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 > Local government referendum should be rejected in interests of the federation > Comments

Local government referendum should be rejected in interests of the federation : Comments

By Grant Wyeth, published 5/7/2013

This referendum to recognise local councils will be a further step to entrench power in Canberra and undermine the idea and the benefits of a federal system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
More centralised power is not necessarily the bad thing that the author seems to be portraying it as. It is a two-edged sword.

As far as I’m concerned, there is very little difference between federal and state governments, of either persuasion. For one thing; they all seem to be fundamentally in the pockets of developers and big business and forever blindly pushing to increase growth, and consequently taking us rapidly away from a sustainable future.

So I wouldn’t be at all worried if this referendum led to a bit of streamlining between federal and local government and hence a bit more power for the feds and less for the states.

The most amazing thing here is that local government is currently not recognised in the constitution! So then, how on earth can we possibly have local government? Or, how can we have it AND respect the constitution?

Shouldn’t the government just automatically fix up anything that is found to be at odds with our constitution? Why do we need a referendum?

Will local government have to be abolished if the no vote wins? Or will we just continue to live with a glaring contradiction between our national governmental rule book and the reality of the three-tiered system?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 5 July 2013 8:48:52 AM
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
What a load or ruubbish this article is.

This is the current paragraph in the constitution:

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the
Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise
provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any
State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit

The following are the TWELVE, count them, TWELVE words that are proposed to be added to the constitution:

"or to any local government body formed by a law of a State."

So the new paragraph will read:

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the
Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise
provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any
State, OR TO ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODY FORMED BY A LAW OF A STATE,
on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

Local government REMAINS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE (FORMED BY A LAW OF THE STATE).

All this change does is provide certainty for the Federal government to provide funding for grants, for libraries, for sporting fields, for Roads to Recovery programs and for infrastructure development.
Don't be scared into voting no by this kind of mendacious campaign by people who have a hidden agenda related to the current Federal government. There are no threats in this change.

Vote yes for certainty.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Friday, 5 July 2013 9:23:51 AM
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
Ludwig, the reason that a referendum is required is that section 128 of the constitution requires it. Without a referendum approved by the people it would remain an illegal act for the bills to be presented to the Governor-General for Royal Assent.

Don't worry, if we all work hard the referendum will fail. The vote in New South Wales may not even matter, as if the three smallest Sovereign States vote NO the referendum is lost.

As usual, the voters will find that in the referendum the politicians are occupying a stationary position, and will give them both barrels. Since federation the Labor Party has submitted over 40 referenda to the people, with only one being approved, and that was nearly 70 years ago. If this one were to be passed, it would make history, as it has already been rejected twice, and no rejected question has ever been approved on a later attempt.

I would dearly love to vote in a referendum I could wholeheartedly support and to that end would suggest one that would provide that the total salary and expenses paid to any politician could not exceed the current value of the dole.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 5 July 2013 9:24:26 AM
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 disagree almost entirely.

One good reason for the referendum on federal government/local government financing is the problem of demand management. The currency issuing government (the Sovereign Federal Government) is responsible for monitoring demand for both labour and resources everywhere in Australia. When the private market demand slumps, as it invariably must as confidence wavers, then the sovereign government needs to take stimulatory action such as it did in 2008 when it introduced the cash handouts, the school buildings program, and the insulation program. Often the slump differs in intensity for various areas.

Next time there is a slump local government could quickly be given funds for footpaths, kerb and guttering, road maintenance etc. Local government could also be encouraged to have shovel ready plans for emergency housing.

During the stimulus programs for 2008 in NSW, and some other states the state government ensured that they creamed off some of the school buildings cash to meet their own overheads or, possibly, to fund other programs.

In 2008 the schools program was a good choice as that program provided work and demand everywhere in Australia. That increase in demand is what the Rudd cabinet had to aim for. Those stimulus moves will be necessary again some time in the future and would be much more readily applied if at least some of the expenditure was directly through local government.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 5 July 2013 9:40:34 AM
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
France is a European country of 63 million people with one government. Australia is still a European country with seven governments and seven Governose generals.

