The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Scrap the states? Would we have to scrap the constitution too? > Comments

Scrap the states? Would we have to scrap the constitution too? : Comments

By Gabrielle Appleby, published 4/1/2013

Bob Hawke has reprised his call from 1984 for the abolition of the states. Is it that easy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. All
It is interesting to note that Section 51 (xxxviii) fails in its fundamental intention to allow the Commonwealth to exercise powers previously exercised by the UK Parliament in respect of the formation of new colonies.

Sec 124 provides for the formation of new states but only with the consent of the existing state(s) from which it is formed. This operates to deny the right that was exercised by Queensland in breaking away from NSW in the 1860s. Qld successfully appealed to the crown to override the blatantly self serving objections of NSW in the interests of "peace, order and good governance".

But this fundamental right of self determination, which was also subsequently ratified by the Commonwealth under the UN Convention on Human, Social and Political Rights, has been further eroded by Sec 51 (xxxviii) which can only operate with the consent of the state concerned.

This outrageous deprivation of this most precious right of all was made at the behest of Brisbane interests just 40 years after they enjoyed the same privilege. And it was to the detriment of the then 2/3rds of Queensland voters who lived outside the SE Corner. And it was conceived and drafted by a public servant, the infamous Chief Justice Griffith, who had sworn an oath to "well and trully serve" all Queenslanders without favour.

And what we now have is the constitutional equivalent of granting a serial wife basher a veto over his spouses right to a just and equitable divorce. Both are absolute abominations that has no place in 21st century democracy.
Posted by Lance Boyle, Friday, 4 January 2013 1:40:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As if that clown Beattie has not done enough damage to Queensland. Remember his wife ran for council, unsuccessfully luckily. If Queensland ceased to exist, would that mean we could stop paying him those huge super payments? Perhaps there is a reason to close the state after all.

That is so true Lance. The US has good spread of economic activity, & population, partly due to it's large number of small states. We on the other hand, live in one of five cities, none of which have any rational reason for their existence, other than perhaps Sydney, because of it's harbour.

I'll move to the Bowen Basin state capital, on the Whitsunday coast thanks. It would be interesting watching south east Queensland with out the coal income.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 4 January 2013 1:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to hear your visions for a restructure.
However do not fall into the trap of the present economic environment still existing.
Make your visions fit these parameters;

1. Economic activity will be much more local.
2. Agricultural workers will be in much greater numbers.
3. Motor vehicles will be in much smaller numbers.
4. Rail will be the most used transport.
5. Federal government will have a much smaller portfolio.
6. State government will have no function.
7. Lower exports will be mainly food.
8. Regional bodies might administer hospitals & high level council functions.
9. Local councils will take on many state functions, ports etc.

It is going to be an entirely different and local life.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 4 January 2013 5:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally, I support Federation and see a lot of benefits in decision-making closer to the people. But I recognise that that are good and valid arguments on both sides of this debate.

What annoys me intensely is that central governments of both parties have been dismantling the federation by stealth, through a combination of taxation and redistribution, spending conditions and mission creep in policy areas.

Let’s have an open and honest debate on this issue, and then require governments to abide by the outcome. Death by slow strangulation is the least democratic and more bureaucratically wasteful way to kill the federation.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 4 January 2013 6:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At this stage in our history we should not be trusting the present elite oligarchs who rule us,change anything.Both the major parties are in the pockets of big business.

We need a real functioning constitution that protects the people from their Govts.Our Sedition Laws enacted by John Howard are heralding an Orwellian State.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 4 January 2013 6:33:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clause 3
"the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth"

The *people* will be united.
Not "states" or "colonies".
All you need to remove is the word "Federal".

Definitions
"'The States' shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia... shall be called a State."

Amend the definition: States are just "electoral districts", the borders of which correspond to the current boundaries.
Each "electoral district" therefore elects X senators, etc.
(even New Zealand can!)

Section 111
"The Parliament of a State may surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth"

We surrender!

Many conventions of our political system aren't even mentioned in the constitution: parties, local government, cabinet, ballot papers.

Could we not just operate "as if" there were no states?
Referendums? Fugetabowtit!
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 4 January 2013 8:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy