Australia, frankly, is a failed federation with free speech increasingly endangered.

Under our federation, designed as a parliamentary version of  the US model, the states were never intended to lose their independent power to tax and would instead enjoy their own uncontrolled source of income.

In the Federalist Papers, in particular No. 32 and No. 33, US Founding Father Alexander Hamilton affirmed that it is essential that the individual states retain an ‘independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent of which they may stand in need’.

If a state had to rely on the federal government for its operating funds, he concluded, that state would effectively become subordinate to the centre, a mere administrative branch.

Australia is now the world’s most fiscally  centralised federation, with an extraordinary 81 per cent of taxes collected by Canberra.

In Canada, the equivalent is 41 per cent.

A consequence is that the federal government has become involved in and distracted by matters far beyond its competence.

No constitution is perfect, with our founders not prescribing what the obvious intention was in the division of powers between Canberra and the states.

This was  that powers not granted to Canberra were reserved to the states.

Once the original judges passed on, the founders’ serious error became glaringly obvious. This was to endow the Canberra executive government with an uncontrolled discretion in choosing the High Court. As a result, most judges have, unsurprisingly, tended to be centralist. So Canberra’s powers have increased, far beyond what was constitutionally intended and, importantly, Canberra’s capacity.

This column warned last week that legislation limiting free speech on climate policy and electricity prices will most likely be targeted by a current  Senate investigation into so-called ‘disinformation and misinformation’ about climate change calamatism.

A fundamental fact of modern life is that a democratic state in the 21st century, unlike an ancient Greek city-state, is too large both in terms of geography and population to be managed by all the citizens meeting together and exchanging information.

Hence, a modern democratic state cannot function without a free press, including, of course, the electronic media. While the private media are entitled to editorialise, subject to the voluntary understanding that reporting and comment are distinguishable, the BBC and those modelled on it, cannot editorialise.

Hence the concern over the reporting in the BBC (and to an extent the ABC) of President Trump and a range of similar matters.

What the BBC and the ABC have done appears to have been to allow themselves to be captured by one side in the political debate, which is most unfair to those parts of each corporation that continue to provide an excellent public service.

If they do not reform, they may well be endangering their very existence.

The duty of not only the boards and executives but all engaged in BBC-style broadcasting is patently obvious. Not to take sides or even form political opinions.

As to the media generally, they must never forget that their freedom is guaranteed, whether constitutionally or not, not for them but so that they are able to inform the public as to the facts as best these can be gleaned.

To ensure this there exist certain principles which are universal in relation to those who claim to be responsible media, they must take all reasonable steps to ensure news reports are as accurate as they can be, and that they are fair and balanced.

Above all, they should not deliberately mislead or misinform the public.

The relevant part of the First Amendment to the American Constitution was inserted for two reasons.

First to protect Americans against potential abuse by Washington and second,  because without it and the rest of the Bill of Rights, a significant number of the original thirteen states would not have joined the Union.

The fact is that at the time of our Australian federation, it was clear that in terms of democratic rights, the Australian colonies had achieved much more without such a Bill of Rights including the First Amendment.

Hence the concentration by Australia’s  founders and people on ensuring the economic and political union and not bothering about such issues. It was only later that the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment were to receive an  interpretation  more supportive of free speech.

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The meaning of this of course depends on the interpretation by the courts.

By the Nixon Administration, this was much more encouraging for press freedom.

In the celebrated Pentagon Papers case, 1971, Justice Black made the following points.

The press, he insisted,  was to ‘serve the governed’ and ‘not the governors’.

The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censor the government. ‘Only a free and unrestrained Press can effectively expose deception in government.’

Unfortunately, since then, in Australia and the United States, there seems to be a slipping away from the high standards of the press. There has been a move away from a standard that requires the news itself to be impartial; reserving, of course, to the newspaper the right to express an opinion.

Having long been involved in the Australian Press Council and having served as chairman for 10 years, I have a certain sensitivity to movements away from the Council’s standards and principles. I first noticed such a movement in the passion, especially for the press,  but not really for the public, of the 1999 Australian republic referendum.

At the conclusion of a 1999 visit to Sydney, the highly respected British editor W.F. Deedes scathingly observed in the London Telegraph that he had rarely attended elections in any country, certainly not a democratic one, in which the newspapers displayed ‘more shameless bias’.

‘One and all,’ he said, ‘they were determined that Australia should have a republic and they used every device towards that end.’

How important then is it that we all remain vigilant to departures from media responsibility.