Maybe it is time for the major parties to cut to the chase and call a summit on the federation - its purpose objectives and value - forget about incremental changes to national codes or national methods of management

Early in his leader of the oppositionship Rudd talked about reframing the federation - he speaks little of it now. LIndsay Tanner puts in his 2 bobs worth on the subject every now and then as well.

In recent years we have had talk of a national approach to health - those discussions withered on the vine; we are talking of a national approach to our major water way; we have something approaching a national power grid. Julie Bishop is talkng about a national curriculum for schools - we have a national Aged Care network, National social security services - now the scales have fallen from the eyes of the PM we might have a serious and coordinated approach to Climate Change - and here we have talk of a national criminal code -

We are widely known to be on of the most over governed countries in the world - there may be something to say for some of these oves by the feds - personally I am sceptical of their intentions - but the best way to ensure a genuine non partisan approach to a New Federalism is to start a national debate on over arching change - not leave it to the whim of the incumbents - who ever is in charge.

State governments are losing power by attrition and in many instances are having their competence questioned with respect to everything else they manage - maybe it is time to examine their over all usefullness -

We were able to develop a constitution a little over a hundred years ago - maybe its time we rethought our entire system of governance - instead of adopting what looks like a piece-meal approach to enhance the powers of the Federal Governement

I am sure that a majority of electors in most states would like me be strongly opposed to any further harmonisation of state criminal laws. Proponents of this simply do not understand geographical multiculturalism. Queensland, particularly north Queensland, is different from NSW or Victoria. Tasmania is different from all other states. If you suscribe to the view that environment shapes people's social attitudes, which I think applies to all except a few internationalists, (who have been completely marginalised ever since the Tampa sailed onto the scene), then this difference is to be expected. In a democratic society differences mean different laws. The main trouble so far is that the is already too much harmonisation. We should have one state where posession of a drug can result in castration, mutilation, decapitation, etc., and on the other side of the frontier (which you are entitled to cross) there would be a bounty payable to all drug growers under the agricultural assistance scheme. We could then enjoy the spectacle of offenders racing for the state frontier pursued by the police, with no interstate extradition available.

The ideal set of traffic laws would require that vehicles change side of the road whenever they cross a state frontier. The only problem with implementing this would be that in South Australia they would have to travel down the centre of the road.

What the commonwealth government should be, (and what is was when the constitution was adopted), is a second-class, second-grade sovereignity of limited and strictly enumerated powers. The changes since that time have not been brought about by a vote of the people, but by judicial action. Is it any wonder that any referendum increasing commonwealth power is vigorously voted down?

One reason Joe Bjelke-Petersen was such a great success is that he understood State patriotism. When Whitlam proposed moving the border to halfway in Torres Strait he said that changing the Australian border was a minor matter to be settled by bureaucrats, but Whitlam was proposing moving the border of QUEENSLAND!

God help us...the legal fraternity would be in uproar!

National Criminal codes, National road rules, Insurance laws, Education, etc. Just imagine the loss of confusion that now reigns supreme with cross jurisdictional issues. E.g. extraditions, border issues and such. They would never hear of it. The loss of legal 'minefeilds' would be one positive aspect alone in unifying just these 4 acts and their various regulations. Federation has failed us with the now topical water issues, so why would it be any different with applying a state and territory based system for this or any other legislation?

Then again, consider the Family Law Act, and Child Support and see how difficult these are to get any sense from. An unmitigated disaster from the outset.

There are always objections to progress especially opinion as to what's progress, anchored in archaic aand historic law and process. In a democracy, in 2007, why do we maintain systems that allow a resident of Australia to be literally at the mercy of the practioners (if they can afford same) in various competing and uncoordianted structures of law? Then the autocracy of the judicial system that can be almost whimsical in what's important and what's not?

We have no National child Protection guidelines and a variety of 'systems' around the investigation and prosecution of child offences, and something laughingly called 'child protection' or 'kiddie fiddling' in other arenas. They don't fit into the federal system of Family Court at all.

Domestic Violence is advertised as something one doesn't have to put up with at state and federal levels, but don't try using state funded agencies to support any claim in the Family court, where state agencies and the support they provide are judicially demeaned as 'fringe agencies'.

One can't look at state criminal law in isolation because it doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Not if we have the slightest intention of improving laws for the people and the well-being of our citizens. That is our aim. Isn't it?

"New South Wales does not have a criminal law code, but works under State Government legislation".

I cant help but wonder exactly what that means in real live terms?

Geographical multiculturalism be buggered!

An over haul of federalism might mean what ever we want it to mean - but I find the notion of states rights and worse still state patriotism puke inducing - but I have a very delicate gag reflex.

We have - for a country of 20,750,00 and then some - an elected officil state and federal for every 25,000 punters - add to that the plethora local councillors ( around 675 councils at an average of 9 council ) we have an elected offical for every 300 or so of us - scary isnt it! - there can be no good reason against over hauling a system with a preponderance of over paid toss pots.

Whether this means increased or decreased federal powers is irrelevant so long as it is easier and cheaper for the average citizens to go about his daily life

All right I am not a lawyer, but a realist, in that I rely upon what the Constitution stand for and not the garbage lawyers are giving.

The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country at all, it is merely a limited POLITICAL UNION, like the European Union. The Constitution was based upon every Colony (now State) to retain its own criminal system, etc.

On 6-7-2006 I published another book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

Subsequently on 19 July 2006 I used this as evidence in my appeals and succeeded in both appeals and more over not a single constitutional issue I raised was UNCHALLENGED by the Federal Government lawyers, including that the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to interfere with the manner State Courts operate, and hence the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 providing for “averment” was unconstitutional!

Also that Australian citizenship has nothing to do with nationality but is in regard of political rights such as franchise, was UNCHALLENGED.

See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

My 30-9-2003 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

Also, that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that a State could NULLIFY Commonwealth law, as to refuse to enforce it against a citizen of the State where it did not approve of the particular commonwealth law.

The states are basically independent countries (under the British Crown), with their own sovereign rights, which have simply, as like in Europe, combined certain powers for the good of all but desire otherwise to keep their own independence.

If just lawyers could understand this rather then perhaps try to make it easier for themselves.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW to enforce Commonwealth law in fact means a JUDICIAL DECISION by a State Court. If lawyers practiced this appropriately we never would have had cases like Vivian Alvarez Solon and Cornelia Rau.
Therefore, let lawyers first learn what is applicable before seeking to change things.
See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.co

Yes, Yes, Yes...

Unify the law, education, traffic, health, water, everything....

It's so obvious. Federation might have made sense a hundred years ago but today it is simply a political anachronism, a quirk of history, a debilitating legacy.

State governments should go.... local governments should be larger and more efficient... we should waste less of our money running elections and supporting massively bloated redundant bureaucracies. IT IS TIME to get rid of state government.

Politicians wont support it.... (wonder why!)
Lawyers wont support it... (well.. some might)

Only we ordinary Aussie battlers seem to have sufficient intellectual horsepower (at least two neurones and one synapse required) to see the bleeding obvious.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law, there is in Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States, page 215, this statement-
Due process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings, and this is regulated by the law of the state.
If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the parties-
Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.
Hansard 31-1-1898
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution