Does Southern Cross University have a campus at Nimbin?

Interesting and thoughtful article. However, we probably need at least one of the major parties to confront their own mortality, or virtual annihilation, before anyone will start actually incorporating some of these ideas.
I just wouldn't hold my breath, waiting for a politician, to embrace some of these ideas, or just put the mug voter's interests, first in the order of importance.
We need quite massive tax reform to make things like fast rail affordable.
Today the price tag is 114 billions, ten years from now 228 billions? Today's price is doable, if we but end all tax avoidance, which could be as high as 100 billion per? Where is the courage of conviction to get that done?
A start could be made from Canberra to Sydney?
This comparatively short link, could be done off budget, would likely be very profitable, and generate enough funds to extend north and south to other populated areas, currently gripped by gridlock.
What seems to be missing is imagination.
And the point about neo-liberalism is well made, save it didn't say the principle concept embodied in neo-liberalism, I believe, entrenches poverty; and or, simply robs tomorrows citizens, so fewer and fewer of us can enjoy privileged lifestyles today.
They need a large pool of entrenched poverty, to make their ideas work?
Not for nothing has the gap between the haves and the have nots, almost always widened on their watch!
Ditto welfare for the rich!
The problem is, neo-libs just don't care, just as long as their policy paradigms, appeal to the lowest common denominator, avarice and greed in all of us, to simply keep them in power and dancing to their political masters' tunes?
The progressive decent Christian conservatives of yesteryear, would be turning in their graves!
Rhrosty.

We don't need high speed rail, we've got jet planes.

"As they have 70% of the newspaper circulation, plus airtime on radio and TV stations, this has been a major handicap for the Gillard Government, in spite of a mainly credible performance."

"credible performance"

!!

It gets better:

"Apart from shooting themselves in the foot a couple of times, they haven’t done much wrong."

Shot themselves in the foot, this mob has amputated everything below their neck.

Then:

"We should ask what areas of system change could be identified other than the long overdue media diversity?"

Klaas at least correctly identifies Murdoch as having 70% of the readership; that's democracy; that's people deciding what to read; but Murdoch owns no TV or radio media and there are countless blogs which people can read or set up one themselves and let rip.

There has never been a greater diversity in media in Australia or the West.

The attempt by this contemptuous, corrupt government to control the media was for one reason only and that was to vitiate legitimate criticism of their deplorable record in government.

Yet here he have another academic living in cloud cuckoo land wanting to "system change" the media.

Apart from the abc academia needs a major overhaul, if for no other reason then their disconnect from ordinary Australians while those same ordinary Australians pay their wages.

Every time we have an election I get hopping mad that we don't have optional preferential voting as we used to. The only beneficiaries are the major parties. I'd also like to see How to Vote cards abolished, especially as I have an acquaintance who has been brainwashed into believing that a vote is not valid unless it in accordance with a How to Vote card!

In the meantime I'd strongly encourage people to check how their votes will flow if they choose to vote above the line for the Senate. Last election I emailed the NSW offices of the Liberals, Labor and the Greens, as well as local members and senators, asking how an above-the-line vote for their party would flow, and only the Greens bothered to reply (ABC's Anthony Green has it all on his election website). The information was impossible to find on the AEC website, and when I rang our local AEC office they told me, quite erroneously, that the information was solely a matter for the individual parties. If I was inclined to conspiracy theories I would have been in a stew. Not being so, I merely took the time to vote below the line to make sure the nutters and the nasties were right at the bottom of my list, no matter what sweetheart deal they had stitched up with the major parties.

A lot to absorb, Klaas,

Who could successfully introduce some of the major changes proposed?
- I believe an Abbott government would have a far better chance than any Gillard (or otherwise led) Labor Gov't:

. Lib Federal and State governments might appreciate the wisdom of a new diversified Commonwealth - with reasonably autonomous State subsidiaries and local/district Councils - whereas Labor Federal and State would fight it to the bitter end;
. Labor would also strenuously resist IR reform which would reduce the power, role and kudos of the labour Unions - as would have to happen if there was more direct democratic negotiation at workplace level, with more power sharing and involvement given to workers/staff, as particularly in shared ownership and profit sharing arrangements;
. Any reduction in the strength of the Unions would significantly reduce Labor's influence, funding, voter/supporter and recruitment base - an end to Labor as we know it;
. Though you think the Gillard gov't has been reasonably successful, my general feeling of the voting majority is that any sweeping changes proposed by Julia (particularly such momentous ones) would be greeted with shock/horror, spelling a landslide to Abbott - so bitter is the distaste for Julia now.

As for proportional representation (with an end to the current preferential system), either Party could introduce this as a genuine reform in the interests of the voters/populace/nation, but it would need to be with bi-partisan approval and support, including of any necessary electoral boundary changes. But, because this would certainly reduce the potential power of both of the major Parties, it is likely that only a Lib Gov't with majority in both Houses would have the courage to attempt it - in pure interest for the Nation's future evolution.

As for 'Ministerial Appointees' - 'bureaucratic politicos'? No.
Smaller Gov't and better Ministerial Advisors? - OK.

> Can we start with a competent, progressive Government appointed committee to Inquire into the need for constitutional change with a mandate to write a new constitution?<
Good idea - but see above comments.