Articles and other references

This page contains a collection of articles and transcripts. There's no
index, but I have tried to introduce each new one with a '#' to the
left of the title.

Most of these articles were noted by Mark Drummond (he the person who is
referring to "I" most of the time), but articles have also been noted
by Bob Buick, Charles Mollision and others.

We trust the original copyright holders will see the reproduction below
as a genuine one for research and reference; nevertheless, if you have
problems, please let us know.

# Article in today's Australian newspaper on cross-border policing barriers

Saw in The Australian today an article (reproduced in full lowermost, from
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4499487%255E2702,00.html) which states at its end:

The commonwealth's $50million Crimtrac DNA database has been rendered
virtually inoperable because of differences in state laws governing
protocols and procedures for sampling and exchange of forensic samples
across borders. The Police Federation of Australia said the case clearly
demonstrated the need for urgent co-operation between states.

DNA transfer to NT not legal
By Martin Chulov, Monica Videnieks and Paul Toohey
June 13, 2002
A POTENTIALLY vital clue that could link a NSW prisoner to the outback
gunman case has been kept from Northern Territory police because of a
two-year stalemate over laws governing the use of the national DNA database.

The problem emerged yesterday after it was revealed there were no legal
means to provide a DNA sample from a man on remand for murder in NSW to
territory police investigating the abduction of Peter Falconio last July.

NSW Police Minister Michael Costa today will take special regulations to the
Government's executive council to allow police to bypass the national DNA
database in order to share forensic material.

Territory Police Minister Syd Stirling said the DNA cross-check would be
conducted in NSW once the anomaly had been cleared up, but warned urgent
efforts were needed to ensure the stand-off - caused by differences among
states about when DNA could be taken from prisoners and matched against
crime scene samples - was not repeated.

"Our legislation is quite clear," Mr Stirling said. "It's the NSW
legislation which has thrown up these minor areas of difficulty. If they
don't comply with there own processes, I would imagine that throws up
serious legal doubts into the future."

Despite tense exchanges between both jurisdictions in the past two days,
police now doubt the man in NSW custody is also the outback gunman.

Sources close to Taskforce Regulahs, investigating Peter Falconio's presumed
murder for the past 11 months, have told The Australian the prisoner was
believed to be in Queensland at the time the British backpacker disappeared
and his girlfriend, Joanne Lees, was abducted. Also, he was younger than the
description Ms Lees gave of her attacker, bore little physical resemblance
and did not match the psychological profile of the suspect.

NSW police so far have taken more than 50 swabs from the man, all under
duress, but none have yet been compared to a sample of the attacker's blood
found on Ms Lees' shirt and since sent to all jurisdictions.

It is understood the heightened interest in the prisoner as a potential
suspect snowballed after a misinterpreted telephone conversation between
territory and NSW police late last week.

At this stage, neither jurisdiction holds anything linking the man to the
crime scene.

# QLD Sunday Mail article and Howard govt exploration of something close to state abolition

Power shift
SIMON KEARNEY
05may02
LOCAL councils would run police forces, hospitals and schools under a
radical federal government plan, slashing the power of the states.

The Howard Government has moved to set up an inquiry into the possibility of
adopting a United States-style system of government where councils would
take over essential services.

The proposal will set the Government on a collision course with the nation's
state governments, all of which are Labor administrations.

Federal Local Government Minister Wilson Tuckey said the plan would improve
service delivery to communities.

Mr Tuckey said local councils were closer to the community and more
accountable than "remote" state governments.

"I think it's time Australia looked at this. I have a vision pretty close to
the US model," he said.

"It would improve services to the community and give them someone to blame
if things went wrong."

Mr Tuckey said the Federal Government was willing to bypass the states and
directly fund local councils to carry out the services.

The proposal drew opposite responses from men representing the two levels of
government in Queensland.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley, who oversees the biggest local council in
the country, was all for the proposal.

"I am delighted that John Howard has finally listened to me," he said.

"For 11 years I have been calling for a review of the way we are governed.

"We are over-governed. The three tiers of government do not work."

But Cr Soorley said Mr Tuckey should "shut his mouth" and not seek to
politicise the argument.

"The Federal and State Governments have both been ripping people off for
years," he said.

"Let's not start pointing the finger. Let's sit down and have a sensible
debate about the system of government in this country."

Premier Peter Beattie was far from enthusiastic.

"The cost would be horrendous," he said.

"It would just not work."

He said the proposal was a cost-shifting exercise.

