I agree with the main point that Australia needs to overhaul our out-dated constitution. But we should be looking way beyond Brown's exciting proposals to find the best system of Government for the next millenium.

There are billions to be saved annually by introducing a unicameral system to replace our broken 3-tier system of government.

A streamlined two tier system with one body of law for all Australians will overcome the blame game, inefficiency and the leakage of money into 8 state and territory legislatures and the civil services.

Our system of justice can take a quantum leap by adopting the European model that is focussed on seaching for the truth through inquiry rather than our seriously flawed and costly adverserial system.

Appointment of government ministers should be opened up to non-elected experts for the positions.

Engaging the population through e-consultation would help ensure that policy making does not become so heavily skewed towards the well connected.

Is Rudd up to that kind of challenge? Time will tell just how dynamic he will be - and whether he can reign in the dictatorial precedent for the Prime Minister's Office set by Howard.

A referendum to remove the state governments and divide their powers
between the local councils and the Australian government is long overdue.
It would solve lots of arguments and save lots of money.
As the senate would no longer be relevant as the states house it could
also be removed.

I cannot see the parties agreeing to this as much of their largess to
the party officials would disappear. How we get such a referendum
without the co-operation of the parties, I have no idea.

Bazz
You may not have noticed but the senate has not been a house for the states for a very long time, it is all about the parties.

When the people decide and stop voting for the liberal and labor parties and place them last then change will come.

Vote independent

Well of course Tapp I was aware that the parties rule in the senate.
I usually do vote for a different party or independent but the
preferential system means that you finally get down to the last two.
I am very much in favour of the preferential system but not keen on
the optional preferential. Thats just for lazy voters.

"with the aid of party discipline"

There in we find the problem. Your local member represents their party first (or their financial backers/donors) and you a very far second.

Voting for a party you don't belong and cannot influence is just too easy and too silly. Unfortunately, few parties allow for that kind of involvement and too few of us care.

I did notice;
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.
.
Well to me neither he or those who placed a comment seem to have any understanding what the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) stands for.
.
The British system is one of a "sovereign” Parliament whereas since federation neither the States and certainly not the Commonwealth of Australia are "sovereign" Parliament as they are "constitutional" Parliaments.
.
The democrats ill conceived 2003 Bill is precisely that as constitutionally the Governor-General for the Monarch has the prerogative powers to declare war or peace. Nothing to do with the Prime Minister.
.
Constitutionally the Governor-General appoint a judge, upon recommendation of the Federal executive, as the Framers of the Constitution intended, this is why we have so many incompetent High Court of Australia adjudicating in cases because they haven’t got any competence in certain constitutional matters before the Court.
.
If the article reflects George Williams perception of what is constitutionally applicable then I have concerns as to those he teaches. He may do better to spend some time reading the books I have published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series about certain constitutional and other legal issues as well as my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com.
.
I may have expected such an article from a first year law student but to me some of the nonsense in it should not come from a Professor and Director!
.
As for the real power with the federal executive, this always was so where the Governor-General is the head of the federal executive, but the problem is that we do not have a validly appointed Governor-General!
.
As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I can state that "OUR" Constitution is not at fault, it are the people misusing/abusing powers where the problems lies.

It are indeed.

As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I can state that "OUR" Constitution is not at fault, it are the people misusing/abusing powers where the problems lies.
The problem is in the system we live under which is based on the exploitation of labour, land, water and all resources. That is what you have to start with. All the deceit, treachery, broken promises and daily criminal enterprises then follow. Because profits from all money relations dominate and control including picking the type of politicians we are saddled with. How else can you explain the politicians with their $300,000 expensive junkets overseas which they get to spend in three months? Whilst crying loudly there is no money for education or healthcare! How else can you explain the politicians giving away a dam to their cronies (Warragamba)along with the whole infrastructure including lands?
If it was so easy to reform "our" government or any other then you are obliged to ask why has it not happened here or elsewhere, going back a couple of centuries? It is not "our" government nor yours it is Big Money that dominates and dictates Labor and Liberal policies and has done so since their founding - the ALP in the 1880's and the Liberals in the 1930's. Never forget that when the politicians treachery is too blatant and the real existing relations are glimpsed into - then the politicians are dismissed - without elections of course.
We do not need more laws that enshrine a system based on lies, deceit and daily criminal practice against society and the whole social infrastructure. As well as, becoming more oppressive and driving down living standards. What we need is a Workers Government of the workers and for the workers controlled by the immense majority. Where as, the present political system serves a minute percentage of the population.

On 2 November 2001 I pursued before the Federal Court of Australia that all writs for the Federal election were unconstitutional/defective/ULTRAVIRES. Hence, I refused to vote. On 16 November 2006 a magistrate made clear that if the writs were invalid then John Howard never was elected and then neither was the 2004 federal election valid. However, the next day, he refused to provide me with a written reason of judgment but simply declared I was guilty of “FAILING TO VOTE" in both federal elections. I appealed and also published a book on 6-7-2007 setting out that I had not voted and this as no constitutional valid elections were held. I filed this book as evidence for the trial on 19 July 2006. Including a Section-78B Judiciary Act NOTICE-OF-CONSTITUTIONAL-MATTERS was before the Court I had filed in 2002 already canvassing numerous constitutional issues. None of the Attorney-Generals wanted to challenge me and neither did the Federal Government lawyers and the result was that I won the appeal UNCHALLENGE. The judge refused however to hand down a reason of judgment why I had succeed in the appeals, albeit orders were issued that the convictions were set aside and the charges struck out.
In my view, the 5-year long litigation had resulted that the Court knew that to dismiss my appeals it had to hand down a reason of judgment and so having to show that the writs were constitutional valid, etc, and this obviously it never could do. With allowing my appeals it simply avoided having to hand down a judgment. My view was that the magistrate was “told” to convict me without reason of judgment despite of my request for a reason of judgment, and that the judge could not get out of a reason of judgment if she was to convict me and so took the way out most suitable to the federal government not to hand down a reason of judgment by simply granting my appeal.
But, at least I proved I wasn’t taking their nonsense! And if more people did the same we would all be better off.

