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.