The Malaise of Federalism: Comparative Reflections on Commonwealth–State Relations

Abstract

The High Court's decision in the 'Work Choices' case 1 expanding further the scope of the Commonwealth's enumerated powers is the latest reminder of the highly centralised nature of Australian federalism. The division of powers traditionally forming the essence of a federal system has become increasingly difficult to discern and the roles and responsibilities of the two levels of government have become entangled. While for a good part of Australia's history divided jurisdiction was deplored as an obstacle to progress in government, today the decay of the system is most likely to be lamented. Discussion of options for reform presupposes an understanding of the forces that have led to the present condition. This article examines the Australian experience in a broader comparative and historical perspective and suggests that those forces are endemic and substantial.

Fiscal federalism and American exceptionalism: why is there no federal equalisation system in the United States?

“…Federal systems are often created to manage societies that are linguistically or ethnically heterogeneous. Australia's High Court, for example, has rendered many important decisions that contributed to the centralisation of federalism in that country (Fenna 2007). Belgian federalism, for instance, has been shaped by Flemish pressures for greater decentralisation since federal structures were created in the 1970s (Deschouwer 2009).…”

Dilemmas of Federalism and the Dynamics of the Australian Case (联邦制的困境以及澳大利亚联邦制动态)

“…Much has happened in the world since the pre‐ or early‐industrial times when the original federations were formed and their governance systems have been subject to stress and strain accordingly. In particular, when the first federations were designed, far fewer responsibilities of government had a significant national dimension and allowed for a far greater diversity of practices than is accepted today (Fenna ). Thus there has been an endemic pressure for centralisation .…”

“…Because most business was conducted within the boundaries of each State and each State was regarded as a political community, all other matters, including regulatory responsibilities and service provision were left in the hands of the States. Such minimalist arrangements were intended to protect and maintain the autonomy of the constituent units — though, for reasons to do with and social changes realities and weaknesses of design, this was not how things turned out (Fenna ; Hollander and Patapan ; Parkin and Anderson ).…”

Leading from Below: How Sub‐National Governments Influence Policy Agendas

“…National governments are the immediate beneficiaries of the thickening of economic, cultural and other relationships – desired or deplored – that characterise globalisation (Fenna 2007; Kelemen 2002; Posner 2007; Hollander and Patapan 2007). National governments are able to focus on economic management, trade and diplomacy, can subscribe to international agreements that supplement, re‐interpret or supersede domestic law, and are able to pursue substantive policy agendas in which they can claim major roles.…”

“…Federal government initiatives can displace but not eliminate state government roles. The history of incremental centralism through re‐interpretation of the constitution by courts, assertion of power where a choice is possible, central fiscal strength, application of international treaties through the foreign affairs powers, and changes in the world itself, is undoubtedly strong (Parkin and Anderson 2007; Fenna 2007; Hollander and Patapan 2007). However, federal governments that overreach themselves face electoral retribution.…”