The Australian Federal Government has broken its constitutional bounds and is actively coveting the States responsibilities. The recent election campaign put the states on notice that the Liberal Government was going to take over education while the Labor health policy took health funding and administration from the States.

The basis for a Federation is that the power resides in the States with the small area of common interest being ceded to a Federal Government. These are normally nothing more than defence, international trade, inter-state trade, border control and immigration. In the 21st Century, the Australian Federal Government has crashed through these limited responsibilities.

The Federal Government has done this through taxing for the states and consequently controlling their funding. Coupled with that has been the meekness of the States and the inherent structural flaw in the Westminster in its inability to combat entropy of power to the centre.

Dissolve The States

The anti-federalist meme has sufficiently implanted itself into the polity that most major parties openly talk about removing the states as regional government and having all state responsibilities transferred to Canberra. The Democrats and Greens both have this as a stated policy goal on their websites.

John Howard in an interview in 2003 mentioned that if Australia was done again, then it wouldn't include the states. Currently all state governments are Labor, rather than his Liberal government, it may have been politics talking but Howard's education policy in the 2004 election allowed Parent and Teacher Organizations to bypass the States and appeal directly to Canberra for funding.

The Labor Party was no better, their health policy having won the acceptance of the states for the federal government's take over of that responsibility ;

Federal Labor has won endorsement from all state and territory governments for the takeover, which is likely to be seen as a trial run for a total takeover of health by the Commonwealth.

This notion has gone beyond the political parties and been accepted by the general population. A post-election letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald contained these words;

The best reform both major parties could now work towards is the abolition of state governments. The efficiencies generated could massively improve all the hospitals, schools, water supply and public transport infrastructure where the current state administrations have long proved themselves spectacular failures.

William S Lloyd, Denistone, October 10.

The Federal Government has effectively coveted and controlled the States and their funding sufficiently for this "dissolve the states" meme to have been planted firmly in the population.

Taxatious Government

Previous to the John Curtin government in World War II, the States used to have income tax rolls and raise their revenue as they need through that. Part of the battle between the federal Lyons government and NSW Lang government was over the income tax rolls which Lang had hidden from the federal government.

With World War II the Curtin government created legislation that gave the federal government the first bite of the income tax pie. The constitutionality of this legislation was challenged by South Australia and Western Australia, but the High Court upheld Curtin's grab. This meant the federal government could become the primary recipient of income tax, making it politically impossible for the states to tax income.

This led to the federal government taxing for the states, an abominable thought in government. A government is only supposed to tax to maintain itself, it is not supposed to tax so much that it hands out the extra tax to the six states and two territories. This is completely anti-federalist.

GST

The Howard Government changed the system from government grants to the States from the federal governments income tax gathering to the GST. This is a nation wide 10% levy on all goods and services. The 2003 federal budget actually bragged how the Liberal Government had brought in more tax money that ever for the States. Once again, a government is only supposed to tax for "just" what it needs and no more. After that, it becomes theft from the individuals.

One of the main issues with the federal government granting money or collecting money for the states is the number of strings that it comes attached with. The Federal Government through its control of the purse and the flow of revenue can quietly manipulate where the money is to go to, punishing the states and programs that disagree with it.

The collecting of revenue for the states also helps in making them see superfluous and insignificant. If the federal government is "propping" them up by handing them tax money, then they can be construed as a drain on the federal government, rather than the federal government making naked power grabs for the states responsibilies.

Under Australia's current anti-federalist system, the federal government is open in its power plays for the states responsibilities with the obvious (and stated goal) being to centre all legislative power in the federal government. If this was part of a Swiss like Canton system it may be acceptable, but it is more like the English system where there is one big massive honking federal government in London and nothing else as a barrier to the overt centrism of the British system.

The Weakness of the Westminster System

The Westminster system is a political hack, it is a patch to a monarchical system that centres absolute power in the monarch. To get around this political reality of British heritage, the British politicians of the 1700's began to route power around the monarch through an Executive embedded in the Legislative arm of government.

While this was an improvement over the absolute power of a monarch dominated parliamentary system, it left a lot to be desired in the very necessary separation of powers (that even Joh Bjelke-Peterson failed to understand). The Washington system which was developed in the late part of the 18thC contained a far better understanding and constitutionally mandated separation of powers, placing the Executive outside of the legislative and under the revue of the legislative.

The British system contains London, and more recently the Scottish parliament, but below that national government is the local councils. Britain has no notion of federalism as it pertains to colonies, states or provinces allowing a small subset of their powers and responsibilities to be maintained by a federal government. The Westminster system was created in this environment.

By contrast the Washington system was created with the reality that the power lay with the States, and ratifying the confederation of the then colonies in the United States was not an easy manner. Many smaller and southern states opposed such a union as they saw their power and authority being subject to the potential tyranny of a federal government.

Even with the grafting of a popularly elected Senate on the Westminster system by the "Bearded Men" in 1901, the Australian Wash-minster system is more Westminster than Washington and contains all the problems of no separation of power between the Executive and Legislative. This leads to an increased rate of entropy and pressure placed on the conventions by the ongoing stress placed on the systems by governments seeking absolute power.

The Westminster is not strong enough a system to stop this rot and consequently the States it seems will eventually be consumed by the federal desire for the states responsibilities.

More Reading on Anti-federalism

• Anti-Federalism
• State Dissolution
• GST
• Westminster
• The Anti-Federalist
• Can The Cockroaches Survive a Nuclear Option?
• More Anti-Federalism
• Political Retribution
• Quick, Before We End Up Like London
• When an Excise is not an Excise
• Who Is The Political Opposition?
• Co-opting Curricula Through Historical Emergency
• GST: The Windfall From Overtaxation
• Anti-federalist Education