"Canberra would do nothing financially and without increased funds local
government would go broke," he said.

The House of Representatives economics committee will run the inquiry under
the chairmanship of Victorian MP David Hawker.

The terms of reference are awaiting approval from Treasurer Peter Costello,
who is understood to support the plan.

Australian Local Government Association senior vice-president Lynn Mason
said many councils would be capable of providing the services if they had
funding.

A referendum probably would be needed to provide formal constitutional
recognition of local government for the plan to go ahead.

But Mr Tuckey said that even without a successful referendum, the Federal
Government already had the power and money to hand over service delivery to
local councils.

If the states tried to obstruct the plan, councils could be given local
police powers through the Australian Federal Police.

Mr Tuckey said councils could ask for a share of GST revenue to help fund
the new services.

Mr Tuckey said the proposals applied as much to city councils as regional
ones.

"Brisbane City Council has a budget that is bigger than the state of
Tasmania and no one says Tasmania cannot run a hospital," he said.

# Agenda article No 4 of 2001

Dear all,

William Coleman of the university of Tasmania contributed an article in the
Agenda journal, Vol 4 of 2001, which is available online at:
www.comlaw.utas.edu.au/economics/staff/Coleman/SevenPointedStarFinalPaper.pd
f

It has subheadings as follows:

The Battle of Powers
Abolish the States
The Struggle Between Liberalism and Centralism
Federalism: More than a Matter of Utility
The Disutility of Federalism?
Federalism: A Hopeless Case
Conclusion

I think it's a good article though would always like to see more attention
to local government in order to show really serious attention to the
centralisation vs. decentralisation dimension.

# Age article saying state govts irrelevant

The article is at

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/27/1017206115680.html

Note especially the paragraphs :

My first answer was that, bluntly, state governments don't matter. I suspect
the Liberal Party wouldn't swap federal government for being able to "run"
six states and two territories, and the ALP would prefer federal power to
its present clean sweep. There is no grand inquiry within the Liberal Party
just because they have lost in all states and territories. In a global
economy, never have our state boundaries, drawn up in the British Colonial
Office in the 19th century, seemed so irrelevant.

State governments have, to a greater or lesser extent, flogged off most of
their assets and privatised their services. The only big-ticket areas left,
health and education, seem perennially insoluble and must (unless they are
totally privatised too) invite some more national (and rational) approach.
State governments are left to compete against each other (often wastefully)
for investment, tourists and bread-and-circus gimmicks such as the Grand
Prix. Giants of state development such as Bolte, Playford and Court have
given way to grinning impresarios.

# Article from Cairns

http://www.barfly.com.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&id=2511

This was from Issue 390, which was that of about 6 weeks ago, hence around
Australia day 2002 (this is my best estimate anyhow ... couldn't find an
exact date).

FEDERATION DAZE

Is it time to shed a tier of government? Cairns City Council Division 5
representative Cr JASON O'BRIEN provides some food for thought as we prepare
for the Australia Day long weekend ...

With the Centenary of Federation now over it is time to begin discussion on
Australia's system of government and whether there are better systems of
providing services and laws for its citizens.

Constitutional change doesn't come easy in Australia. The founding fathers
ensured that a strong national consensus would be needed before political
power could be altered in any way. Australians have subsequently proven
reluctant to change the way they are governed.

Paradoxically, cynicism towards the institutions of government is growing -
as can be seen by the growing number of splinter groups and declining voter
turnout.

This is occurring at a time when the very nature of nation-states is under
threat. Much has been written about globalism over the last few years and,
in particular, the ability for trans-national corporations to shift large
amounts of capital virtually instantaneously. The ramifications of this
reality on local economies is best demonstrated by the fact that a
significant proportion of Japanese manufacturing has moved off shore in
search of cheaper labour and materials, resulting in increased unemployment
and social dislocation in that country.

While economics remains at the heart of globalism, there is much more to it
than that. Add the accessibility of information now freely available on
every field of human endeavour on the Internet to the increased potential to
travel and migrate across international borders by a growing middle class
and the meaning of national borders declines dramatically.

The integrity of these borders is further eroded when the ability for
disease to cross borders and the international refugee problem are thrown
into the equation.

These are the issues our species faces this century and the question for us
is whether we in Australia have the best processes to deal with them.
Further evidence of the outdated nature of federalism can be found when
domestic policy matters are deliberated.

