Sometimes, through the smoke and fireworks of the national debate a political commentator sees the path forward and points the way.

Today in the Australian Financial Review, Alan Mitchell takes a far-sighted approach to the crisis provoked by the Abbott government in its attempt to raise and broaden the GST.

The Liberal Party has long been host to the clearest thinkers on the federal system embedded in Australia’s Constitution.  Malcolm Fraser tried to unravel the ‘Canberra taxes, States spend’ dilemma that divorces revenue raising from program responsibility.

Civic society demands taxes and spending be tightly linked for accountability and fair scrutiny.  Transparency is an essential feature of good government.

The first Abbott/Hockey budget seeks to end $80 billion in federal transfers to the states for health and education.  The game plan is to force the states to beg for a tax on food.

Mitchell has a better idea, based on the principle of subsidiarity. This directs that matters ought be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Central government should perform only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more immediate or local level.  This includes taxation.

State governments have quality tax bases – they just choose to use bad taxes and blame distant mandarins in Canberra for their self-imposed weakness.  Voters struggle to see which level of government is responsible for which stuff-up.


“In fact, they have all the efficient tax bases they need to raise a very large share of the spending now financed by grants from Canberra.

“They just prefer not to use them. They would rather rely on federal money and complain about “vertical fiscal imbalance.”

“Vertical imbalance is largely a myth perpetuated by state politicians who would rather avoid the responsibility for raising their own taxes.

Good can come from this Abbott/Hockey confected crisis.  The Premiers are under no obligation to follow Canberra’s lead and destroy their narrow political capital by assuming responsibility for raising and broadening the regressive GST.

The states could instead take up the reforms urged on them by every genuinely independent tax review in living memory.

“Residential land tax also should be revived, and the most convenient way to do that probably is for state governments to gradually transfer more responsibilities to local government.

“Local government land rates based on unimproved property values are an efficient form of land tax, and while no one would enjoy paying higher rates, increased community control of schools, for example, might be quite popular. The availability of reverse mortgages also makes it more feasible for governments to rely more on the taxation of residential land.

State governments are sovereign.  They do have choices. Rather than submit to a very bad deal from Canberra, they can reform themselves – and make Prime Minister Abbott responsible for the political costs of good public policy.