Banning Local Government

[Mike Mitchell]

I think you are missing my key point... we only need 2 layers of Government,  local and "Federal" The States should go IMO.  Let the Feds look after the big issues and the Local the smaller "local" issues.

That, two layers of government,  would be achieved by deposing of local government with the added benefit of having a far more professional group of people running local and state affairs.

At the moment, local governments do not answer to anyone and that type of governance needs to be completely removed from a free democratic society. They must be completely answerable to their electorate.

The best example of the uselessness of local government is the almost without fail, commissioners are more popular than council (and a h3ll of a lot cheaper too).

[Latoof]

I think you are missing my key point... we only need 2 layers of Government,  local and "Federal" The States should go IMO.  Let the Feds look after the big issues and the Local the smaller "local" issues.

That, two layers of government,  would be achieved by deposing of local government with the added benefit of having a far more professional group of people running local and state affairs.

At the moment, local governments do not answer to anyone and that type of governance needs to be completely removed from a free democratic society. They must be completely answerable to their electorate.

The best example of the uselessness of local government is the almost without fail, commissioners are more popular than council (and a h3ll of a lot cheaper too).

I agree that local councils are useless...  my point is that we want to eradicate the STATES and the waste that goes with differing systems, laws etc. in each.  Then have larger "local" governments, provincial Governments if you like...  as professional as the current state Governments, not junior hacks running the councils we have now.

[Mike Mitchell]

I agree that local councils are useless...  my point is that we want to eradicate the STATES and the waste that goes with differing systems, laws etc. in each.  Then have larger "local" governments, provincial Governments if you like...  as professional as the current state Governments, not junior hacks running the councils we have now.

I don't want state governments eradicated, just local. If we remove states we remove our best protection from the federal government. The states created the federal government and their ability to remove it is still ensconced in the constitution. As are a large number of other protections. If Adolph Hitler had been a Bruce he would never have been able to do any of the power grabs that he did in Germany, they were already banned and protected in 1901. As we are from supremacy groups. When Parks and co. were writing the constitution they specification mention the USoA's first amendment and it being the sole reason the Ku Klux Klan could be formed and they changed the whole document to give tacit free speech instead of actual free speech.

If we lose the states, we lose the ability to drop the federal government and reform a fully operational nation, perhaps a union. The United States of Australia, er that may already be taken. 

[Latoof]

I don't want state governments eradicated, just local. If we remove states we remove our best protection from the federal government. The states created the federal government and their ability to remove it is still ensconced in the constitution. As are a large number of other protections. If Adolph Hitler had been a Bruce he would never have been able to do any of the power grabs that he did in Germany, they were already banned and protected in 1901. As we are from supremacy groups. When Parks and co. were writing the constitution they specification mention the USoA's first amendment and it being the sole reason the Ku Klux Klan could be formed and they changed the whole document to give tacit free speech instead of actual free speech.

If we lose the states, we lose the ability to drop the federal government and reform a fully operational nation, perhaps a union. The United States of Australia, er that may already be taken. 

I personally WANT the eraddication of the States...  I want all the BS waste that comes with it gone!  And I dont subscribe to any fear that somehow our Government could in any way go the way of the Third Reich.  The reality is that we will never separate the States so lets just accept that we are a single nation.

The constitution was formulated by a bunch of paranoid men who were worried that a Federal Government might become a monster and wanted a way out.  For as long as we have 1 person, 1 vote that could never happen,  unlike the US where the whole Electoral College system can effectively circumvent this key democratic principal.

I certainly DON'T want a US model of Government here!  If we think the States Vs the Feds is bad here... the US is WORSE.  The US constitution is a Joke in so many ways,  Free speech - Abused by the White supremacists et al,  Right to bear arms.. more sensible to arm bears IMO.  I like the tight control of weapons here.  Separation of church and state... yeah right  unless you are a "God fearing Christian" you will never be President!

One national Government and provincial Governments is the way forward....   I know I'm dreaming but hey...

[Vajras]

... The states created the federal government and their ability to remove it is still ensconced in the constitution. As are a large number of other protections...

If we lose the states, we lose the ability to drop the federal government and reform a fully operational nation, perhaps a union. The United States of Australia, er that may already be taken.  

Well, i haven't been around for a while, trying to build gardens, do extensions, keep wives happy and so and so forth but this topic really is dear to my heart as i have spent many days, nay, weeks, months, years arguing its effects as i have, hidden in the deep dark recesses of my cupboard, a degree in political science and a very hard fought for one at that.

This topic is just such a doozy that i can't resist replying and really it requires from me my very considered, erudite, uninterrupted, authoritative and well formulated and very hard-fought-for opinion that i just cannot resist a go :choke:  

Please, pleasel, my dear good Mr Mike, where in it is said in our (still British held original) constitution that the States have the power to {paraphrasing you} "remove the federal government"?

If you are referring to a specific chapter or clause within our constitution, then it is Chapter 5, 'The States', that should be the one you be quote.

Specifically, Ch 5 refers to the states powers, and removing the feds is absolutely and positively NOT one of those clauses!! There is not a single clause there referring to your assertion. Sorry. :blush1:

In fact, the opposite actually applies [and this is as it should be because it's the "Australian Constitution" and not a "State constitution"]

vis-à-vis: Ch 6. New States. cl. 121 "New States may be admitted or established" - this obviously means the feds have the power to create states but the previous CH 5 specifically says it is NOT the other way round, thank goodness, otherwise WA and Qld would have led the charge for that to occur years ago
my 2 cents

[Drudge]

Mike I don't mean this unkindly, but there are some very broad statements in your last post. Are you able to give some authority for them?

[Mike Mitchell]

Please, pleasel, my dear good Mr Mike, where in it is said in our (still British held original) constitution that the States have the power to {paraphrasing you} "remove the federal government"?

I'm not sure political science is the required background.  Perhaps constitutional law would be more appropriate. All states have the right to succeed and if they do, they also have the right to reform a new "union" or federation of states. That would be a new national (not necessarily federal), government).

[Mike Mitchell]

Mike I don't mean this unkindly, but there are some very broad statements in your last post. Are you able to give some authority for them?

The record of the constitutional convention (is that also the Hansard?) as I tried to once in the past. It is a very large and mostly boring document but some parts are extremely enlightening.

For example, during the convention the pollies discussed free religion. Not, as most Australians suspect, for Catholics but for Muslims. In particular Afghan Muslims.

Free speech is discussed at some length and is well worth the read. It is a very enlightened discussion and quite smart conclusion. It's just a shame they didn't do exactly the same thing for religion even though they discussed doing so.

[Mike Mitchell]

To my mind, the powers of the states have been eroded to the point that they actually contribute less to governance than local governments. They also don't realy represent any particular community of interest in the way they once might have.

I'm not sure that the idea of doing away with the states has popular support. I can't remember a state election anywhere in this country only having a 75% turnout but the last set of local government elections here did. Even though the VEC changed the rules so there would be a common local government election day.

So, to my mind, the blame for local government being so bad lies fairly and squarely with State Governments. To me, the solution is not to abolish local governments, but to cause them to become better and more professional. I am not and never have been a big fan of Peter Beattie, but I do believe he made a correct and brave move in making all the forced amalgamations in Queensland. (The number of local councils was reduced by a factor of 3 or 4 I think.) The result has definitely been better and more professional local government in most cases, because there are fewer councillor jobs going and in general it takes higher calibre people to get them. I say it is a brave move, because it has also certainly increased the power of local councils in Queensland, and that power has come from the State Government. I'm sure most state governments would prefer an unruly, incompetent and disunited rabble they can ride roughshod over, and it seems that this is what we have mostly.

Jeff Kennett did the same to Victorian councils that's how Casey came into being. It is the amalgamation of several large outer south-eastern suburbs but still manages to spend $450,000 on a garden chair. Brimbank councillors have all been dismissed and replaced with a three person committee. (Not sure why they didn't appoint a commissioner there. Something very strange is going on).

BUT...... if you live in Kempsey, do you really want to have to apply for planning permission to some guy in Sydney when you want to change the roofline of your house?

I'm not sure that that will be all that much of a problem. I would imagine that there would considerable call for some local services and they can be dispensed by a commissioner and a few staff. Part of the amalgamation here was to tear out the corruption among building inspectors. The state government opened building inspections to some competition and allowed building inspectors from neighbouring suburbs to cross boarders and do inspections. After all, if a house can be inspected by a person in Sydney, then why can't that person inspect one in North Sydney?

It sounded like a great idea but not that much latter some of the inspection services were privatised along with suggestions that the local government building inspectors weren't doing the right thing.

[Vajras]

Please, pleasel, my dear good Mr Mike, where in it is said in our (still British held original) constitution that the States have the power to {paraphrasing you} "remove the federal government"?

I'm not sure political science is the required background.   Perhaps constitutional law would be more appropriate. All states have the right to succeed and if they do, they also have the right to reform a new "union" or federation of states. That would be a new national (not necessarily federal), government).

Pol sci requires the study of constitutional law but not the other way round! But you're essentially right here - States do have the right to secede from the federation but it would require an individual state referendum. No other state can do it for them and neither can the feds. Neither can they do this collectively. The point you make about having the right to secede (or create any law) is not quite the same as having a power to remove any other government be it federal or state.

Local goverenment is another matter. Councils are both the responsibility and function of individual state gov'ts. That being said, each state gov't does have the power to change any of their laws regarding local councils, but the feds do not have that power and vice versa the states cannot change any fed law!

Moving back to your argument - i do agree with you that local councils can at times be a bloody pain, but it must be their "parent" (the State) that punishes them and not the federal gov't. Either abolish them or enhance them but the current system is not the best, that's true. However, to make a blanket change to them that would need to be decided by that states population as a whole by referendum.

In NSW when a local council became untenable (there have been quite a few!!) and the elected council memebers were sacked, it was done by the State and administators were appointed but only until all the kerfuffle of money and debt and so had been sorted. Then it was back to the same old, same old and fresh elections would occur and it's then up to the newly elected council to run things. The people still spoke but only the local ones, not the whole state population.

Methinks you need to agitate for a referendum to abolish.

[Mike Mitchell]

That being said, each state gov't does have the power to change any of their laws regarding local councils, but the feds do not have that power and vice versa the states cannot change any fed law!

Moving back to your argument - i do agree with you that local councils can at times be a bloody pain, but it must be their "parent" (the State) that punishes them and not the federal gov't. Either abolish them or enhance them but the current system is not the best, that's true. However, to make a blanket change to them that would need to be decided by that states population as a whole by referendum.

I'm confused by the concern over the power of the federal government to dispose of local government. It was not my intent that that should be done. It would always have been the states responsibility because,as far as I am aware, they already have that power.

Also I should have mentioned that when commissioners are appointed here it is for a limited period, sometimes that can be several years. I just wish they could be implemented permanently but as you say, it will require a referendum.

Perhaps we can start in Victoria but they'd have to bring Jeff Kennett back to do that. 

[Vajras]

I'm confused by the concern over the power of the federal government to dispose of local government. It was not my intent that that should be done. It would always have been the states responsibility because,as far as I am aware, they already have that power.

Rest easy, the constitution never once mentions councils so the feds can't do a thing about them - they are purely a figment of the states imagination.

So perhaps if they wake up you could find them poooof gone

biggrin

[AusCavalier]

Sounds just like Canada.   

Our locals just frittered away two hundred thousand dollars on a piece of "art"  (I use the term loosely) intended to decorate the entrance to a recently constructed bridge and the item looks as though all that was required to create it was a couple of sets of silverware and a half dozen poles.   

As one local put it the thing looks like a piece of frayed roller coaster track and most of us can't figure out what it has to do with symbolizing our area.

See for yourself if he doesn't have a point................

Almost as useless as the "sculpture" we have here in melbourne for CityLink.





Apparently it's supposed to represent a toll barrier opening up to allow you into the city, but everyone just describes it as a giant cheese cutter...

[AusCavalier]

I think the "New States" clause in Ch. 6 was put there so that (a) places like the Northern Territory could become states in the future, and that (b) New Zealand could join later if they so desired (and we wanted them.) NZ actually did come to the federation conferences, I am told. I don't think Ch.6 was intended to say that the Federal govt could, say, abolish Queensland and give it to South Australia. Anyhow, it's not something any politician in her right mind would even canvass unless they had a craving for sudden infamy followed by extended obscurity.

Technically, according to Point 6. of the preamble to the Australian Consititution, New Zealand already IS part of the Commonwealth of Australia...

6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".

taken from http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm (See the Preamble)

[Vajras]

Technically, according to Point 6. of the preamble to the Australian Consititution, New Zealand already IS part of the Commonwealth of Australia...

6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".

taken from http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm (See the Preamble)

However, according to the NZ's Political and constitutional timeline, in...
1901
    The Commonwealth of Australia is established. New Zealand has declined several opportunities to become a member...

and in
1907
    New Zealand becomes a dominion. Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward reads a proclamation announcing that New Zealand has ceased to be colony [of the UK, showing that is never was a colony nor state of Australia] and is now a dominion of the British Empire. But it was not until 80 yrs later in

1986
    [that] The [NZ] Constitution Act finally removed the last faint provision for the British Parliament to make laws for New Zealand.

and, not coincidentally, this was also the same year that
   The Australia Act, which is an Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation.

And this Act became the final of the 7 acts which once and for all severed all legislative ties for both countries to the British Houses of Parliament.

Not that long ago, eh?
source: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/milestones
and http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=103
and http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm