Why does this forum continue to publish this man. He is a bad joke--especially for someone who is/was a law professor. None of his rantings would pass rigorous examination in a decent first year philosophy class!
By the way who are the REAL elites--that is those who hold and exercise REAL power?
For instance isnt it really the friends of the liberal party who want to build a "private" nuclear power station in Victoria. I wonder how much public subsidy they will demand and expect? Who is going to cover the MASSIVE insurance policies? Who is going to pick up the tab if something goes terribly wrong? Who is going to pay for the eventual decommissioning and dismantling of the said reactor? Who is going to be responsible for the "safe" storage of the nuclear waste?

Another example of the REAL elites is that RUTHLESS PREDATOR the Macquarie bank. Surprise, surprise one of the key groups pushing the sale and gutting of Quantas are key liberal party figures. An exercise that is DEFINITELY going to be at the expense of the average tax-payer.
Again who will pick up the tab if/when things go wrong with Quantas and the airline industry in general. The public taxpayer of course.

If you want to know who the real elites are check out who was invited to the garden party for George Bush a couple of years ago.
There would not have been ANY leftish (elite) chardonnay swilling academics etc etc.

A timely article, David.

Rejuvenating federalism, especially with new states based on communities of interest is the key to a truly sustainable future. For only with a number of new regional states can we begin to implement a system of monetary policy reforms that enable differential interest rates on a state by state basis.

At present the RBA has to wait until Sydney housing has seriously overheated before applying the interest rate brakes. This delay is needed because the other states are in various positions further back in the property cycle. So when the brakes are applied, the Melbourne and Brisbane markets are in the right phase for such action, the other capitals and the various regions have hardly begun their growth phase.

This exacerbates the volatility of the Sydney market and chokes off legitimate growth potential in the regions. A differential interest rate regime would be unworkably complex at a local government level but at a reformed regional state level it would be a very effective means of creating a more efficient and timely distribution of capital.

The wholesale part of the interest rate equation would then be managed on a weighted basket of wholesale borrowing rates based on the location of each bank's lending activity.

The net effect would be a managed reduction in the growth pressure in the major cities that is off-set by more sustainable growth in decentralised regional economies. A win-win outcome.

David, I think the States are history. John Howard has now made it politically acceptable for a future Federal Government to emasculate the States.

I think this is as much to do with the evident shallowness of the State political talent pool as anything else. I mean, if the answers are Iemma or Debnam you would have to wonder what the question was, and who cared enough to ask.

Yes Im all for a central government. That way there's less "elites" and less "elites" means fewer dissenting opinions which means its much easier to control and before you know it we are in David Flint's elite-free monarchistic utopia (or should that be dystopia?). Just like David Flint I would love a nuclear power station in my back yard too - if only we could get those evil states out of the way. Elite - its become an oxymoron and those who still use the word these days need to get widdit.

I am with Hohum on this one - why does this guy get a run - and this time he spent over a thousand words to get to his rather pithy point.

And I have two questions - I made them up myself - not like the author here who tells us he has been asked two questions to justify yet another tired comment - who asked him the questions any way?

And has any one checked his assertion that he never made a wrong prdection in elections since 1993? and what does it matter really? (that was a third)

David Flint [Howard’s mate and former ABC head] has this to say [“A Policy Wish List” On Line Opinion 1 March 2007]:

“My hope is that the next federal government realises that it can best perform its core functions by concentrating on them, by restoring the states to their proper place and not subverting or bribing them, by not seeing centralisation as the answer to all problems, and by not engaging in social engineering or wasting time on some current elite obsession such as the three “R’s” - republicanism, reconciliation or refugees.”

Pardon? Aboriginal Reconciliation as an “current elite obsession”? I take it Mr. Flint does not support a total rejection of any reconciliation process per se but, instead, supports PM Howard’s project-in progress of “practical reconciliation”. If, as his article does read, he rejects the policy of reconciliation full stop, then maybe some of his colleagues and supporters and others in the conservative ranks would like to know what he would envisage as a suitable policy replacement.

If he was, in fact, promulgating a rejection of the reconciliation process, then, surely, any thinking Australian who is aware of the political, historical and societal background to the issue of reconciliation would indeed be alarmed in the event of Mr. Flint’s ‘ideas’ influencing governmental policy.

I quietly suggest that Aboriginal Reconciliation was not and is not a mere “current elite obsession”. It has and has had, for a decade or more, widespread public support as witnessed, for example, in the million –plus Australia-wide marches of a few years ago.

Bill Cameron