France has a standard gauge (4'6") railway system throughout all of France. Australia has three gauges in six different states and two territories (5'3", 4'6", and 3'6"). A motorist in France is licenced to drive anywhere in France. in Australia, each state and territory has a separate licence, although interstate truck drivers can get a Federal license, because the whole thing was so idiotic that it was a real burden on truck commerce.

A builder, or an electrician, or a nurse in France, is licenced to be of that profession in all of France. In Australia, there are eight different licences for the various states and territories. And anyone moving to another state to work, even for a short length of time, must purchase a license for that state or territory.

If this referendum is going to "centralise power in Canberra", then I am all for it. The sooner we abolish the states, the better
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 5 July 2013 12:02:21 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
Rubbish.
For far too long AUTOCRATIC state Govts, have been the tail that endeavours to wag the Federal dog.
We have almost always had councils, sometimes ahead of state legislatures.
State govts are notorious for placing all sorts of roadblocks in the path of common progress or purpose, and have always acted as a political force, that often played hard ball with the federal Govt.
And high time those patently political fangs were pulled, given the harm they invariably do to someone or the most vulnerable.
States don't have rights. The only rights as do exist are those conferred by the ballot box.
If the states want rights, then they as a collective of us, need to see we the people, have irrevocable rights.
That is the only way the states will have rights. The rest is just rhetoric!
State govts are the one tier of Govt., or middlemen "profit takers", we really could do without; and, pocket the 70+ billions they cost the tax payer, just for the privilege, of putting up with their often corrupt mismanagement practises, and the fact that they almost single-handed, have combined to make the median house price in Australia, the highest in the English speaking world.
I for one will be voting yes to the proposal and urge others to do the same.
It's simply not good enough for state based politicians to put self interest ahead of the expressed will of the people. Or indeed, act to effectively usurp that will!
The need to finally understand they are elected to serve, rather than rule or exercise personal power!
A yes vote will underline the fact, that we the people are their employers!
And that they are beholden to us for their titles and overly generous salaries and entitlements.
That we don't owe them a living, or the preservation of a massively manipulated archaic system, that makes a virtual nonsense of the concept of democracy, or the expressed voting intention of the majority; and or, makes us the most over-governed people on the planet, with just one exception.
Vote yes!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 5 July 2013 12:15:02 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
The referendum is not an attack on artificial tribalism(aka federalism). I'll be voting Yes with a yawn though concerned about cossetting local councils dominated by self-serving developers and estate agents. If it were really a move to end tribalism I'd be voting Yes with enthusiasm and urging others to do likewise, for the reasons advanced by Foyle and Rhrosty and Lego plus some in addition.

Australia, a small country, is saddled with nine governments. Every Australian citizen has two governments chipping away at his or her liberty. For example all young Australian men stood to be conscripted by the national government into America's colonial war in Vietnam while at the same time West Australians and Tasmanians were also denied freedom of assembly, and Queenslanders were subjected to a raft of repressive state laws. Currently Victorians are subject to blasphemy laws (dressed up as anti-vilification) to protect Islam but not the infidels, apostates and blasphemers the Moslem "holy books" vilify and urge followers to behead.

Two governments denying the one citizen liberty are a double whammy, as neither government has power to restore the liberties the other government steals.

Anything that can rid us of all but one government is well worth supporting.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Friday, 5 July 2013 2:35:38 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
There is no way I'd vote for any constitutional recognition of local government. The referendum proposal may be dressed up as a funding need but in reality it would give local governments the constitutional legitimacy they have craved for decades. As it stands councils are collecting an illegal tax, rates based on property value, and should they be recognised in the constitution that illegality would likely be struck down.

When the constitution was created the founding fathers, arguably, left out local government as they did not want to authorise three tiers of government in Australia. Local councils have slowly extended their tentacles of influence and interference further into our lives and we have sat back and let them. Now is the time to say no more...get back in your (padded) boxes local governments. We don't want you in our lives and collecting illegal taxes and fines. Keep to rubbish collection and road maintenance

Vote NO to more power for local governments!
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 8 July 2013 10:01:29 AM
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
Minotaur, surely we should always be striving to bring the law and accepted practice into line. Local government and the Constitution have been out of whack forever… which just makes a mockery of the Constitution.

So if we are going to value our Constitution, and the rule of law in general, then we need to recognise local government within it.

