One should be extremely skeptical of any proposal from the present Government – it is likely to cost more and reduce freedom. So it was with great concern that I noted Simon Crean plans to hold a referendum for the Constitutional recognition of local government with the September 14 election. This follows a letter from Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman, requesting a referendum on the topic.
Before going further, though, it should be noted that local government already has Constitutional recognition: see section 51 of the NSW Constitution; chapter 7 of the Queensland Constitution, Part IIA of the Victorian Constitution, Part 2A of the South Australian Constitution, Part IVA of the Tasmanian Constitution and Part IIIB of the Western Australian Constitution.
We are, after all, a Federation. That is, a union of self-governing states with their own sovereignty (hence each has a Governor representing the Queen).
It is entirely appropriate for local government to be recognised in the Constitutions of each State and not in the Australian Constitution. The United States Constitution does not mention local government. Yes, for example, Article XI of the Constitution of California covers local government. The Constitution of Canada does not mention local government (Canadian provinces have unwritten constitutions except British Columbia which is simply an Act of its Parliament).
By contrast, the non-federal and highly centralised structure of France means that local government is part of La Constitution du 4 Octobre 1958 (Titre XII).
In other words, without re-examining the federal nature of Australia, why is there a prima facie case for local government to be recognised in the Australian Constitution?
The desire for such recognition has long been an aim of the Australian Local Government Association, and was covered in the ‘expert panel’ report of September 2011. That report gave the following reasons for the proposed change:
Including a reference to local government in the Constitution would formally recognise the role it plays in the Australian federal system as the third tier of government. This recognition would enhance the status of local government, in the community and in its dealings with the other two levels of government. Local government would be better able to attract the support and resources it needs, and to develop the new capacities to fulfil its increasingly important role in our system of government. For example, a wider range of people might stand for election as councillors or apply for professional and management positions within local government, and career, trade, training, employment and retention opportunities at all levels might open up. Recognition could also enhance the ability of local councils to advocate the interests of their communities through collaboration with other levels of government. It could thus make a practical difference to local government’s ability to deliver local services and infrastructure, and to its future development as an integral part of the Australian Federation.
These are weasel words. Local government is formally recognised in the Australian federal system in every State Constitution. Do we really want ‘enhanced’ recognition to give our councillors a bigger ego, or to encourage them to ever higher salaries and conditions? Did we all agree to the expansion in the types of activities conducted by local government?
Then in March 2013, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government handed down its final report. It is notable that it includes a section ‘the case for recognition’ but no section on the case against recognition. It argues that the recognition would ‘remove uncertainty’ in the funding of local government. Yet I haven’t observed any difficulty in local governments ripping off rate holders.
Most disturbingly, the report recommends:
The Preliminary Report supported the continued practice of Parliamentarians drafting and approving the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ cases for the official referendum pamphlet for financial recognition of local government. It further recommended that, in the event that there is no requirement for a ‘No’ case – that is, if no Parliamentarians vote against a Constitution Alteration bill – there should be an official ‘Yes’ case only.
In other words, the Committee would like the Referendum to be conducted without a ‘no’ case.
Lobby your MP – and vote NO to this proposed referendum. Don’t give the bastards yet another option for taking more of your money.
Before you posted this, you should have read Cr Douglas’(Bindoon WA) letter to Spigelman.
Some extracts –
And – Direct funding to local governments has already proven to be a very effective and efficient method of distributing funding. By providing funding directly to local governments it cuts out a level of administrative process, thereby reducing administration costs associated with distributing funding. Which results in the Federal Government receiving a better return on its investment, as more funding is spent on actual delivery of the project.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 7:35 am
It will make it easier for local councils to vastly increase rates, parking fine intake, and interference in how you live on the block of land YOU are paying for. This is part of Agenda 21 to deprive us of our rights.
littleone
11 Mar 13 at 7:37 am
Number- in a Federation it is actually inappropriate for direct funding from the Commonwealth to local governments. I would prefer for that practice to stop, certainly not become easier.
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 7:38 am
The assertion that direct funding from the Commonwealth is more
is not backed by evidence. It inhibits competition which is likely to lead to less efficiency. Who says that the Commonwealth knows more about the workings in NSW than does the NSW government?
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 7:43 am
This is a bad idea. And I suspect, that rejected, federal funding of local government may need to cease or be redirected through the states.
