The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia - a broken Federation > Comments

Australia - a broken Federation : Comments

By Charles Mollison, published 18/9/2007

State governments are remote, highly centralist, lack accountability and are inclined to be dictatorial.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
I've got to concur with Quick Response perseus - you're dead right in that smaller organisations are more responsive. That's why I'd be in favour of removing the states, but empowering local government, with a federal government at the head.

Naturally, a more efficient structure is always that where the taxes are spend by the level of government gathering them - instead of the three way arrangement between rates, state taxes and federal taxes, we could redistribute a large portion of taxes to local government providers and the federal level.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 20 September 2007 4:27:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIS” I notice that the author started of in a good way but then totally defeat his article in showing he knows next to nothing what the Constitution stands for.
He argues; “Local governments (the third tier in our current system)” even so constitutionally we only have two-tier government system the Central Government (Federal government) and Local Government (State Government), as Municipal Councils are named inadvertently Local Governments, which constitutionally they are not.
He argues; “At the root of all these shortcomings is a (now) totally inadequate Constitution.” Well he did better to learn what the Constitution stands for before making out it is “totally inadequate”. How much he misconceive matter also can be shown by his comment “who is an Australian citizen”. Constitutionally “Australian citizenship” can only be obtained by having “State citizenship” as it is a “POLITICAL STATUS” nothing to do with “nationality”!
In fact he also carries on about; “That means that not only is there no delineation of the powers of the prime minister; there are also no limitations on the powers of the prime minister.”
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)
Mr. DEAKIN.-
“In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten”
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution embedded in the Constitution that there shall be Ministers of State to “assist” the governor-General in his administration of the Commonwealth of Australia of which one would be “Prime Minister”. As such, the limitations of the Prime Minister is that as a Minister of State and without any prerogative powers to authorise war or a murderous invasion!

Charles S Mollison also seems to misconceive what the Constitution is about regarding the blame game, as the Constitution separate powers as to which are State and which Federal, just that the politicians do not adhere to this! As such have governments operating within their designate legislative powers and many problems will be avoided.

(see also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH)

It is really about getting politiciance to work within constitutional boundaries!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 3:48:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy