The perils and pitfalls of Canberra's mission creep - The Australian

IT is only a small amount of money, but the federal government's decision to allocate an additional $30 million for legal aid is more important than it looks.

The money is welcome. But the method of doling it out symbolises the government's mission creep mentality, which threatens the design and intent of the federation.

The Attorney-General's Department is trying to muscle in on the states by controlling how their legal aid commissions use that money. But there are multiple legal aid bureaucracies run by the states that are a burden on the public purse. We do not need another in Canberra.

This attempt to control a core function of the states shows the government is still having trouble understanding that Australia, unlike many others, imposes limits on the activities of the national government. There is a division of responsibilities between the different levels of government -- national, state and local -- that protects individual liberty by dispersing coercive power. Politicians find this frustrating. Without checks and balances, government can be the greatest threat to freedom. This may not be surprising given the government tried to impose controls on press content and to ban speech that offends.

Recent experience shows that an over-inflated view of the role of the central government poses a direct financial risk when it means taking on roles that are best handled by the states. This expansive tendency has long been present in national politics, but it has been perfected by governments led by Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. They have extended the reach of the central government into areas that are, at best, peripheral to its core responsibilities. The limited role of the federal government, as set down in the Constitution, covers matters that cannot properly be undertaken by the states, such as defence.

Yet in recent years we have witnessed the imperial march of the federal bureaucracy into other tiers of government. Often it comes with disastrous results, like the installation of pink batts and the building of school halls. The propensity for waste is matched by the propensity for an ever-expanding public service. In 2010, Mr Rudd tried to seize control of the national health system. He wanted to claw back $50 billion in GST revenue from the states and territories and become the majority funder of hospital and GP services. Thankfully, his ambitions were swept aside for more moderate reforms. The government still has on its books a monolithic NBN and plans to channel billions of dollars into schools. The Gonski reforms would give the federal government leverage over what happens in schools.

The local government referendum is another grab for power. If successful, it would subject councils to financial pressure to obey their paymasters in Canberra. The states already find it difficult to resist the commonwealth's financial pressure over health policy. Councils are ill-equipped for such a fight. Sooner or later, the views of bureaucrats in Canberra would prevail over those of ratepayers. Commonwealth-state relations is the next frontier for productivity reform. But it will mean allowing each level of government to do what it is best equipped to do. A nation ruled exclusively from Canberra would be less accountable, efficient and free.