Good.
The less funding we get from the national government, the less manipulation we will see.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 7:59 am
I suspect that a Councillor from Bundoon (WA) knows more about local government than you.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 7:59 am
No, numbers, the Councillor from Bundoon (WA) only knows more about local government in Bundoon. I am disinterested – he is a rent seeker and his opinion should be viewed through this prism.
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 8:03 am
Isn’t it nice to be given money by the Federal Government rather than having to earn it or persuade your own ratepayers.
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 8:04 am
[Tom - please. This adds no value to the discussion and raises the probability of an early derailment. Sinc]
Tom
11 Mar 13 at 8:15 am
Many local councils have bloated bureaucracies that engage in policy activity that is well outside their brief. This tends to happen more with the bigger, ‘amalgamated’ councils, while the little ones tend to stay within the confines of their core functions.
Gough Whitlam set this ball rolling, lauding the city-state model and decrying the states; and no commentator has ever challenged this view in depth. As a result it’s been quietly worming its way through the Australian psyche ever since.
The ultimate problem with entrenching the power of councils is that it weakens the power of the states; and that in turn will ultimately result in the ascent of a powerful Canberra dominating over a thousand little enclaves, freed from the encumbrance of the pesky states.
dd
11 Mar 13 at 8:20 am
This is more scamberra interference by the untidy nayshuns lovers,if you have a Referendum,ask the People if they approve paying more political bludgers,abolish paid councillors let them make money by bribes like they do,also who NEEDS a senate and who REALLY NEEDSupper houses ,apart from Bludging politicians ,another point have yearly elections ! that will pull the Bastards into gear!
Borisgodunov
11 Mar 13 at 8:22 am
How about, we recognize them but also severely limit their powers, so they have to concentrate on core services such as collecting the garbage, fixing local roads and mowing the park lawns. Here in Yarra, The Most Far Left Local Government In The Entire Country, they seem to spend most of my rates lobbying for asylum seekers, lobbyin against car freeways and sponsoring South Sudanese knitting festivals and the like.
Papachango
11 Mar 13 at 8:22 am
Everyone.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 8:26 am
Federal recognition of local government will lead eventually to the abolition of the states.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 8:27 am
What about federal money for federal government for federal issues, state money for state government for state issues, and council money for council government for council issues?
Ellen of Tasmania
11 Mar 13 at 8:36 am
Yup. I’ve got friends who looked at standing for local council and found it effectively a closed shop. To try and get your foot in the door is a challenge too difficult for most people.
Working for the local council is also difficult to get into, but once you’re in……..
nilk
11 Mar 13 at 8:44 am
Yep, more Fabian “gradualism”.
They really are trying to sell us out.
The only way I would think it a good idea is if they but in the Alabama laws as well.
Ripper
11 Mar 13 at 8:45 am
Local Governments should be abolished. Complete waste of time and money. Highly inefficient. Just run their services through state governments.
Andrew
11 Mar 13 at 8:51 am
Indifferent about the referendum, but those wishing to weaken or abolish local government should be careful about what they wish for …
Is it really a positive step for small government in this country if decisions about pothole patching in Ouyen are made by unelected bureaucrats based in Melbourne?
Agree with this. Local government should be about maintaining and improving local infrastructure held in common – and little else. This requires state legislation to limit the competencies of local government. Since 1993, the trend has been the other way as state governments have required Councils to be responsible for the delivery of a wider range of services.
Can’t speak for local government in the cities but my observation is that in rural areas at least, Councillors are not the venal, rort-grabbing, ego-boosting scumbags that they are made out to be. If you want to see where the real crooks in Australian government are, take a look at recent ICAC hearings.
Matt
11 Mar 13 at 8:52 am
Removing the responsibility of maintaining local infrastructure from local communities and giving it to State governments encourages more reliance on the state and removes the incentive for local communities to fix their own problems.
Matt
11 Mar 13 at 8:56 am
Matt, the services would be the same but would be just run through the state govts.
Andrew
11 Mar 13 at 8:59 am
Then we could decentralise all welfare funding to come from local council rates? I reckon unemployment would drop a bit.
Forester
11 Mar 13 at 9:05 am
No. The services would be the same nature, administrated at the state level without the flexibility offered by a local model. They would be inaccessible, impersonal and irrelevant to local needs.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 9:06 am
Did we all agree to the expansion in the types of activities conducted by local government?
no they can get back in their chambers. Many local governments waste a bucketload already. I for one do not require fancy glossy printed brochures delivering Council news in my letter box.
