I wonder what they plan to do for powering vehicles.
Will Tasmania outlaw new combustion vehicle sales like many other jurisdictions have set deadlines to? Seems like it’s reasonable to do so based on their electrical generation mix and EV charging infrastructure deployment timelines/cadence (with orchestration to prioritize charging those vehicles when excess renewables can’t be shipped over the underwater interconnector).
https://aeva.asn.au/articles/tasmanian-fast-charging-network...
https://www.plugshare.com/ (search for “Tasmania”)
I'm not sure if they have legal authority to do that. In Australia, vehicle emission standards and design rules are set by the federal government, not the states. If a state tried to set more stringent standards, there is a risk the federal government might argue in court that is invalid as contrary to federal legislation, and there is a decent chance the federal government would succeed.
(Although both Australia and the US are federations, and the Australian constitution is heavily influenced by the US constitution, the balance of power between the state and federal governments is different in each country, so just because a US state can "go-it-alone" on some issue doesn't mean an Australian state necessarily can.)
There are a bunch of other ways in which Australian states are weaker than American ones:
* In the US, marriage and divorce are primarily state responsibilities; in Australia, they are primarily federal ones, with states only having some residual responsibilities related to marriage registration (and the federal government could legally take those residual responsibilities over if it wanted to). This meant that while things like marriage equality or divorce law reform could happen on a state-by-state basis in the US, in Australia they could only happen at the federal level
* US states have power to levy state income tax; Australian states are de facto banned from doing so. (Federal law says that if a state imposes income tax, it makes itself ineligible for federal funding grants, which makes state-level income taxation infeasible).
* More generally, Australian states are far more dependent on federal funding than US states are
* The Australian federal government has massive direct economic expenditure in several areas – health, education, disability, broadband – which in the US are primarily state or private funding responsibilities
* The external affairs power gives the federal level the power to override any state law if required by an international treaty. Although the Treaty Clause of the US Constitution may be similar, that requires a 2/3rd supermajority vote in the Senate which is a difficult bar to overcome, whereas the Australian external affairs power only requires a normal 50%+1 majority in each house of the Australian Parliament. As an example, Australia has a national ban on the death penalty enacted on the basis of the UN treaty "the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
* US constitutional amendments require approval of state legislatures; in Australia, the federal government directly seeks approval of constitutional amendments by the voters in national referendums, leaving the state governments/Parliament with no direct role in amending the national constitution