Wow! Marcus Strom spells it out - and yes - a lot of people have noticed this creeping centralisation.
As an ordinary pedestrian, I have been amazed at the way that a supposedly "conservative" Prime Minister has doggedly moved in this radical direction, a direction that we all thought was the philosophy of the Left.

Surely - I thought - centralisation belongs to wicked totalitarianism - to communist states, to Putin's Russia - not to lovely laissez-faire Liberal democracy!
Well, Howard has pursued his radical agenda while wearing his theatre costume of conservatism.

My particular worry is that Howard's planned nuclear industry "bonanza" for Australian corporations will of necessity be accompanied by a more radical centralisation - top security, high surveillance of the peasantry, suppression of information, suppression of dissent, increased (and justifiable) fear of terrorism, - and a general ambience of fear and loathing.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

what, exactly, is the 'left'? would it be the alp and it's 'me, too' response to police-state government policies?

would it be the 'chatterati' such as yourself, filled with indignation and good intentions- but powerless to move society. i mean powerless in it's basic sense, you can talk endlessly, but have no access to citizen initiative or direct election. worse yet, oz culture has removed from your soul any courage to change things. you are truly subjects, not citizens.

would it be the sheep who show up for the triennial mustering and vote shearing? they are have as much political compass as a cow, and will turn left or right as the popnews dictates.

oz has gotten along well with faux democracy, but the world is intruding and rustic customs exposed as inadequate and simply wrong, if your goal is a good life for every ozzie.

to have a 'left' that matters, you must first have a society competent to discuss, evaluate, and act upon political events.

no, not here.

Socialists have many allies in the fight for the abolition of the states. The National Assembly of Local Government has passed resolutions calling for for a Constitutional Convention with a unicameral system in mind.

A new two-tier system of government would involve establishing one set of national laws for all Australians through democratic decisions taken at the Australian Parliament.

Most national legislation should provide for the decentralisation of service delivery to local government and/or their regional networks, such as the regional organisation of councils.

State governments have been past masters at cost-shifting, playing the blame game while ham-stringing local government financially and stripping communities of their powers to determine their own priorities. Howard has used centralism to further his long held neo-con agenda that has had harsh impacts on ordinary people.

Should socialists plan for their use the powerful fiscal and legal instruments of Australian law to replace Howard's policies? Absolutely. A fair system of national industrial laws is a far better instrument to deliver improved standards in workplaces than the mish mash of inconsistant state laws.

A national Local Government Act could similarly strengthen and empower local communities by enhancing service delivery and boosting local infrastructure. The efficiency dividend to be achieved by cutting out the states, the middle tier government, has been estimated by economists to be in the range of $20 Billion to $30 Billion a year. Those kind of savings justify making this struggle a priority, not just for socialists, but for all Australians.

The status quo is not a sustainable alternative for a progressive country that seeks a leadership position in the world.

Hi Quickresponse,

Actually I floated this qn many years ago when I first arrived in Oz. To say I was met with instant howling and protest even from the unit lecturer is understating what was said.

I was and remain amazed that in this 'day and age' of shrinking borders, fast communication and travel Oz is living and operating in the time warp of the 19th century.

Whilst I agree with you in principle a charter of rights should preceed any move in that direction.

To do otherwise would be to give pollies and their mandarins unfettered powers despite Lord Actons' words of warning.

Gawwwd, the Marxists/Fabians are at it again. At attacking the Howard Government as if he himself molested the Aboriginal children. Had Howard done this ten years ago, he would have been labelled a racist. It's a matter of being ridiculed no matter what. It is the left that has created much destruction of the Aboriginals by pumping out welfare without restrictions, by blaming whites when they break the law, by creating black apartheid and wanting it more. Leftists are racists people. The most racist people in Australia as they move to commit cultural genocide against the white Australian.

It is self responsibility and the leftists are all against this.

How timely for this article to still be commented upon on the day that Howard announced that negotiations over water rights with Victoria were off.

The Victorian water minister pointed out that the federal government wants the right to allocate water down to the farm level presumably so their good mates like Cubby Downs and Manildra always get a water allocation. There will be no more unseemly fights like occurred in the Riverina in the 1990s when John Elliott couldn't get a water allocation and had to sell WaterWheel.

The author claims that the Constitution is almost changed, well as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I would agree with this, albeit the High Court of Australia has purportedly changed with the UNCONSTITUTIONAL Australia Act 1986.
.
The High Court of Australia also deceived the people with its deceptive 14-11-2006 judgment about WorkChoices, as it did in Sue v Hill, Sykes v Cleary, the Franklin Dam, Mabo and a whole range of other cases.
.
This post would not allow me to set it all out but anyone interested can always use the ling to my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in both appeal on all constitutional issues I raised UNCHALLENGED because I knew what was constitutionally applicable better then the lawyers in the 5-year litigation did.
.
We need better trained judges at the High Court of Australia who are willing to do their job within the limited judicial powers provided to them in the Constitution rather then to act as a STAR CHAMBER COURT and using KANGAROO COURT type of proceedings.
.
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
.
As set out on my blog there are no constitutional powers for the Federal Government to do as they are doing against Aboriginals!
.
HANSARD 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. GORDON.-
The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out."
.
The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country at all but a “POLITICAL UNION” and as such cannot have a centralised government either..
.
The Premiers should pursue the RULE OF LAW what is constitutionally permissible, as they are the once allowing this constitutional deception to occur!
.
As for the WATER issue, this also is an unconstitutional grab for power!