Aliice
11 Mar 13 at 9:12 am
So, decisions about potholes in Ouyen will be made by unelected bureaucrats in Melbourne? How will people in Trundle begin to try and make people in Sydney understand their concerns around the state of their footpaths. Is the Queensland government likely to be more or less receptive to retailer concerns about parking meter fees in Rockhampton?
Bugger me, you lot worry about Canberra riding roughshod over the states but seem to be quite happy with supposedly omniscient State governments controlling all within their state through a central bureaucracy.
Matt
11 Mar 13 at 9:17 am
The Courts have defined Council rates as a tax however the Councils don’t have the authority to tax. They are illegally taking our money, it really is a type of Fiefdom or large scale organised crime.
Chris M
11 Mar 13 at 9:25 am
@SamuelJ
I would support State based referenda that supported the selection of councillors in the same manner that we select people to perform jury duty!
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 9:26 am
1735099 I’m curious about the genus of the number. Is that your student ID, union ticket or party membership number?
I do not doubt that a Councillor from Bundoon knows more about how to rort local government than I do. So riddle me this – why would we recognise the most incompetent corrupt branch of government (present Clth notwithstanding) in the primary legal instrument that defines the sharing of power between the states and the feds? Give it short shrift folks.
If local government has any role to play it is protecting the amenity (a state remit), not projecting the enmity.
Empire Strikes Back
11 Mar 13 at 9:36 am
@number 1735099
I, personally, resent you and your marxist mates from using the ‘symbol’ you have misappropriated as your avatar though given it was found after World War II in a drawer at the gallery, discovered by members of the Australian Communist Party it is not difficult to see why it is your choice.
That you would identify yourself by number shows the degree of brainwashing to which you and your marxist mates would subject us.
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 9:38 am
…and the Left wonder why nearly every referendum that goes to the people is returned to Canberra with a “shove this up your arse” stamp affixed.
Winston Smith
11 Mar 13 at 9:47 am
Local Government along with state and national, have long abandoned the interests of the people they are said to serve.
Under the ALGA system with prefered tenders which promoted saving funds to ratepayers.
Whose rates in any Australian local government area have been reduced, none that i have seen.
The endless gravy trips that further regulate how we will live through the silent implamentation and agreements with Agenda 21 programs needs much closer scrutiny and action than constitutional recognition.
Most disheatening is the power community groups are given over ratepayers and taxpayers who often have a vested interest in providing for the next generation.
More importantly are there any worthy STATES PERSONS who have a genuine interest in the spirit of the people and guardianship of property they work hard for to sustain LIBERTY.
macca
11 Mar 13 at 9:50 am
ESB, numbers’ appellation derives from his service number as a nasho in Vietnam. I am amazed you haven’t picked this up because he refers to his deployment at least once a day somewhere in his manifold postings.
Cold-Hands
11 Mar 13 at 9:50 am
@NoFixedAddress
It never ceases to amaze me that any dissenting voice on this blog is abused for everything from choice of avatar to choice of tag. If I agreed with the orthodoxy, I’d be everybody’s best mate.
For the record, I’d put Marxism (or Communism) in the same bracket as Libertarianism. Both are naive and discredited ideologies.
For me, being called a Marxist is a constant source of mirth, and a consistent measure of the many delusions fostered on Catallaxy.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 9:52 am
Bloody hell, ESB and NFA – don’t feed the troll FFS. This is his standard tactic, and now you’ve responded to him, he will destroy the thread.
Samuel J, can you please issue a cease and desist order to all? It’s too early in the week for this shit.
Winston Smith
11 Mar 13 at 9:53 am
@NoFixed Address
BTW – the number was given to me by a Conservative government.
But I doubt you have any appreciation of irony.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 9:54 am
NB – Bingo! The usual pattern. There it is – the reference came from Cold-Hands.
Any reference comes from other posters. You can bet your balls on it.
QED
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 9:57 am
Thanks WS for enlightening me to the consequences of my actions.
I’ll go play whackamole somewhere else.
Empire Strikes Back
11 Mar 13 at 9:59 am
Gentlepeople – there is a thread derailment in progress here. Please get back to the topic. Yet another thread between numbers and critics will be very tiresome.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Mar 13 at 10:00 am
Wouldn’t need a referendum. Just change the rules.
