The reason for the constant struggle for funding between the states and federal government relates back to the constitution, writes…
There seems to be an ever present struggle for a share of the revenue government collects, not only between states but also between the different levels of government.
In each year’s budget, the federal government allocates funds for federal programs (such as defence) and for some programs operated at a state level (such as school education, public transport, and hospitals).
It has this role because it also collects more revenue from taxpayers than the states.
The reason for this all relates back to (at least in part) the Australian constitution.
The division of power between the federal and state governments
This gives the federal parliament the power to legislate with respect to matters such as defence, external affairs, immigration, invalid and old-age pensions, and marriage.
In contrast, there is no equivalent limit on the legislative power of the states.
The states may legislate in any area.
However, section 109 of the constitution provides that where there is an inconsistency between a federal law and a state law, the federal law will prevail.
In simple terms, this means that if the federal parliament has made a law dealing with a particular matter, state governments are unable to legislate in ways that conflict with the federal law.
The federal government’s control of revenue
The state and federal governments all have the power to collect tax, subject to some exceptions.
Notably, section 90 of the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive power over the lucrative revenue streams of customs and excise duties (taxes on goods, such as alcohol, tobacco and fuel).
Until the Second World War, Australians paid income tax to both state and federal governments.
However since 1942, the federal government has been the sole collector of income tax.
The federal government has also collected company tax for over 100 years, and the GST since 2000.
The states could still collect income tax if they wanted to, but choose not to for political reasons.
While the states generate some revenue – for example through gambling, property and payroll taxes and mining royalties – they are unable to collect anywhere near the same amount as the federal government.
This creates a “vertical fiscal imbalance” between the federal and state governments.
Conversely, the federal government is in the opposite position: while the federal government collects extensive revenue, its power to spend and directly fund programs is more limited.
Testing the government’s power to spend on certain programs
Until recently, the federal government thought it could spend money more or less as it pleased.
However, the High Court clarified and restricted the federal government’s power to spend money and limited its ability to fund directly some programs.
Prior to the legal challenges, the federal government had entered into agreements with religious service organisations – such as Scripture Union Queensland – to provide chaplains in schools.
The High Court held that (with some small exceptions) the federal government’s power to spend money is limited to where the authority to spend money is expressly conferred by legislation.
The legislation authorising the spending must also be supported by one of the “heads of power” granted to the federal parliament by the constitution.
In the case of the chaplaincy program, the court rejected the arguments that the legislation could be supported by the power in one section of the Constitution to make laws for the “provision of…benefits to students” or by the corporations power in another section of the Constitution.
To continue the funding of the national school chaplaincy program the federal government turned to the states for assistance.
How the federal government gives money to the states
Section 96 of the Constitution provides for the federal government to provide a significant proportion of its revenue to the states:
…the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
This distribution of revenue takes two forms – general revenue assistance (“untied funding”) and payments for a specific purpose (“tied funding”).
The untied funding that states receive from the federal government is largely made up of the money that the federal government collects from the GST.
The states can spend this money as they see fit.
However, the passing on of the GST revenue is not unconditional.
It’s conditional on the states giving up the collection of a number a number of states taxes.
The annual process always seems to leave a least one state claiming it should receive a greater share of the pie.
The federal government may also provide funding to the states for a specific purpose.
The states have to consent to receiving the funding (which is not usually a problem), but it does mean that the federal government cannot impose programs on the states that they vehemently oppose.
This funding is tied to a particular project, where the federal government provides the funds and the state carries out the project.
Grants such as these have been used regularly to fund education and health projects in the states.
These specific purpose grants may be conditional on states meeting regular reporting requirements or achieving certain milestones.
Providing funding to the states through specific purpose grants allows the federal government to have great influence on policy areas that have traditionally been within the purview of the states.
The federal system of government created by the constitution divides power between the federal and state governments.
While at times this might seem inefficient, it also provides checks and balances on government spending.