Gday...

I am fully aware that this is well known by all - but just to refresh ...

Before Australia was a nation, it was a collection of British colonies. Each colony was under the rule of a governor or lieutenant governor, who acted on behalf of the British Parliament. By 1860 all the colonies, apart from Western Australia, had been granted partial self-government (Western Australia became self-governing in 1890).
Each had its own written constitution, parliament and laws, although the British Parliament retained the power to make laws for the colonies and could over-rule laws passed by the colonial parliaments. Through the 1800s people in each colony were granted the right to elect their own parliaments. However, voting eligibility was often restricted to males with a certain amount of wealth and land.
In the 1890s many colonial leaders began working towards uniting the colonies as one country with its own constitution. The Australian Constitution was drafted at a series of conventions (meetings) by representatives of the colonies and was approved by referendums held in each colony. In July 1900 Australian delegates went to London with a draft of the Constitution to present to the British Parliament. The Parliament passed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which gave effect to the Constitution.
The Constitution united the six self-governing colonies, as separate states, within the Commonwealth of Australia. It established that:

• power would be shared between the federal and state parliaments
• members of parliament would be elected
• federal Parliament would be bicameral (consist of two houses), and represent the population overall (the House of Representatives) and the people in the states (the Senate).

And let's look at another strong country -

USA was formed after the agreement among 13 British colonies. It found its origin in declaration of independence signed in 1776. So they adopted federal form of structure. From 13 states, they have expanded to 50 states including Alaska and Hawaai which have no boundary with mainland USA. The British colonies became independent states.
The United States Constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. The Constitution is known as the supreme Law of the Land and all other laws are measured against it. The application of the articles and amendments of the Constitution comprise constitutional law.
In addition to the United States Constitution, each state has its own constitution and therefore, its own body of constitutional law as well. State constitutions resemble the federal Constitution in that they outline the state governments structure of legislative, executive and judicial branches as well as contain a bill of rights.

And we all know just has effective USA is in all 'pulling together in the same direction' with only National laws/regulations etc etc. 

So one would suggest that the only way Australia and USA, (as examples) can get absolute consistency in laws/regulations etc etc, is to change the constitutions of each country and states therein.

One can only suggest this is unlikely to happen. 

Now I need a good lie down.  

Cheers - John

Yes the States got together for the COMMON WEALTH but unfortunately they only seem interested in their own individual wealth. It's been that way since federation.

Who was it said "If you don't like it, leave"?
There is a que waiting to fill your spot.

Cheers,
Peter

I think there is merit in the OP.

There has been light talk of doing away with state Governments for this exact reason. Good example is road laws. Our roads/vehicles aren't different enough in terrain and construction to warrant different laws in each state...in fact it doesn't make sense. Then again if Victoria had annual roadworthy inspections I'd be outraged as a Victorian. Gotta be careful what we wish for.

On the other hand here in Victoria under Jeff Kennett local Governments had a severe shake up in the 1990's and any wonder with the corruption. That's the trouble with democracy- it is open to more corruption than the alternative however Churchill once said "Democracy is the worse form of Government except for all the others".

The "animal" nature of the Federal Govt can't be changed without mass protest which, as laid back people doesn't happen unless the thorns penetrate deeply into most peoples conscience. So it aint gunna happen in the short term as our political system attracts a certain sort of person generally. On occasions a surprise comes along like Hinch in the senate Tony Winsor or Katter that is and always will be, not of the same mould, they have their own minds not constrained by their party lines. But regardless, many voters stick to their traditional party and that is a problem in itself because no matter how poorly that party performs.

But without getting specifically too political or system of Govt has one major flaw- they aren't connected to the people. No matter the level of disagreement the people have on Govt decisions they (both parties) find it impossible to change their minds, as if pride has overtaken them. Hypocrisy is rife. We are reminded we are living beyond our means yet give away 4 billion dollars in foreign aid annually. And living beyond our means isn't sacrificed on the wine dining politician mind you.

So yes, I see our Government systems as needing reform but it wont come for a long time if ever. A republic could be an opportunity likely missed.

