AusCelebs Forums

View active topics It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 2:32 am



Reply to topic 
 [ 16 posts ] 
 Kevin Seven out by Eleven 
Message Author

Postby SKaVeN » Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:32 pm


Macc wrote:
SKaVeN wrote:
I've always been in favour of scrapping the state governments

Hold it right there. Australia is a federation. The Commonwealth exists because of the states, not the other way around.

The Commonwealth was formed to unify the states, yes. The real power was still all in the state governments & it took some time for the federal government (i.e. "The Land of Dreamers" as it was once called) to develop any real power. But that was a century ago & I think we've changed & grown as a nation since then. We are now one unified nation. The federal government has grown significantly in power & I don't believe there is anything done by state governments nowadays that can't be done by a federal government. Australia's over-governed in my opinion. Keeping a system where we have seven ministers & seven departments around the country performing the same port folio is surely not the most effective way to run a country. One government with equal representation for every state (& the NT) would potentially be more effective them a whole bunch of them bickering & procrastinating.
I'm all for reform! Image


Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:51 am
Posts: 2065
Karma: 3.10 (64 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:32 pm
Profile

Postby Macc » Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:55 am


SKaVeN wrote:
I don't believe there is anything done by state governments nowadays that can't be done by a federal government.

Wrong. Most criminal law draws its power from state constitutions which predate federation.

By the way, Austria has half our population and has 10 states.


Milhouse Van Houten
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:28 pm
Posts: 1626
Karma: 43.23 (703 thanks)

Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:55 am
Profile

Postby SKaVeN » Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:06 am


That's why I said reform. If - even today - we need to maintain specific & differing state laws, I don't see why we can't do that even without the state governments. If not, why not combine or replace them with one set of federal law? I'm sure there must be a way. Many of the provincial state laws are anachronistic or redundant anyway. Example: I don't think Tasmania still needs to have a law that states it is illegal to walk down a city street with a basket on your head.

We're not Austria.


Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:51 am
Posts: 2065
Karma: 3.10 (64 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Sat Jun 26, 2010 1:06 am
Profile

Postby Macc » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:12 pm


SKaVeN wrote:
That's why I said reform. If - even today - we need to maintain specific & differing state laws, I don't see why we can't do that even without the state governments.

We can't do without the states or state governments because they are fundamental constituents of a federal system.

SKaVeN wrote:
If not, why not combine or replace them with one set of federal law?

Again, the Constitution says so. The Federal Convention debates make it clear that while recognising the need for a national government, the protection of state autonomy was foremost in the minds of the majority of delegates.

The preamble to the Constitution establishes Australia as "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth" and there is considerable doubt as to whether such a wholesale change as abolition of the states would constitute an "alteration" of the Constitution within the meaning of section 128. The High Court has already ruled that the Commonwealth is indissoluble (when Western Australia attempted to secede in 1933) and ruled that a referendum to change that part of the Constitution would itself be unconstitutional as it would violate the indissolubility of the Commonwealth.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that there is a better way of doing things, but the Constitution says otherwise and by design it is extremely difficult to get even minor changes passed. The Constitution was specifically written to prevent the balance from shifting too far in favour of the Commonwealth.

It is pointless debating whether we should abolish the states without first whether we can. The unanimous opinion of the best constitutional lawyers in the country is that we can't.


Milhouse Van Houten
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:28 pm
Posts: 1626
Karma: 43.23 (703 thanks)

Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:12 pm
Profile

Postby SKaVeN » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:36 pm


I still believe that we should but I agree that we can't.

I studied legal studies at high school & then politics at college & so am in the minority of Australians who have actually read copies of the Constitution. It was written by our forefathers in a way that it could be updated & changed if need be. This would have to be done by referendum in which case that voters in every case would inevitable always vote no. This has more to do with general apathy more than opinion.

An example was back in 1986 when the Labor government had a referendum for four proposed changes (i.e. one about health, education, religion & I can't remember the fourth). The government put it out there because the public never stopped asking for them. (Personally, I said yes on all but religion seeing as I'm not a religious person myself.)

The government had information programmes, radio talk back programmes, sent information booklets to every home, phone enquiry lines, etc. All the opposition did was put on a radio advert with someone who sounded like Alf from Hone & Away saying "Those jokers at Canberra are only doing this to give themselves more power" which was utter bullshit because they weren't even political. But, as expected, it scared people so the result was almost a unanimous vote to no on all three.

No, state governments never get abolished. Yes, it would mean big changes for this country if they were & it is a bit scary I admit. But, personally, it is still something I think is doable & gives us an opportunity to have all Australians equally represented under one government & under the same federal law. That's for me!


Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:51 am
Posts: 2065
Karma: 3.10 (64 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:36 pm
Profile

Postby Macc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:18 pm


There have been 44 referendums since Federation and only 8 have been passed. In each case where it would have given more power to the Commonwealth, it was overwhelmingly rejected. The only ones which have passed were minor administrative changes (e.g. filling Senate casual vacancies and setting the retirement ages for judges). Removing "other than the Aboriginal race in any State" in 1967 was technically a minor administrative change although the symbolism was obvious and 91% voted for it.


Milhouse Van Houten
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:28 pm
Posts: 1626
Karma: 43.23 (703 thanks)

Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:18 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic 
 [ 16 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.