- ):

    Politicians, in the normal run of things, try to accumulate more power towards whatever institution they happen to be running.
  • cam . # .
    Sounds more like a truism [nt]:
  • avocadia . # .
    It\'s a truism for People: