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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.