The Tension between Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces in Australia - Essay Example

 FEDERATIONS: CENTRIPETAL AND CENTRIFUGAL FORCES OUTLINE Australia was set up as a decentralized federation, established as a Commonwealth of independent States which gathered together under the common umbrella of the Common wealth of Australia Constitution Act that originated in the 1900s. But the 1986 Act has introduced more wide ranging powers to Parliament and the Senate that have resulted in several States surrendering their autonomy to the Commonwealth. Forces of globalization are however, reversing this trend and contributing towards an increasingly centripetal approach, where the Australian Federation is being viewed as a vehicle whereby individual State aims and objectives can be attained. This Paper explores the tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces in Australia, including specific examples of Australasia and Queensland. The Australian federation: centrifugal vs. Centripetal Forces Introduction: The Australian Commonwealth of States was set up in response to the need among the people to withstand and oppose the forces of colonialism, as symbolized by the rule of Britain. The authors of the Common wealth of Australia Constitution were Chief Justice Griffith and Justices Barton and O'Connor, who had intended that the Constitution of Australia should exist on its own merit and not merely as a British statute.1 The Australian Commonwealth Act of 1900 has accorded Federal powers to the Commonwealth such that Constitutional control of the Privy Council is retained, while central powers are reduced to their narrowest limits and in this manner, has made it possible for the States to unite under one common umbrella of central defense to proclaim national independence in the future.2 The Australian Federation: The Federation of six Australian States was formulated with the knowledge that the Commonwealth and the States were in and of themselves, sovereign states with their own spheres of authority. In formulating the Australian federation, the founders were not anxious to toe the Canadian line which was deemed too centralist and were more inclined to favor the loose administrative style of the American Federation that was more decentralized3. Through this, the Commonwealth was conferred with the powers to maintain the peace and to make laws for peace, order and for the good of the Commonwealth in all the areas that had been designated under Section 51 of the Constitution, whereby the States were permitted to retain all their powers, with the exception of those powers that were wrested away, for the common good of the Commonwealth. Such areas included defense and foreign affairs. Areas not specifically identified under the “central” jurisdiction are designated as “residual powers” which in the case of a Federation like Australia are considered to be within the purview of the States, since Australia has a decentralized federal system unlike Canada that has a centralized federal system of Government.5 The Preamble of the Constitution states clearly that the Constitution was framed by the people of the colonies who had “practically unlimited powers of self Government through their legislatures”6 The High Courts were given the authority to designate the limits of Central and State powers and therefore, the existence of the federation and its form and delineation of rights and authority may be seen to rest in the Courts. The centripetal Movement: While the initial thrust of the Commonwealth Act focused on decentralization and the vesting of power in the States, the decentralization was diverted to a significant extent through an important case4 decided by the High Court of Australia in 1920. The decision in this case was such that it implied Federal industrial law would be applicable to State controlled enterprises as well. Section 107 of the Commonwealth Act designated legislative control over interstate trade into the hands of the Commonwealth, while intrastate trade controls were vested in the States. However, by this decision, the High Court stated: “Sec 107 continues the previously existing powers of every State Parliament to legislate with respect to (1) State exclusive powers and (2) State powers which are concurrent with Commonwealth powers. But it is a fundamental and fatal error to read sec 107 as reserving any power from the Commonwealth that falls fairly within the explicit terms of an express grant in sec 51, as that grant is reasonably construed, unless that reservation is as explicitly stated".4 Increased powers to the Commonwealth have ensued since that decision and it may be noted that more and more States have come under the common umbrella of the Commonwealth, surrendering their authority according to Section 122 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act; “The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth.” 6 In recent times, the Australian Antarctic territory, the Australian capital territory, New South Wales, Christmas, Cocoa, coral sea, heard and McDonalds islands have all surrendered their territories to the Commonwealth, in the interest of achieving a national standard for defense and foreign affairs that would be applicable to all States. Moreover, the Australia Act of 1986 has also focused upon Constitutional amendments that can change the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation11. Thus, the thrust of the Australian Federation has since been centripetal, as the Commonwealth States have been coming together under the centripetal umbrella of an independent Australian nation. In particular, this is evidenced in the specific case example of Australasia, which has been a colony of the British for several years. Example of the centrifugal force: Although Australasia has been making some moves to break free of British colonialism through its take over of New Guinea, the reality