|
July 14, 2007
Martin Leet has a good paragraph on a centralizing High Court in Australia in this article archived at the Brisbane Institute:
Through the High Court's decisions over the last century one can draw a clear trend line. Initially, the Constitution set out a system of government in which most political authority was vested in the States. The powers of the Commonwealth were defined largely by a set of provisions under s 51 (such as the arbitration power, the corporations power, and the external affairs power), while the States were to have all other legislative responsibility. The doctrine of 'reserved powers' articulated this federal vision. Now, the Constitution reads in such a way that the States are better described, not as the main centres of political power, but as administrative agencies and service deliverers under ommonwealth control.
That's how many see federalism today. For them the centralisation of power makes sense from the point of view of values such as efficiency, consistency and security. But power can also become too concentrated, both for those values, and for other ideals such as democracy, liberty, flexibility and diversity.
|
