THE RISE AND DEMISE OF COERCIVE FEDERALISM*

Abstract: The question of how a fiscal balance might be maintained between the Commonwealth and the States exercised the minds of the framers of the Constitution before 1901 and has been of concern ever since. Centralization of financial power in the Commonwealth has resulted from decisions of the High Court of Australia especially the two Uniform Tax Cases which in 1942 established, and in 1957 reinforced, the Commonwealth's hegemony in the revenue field. This hegemony enabled the Commonwealth to influence, if not dictate, State policy initiatives by the making of conditional grants for a wide range of specific purposes under Section 96 of the Constitution. The practice of making specific purpose grants as an element in what has been called “coercive federalism” was adopted in varying degree by the Commonwealth during the years between 1943 and 1975. The “new federalism” policies of the present government have as their objective the reversal of this practice and in its place the restoration of State automomy in the expenditure of a pre-determined share of income tax revenues. Some of the problems entailed in the withdrawal of specific purpose grants are outlined, and the paper also suggests an institutional mechanism to maintain a proper fiscal balance between Commonwealth and States as part of the “new federalism”.     

FIFTY YEARS OF THE COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION*

Abstract: The Commonwealth Grants Commission was established in 1933 to inquire into the payment of special grants to the States. It has retained this function to the present day, and has also conducted inquiries into grants to local government, the distribution of general revenue assistance to the States, and the financial position of the Territories. Although special grants had been paid for over twenty years before the establishment of the Commission, the principle upon which grants should be based had not been determined. The first members of the Commission, after debating the merits of grants based on financial need and grants based on disabilities due to federation, adopted in their third report the principle of fiscal equalization which the Commission still follows. Under this principle grants are assessed that enable each State to provide a standard level of service to its residents so long as it levies taxes at standard rates. The Commission operates as a semi-judicial body, receiving written submissions and conducting public hearings at which witnesses from the States and the Commonwealth Treasury are examined on oath. It also conducts an extensive analysis of State government finances and other information in arriving at its conclusions. Over the years many distinguished Australians have served on the Commission, and their work has contributed to the high reputation enjoyed by the Commission in carrying out its task of maintaining a balance in the fiscal position of the States.     

CHALLENGES OF THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR TRAINING*

Abstract: This paper looks at the ever-increasing pace of change in modern society, and its impact on public:services. Challenges to the training and staff development function to help public services adjust to these changes in the period into the twenty-first century are discussed. Providing means to stimulate senior officials to reflect on their work in a context broader than that of the everyday job, and ensuring a flexible, open relationship between those officials and specialised human resource professionals, are seen as essential requirements.     

ACCESS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS TO AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS: ATTITUDES OF GOVERNMENTS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS*

Abstract: Some recent cases in the arbitration tribunals involving strikes and work bans suggest that some governments and government employers are apprehensive about and resentful of the intrusion of the tribunals into their affairs. The Commonwealth government, for instance, recently amended the Public Service Act to remove what were seen as threats to the efficiency of the public service resulting from constraints imposed by the Arbitrator on the Public Service Board in relation to recruitment, selection and promotion. At the State level, the issues which arise in many public service strikes are not industrial in character, yet as the strike in almost all gaols in N.S.W. earlier this year illustrated, an industrial tribunal can help the conflicting parties reach an agreement. If, however, the tribunal fails in such efforts, it can do no more, where the issues are not industrial, than state its views about what is just and reasonable in the circumstances and perhaps recommend how the dispute should be resolved. Since 1974 the attitude of the N.S.W. Public Service Board toward this category of recommendations has hardened, as illustrated by the 1975 Teachers Case re Preference; the 1978 Prison Officers Case re Disciplinary Proceedings; and the 1978 Teachers Case re Disciplinary Proceedings. But while some governments and government employers fear that the discharge of their responsibilities is being impaired by industrial tribunals, they are nevertheless prompt in enlisting the aid of these bodies when in trouble and often find such aid indispensable. Governments and government employers will have to learn to live with the industrial tribunals, which, at the Commission level, are part of the judiciary and have an obligation to discharge their statutory responsibilities independent of the executive branch of government.