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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.