There is another issue. I have challenged the constitutional validity of the Federal Government to demand a deposit to be a candidate, as the Framers of the Constitution held that even the poor should be able to stand as a candidate.
If trade unions were to hold elections where a deposit would be required and a number of signatures then the Federal Government would be quick of the mark to claim that it is a denial of a fair and proper election.
This post cannot set it all out, but my blog does a lot, and also my books.

Many a person ask me what can they do and I make clear do what you deem best.
I cannot tell people what path to follow as while I succeeded after a 5-year legal battle many others may not have the stamina to do so.
Politicians of all political colours are robbing us blind and getting away with it because they control the power.
No one may have fought them as much as I have done.
I even have taken on the judges of the High Court of Australia about their KANGAROO COURT and STAR CHAMBER COURT conduct.
I have been given the understanding by journalist that the Federal government banned the media to report about me, even when I was convicted and when I succeeded in the appeals.
I took on the government before the High Court of Australia for the unconstitutional invasion into Iraq, again on 19 March 2003, the day of the invasion, but the judges railroaded my cases time and again. That is where the problems lies, We have judges who I view are puppets for the Federal Government and fraternised with the Governor-General when he was a defendant in a case before the court.
Still my trademark is; MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®.
.
PEOPLES POWER; Reclaim our constitutional and legal rights and hold judges and politicians accountable.
.
I will refuse to vote again, but those who vote may perhaps do better to vote first for INDEPENDENT-candidates! As then perhaps political parties will get the message!

Queensland Local Council's have been over-burdened by the three R's (Roads, Rates and Rubbish) and therefore have found it difficult to grow in areas that deliver civic services in wider areas given their strategic position at community level.

These Queensland Council reforms are not about Councils (themselves) as much as the cost of administration and the need to reduce red-tape.

It is up to communities to show their might through their civic particpation in community development, which includes a fourth "R", for ownership and responsiblity. (RRR + R).

Under this framework nothing has changed... by the reduction of 157 Councils to 72. The challenge of residents at a local level is (virtually) the same and may offer more wholesome opportunity to cut through a backlog of mounting local government maze.

Anyone who reakons "they love their Council" as they knew it is in denial and waging a wider political agenda. These people would use anything to fratonise a practical reason for progressive change.

Beattie does well to stand strong for reform. Howard meanwhile is destablising this country (federation) with his spray of inconsistent destructive poltical antic's.

The choice is ours;

1. Have we not been led (to date) by generations of local councillors who have found it easier (to mouth off status) only to leave the local and regional system as it is, as silo.

2. Do we as residents continue to pay extra tax's (for everything) while continuing to accept second-rate local government unsustainable stagnation and erratic services.

Queenslanders need to get a grip and address the issues that make this State progressive, a cohesive place to live and belong, a future for All our families.

Local Government Reform has been left for too long. People need to act now. Our future prosperity will be undermined if we lobby for out-dated inefficient local government systems which are burdened and based on a dysfunctional local model of just Roads Rates and Rubbish.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Good article. One problem with reform in Australia is that our Parliaments are small in terms of numbers of MPs, meaning that we'd be handing power to an often fairly plodding bunch of people. Now, if we abolished all the upper houses of Parliament in Canberra and around the states and territories (as happened in Qld some years back) and had a 25% or so increase in lower house MP numbers, then we'd eliminate the houses where most of the party political games are played and we'd have more and hopefully better quality MPs in the lower houses. This would provide a good basis for on-going reform as advocated in the article.

When in Victoria the then premier Jeff Kennett (Liberal) was amalgamating councils I was not aware that then John Howard and his mates were opposing him!
Actually, it did not bother me then there was an amalgamation and after the amalgamation I for one could not detect there was any reduction in service. Now, Buloke being in the Mallee being of considerable size, the reformed Council simply ensured that it provided ongoing services. Less councillors means less overhead cost. Also, the amalgamation means avoiding duplication of little used equipment, etc.
As for John Howard’s argument to amend the Commonwealth electoral Act, on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH I have already published this is unconstitutional. Also, the state of Queensland would first have to pass legislation to allow a levy against Queenslanders to fund this as the cost cannot be taken from Consolidated Revenue. The Framers of the Constitution made clear what could or could not be funded from Consolidated Revenue.
I do not have the impression that Premier Peter Beattie, so to say, wants to be some ratbag against Queenslanders but seek to improve matters. Ample of time I have criticised Premier Peter Beattie but I view that in this case he appears to me to do the right thing. It just seems that in an election year, no matter what he does, he is damned if he improves something and damned if he doesn’t.
.
As for Bernie Masters, wake up, increasing the members in the Federal Parliament isn’t going to resolve anything, rather complicate matters as more thief’s and liars will be there and more to just "follow" whatever their political leaders tells them to do. What we need is a better type of politicians, one who put the constituents before the political party! Having 150 or so “followers” is worse then having, say, 30 free spirited representatives!
poerhaps a referendum to ban political parties in federal parliament might just be a better solution, but unlikely to be held!