PART 1

Arjay
Somehow you do not seem to realize that Telstra is a clear example that having transferred it (at Federation) from the colonies (mow States) more then 100 years ago didn’t solve the problem.

There are numerous other issues where the Commonwealth of Australia has sole power and “stuff it up”!

Look at the many millions we spend on “INTELLIGENT SERVICES” and then end up in a war for non existing ‘WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION”.

How on earth could anyone argue about giving more centralized power to the Commonwealth of Australia where they cannot even manage what they are sole responsible for now.


While, some may argue that the registration of lawyers, doctors, etc is a problem. Well, the same applies with the European Union where a lawyer travels from one State to another to practice.

Somehow people seems to have the notion that the commonwealth of Australia is one country, rather then that it consist of sovereign states that have agreed to have some limited matters combined through a Commonwealth of Australia.

As residents we give the local council power to make certain decisions about our neighbourhood, such as building codes, advertising, etc. But surely you are not going to suggest that the council now can abolish our individual ownership of our properties and it now regulates how we dress, what we eat, etc?

Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia is a limited POLITICAL UNION that cannot destroy the federation pillars, the States.

Look at the 2 week detention the Commonwealth of Australia now pursues to implement, for which it has no constitution power to do so. Just consider the loss of freedoms and rights if we didn’t have the States protection!

As for mismanagement within any particular State, that is part of life. That is why we have elections, to get other idiots doing worse when they in turn are elected. Having a centralized government would only mean that instead of just one or some States then the entire nation suffers!

I for one, regardless of problems, prefer to keep the States sovereignties.

PART 2

It is as with the REPUBLIC push by many, they do not know what they are talking about, and the same for the MONARCHIST.
The Commonwealth of Australia is a limited POLITICAL UNION of the States and so you can forget about it being a REPUBLIC or a MONARCHY as it is neither.
Why change when the changes sought are so for the real reasons?

When the Delegates of the Constitution Convention Debates discussed who ought to be candidates in elections, they made clear that even the “poor” should be able to stand as a candidate, as their financial status in life does not mean they were not competent. As they pointed out any one could have a misfortune by some scrupulous company to loose all their possessions.
The problem we have however is that to get into parliament theses days you need to be member of a political party as the way elections are conducted you have little chance otherwise to get elected. Meaning, that perhaps very bright and competent citizens but lacking the financial resources of an expensive lection campaign are left out in the cold, so to say. No good then complaining about bad State government! Get your act together to ensure we get rid of this kind of discrimination in elections and that we can get the best in Parliament. Then we might resolve State problems better then we otherwise possibly could do. The same with the Commonwealth of Australia

Just letting you know that replacing state government is impossible.

There are three tiers of government. Abolish the 2nd tier and you are left with a new 2nd tier. Call it regional government, but it's state government by another name. By this measure, the abolition of the states is nothing more than the creation of new states.

If you think this a joke, read section 51 of the constitution. The federal government is given a list of functions for which it can legislate. Changing that requires a referendum, otherwise the new 2nd tier remains incharge of police, roads, education ect... The constitution is not really about geography. It's about power.

What Mark is actually attacking is the compact between the 1st and 2nd tier as provided by section 51. They want the federal government to control the 2nd tier in the same way state governments control local government.

So by that reasoning, they want to combine the existing states into the one state. That is to remove the 1st tier. They propose replacing the federal government with a state government.

Hence, replacing state government is impossible.