 

Perhaps a contributor is our politician's (our society's?) loss of the art of negotiation.

 

If indeed we are concerned at a lack of progression it may be of value to ponder that well known military saying "Advance to the Rear".  Not all movement leads to an improvement.

 

I have a paperweight that was awarded to participants at the conclusion of a Management course on in Industrial Relations way back in my working days.

 

It carries the inscription ...

 

" Negotiation ...     Seek Win  -  Win Agreement "

 

All I see these days is a win at all costs mentality through out our society.

 

I just can't imagine a Governmental system based on a Federal Parliament and regional Local Authorities, particularly in such a vast country as AU. 

During the Peter Beattie era in Qld to obtain advantages of scale several very small councils were amalgamated.  The screams of protest & recent deamalgamation!!!!!   Perhaps we could start the move towards abolishing the States by amalgamating the vast number of Sydney local councils into a Greater Sydney City Council as a start.

But most importantly .. what about the impact on the State Of Origin RL.   

Of course BBs model of NSW has long been the one that NSW R/L subscribe to - a model that would finally resolve the GI issue.   An alternative re-maping of boundaries could see extension of Queensland's border further south as far as the existing Vic Border thus extending the spirit of Qld to the greater benefit of the Nation.  As a gesture of conciliation and in a sop to Republicans we could change the name from Queens land to say, Wally's land  or Wally's world.  As as extra bonus the GI question remains solved.   (Note .. GI = Greg Inglis, Wally= Wally Lewis)

 

Despite this .. Au is in my opinion, after a first hand taste of many other countries & a lifetime of reading/observing, very much still the best of all.

 

-- Edited by Cupie on Monday 13th of August 2018 04:13:32 PM

The Belmont Bear wrote:

---

Cupie after 190 years we are used to rebel groups stealing NSW land, setting up their own systems of government and coming up with a silly name for the place. If Qld managed to pinch the bit that is left it wouldnt come as any great surprise besides it would serve you guys right if you then ended up with Victoria as a neighbour. By the way earlier this week I was standing across the road from GI,s (and mine) old school Hunter Sports High admiring all of the new buildings that are under construction. I believe that as a sporting gesture the NSWRL are planning to increase the production of premium rugby league players from NSW schools so that Qld can rebuild their origin team and become competitive again 

Cheer

BB

---

 Be great to have Vics as neighbours.  We are used to them.  A significant percentage of them come up here every winter.  Love them.  My Brother even married one.

I suppose the first role of the HSH will be to rebuild the Newcastle side.  Now there's a task to test anyone.  While we are on that subject, your old coach Benny might soon be available if you can afford him without your old benefactor.

BTW talking about silly names and stealing land, what was the situation >190 years ago before new SOUTH WALES.

To me an issue that is often overlooked is the political parties and our voting system itself.

We allow all sorts of tiny tin pot political parties to be formed. Here in Vic, leading up to the election in Nov, it is happening again. These micro parties have very little hope of being elected (particularly in the lower houses of parliament). This then comes down to our preferential voting system.

All these little parties, split up the vote and generally ensure that individual major parties, MUST rely on the preferences to get their member elected. So off they go and make all these backroom deals to ensure the preference flows are to them.

However I don't know that I would support doing away with the preference system in the lower houses (a simple review of election results indicates that it would not make a lot of difference), but the micro parties still do have some impact on skewing the vote.

However the upper houses (state and federal - excuse QLD) doing away with the preference system would in all likelihood, give the states (and Australia) a more workable government system, instead of clowns that make decisions on running the country based on political expediency (to keep themselves elected and on the gravy train) rather than what is best for the people of Australia and/or the State.

Sarco

-- Edited by Sarco Harris on Tuesday 14th of August 2018 10:36:10 PM

Sadly it is not just career politicians that to me are the problem. The reverse is also the problem. - straight from uni into a political career path and into government. That is political staffer to preselection to elected member without actually ever having a real job or experience in the workforce. This is now getting to be more and more the norm across all parties, once it was only labor party doing it.

Sarco

-- Edited by Sarco Harris on Saturday 18th of August 2018 09:49:04 PM