Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comments that “it is time to make each level of government sovereign in its own sphere”, signals that the States of Australia will have greater sovereignty in the future, an unprecedented move that contrasts against the progressive history of centralisation, cooperative federalism and Commonwealth supremacy that began in the latter half of the 20th century and has continued to this day. Within the framework of modern day federalism two issues are pertinent; the logistical and legislative balance of power between the two levels of government, exhibited in coordinate and cooperative federalism, and the Commonwealth-State financial relationship, namely vertical fiscal imbalance and horizontal fiscal equalisation. Through
…show more content…
The 1901 Australian Constitution was forged through the doctrine of coordinate federalism, the same model that Tony Abbott has championed in his statement, which envisages two independent spheres of legislative competence. However, as Brown states, “[i]n almost every aspect, the federation we have today is vastly different from the federation of 1901…” (2007:22). Certainly, the drafters of the Constitution could not have possibly accounted for, or envisaged, the evolution of Australia legally, economically or socially, and the challenges it would face. The necessity for policy coordination between both tiers of governments on complex matters and multi-State issues has resulted in the rise of cooperative federalism, and is illustrated in the establishment of inter-governmental agencies and bodies such as the Loan Council, Commonwealth Grants Commission, and Council of Australian …show more content…
Driven by the High Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, particularly section 51, among others, it allows the Commonwealth to legislate on matters that would otherwise be State responsibilities. These powers were first expanded in the High Court’s ruling on the Dam case (1983), and demonstrates an affirmation of the cooperative relationship that the Commonwealth and States require to function effectively, but more importantly, act responsibly. Further cases have served only to bolster the Commonwealth’s ability to overrule States in areas of policy not normally within their legislative reach. Woodward (2010: 163) surmises this “Since 1901, the role of the Commonwealth as the national government has become increasingly important [and dominant], both domestically and in Australia’s relations with the rest of world - and to a large extent this has been at the expense of the States”. The power of the Commonwealth to regulate of a wide range of matters where it has no explicit constitutional power such as health, education, transport, the media and universities was affirmed
The 1901 Australian Constitution was forged through the doctrine of coordinate federalism, the same model that Tony Abbott has championed in his statement, which envisages two independent spheres of legislative competence. However, as Brown states, “[i]n almost every aspect, the federation we have today is vastly different from the federation of 1901…” (2007:22). Certainly, the drafters of the Constitution could not have possibly accounted for, or envisaged, the evolution of Australia legally, economically or socially, and the challenges it would face. The necessity for policy coordination between both tiers of governments on complex matters and multi-State issues has resulted in the rise of cooperative federalism, and is illustrated in the establishment of inter-governmental agencies and bodies such as the Loan Council, Commonwealth Grants Commission, and Council of Australian …show more content…
Driven by the High Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, particularly section 51, among others, it allows the Commonwealth to legislate on matters that would otherwise be State responsibilities. These powers were first expanded in the High Court’s ruling on the Dam case (1983), and demonstrates an affirmation of the cooperative relationship that the Commonwealth and States require to function effectively, but more importantly, act responsibly. Further cases have served only to bolster the Commonwealth’s ability to overrule States in areas of policy not normally within their legislative reach. Woodward (2010: 163) surmises this “Since 1901, the role of the Commonwealth as the national government has become increasingly important [and dominant], both domestically and in Australia’s relations with the rest of world - and to a large extent this has been at the expense of the States”. The power of the Commonwealth to regulate of a wide range of matters where it has no explicit constitutional power such as health, education, transport, the media and universities was affirmed