The only other options are;

to continue to have one thing enshrined in law and something entirely different happening in practice or

we eliminate local government by rebranding every local government as a state government branch… which I guess could be done without significantly affecting the functionality of the current setup.

As far as giving local government, or state or federal government, more power; it is a two-way street – it can have advantages and disadvantages. It definitely wouldn’t simply be all bad, as you are implying.

So vote YES, which will at give least some sort of formal recognition to local government in the Constitution.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 8 July 2013 10:37:28 AM
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
You must be kidding Ludwig. Voting yes would be akin to voting for a Pandora's Box inside a Trojan horse. I believe that lack of constitutional recognition makes a mockery of the legitimacy of local government, not the other way around. As Australian citizens we are grossly over-governed and part of that is attributable to the creation of local governments. We should be getting rid of them; not giving them more authority!

I'll be voting NO!
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 8 July 2013 10:57:34 AM
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 believe that lack of constitutional recognition makes a mockery of the legitimacy of local government… >>

Yes.

But the converse is just as true. You can’t have one without the other – the accepted legal status of local government and of its power to charge rates, impose fines, etc, makes a mockery of the Constitution.

So Minotaur, what would you do about this?

Would you leave it as it is, insert formal recognition of local government in the Constitution, which apparently can only happen by way of a referendum, change the definition of local government so that it is formally part of state government, or abolish local governments outright?

<< Voting yes would be akin to voting for a Pandora's Box inside a Trojan horse. >>

I can’t see it. Can you substantiate this claim?

<< …we are grossly over-governed… >>

I strongly disagree. We are inefficiently governed. We actually need considerably stronger governance in many areas.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 8 July 2013 12:43:40 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
It would appear to me, Ludwig, that as it is being presented the referendum question is a covert means of giving local government the constitutional recognition they have been desperate for. Once included in the Constitution they could then say they have the legal authority to impose taxes or create laws. They could also say they have the authority to stand alone from state government jurisdiction, which is what created them in the first place. If you believe the argument that inclusion is necessary for funding purposes then you may also believe the government when it says asylum seekers are primarily economic refugees or that there will be no carbon tax.

I agree that we are inefficiently governed but surely part of the inefficiency comes from being over-governed? Here in Tasmania we have 29 (used to be 56) local councils for a population of 500 000. On top of that there are 25 MPs, 16 legislative councillor's, 6 senators and 5 federal reps. Surely a prime example of over-governance?

Personally I would like to see local governments wiped from the political landscape. As it stands many councils leave the day to day running of municipality to a team of professionals with a manager or CEO at the top. Get rid of the wannabe political players and simply keep the management teams who would ultimately report to the state government. After a few mergers to increase efficiencies of course.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 8 July 2013 1:13:02 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
OK guys. I am reading but it's not going in. Forgive me for asking .. IF the referendum fails (and the majority do) will all Local Government be illegal?? I know there are some local governments that do not deserve to exist, but how can this matter be rectified?? OF they are illegal what is the outlook for all the laws and by-laws of the council?? To make it illegal wouldn't that cause chaos??
Posted by mally, Monday, 8 July 2013 1:14:59 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
That is the great debate Mally! As it stands local governments are created by state legislation. However, the Constitution does not give the power to any government to create another. On the other hand it does not specifically deny governments that power either. It could be argued that the creators of the Constitution did not believe local government should have any power or that governments be given the authority to bestow them power. That is what has happened though. Many councils also act in direct contravention of the constitution and have put in place a taxation regime; rates based on property value or potential income generation (AAV).

Don't believe rates are a tax? When the GST was introduced the then head of the ATO was asked about rates and responded by saying they are a tax. The only time rates are not classed as a tax is when a flat rate is applied. Local governments know they are on very shaky legal grounds and that is why they are desperate to be given constitutional recognition. It has very little to do with funding and very much to do with avoiding adverse High Court cases.

Should the referendum fail the status quo shall prevail until someone, anyone, challenges the legitimacy of local government imposing taxes or laws in the High Court. Until that happens we just keep on blindly accepting an unconstitutional government body interfering in our lives.
Posted by minotaur, Monday, 8 July 2013 1:26:50 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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