Thanks for the ineresting article Anne.
I just have one grip regarding point 6.
Only I can choose my preferences, they have nothing to do with any party deals. The only time party deals come into play is if you are either silly enough to follow a "How to vote" card, or you vote above the line for the senate and don't place other preferences of your own.
The misconception that party deals have an influence on your vote is becoming more common. Please don't spread it any further.

Thank you Anne, I haven't had such a good laugh fro a long time.

Let's start with item 5, where you claim that the Constitution does not establish the right to vote. You have ignored section 41, which provides as follows:

41. No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

This section is obviously very inconvenient to the Commonwealth Government, as it provides that state law overrides commonwealth law in this case. For all of us who want laws to vary between states, with people racing for the Queensland frontier (from which there would no extradition) to escape the NSW police, this is what federalism should be about. Unfortunately, the High Court has effectively repealed this section by ruling that it only applies to people who were 21 in 1901.

What possible point is there in putting new protections in the Constitution when they can be destroyed by the High Court as soon as they become inconvenient?

Any future referendum proposals should take into account the four principles of Australian democracy if they want a snowball's chance in hell of being approved by the people. The principles (which are non-partisan) are:

1. The government is the ENEMY of the PEOPLE, and can never be trusted.

2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency in government accounts being made up from the sale of politician’s assets.

3. The main problem with elections is that no matter whom you vote for, a POLITICIAN is ALWAYS elected.

4. ALWAYS vote NO at referendums.

What does it take to get the political elite to acknowledge what the public thinks of them?

Preview Comment Anne (Why does Anne get to preview comments, by the way.? Big brother looms again.)

Thanks. A pretty conservative article. I wrote something that the Age published.

Cut the working week to 30 hours without loss of pay.

Double pensions.

Pay parliamentarians the average wage.

Nationalise the health system and pay all doctors the average wage.

Make all education (including child care) free.

Tax unearned income heavily.

Nationalise the banks.

Make public transport free.

Force hotels and motels to provide free accommodation and meals to the homeless.

Abolish the standing army.

Abolish the senate.

Make Australia a republic.

Leave the ANZUS alliance and seize spy US sites here.

Bring all troops and other personnel home.

Recognise aboriginal sovereignty and negotiate a treaty.

Hold elections yearly

On the access to public documents issue "decisions based on the “public interest” should be reviewed by an independent officer."

I made a suggestion on another thread about that. The decision to protect information in the public interest should be made jointly by the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition (or their appointed representatives).

We might never find out about pollies pay rates but at least it would prevent a lot of the politically motivated protection of documents we see at the moment.

That would not work at local government level but for state and federal government's it might help.

R0bert

Anne, your suggestions involve strengthening State Governments with more layers of red tape. Our federal system is broken. There are too many law-making bodies in Australia, so a major restructuring is needed. It could come by way of referendum, but is more likely to be delivered by bold Commonwealth legislation that removes states jurisdiction as a consequence of inconsistency with the national laws' enactment.

The Australian Parliament can pass legislation on a very broad range of issues of national importance including a Local Government Act. The validity of national legislation would almost certainly be challenged in the High Court by state governments.

The Australian Constitution is silent about local government as it is on many topics. Nevertheless, the High Court has consistently upheld an expansive reading of the Australian Parliament's powers where those powers conflict with state laws. Accordingly, it is more likely that not, that a Local Government Act passed by the Australian Parliament would be held to be a valid exercise of the parliament's constitutional powers.

An Australian Local Government Act would give substance to constitutional recognition for our grass roots democracy and is achievable by a majority vote in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The case for one body of law for Local Government in Australia is compelling. Almost all of the major challenges confronting local government could be better managed and funded with a Local Government Act passed by the Australian Government.

In NSW, local governments' planning powers and funding capacity has been crippled by a greedy and autocratic state government that has a bad track record with conflicts of interest and some of the most basic principles of good governance.

In Blacktown, where I work and live, we are in shock at so many bad state government decisions that have serious adverse long term impacts on our built and unbuilt environment and quality of life.

Isn't it self evident that bold new approaches are called for when old state structures have failed dismally?

Passy,

You missed one thing in your ambit log of claims. How about we all fly to the moon and dine out on some cheese?