DriftForge
11 Mar 13 at 10:07 am
Just don’t want both Canberra and State riding roughshod over local.
The problems with local goverment are many. None of these problems will be resolved by constitutional recognition, nor by federal intervention.
DriftForge
11 Mar 13 at 10:10 am
@1735099
You keep fighting the good fight mate!
I personally believe that the entire education system should be privatised
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 10:12 am
@winston @samuel @sinclair @ESB
I withdraw
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 10:16 am
That rather indicates that the federal government already has too great a share of the funding.
Basically, this complaint reduces to taking away an avenue for federal pork barrelling.
DriftForge
11 Mar 13 at 10:16 am
Yep it is the old war strategy, divide and conqueror.
Helen Armstrong
11 Mar 13 at 10:34 am
Yep it is the old war strategy, divide and conquer.
Helen Armstrong
11 Mar 13 at 10:34 am
This is clearly another attempt to gain power for the federal govt at the expense of the states.
The whole local council model needs to be redrawn by each state as it has become an embarrassment to all involved. The problem is how to fix? LGA amalgamation while saving funds has not improved service or service responsiveness. However, living in the ACT shows that you don’t want your “State” government doing these roles directly.
The worst thing is this will be the third try to change the constitution in this way. 1974 and 1988 were both failures. Back off, do your own (small and hopefully shrinking) jobs and keep it out of the states. The states should raise referenda to pull back powers from the Feds.
dismissive
11 Mar 13 at 11:05 am
I just had a look at the reults for the two previous attempts.
1974: Proposed law entitled “An Act to alter the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies”.
Do you approve the proposed law?
NSW said yes at 50.79% the rest were in the 40%
1988: A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?
None above 40% some in the 20%.
dismissive
11 Mar 13 at 11:11 am
I’ve seen it put that local government is both too big and too small at the same time. Too big to really interact locally with the people of each area, say in the way that a local ‘improvement association’ type entity does. Too small (in many cases) to provide efficient delivery of specialised services.
One suggestion was to split the two roles – the administrative side gravitating to larger areas, (potentially competing administrations) – and councils being reduced to smaller community style organisations but having a determining say over actions within their immediate area.
DriftForge
11 Mar 13 at 11:23 am
Simon Crean fights for local councils referendum
Obviously he will come out next in support for employees of a business be allowed to make their own contract with their employer!
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 11:35 am
but maybe Simon Crean wants this,
former Livingstone mayor Bill Ludwig, “rates will not go up by any more than will be required for that council to effectively and efficiently operate”
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 11:39 am
Local Government has always regarded “Constitutional Recognition” as relating to the prevention of sackings of councillors and amalgamations of Councils.
Just as the Commonwealth Constitution Act prevents the Commonwealth from “sacking” or “amalgamating” State Governments, it is felt that “Constitutional Recognition” would prevent the State from sacking a Council.
Having worked in various local governments in different States for 35 years, I think that there are still too many of them in existence for their longevity to be preserved for eternity in the Constitution.
Many of those in existence, are so corrupt and non-representative of their ratepayers, that a full clean-out of the system is required before enshrining the status quo.
The best thing you could do to restore respectability to Local Government, would be to prohibit the candidacy of political party members or endorsees, and to return all Local Government elections to a property-based franchise, rather than the adult-franchise based system that saw “anti-everything dingbats”, Greens and left-wing latte-sippers take over from the ratepayers whose money they prodigiously spend.
Up The Workers!
11 Mar 13 at 11:56 am
As usual with these rent seeking con men; follow the money.
Pedro the Ignorant
11 Mar 13 at 12:03 pm
If local government is the Third Tier of Government, and is constituted under State Government powers then it has no inherent right to be recognised in a document which is essentially a contract which divides powers between Federal and State Governments, and where the parties are
a) we the people
b) State governments
and
c) the Federal government.
If this referendum gets going and gets up, then we will have a child of the States being “recognised” above its station, by a government which did not sire it, but which wishes to fund it (and what else, Sugar Daddy, appoint and dismiss too?) which I see as the governmental equivalent of incest.
More of the power of the dollar exerting itself here, I fear.
John A
11 Mar 13 at 12:19 pm
My suggestion for local government, based on the original Hoddle survey of the state of Victoria into square mile sections.
Each square mile was marked off by a major road, originally intended for transport infrastructure, so in a residential area a person would never be more than about half a mile from a train, bus or tram route. (Alright, the mathematicians can Pythagorate to 1.4 times half a mile as the worst case scenario).
Such an area might contain about 800-1000 homes, and a VOLUNTARY local committee could run it, on a rotation basis (someone suggested nominations like jury duty). The franchise is the natural one of permanent residence (based on say the electoral office rules).
Infrastructure surrounding the square mile sections and beyond could be left to the State transport authority.
Industrial and commercial sections could also operate on this model mutatis mutandis (as the lawyers say).
Services within the sections are locally decided, services to each section eg, phones, power, gas, water drainage and sewerage, are State or Federally supplied.
Co-operation between adjacent areas is possible but not compulsory, and would be no more difficult to achieve than what we have now between councils.
OK, there it is.
[Flamesuit donned, and ready for the replies]
John A
11 Mar 13 at 12:37 pm
Returning to the topic of the post. This referendum would allow the Feds to directly fund Councils where currently they (legally/technically) can not.
This is bad.
We should be seeing more rights/powers returning to the states not increasing the ALP model of centralisation and de-federalising the country.
dismissive
11 Mar 13 at 1:34 pm
If there were to be a tier of government to get rid of, local government would be my choice. This is a generalisation but it is grounded in truth: a lot of people who seek election to councils appear to fall into one of two categories. The first is a property developer who wants some sort of special zoning consideration and the second is a NIMBY who wants to have said development stopped.
Neither can be trusted IMHO. You only have to look at the noisy minorities like The City Gatekeepers (what an absolutely pompous name) who ran in the state election here over the weekend. They are exactly the kinds of fruit loops who stand in local government elections.
tbh
11 Mar 13 at 1:41 pm
This must be attacked on the grounds of Canberra wanting total power over every aspect of the country.
An ad displaying the infamous footage of that boat smashing up on Christmas Island with the voice over:
“Do you really want Canberra running your hospitals & building your roads?”.
Footage of the Gillard Race Riot then over the the footage of Gillard being “whisked away”: “Do you really want Canberra operating your police force?”
A montage of Federal ALP faces, then over Craig Emmerson dancing like a nutcase on the lawns of Parliament House: “Do you really want these people in charge of your schools?”.
etc.
It’ll be smashed at the ballot box.
twostix
11 Mar 13 at 1:46 pm
People will elect them if they want them and reject them if they don’t. There’s a distinct anti-democratic flavour to these council discussions.
My local council is more or less ok (as many regional councils are) and does a good job of resisting and protecting us from worst of the green nuttery foisted onto it by the state government green-left bureaucracy.
It’s pro-development and pretty much leaves the homeowner and business person alone.
twostix
11 Mar 13 at 1:56 pm
@tbh 11 Mar 13 at 1:41 pm
If their was a tier of government that I would get rid of it is our so called Commonwealth Government.
The centrists have done their very best to destroy the glimpse of Constitutional Government in this country, whatever aggregation that becomes an Australian political party
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 2:13 pm
“Federal recognition of local government will lead eventually to the abolition of the states.”
A task so difficult as to be practically impossible. Not going to happen.
Jarrah
11 Mar 13 at 2:18 pm
If the states really want to get matters back in hand, then they take back control of their federal senate delegations.
Just because it hasn’t been utilised as a states house in some time, doesn’t mean it can’t be.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 2:21 pm
Not quickly. Give it 100 years.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 2:24 pm
So you’d go back to the six colonies? That’s even less likely than abolishing the states!
tbh
11 Mar 13 at 2:26 pm
I understand the sentiment though. In the last generation or two we’ve seen an ever increasing amount of Commonwealth overreach into areas nominally the preserve of the states. It’ll be by stealth rather than overt power grabs.
tbh
11 Mar 13 at 2:27 pm
No one seems to want to point out the obvious – to recognise local goverments in the consitution would require an almost entire re-write of it!
You would have to fix in the consitution what the local governments were. e.g. how many, where etc And you would have to set out their powers, particularly, in respect to the other levels of government.
Thousands of pages of State laws would also then need to be repealed. Also, 10s of thousands of local laws would then need to be enacted.
Luke
11 Mar 13 at 2:30 pm
What we need is a pretty major rewrite of the constitution.
The first line should read: If you’re reading this document to see if the Commonwealth Government has the power to do something non-obvious. It doesn’t.
Section S90 needs to be re-written and the terms “duty” and “excise” narrowly defined.
Section S96 should be abolished – the power to transfer wealth from one state to another set the stage for the Commonwealth to be a redistributive, social engineering entity from the outset.
High Court Justices should be confirmed by the Senate.
twostix
11 Mar 13 at 3:35 pm
Not sure about that. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that the federal layer has no value, rather that it has simply grown far beyond – 3 to 4 times – its original remit.
There is a case that every 100 years or so, the states should go and pull the federation back into shape.
There was no federal remit for education, nor for health.
There was no federal remit for welfare, other than military.
There was no income tax.
Time to go back , see what the intent was, and reword things to see that fulfilled.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 3:36 pm
Drift, totally agree with all of those points. It goes back to a point I made in another thread about federalism: we need to reset to decide where the line is between the States and Commonwealth. How they are funded is decided after deciding on the first piece (i.e. the remit of each layer of government).
Stix, I’m not a constitutional scholar but what you’re saying appears to make sense.
tbh
11 Mar 13 at 3:43 pm
I haven’t read it, but I like the outcomes of the Swiss constitution from the point of view of Canton power. They seem to run as quasi-independent states under the Swiss umbrella.
How much of that is historic and how much constitutional I can’t tell.
dismissive
11 Mar 13 at 3:48 pm
The layers are about differentiation and consistency. The Federal Government is about the things that are to be consistent across the whole nation. The state government about those that are only consistent across a region, but differentiated across the nation. The local government level is about local differentiation.
Immediately it is evident that federal legislation should be inordinately difficult to pass. It should almost be considered as keepers of the constitution, and legislation should require high barriers to change.
This is because it affects everyone, and needs not restrict except as agreed by overwhelming majority for the betterment of all.
I would go so far as to say that rather than, or in addition to, an upper house, all federal legislation must be accepted by all state governments, or at the very least greater than two thirds of the state governments.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 3:57 pm
Presently a State government could amend its constitution to eliminate local government in its state (which might be sensible in Tassie). But if it is in the Fed Constitution that won’t be an option. Why should we eliminate the right of states to change their own local arrangements? Vote NO to the referendum.
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 6:10 pm
Sam
As an alderman in Tassie(councillor) –your premise is nonsense
Local government is the most responsive to local needs — roads ,rubbish,water/sewage , sports facilities etc
In fact it is the most democratic form of government by its proximity to its constituents, akin to the Athenian model.
In Japan and USA , education and healthcare are included in local council functions
blind freddy
11 Mar 13 at 7:41 pm
Blind Freddy – it may be the most responsible level of government. But that doesn’t mean it should receive recognition in the Federal Constitution. That is an affront to a Federal system of government.
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 7:44 pm
Uh. No way on earth anyone elsewhere in the state wants Hobart having a say in local government stuff as well. They’ve gone mouldy down there.
Local government exists to allow communities to differentiate themselves. Just as important in Tassie as anywhere else.
Driftforge
11 Mar 13 at 8:07 pm
This comes back to my radical plan …
The problem remains that Local government is that fascinating mix of the incredibly important and the completely irrelevant. And this position changes for each household at any given time.
So, make it important!
One election for local government for each area.
Each LGA nominates one member that join togther and becomes the state government.
Each State based on pop. nominates members of it’s entity to the Fed govt
Add to that a revamped Senate model as a genuine State house – one member from each state – drop the territories. 4 states to veto Fed legislation.
If you take the feds back to the original mandate, it should work fine and cost far less.
Go the supreme soviet.
dismissive
11 Mar 13 at 8:27 pm
state govt level should be eliminated — just have fed and local
sunshine
11 Mar 13 at 9:02 pm
Correction – 4 states to approve Federal legislation! 3 to kill it.
And this should be mobile; if the states/LGA aren’t happy with their fed reps, they can change them with no notice.
dismissive
11 Mar 13 at 9:11 pm
No, we should not get rid of state governments. We should send more work to the states.
Which is worse – the NSW Labor Government or the Federal Labor Government? Both are bad, but at least the former is only affecting NSW.
Samuel J
11 Mar 13 at 10:52 pm