Christian Kerr comments on the recent COAG meeting:
But if the premiers want movement on these issues, why do they need to wait for the Commonwealth? Why don't the states take a lead?He is absolutely correct. Even with the fiscal imbalance there is nothing budgetary wise stopping the States ignoring the national government and making/implementing policy. (more)
Victoria has been dominated by Liberal and anti-Labor parties for most of its electoral history. It is only in the last twenty years that Labor has become competitive in the state.
The state was sufficiently anti-Labor that there was a competitive electoral market for many non-labor parties such as the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Country Party, the UAP, the Electoral Reform Party (which held a minority government for a few days) and the Liberal and Country party. The latter held government for 27 years until the Liberals were able to win government on their own in 1972. (more)
The state was sufficiently anti-Labor that there was a competitive electoral market for many non-labor parties such as the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Country Party, the UAP, the Electoral Reform Party (which held a minority government for a few days) and the Liberal and Country party. The latter held government for 27 years until the Liberals were able to win government on their own in 1972. (more) adam : Your colour scheme is still doing my head in. It's like the political science Stroop effect.
cam : Yeh I got them back to front originally in the series so have had to continue them being back to front.
Like South Australia, Tasmania has been pretty competitive other than one period of 30+ years of dominance between 1934 and 1969 by the Labor Party.
Aynsley Kellow argues that during Labor's hold on Tasmanian politics between 1934 and 1982 the politics were "distributive rather than redistributive in flavour, what Lowi calls patronage politics." State sponsored development for industrialisation, mineral extraction and hydro-electric power led to electoral success. (more)
Aynsley Kellow argues that during Labor's hold on Tasmanian politics between 1934 and 1982 the politics were "distributive rather than redistributive in flavour, what Lowi calls patronage politics." State sponsored development for industrialisation, mineral extraction and hydro-electric power led to electoral success. (more) South Australia has been a very competitive state between Labor and the Liberals.
Other than one period of Liberal Country League dominance for over thirty years, South Australia has seen the frequent switch between governments of differing parties. (more)
Other than one period of Liberal Country League dominance for over thirty years, South Australia has seen the frequent switch between governments of differing parties. (more) Clinton Barnes : The biggest precursor for the Democrats, however, was the Australia Party, which is how they managed to have national appeal and significance.
Still, the heartland was South Australia, although today party activity is strongest in the more populated states on the eastern seaboard.
Queensland has had long periods of party hegemony interspersed with short cycles of volatility and electoral competition.
I think it is safe to say that the periods where the parties are competitive are short and don't seem to last beyond a party establishing itself as the dominant party of government. (more)
I think it is safe to say that the periods where the parties are competitive are short and don't seem to last beyond a party establishing itself as the dominant party of government. (more) Felix the Cassowary : That's exactly what John Wanna said, isn't it? If you're trying to draw a contrast I don't understand it; if you're trying to emphasise his point your expression to do that is unusal.
There is no valid reason of governance or constitutional allowance for the federal government to put a plebiscite on the Queensland council redistricting during the federal election. It is outside the national governments jurisdiction and further "the mergers will be law when any ballots are held".
I fully agree with the argument that the councils should have home rule and the legislative ability to construct their own charters rather than have the state government do it, but this is nothing to do with the national government. (more)
Power politics dominates the international scene and the US as the most powerful nation on the planet plays power politics hard. Power politics is also how the vertical power balance in a federal system is conducted. For instance in the US California tends to be very independent of the US national government. This is due to a mix of size, economic power and ability to raise revenue to support independent policy. So much so that Californian policy ends up influencing federal policies.
Australia has a far more centralised federal system which despite NSW's dominance of GDP at 33% has not translated into independent policy and political power since WWII. The main imbalance is tax, but a nationalist high court has helped as has a national government selective in its fights. (more)
Tony G : Is the NT government a sovereign government like the states? I thought it is a devolved parliament. Which in essence is a sub-governmental unit of the national government that can be created or abolished.
Could the states cancel the income tax by agreement, especially as they are all labour?
cam : Tony, I think the NT is supported by commonwealth legislation which is why the national government can muck with them and cancel their laws.
One the issue of incomes tax, via the wayback machine:
I suspect many readers assume that the Great Commonwealth Tax Grab of the 1940s is somehow constitutionally-based and irreversible. That simply isn't the case. The taxation power is a concurrent one. The Commonwealth scheme relied in considerable part on the defence power in wartime conditions to allow it to confiscate State tax office personnel and premises to make it effectively impossible for the States to continue collecting their own income taxes. That power wouldn't be available today. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the States collecting their own income taxes (or taxes on services). The reality is that, despite a lot of conspicuous, confected indignation, it has mostly suited the States quite nicely to allow the Comonwealth to be the central tax collector. But there's been a tacit federal compact whereby the States cede that role to the Commonwealth as long as it hands sufficient revenue back in a transparent and fair manner (either through Commonwealth Grants Commision or GST formulae), and as long as the Commonwealth doesn't use its power to make tied grants under section 96 so oppressively as to utterly deny the States roles as even vaguely co-equal and sovereign federal partners.
cam : Yep, the NT's constitution is a commonwealth act: Northern Territory Self (Government) Act 1978
From the ABS is the population statistics for the states. The 2007 stats haven't been released yet.
(more)
(more) I am not a fan of the GST. I consider it an anti-federalist tax. I would accept it if it was funding the federal government, but since it is redistributed to the states, and not one for one, it breaks the principle of a government only raising the revenue it needs to support itself and nothing more. (more)
Decentralisation and local autonomy are important principles. The rules, regulations and restriction that govern Local Government are currently all done at the State level. The current issue over uniform
proportional representation for Local Government in Western Australia
is a good argument for Local Government to determine these things themselves.
(more)
