The Australian Federation: A Story of the Centralization of Power

Saunders, Cheryl; Foster, Michelle

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7398-1_3

Cheryl Saunders⁵ &
Michelle Foster⁵

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 28))

2295 Accesses
6 Citations
1 Altmetric

Abstract

The Australian federation has evolved since 1901 to become a highly centralized system with significant harmonization and unification as a result. This has largely been achieved by an approach to Constitutional interpretation by the High Court that has favoured a broad reading of the enumerated heads of Commonwealth power in the Constitution, especially the corporations and external affairs powers. The Commonwealth has also achieved financial supremacy through a series of High Court decisions that have permitted the Commonwealth to take over the field of income taxation, and interpreted the Commonwealth’s exclusive power to impose excise duties in a way that excludes the states from taxing any commodities. In addition to the influence of judicial interpretation, there is in Australia a high degree of co-operation among the states, and between the Commonwealth and the states, which has resulted in consistent or uniform legislation in a number of key areas of regulation. Despite a contrary recent development in the context of federal executive power, the centralization of power in Australia appears to be an inexorable trend that will likely continue well into the twenty-first century.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Australian Constitution, ss 52, 90, 114.
2.
The most cited case for this is D’Emden v Pedder (1904) 1 CLR 91.
3.
See, e.g., R. v. Barger (1908) 6 CLR 41; Huddart Parker & Co Pty Ltd v. Moorehead (1909) 8 CLR 330.
4.
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129 (‘Engineers’ Case’).
5.
Jumbunna Coal Mine NL v. Victorian Coal Miners’ Association (1908) 6 CLR 309.
6.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1. The most recent example of the High Court’s categorical rejection of federalism arguments as a potential restriction on Commonwealth power is the ‘Workchoices’ decision: see NSW v. the Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1.
7.
West v. Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1937) 56 CLR 657; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Official Liquidator of EO Farley Ltd (1940) 63 CLR 278.
8.
Melbourne Corporation v. Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31.
9.
Queensland Electricity Commission v. Commonwealth (1985) 159 CLR 192; Re Australian Education Union; Ex parte Victoria (1995) 184 CLR 188; Victoria v. Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416 (‘Industrial Relations Act Case’); Austin v. Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185; Clarke v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 240 CLR 272.
10.
Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1; Williams v Commonwealth [2012] HCA 23; (2012) 288 ALR 410.
11.
Australian Constitution s 90.
12.
Williams v the Commonwealth [2012] HCA 23; (2012) 288 ALR 410. See also Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1.
13.
Australian Constitution s 96.
14.
First Uniform Tax Case (1942) 65 CLR 373; Second Uniform Tax case (1957) 99 CLR 575.
15.
Australian Constitution s 90.
16.
Australian Constitution s 107.
17.
Australian Constitution s 109.
18.
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237.
19.
Lange v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997) 189 CLR 520. All six states enacted uniform defamation laws which commenced on 1 January 2006.
20.
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531.
21.
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51.
22.
See for example, Betfair Pty Ltd v Western Australia (2008) 234 CLR 418.
23.
Australian Constitution s 96.
24.
http://www.coag.gov.au/the_federal_financial_relations_framework
25.
http://www.coag.gov.au/about_coag
26.
Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dredge “Willemstad” (1976) 136 CLR 529.
27.
Australian Uniform Credit Laws Agreement 1993, Recital B(a)(i) and (ii).
28.
Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994.
29.
http://www.pcc.gov.au/uniform/National\%20Uniform\%20Legislation\%20table.pdf
30.
Australian Constitution s 51 (xxxvii).
31.
Agreement Relating to Mutual Recognition, 1992, Recital A.
32.
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89.
33.
Submission to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, House of Representatives, 31st March 2005.
34.
Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth), s 21(1)(d).
35.
Ibid, s 21(1)(e).
36.
See the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The Acts are in most respects identical.
37.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas); Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).
38.
A subject on the Law of Intergovernmental Relations is, however, offered at Masters level in at least one Law School.
39.
Australian Constitution s 51(xx).
40.
See also the International Criminal Court (Consequential Amendments) Act 2002, which amended the Criminal Code Act 1995 and other legislation as a consequence of the International Criminal Court Act 2002.
41.
See e.g., Section 16 of the Victorian Constitution.
42.
Mabo v. Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1.
43.
See R.G. Mortensen, Private International Law in Australia (Butterworths, 2006) at 23.
44.
New South Wales v. Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1.
45.
New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1990) 169 CLR 482.
46.
Austin v. Commonwealth (2003) 215 CLR 185.
47.
Australian Constitution s 96.
48.
Australian Constitution s 53.
49.
First Uniform Tax Case (1942) 65 CLR 373; Second Uniform Tax case (1957) 99 CLR 575.
50.
Australian Constitution s 90.
51.
Ha v NSW (1997) 189 CLR 465.
52.
Australian Constitution s 94.
53.
New South Wales v. Commonwealth (1908) 7 CLR 179.
54.
A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 (Cth), Schedule 2.
55.
See Personal Property Securities Act (2009) (Cth).
56.
See for example, Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1.
57.
This has been relied upon frequently in recent years: see most recently Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, University Square, 185 Pelham St., Carlton, 3035, VIC, Australia
Cheryl Saunders & Michelle Foster

Authors

Cheryl Saunders
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Michelle Foster
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl Saunders .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Eric Stein Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Daniel Halberstam
Hessel E. Yntema Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Mathias Reimann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Saunders, C., Foster, M. (2014). The Australian Federation: A Story of the Centralization of Power. In: Halberstam, D., Reimann, M. (eds) Federalism and Legal Unification. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7398-1_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7398-1_3
Published: 28 September 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7397-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7398-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics