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 > The keys to the constitution > Comments

The keys to the constitution : Comments

By David Flint, published 23/11/2006

If the states are to be restored or are to be emasculated, that decision should only be made by the people in a referendum.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
As far as the Constitution and states rights goes, how many people really care which bunch of politicians makes the decisions, as long as they are fair and equitable? Would we really be any worse off or better off with more centralisation? It could lead to fewer expensive snouts in the trough – big gain, there.

The current requirement that the Constitution can be changed only by referendum of the people is the thing we have to guard, not the rights of a few daggy state politicians
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 23 November 2006 8:50:02 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 rarely agree with Dvid Flint, one of Australia's most persistent arch-conservatives.

(He is worried that the Howard Government's attempt to expand federal power over the States may work to the advantage of a future Labor government.)

But, as a matter of democratic principle, fundamental changes to commonwealth-state powers should be put to the people, not done on the sly.

If Australia's political structures were being set up now, with the advantages of modern communication, there is no way we would choose a cumbersome 3-tier system. There is a lot of logic behind scrapping the States altogether and evolving a 2-tier system, local government being given an expanded role. New Zealanders live comfortably without having States.

Easier said than done, it is very hard to break away from the status quo with all of its entanglements.

But such an eventual evolution should be put to the people through a protracted nationwide discussion and constitutional referendum process.

Dividing powers and responsbilities between the commonwealth (where it is most sensible and appropriate to do so) and regional goverment (where it is most sensible and appropriate to do so) obviously needs a re-hash. There are so many rough edges to our present system.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 23 November 2006 9:18:29 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
it is the habit of australians, both educated, and those less so, to refer to their nation as a democracy. but it is not.

it is a monarchy in law, but one where the monarch long ago was supplanted by the propertied classes, a plutocracy in fact. the existence of the legal fiction of monarchy is maintained purely to ensure that there is a legal alternative to actual democracy.

the politicians guild has been running the state for long enough to become the de facto rulers, by acting as brokers to the corporate interests, the public servants, and the labor unions. the result is far from being a tyranny- but it is not democracy.

mr flint's complaints reflect this reality. he has much to say about what the powerful in our society 'ought to do', but nothing to say about what citizens should do. that's as it must be, for the people of australia are subjects, not citizens. they, and he, are not 'doers', but rather those 'done to'.

mr flint wants the decisive power of australian society to remain in the hands of the 'betters', and also wants the 'betters' to use that power for the common good. (he might sooner wish that hyenas were vegetarian) the 'betters' are inclined to use their power for their own good- to no one's surprise, except possibly mr flint.

it is not impossible to achieve actual democracy in australia, it merely needs a large group of educated self-reliant people to organize and demand it. alas, mr flint represents the standard of political thought that passes for 'intelligentsia' in oz, which may be why this group is commonly called 'chatterati'. while his thoughts pass for relevant discussion, democracy will not be on the agenda.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:20:26 AM
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
As opposed to "You get the government you vote for" Dave seems to have woken up to the parallel "We get the government you vote for" and "You get the government we vote for".

Everything's been trundling along so nicely for Dave and his mates under John Winston, but it seems to be dawning on them how awesomely bad the consequences could be for them if JW isn't immortal after all. Apparently it's OK to stuff around with the constitution so long as your favourite people will always be in charge.

Shame this didn't occur to you earlier Dave.
Posted by chainsmoker, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:00:13 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 too need to align myself with the professor of the pompodour:

The decision by the High Court has left the population at the mercy of Politicians - more so than we are now -

The mutterings of some of Howards Mininsters yesterday about how they will give the Australian public what they think is in its best interests was frightening -

and flies in the face of Howards assertion that there would be no hubris shown by the Gubment just because they had control of both houses - that has been proved a porky -

they will use this power as they see fit - whether it fell into their laps or not - and at some stage it will be the turn of the left as we say.

