Apart from this point of similarity in mechanism, the Australian and Canadian subsidies to the States and Provinces respectively are of no value as models for a Home Rule Bill.  Let us examine the case of Australia.  There the Commonwealth, besides having exclusive control of Customs and Excise, has general powers of taxation concurrently with the States, though in practice Commonwealth taxation is almost entirely confined to Customs and Excise.  All surplus Commonwealth revenue is, by the present law, returnable to the States, and the total annual amount so returned must not be less than three-fourths of the total proceeds of Customs and Excise; so large are these proceeds, and so small, relatively, the expenses of the Commonwealth Government.[143] Here at the outset is a feature which places Australian Federal Finance in an altogether different category to that of the United Kingdom, where only 47.6 per cent, of the revenue is from Customs and Excise.  Nor are the distributions of surplus revenue to the States really “subsidies,” even in the case of the poorest States, but repayments, on a method laid down in the Constitution, of that part of the State contribution to Federal services which the Federal Government does not want.  Here the system of bookkeeping is of some service to us, because it reveals, approximately, at any rate, both the contribution and the actual repayment, which is based on a calculation of the amount saved to the State by the transference of certain departments to the Federal Government, set off by a per capita charge for new Federal expenditure, as, for example, for Old Age Pensions (see Table on p. 297).

The great bulk of the tax revenue shown comes, as I have said, from Customs and Excise, and it is unnecessary to set out the respective figures of revenue derived from these duties.[144] It will be seen, after deducting repayments from contributions, that even the poorest States make a substantial net contribution to Federal purposes.  On the other hand, the relative proportion of revenue contributed by Western Australia and Tasmania is diminishing.  In Western Australia it was 12-49 per cent. of the whole in 1905, 8-13 per cent. of the whole in 1909.  In the same period, not only relatively, but actually, the gross contribution of Western Australia has diminished from L1,431,624 in 1905 to L1,166,126 in 1909, while the repayment to her has also diminished from L1,031,223 in 1905 to L627,933.  Tasmania’s repayment is also diminishing, though her gross contribution has increased.  These circumstances suggest a slight resemblance to the growing disproportion between the resources of Ireland and Great Britain, but they do not assist us towards a solution of the Irish problem.  Each Australian State, while contributing the whole of its Customs and Excise to the Federal Government, receives back at least half, and in some cases two-thirds,[146] and adds that sum to its own independent revenue for the maintenance of the State Government.  The sum refunded amounts on the average to a little below a quarter of the total State revenue—­to be accurate, 23.01 per cent.  Of the remaining 76.99 per cent., only 10 per cent, on the average is derived from direct taxation; 10.10 per cent from public lands, 4.15 per cent, from miscellaneous services, and no less than 52.55 per cent, from Public Works—­railways, tramways, harbours, etc.