Federation, as originally conceived in the constitution has changed considerably over the past century. Critically examine why these changes were considered necessary, and how they were possible given the constitution has changes little since federation?
When Australia’s constitution was officiated in 1901, it was decided that our country would become a federation. At the time, this was seen as the best way in which to balance the power between the state and commonwealth governments, help maintain each states autonomy whilst at the same time ensuring a cohesive and nation (Galigan, 1995, Bannon, J & Centre, AN 1992). Over the past century however, a combination of social and economic catalysts as well as initial flaws in constitutional construction
…show more content…
Nevertheless, constitutional form and operational reality have altered continuously throughout the past century and as such Australia has undergone varying functions of federalism concurrent with the social and political climate of the time (Watts 2006). The first shift from a co-ordinate model of federalism was catalysed by the economic implications placed on Australia as a result of WWI, coupled with the 1920 High court ruling that the constitution should not be granted any higher authority than that of any other statute initially resulting in the state and the federal governments to adopt a more cooperative form of federal identity through the tied grants. Such global economic demands could not have been predicted, and it could be argued that coordinate federalism was essential during the war periods, regardless of such, it became a catalyst for the federal government to obtain more money that was not constitutionally entitled to them (Head, …show more content…
The federal government increased their tax rates to generate more revenue and proposed to reimburse states somewhat for this, only if the states surrendered their levy on their income taxes. This was the tipping point in terms of fiscal imbalance, to totally fiscal dominance and a centralizing of governmental power that resulted in the federal governments authority protruding beyond that which was constitutionally entitled. The federal government was now lawfully authoritative over domestic finances, a residual power originally designated to the states.
Argument 4: Despite public rejections of any amendments towards a centralized federal government, the federal governments succeeded in centralizing their fiscal power in the mid 19th century and towards the end of the same century, began to permeate their authority further into political and social state jurisdiction, with the most infamous cases being the Tasmanian dam case 1983 (Mercer,
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
Therefore, it is clear that a monarchy in Australia should remain. Even though he led the Republican Movement for the 1999 referendum at the time, it has been stated explicitly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull that a republican Australia will only occur if there is widespread public momentum for the change. Thus, there is today not enough interest in changing our system of government, so why bother with it if the people do not want it? Becoming a republic requires constitutional change, and thus means two-thirds of people in a majority of states must be supportive for a monarch to be replaced by a republic. Traditionally, senior citizens have not been in support of topics such as a republican movement; thus, those who emigrated from England and the United Kingdom would predominantly reject a republic. Hence, the younger generations in society are the citizens in which usually are more divisive or willing to all options. “Many young Australians just don’t see the point of conducting a referendum.” These young Australians also hold the belief that by becoming a republic, the financial detriment will prove to be far too much of a burden and are not in favour of the switch to an untried system from one in which functions effectively now. Moreover, since Australia has always been with the Commonwealth, and having been required
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
The main for a republic is that for Australia to be truly independent, it is essential to sever the ties with the British monarch. Currently the only person who can become the official head of state is the eldest male heir to the British throne. A republic would allow for equality in this respect, as any Australian would be eligible for the positi...
The first advantage towards Australia from federation that will be discussed in this essay is that federation helped Australia’s economy. Prior to federation the continent of Australia was broke up into six small economies, each a colony. Federation meant that Australia would become a bigger and better economy therefore other governments, particularly Brittan would be more willing to grant Australia loans and invest within it, opposed to doing so with smaller and separate colonies. Federation also had an effect on the tariffs. Prior to federation business people had to pay tariffs but under federation the tariffs would be abolished and free trade would make cheaper production costs and open up many more business opportunities. In this sense, Federation should have been a necessity for Australia due to all the finan...
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
In my opinion, the relationship between the Federal government and the States is unclear whether which institution has the authority to implement legislations. The vagueness of the American constitution particularly in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution that quote ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The ambiguous of the American Constitution may be the main cause of the over power of Federal government.
Prior to the New Deal, the United States practiced the traditional interpretation of dual federalism. The two forms of government were sovereign and had different parts to play, in the life of the American citizen. Under the ‘expressed powers’, the national government was granted various roles. These were the powers to collect taxes, coinage, declaration of war and regulation of commerce. However, the national government’s role in the economy was limited to interstate commerce. The tenth amendment to the constitution reserved these powers to the state governments. This in effect ensured that the state governments controlled most aspects of the economy. Federal institutions were limited to ensuring and harmonizing cooperation, between different states, on economic matters.
judicial authority to arbitrate between states. The Congress denied the power to levy taxes. The
In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates.
Federalism is essentially the system of government in which a constitution divides power between a central government and regional governments (Lowi, A48). It, by definition, does not necessarily favor dividing the power in a particular way that would give more power to either the states or the federal government. When first formed, the American central government was very weak. Though the Constitution strengthened it, the states still had most of the power. Over time more and more power has been given to the United States’ federal government.
Federalism is the form of government in the united states where separate states are united under one central authority but with specific powers granted to both components in a written constitution .Patrick Henry coined the word in 1788 when, during the Virginia ratification convention debates over the proposed U.S Constitution ,he angrily asked, “Is this federalism?.’’ In 1787 the constitution replaced it with another, more balanced, version that has worked for over two centuries. During the time, however the history of federalism has been incessantly disrupted by a constant debate between those who wanted to enlarge the central government and those who demanded that states’ rights be strictly respected and even expanded.
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
Reinventing American Federalism. Issues of Democracy: Electronic Journals of the U.S. Information Agency. April, 1997 Volume 2, Issue 2.
In spite of the prominence of the states in everyday life, the most demanding public policy questions former to the American Civil War involved discussions over the possibility of national power with most Americans believing it should remain partial. Yet federalism was still the center of political arguments. The Constitution did not report if states did nor did not reserve any remaining sovereignty in the powers given to the national government. The fact that the states were much more capable in accomplishing governmental purposes adequately t...