At least this gives Rudd something to go the PM with next year - not that they have laid a glove on him yet.

A refendum on states rights might just ginger up the poll in 2007.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:34:14 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 nearly got sucked in but then Flinty let the cat out of the bag in this one by saying

"A future government could attempt to regulate prices and incomes, re-regulate the labour market and if socialism becomes fashionable again, effect the nationalisation of any sector of the economy"

Howards IR laws?

A fedeal Labor and States to match?

The death of conservative parties?

Flinty may appear to be bipartisan here but scratch the surface and there's much to reveal.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 23 November 2006 2:25:33 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
I can only agree with David that the Constitution has been distorted out of recognition by our esteemed Justices of the High Court, and that they have demonstrated studied contempt for the expressed will of the people on several occasions. Perhaps we should count ourselves fortunate that Keating et al sought a change to a republic via a referendum, instead of asking the Court to rule that the provisions relating to the Queen were temporary provisions and that there were implied clauses providing for a president elected by two-thirds of Parliament.

I believe that the fatal defect in the Constitution is one we share with the United States - that is, that the High Court Judges are appointed by the Federal Government. Even though the US has the requirement that they be confirmed by the senate, they are still being confirmed by federal politicians, who in the last analysis, are ALL centralists, and will naturally choose judges of a similar persuasion. At least we do have rare occasions, best illustrated in the republic referendum, when the ordinary people can demonstrate to the political class how little we trust them, and what a low opinion we have of them.

I see no way that this situation will change.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 23 November 2006 2:53:35 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
We definitely need to rid ourselves of a layer of Govt.The states should go,and we should amalgamate our Local Councils into larger Shires making all council appointments professional positions with salaries and consequences of failure or success comesurate with their salaries.Our Local Councils are a joke,everyone hates their autocratic pomposity with a passion.They have alienated themselves from any sense of community spirit for fear of litigation.They are just gutless,spineless,invertabrates.Now how's that for a tautalogy?

All our Govt bodies need rationalising in terms of security of job tenure and their efficiencies.The GST was a huge mistake ,since our State Govts just took it,gave themselves a pay rise and grew their bureaucracies.

It is a shame that real change will only happen when our economy reaches it's irredeemable death throes.Before the rise of Helen Clarke in New Zealand,their PS was minute,but alas it now grows.Presently New Zealand has one Public Servant for 67 people,we in Australia have a ratio of one PS for every 17 people.It just doesn't add up.With prosperity,decadence seems to be the order of the day,and with decay comes poverty of both the body,mind and spirit.

We in the West know we are in decay,yet show no courage or will to change our course.The Romans went the same way.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 23 November 2006 8:18:51 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
Arjay -

I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with you on the nature of local councils.

Here we have the idea of democracy at it's purest, with all of it's beauty and ugliness on display.

I am not a councillor or council employee, but I go to Council meetings more than twice a month in multiple shires. Sure, I've encountered a few councillors I have reservations about, but by and large, they are doing what they were elected to do.

Unlike parliament, anyone who runs for council does actually have a crack at getting in, certainly in smaller areas.

Most of their problems actually come from state government requirements - of course, there needs to be oversight, but by the same token, there needs to be room for discretion so they can make decisions that actually fit, rather than following a 'one size fits all policy.'

The 'alienation from community spirit' is more a result of these planning requirements than litigation. Yeah, councillors are wary of litigation, but it's not their money, it's the shires.

So if they are being cautious about it, it's only because they fear for ratepayers money, not their own.

That is not a selfish concern.

It's easy to complain about local councils. We all do when things don't go our way.

On the one hand, people complain when a noisy or polluting business opens next door. On the other hand, people complain when their plans to open a business are stifled. There's no win there.

It's easy to complain. It takes guts to stand up and do something about it.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 25 November 2006 4:40:53 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
And as for amalgamating shires into bigger ones... you complain that the councillors are alienated from community concern.

How the hell is making bigger councils with more ratepayers actually going to improve this?

In small councils, people actually know their councillors and see them on the street. They say hello in the supermarket, and sometimes hurl abuse at them.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the best kind of democracy.

The decision makers made to live among the unwashed masses. That's the go.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 25 November 2006 4:44:02 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
TL&R,there is no accountability.Local Councils are just trumped,autocratic,bureaucratic,dictators.I deal with ratepayers on a daily basis,trying to get approval for the most basic of structures.Many councils are dictating everything from size shape ,design, and colour of any structures or flora.

Get rid of the the state Govts,amalgamate the councils and make all positions professional ,well paid,but most importantly,there be no security of job tenure for any employee.If you stuff up,find another job as happens in private enterprise.Presently,if you stuff up in the PS,you either get promoted or moved sideways.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 25 November 2006 7:58:38 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
I think Flint is absolutely right in what he assumes is taking place throughout the states and domestic politics.

That is:

‘A future government could attempt to regulate prices and incomes, re-regulate the labour market and if socialism becomes fashionable again, effect the nationalisation of any sector of the economy.’
Flint goes on to point out that the potential for increased central control, is easily increased with the latest high court decisions. Whereas once Federalism was the outcome of high court disputes, now the turn-around blinds the historians, and the psychoanalysts.

Flint said: ‘Reflecting the warning of Justice Kirby in his strong dissent, Professor Craven warned that the federal authorities now have an “open cheque to intervene in almost any area of state power that catches its eye, from higher and private education, through every aspect of health, to such matters as town planning and the environment”.’ A very Singaporean way of doing things.

And to ensure this all is secured in the present, for the future oligoccracy, ‘It seems that a convention is the best way of assuring this’.

Herein lies the diametric. Because, while Flint’s correct in suggesting that a referendum is perhaps needed. He also seems to be suggesting that ‘convention’ will suffice. Perhaps he is also suggesting it is in place. And that dear Henry, is where I reckon we are at right now. I believe that those on high, and their supporters, believe that we are at the point of fait-accompli in Australia’s progress. Australia is one step away from becoming a fully fledged republic, a one –party state, with a two tiered socialist system. And it will occur automatically, as if by magic.
Posted by Gadget, Sunday, 26 November 2006 3:46:16 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
What would you all say if I told you all that "federal" is entirely different to FEDERAL? That nobody but the people can in fact amend the Constituion in any case right to this very day?

That what we call the Federal Government today is a completely foreign agent overlay operating over the top of the original Consitutional federal government which can not be in control today because we the people are not operatin our affairs using money of substance?

"The states shall mint only gold and silver coin as a payment of debts"

How many of you know that the Commonwealth of Australia went into receivership in 1929? as evidenced by the Financial Emergency Act 1931-1935 of which I have the entire document? How many of you know that the gold and silver backing of the money was completely removed in 1971 at the ending of the Bretton-Woods agreement which then naturally changed the form of law that we are operating in the public?

How many of you know how all of the above ties in to the use of false allegations and why one can and will be punished even if there is no actual proof of such allegations?

How many of you know what Securitization is? How many of you know that the registration of your birth certificates is the registration of a financing statement used for the purpose of securitization?

How many of you that a duality exists today between what is called the private [original constitutional venue and jurisdiction] and the public [the fiction corporate overlay that took over in 1973?]

How many of you are aware that you cannot own any property in the true sense of the word anymore because all title to property is now under a split-title system with the Corporate State assuming the priority security interest title [as creditors] and the people ownership [debtors]?

How many of you are ready for the rest of the story of which the above is the mere tip of the iceberg?

Best Regard
Posted by Honour Dishonour, Monday, 27 November 2006 3:51:21 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
Im ready.
Posted by Jellyback, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 1:16:40 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
could i get the document Financial Emergency Act 1931-1935

thank you
Posted by karipori, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 2:29:28 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