is that it is heavily mortgaged in its land, mines and other resources to British companies. Most commercial enterprises are in British hands and it carries an enormous debt to Britain2. Therefore, this territory demonstrates the typical centripetal force that has characterized the Australian federation since 1920, in that the States have surrendered their sovereignty to a large extent to the Commonwealth, in order to gain the benefits of interstate trade and economic benefits that accrue to them as subsidiaries of the British and as members of the Commonwealth. Since 1920, there has been an increasing thrust upon strengthening the powers of the Commonwealth through the Courts, in order to forge a national identity that is based upon the common traits shared by most of the Australian people, in spite of the regional differences between them. However, even as Australasia’s economic interdependence upon Britain and the Commonwealth place upon it the powerful centrifugal pull of federalism, which in this case is akin to imperialism and has resulted in a British pull of this colony towards itself, there is fierce resistance and antipathy towards imperialism within the territory itself. There are some advantages that are perceived in this centripetal aspect of federalism, which is the reason why so many States have been surrendering their territories to the Commonwealth strengthened by the power of the Courts. The evolution of a national agenda, the fostering of common interests and the reduction of inter state tensions are only a few of the reasons for the trend that has existed in the Australian federation since 1920, which has propelled it in the direction of centripetal forces. These are seen to play an important role in “keeping the peace and preventing national fragmentation.”7 There are also several advantages that are seen to accrue within a system that is based upon a Federal Constitution, of which flexibility, the freedom to experiment, the ease in governing and the accommodating of regional preferences and diversity, protection of liberty and the eschewing of elitism are proffered as some of the advantages.8 Increasingly, additional financial power given to the Commonwealth has strengthened the centripetal forces shaping the Australian federation. The centrifugal forces: Recent trends in globalization however, have resulted in a reversing of many of the trends that have existed since 1920. Increasingly, the Court had been transferring added power to the Commonwealth, as described by Professor George Williams, on how "the Court's focus and business is shifting from ... federalism to issues involving constitutional rights, now that many of the large federalism questions have been "resolved".9 However, the reality is that federalism questions have not been resolved, the States have accepted that the Courts are only interested in phasing out federalism. But with improvements in technology, transportation, communications and industrial organization, centrifugal economic forces have contributed towards the weakening of traditional nation states.10 This has created a new category of citizen – one who wants to be a global citizen and at the same time, retain his/her individuality in his/her local area. Thus the focus of federalism today is seen to be a decentralized structure rather than a centralist philosophy, as was the trend in the last thirty years. The inclination appears to lean more in the direction of secession rather than unification with the Commonwealth, with the centrifugal forces being dominant. The most notable example of this centripetal force may be seen in the case of Western Australia or Queensland, where there is a marked reluctance to submit to the rule of Canberra.12 Voters in western Australia have displayed a consistent tendency in favor of seceding from the Commonwealth and have shown similar tendencies during a referendum to integrate Australia into a sovereign nation. Queensland is an area that is distinctive in terms of its people, its culture, traditions and manner of operations, which create a disparity in views that are not conducive to remaining within the Commonwealth as a State that is dictated to by central rules. The people in this part of Australia want to retain their individuality and their power to govern themselves, especially in a global environment, where they may relate to other nations and peoples as a sovereign people with a distinctive identity. The powers of the State of Queensland are considerable and this State does not appear willing to secede its legislative and financial powers into the hands of the Commonwealth by reacting positively to the referendum to unite Australia under Canberra’s rule. Similarly, the problem of the aboriginal peoples of Australia also poses a problem, since they face the threat of losing their distinctive identity and power to govern themselves through the surrender of their legislative powers to Canberra and there is fierce resistance from these people to a centralist form of rule. Therefore, recent trends in Australia are more in favor of a centrifugal constitutional force, that moots increased diversion of power into the hands of the States, in order to enable them to function competitively in a global environment, without being tied to the bureaucracy of a centralist, bureaucratic system of Government. Trends in Queensland therefore indicate that Australia would function better as a Federation of States that is retained in its decentralized form, wherein more legislative and financial powers accrue to the States. While certain portfolios such as defense and external affairs may remain in the hands of the Commonwealth at the Center, it is necessary to clearly delineate the powers of the States in order to enable optimum smoothness in legislative function. There is often an overlapping in the functions of the State and the Commonwealth in matters such as trade and foreign affairs, especially in a global environment of collective communication. A recent threat that has emerged is that of immigration influx, which has created an immigrant base of Chinese and other Asians within Australian territory, who are into drugs and squander their wealth, rendering themselves unable to leave the country. This problem creates a need for increased Centralist intervention to pull Australia together as a sovereign nation and ensure that such illegal immigrants are deported back to their respective countries. But in moving towards a centripetal force, the interests and identity of the native peoples of Australia is under threat. Therefore, it becomes necessary to reverse recent trends in Australia to endow the Commonwealth with more powers and ensure that all States join willingly under a common Federal umbrella, such as that which existed before. Federalism needs to be set up in such a way through the proper organization, distribution and sharing of political power, that it will ensure that the common needs of the people are met even as it retains the diversity of their circumstances and preferences10. Thus, the Federation of Australia will have to undergo changes in its form and organization, in order to derive the best possible combination that will promote the individual aspirations of a particular State and its distinctive people, while also providing a consolidated framework within which the nation of Australia can exist as a sovereign entity. Lessons from Canada: Like Australia, Canada has also been organized as a Federation of States. However, it differs form the federations in existence in Australia and the United States in that it is more centralized. The all important area of “residual powers” that are identified in the Constitution of a country are designated in favor of the States in a country like Australia but retained at the Federal level in Canada, thereby attributing a much more wide ranging power base to the federal Government. While Federal Governments are always attributed the responsibility for portfolios such as trade, defense and external affairs – in the event of a dispute between State power and Central power in a particular area, it will be the center that prevails. The Canadian provinces retain their legislative rights in areas such as law and order, civil rights, property rights, education, medical services, taxation and social services. However, Canada has also been facing the underlying battle between the federal and provincial powers. The great success of Canada as a Federation, even a centralist one, is due to the ability of John A Macdonald, who personified the centripetal forces in action as he pulled together a confederation of Canadian States. The move towards centrifugal forces is demonstrated in the initiatives of Sir Wilfred Laurier, who mooted the devolution of power to the States and a diminishing role for the federal Government in a globalized environment13. Yet, in spite of the tug of opposing forces, Canada has survived as the most successful example of a true Federation, where individual aspirations of States are respected within a strong, central framework. Unless a federation is maintained in such a manner that the Center does not impose upon the power of the States, unity cannot be maintained. In the event of legislative encroachment by the Federal Government upon the States, discontent and discord will ferment which will propel the move towards secession, rather then fostering unity. Australia can therefore emulate Canada in according respect to its aborigines and other native peoples, even as Canada accords respect for the aspirations of its native French populace. Bibliography Amalgamated Society of Engineers v. Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd, (1920) 28 CLR 129. Australia Act of 1986, No: [142] of 1985 [online] available at: http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth17_doc_1986.rtf; accessed August 31, 2005; Internet. Baxter v. Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), (1907) 4 CLR 1087, 1093. Canadian House Debates: [online] available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/088_2001-09- 28/han088_1350-E.htm; accessed August 31, 2005; Internet Grohol, Dr John, Province. Psych Central. [Online] Available at http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Province; accessed 31st August, 2005; Internet. Hobson, John Atkinson. Imperialism. New York: James Pott & Co., 1902. [Online] available from http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Hobson/hbsnImp14.html; accessed 31 August 2005; Internet. Killen, James, 2001. To secede or not to secede: Why Queensland should vote No in November. The Brisbane Institute. [online] Available at http://www.brisinst.org.au/papers/killen_james_monarchy/transcript-To.html; Accessed August 31, 2005; Internet * La Nauze, JA, The Making of the Australian Constitution, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1972, at 17, 27-8 Walker, Geoffrey de Q, No date. The Seven Pillars of Centralism: Federalism and the Engineers’ Case. Sir Samuel Griffith. Papers. No Date. [Online] available from http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume14/v14chap1.html; accessed August 31, 2005; Internet Walker, Geoffrey de Q, No Date. Ten advantages of a federal Constitution. Samuel Griffith. Papers. [Online] Available at: http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume10/v10chap11.htm; Accessed 31st August; Internet Williams, G. Judicial Activism and Judicial Review in the High Court of Australia, in T Campbell, J Goldsworthy (eds), Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism, Dartmouth, UK: Ashgate, 2000, 413, 416. Watts, Ronald L, 2002. The relevance today of the federal idea. International Conference on Federalism, 2002. Switzerland. [online] Available at: http://www.forumfed.org/federalism/Watts.asp?lang=en. Accessed August 31,2005; Internet. Read More