Consider, for example, the poor Tasmanian. Being a foundation state at
Federation they are entitled to five representatives in the lower house of
the Commonwealth Parliament and 12 in the Senate. Tasmania also has a state
parliament with an upper and lower house and its own system of local
government. Is this the most efficient system of administering the taxpayer'
s dollar or creating laws and public policy?

Notwithstanding what section 51 of the constitution says, the Commonwealth
has the revenue raising power while the states share responsibility for
expenditure. The effect of this 'real separation of powers' diminishes
accountability to the very people it is meant to serve. How many times have
you heard a state politician blame their federal counterpart because there
is a lack of money to deliver a certain service only to have the feds say
that its up to the state to decide its spending priorities? I would suggest
too many times.

The buck passing has created a growing movement amongst local government
representatives in Victoria and NSW calling for the reconsideration of the
current constitutional arrangements. Called 'Shed a Tier,' the group relies
on studies undertaken by Canberra researcher Mark Drummond, who has
calculated the change would save at least $10 billion and most likely $30
billion taxpayer funds.

One would hope that shedding a tier would also improve the process of
delivering government services, removing the middleman while at the same
time increasing accountability for policy outcomes.

Accountability will be a crucial catch cry for the reformists and it will be
up to the Senate to further develop its role as a house of review if the
change was to occur.

Moreover, the change should make government processes more accessible to
people, reducing the capacity for politicians to pass the buck and allowing
citizens greater influence over policy outcomes than at present where
responsibility is dispersed.

Safeguards against abuse of the system or tyranny could be written into the
constitution or certain powers bestowed on the Head of State or High Court.

So while the Republic Referendum was disappointing for many who want to see
an Australian as Head of State and more significant changes to our governing
processes, it provides an opportunity to consider how change can be
achieved.

Now that the debate has shifted to working out what is the best method of
electing our Head of State and what powers that person should have, it is
time to also look at the Federation itself.

One of the first steps local government is insistent on is constitutional
recognition. At the moment local authorities are creatures of the State and
subject to their caprice (of course most of the time it is a cooperative
relationship but not always). They want clear definition of what they have
responsibility for and the right to get on with the job in their communities
without hindrance.

Some state governments have reviewed their local government boundaries over
the last few years. Queensland has been through a series of amalgamations
and rationalisations and so has Victoria. Clearly, however, a national
review of the boundaries would be necessary before fundamental reform could
proceed.

The failure of the Australian Republic Movement to convince people that they
had the right model, when the majority was generally supportive of an
Australian as Head of State will haunt reformers for decades to come.

However, the beauty of the republican debate and the Centenary of Federation
celebrations are that public awareness of the constitution has been
heightened.

Certainly it would be easy to convince people to do away with federalism by
arguing that they will pay less tax and that there will be less politicians
but hopefully more sophisticated arguments will prevail.

Over the last ten years we have seen a myriad of significant changes to
complicated areas of public policy - tax reform, industrial relations,
macro-economic reforms and the environment, to name a few. So the ability
for Australians to accept reform exists. Now they must be convinced that
Government reform itself is necessary if we are to continue to prosper
throughout the 21st century.

# Article from Government News magazine

The following is an extract from the October edition of the Government News
magazine:

(from http://www.vgovt.com.au/Article/Display/1,4242,743,00.html)

LOCAL government will become a "small, paid office of the state government"
unless it acts as a leader on the issue of future governance of Australia,
the chairman of the Country Mayors Association of NSW has warned.

Speaking at the recent association meeting in Sydney, Cr Ian Macintosh, who
is also Bathurst City Council Mayor, said there must be a "proper and
serious" debate on whether Australia should have only two tiers of
government.

"In the end you might have some middle road," he said.

"[But] I think if local government doesn't look at doing something like
this, in a few years time they'll be a very small paid office of the state
government."

Cr Macintosh said a move to two tiers would not occur through referendum,
but through community views.

He said large-scale amalgamations of councils replacing state governments
would give local government plenty of clout.

"If you amalgamated everything from Lithgow to Dubbo you would have a very
strong voice in national affairs like the Brisbane City Council has."

There was strong support for two tiers of government, but the only problem
was how to get to that position, Cr Macintosh said.

# Article in today's Australian

Some exciting news in the form of the following by South Australian Liberal
MP Christopher Pyne, as follows:

Christopher Pyne: Nation must wrest control of lifeblood rivers
By Christopher Pyne
January 03, 2002

AUSTRALIA'S new year's resolution must be the urgent restoration of the
Murray-Darling basin and its surrounding environment. The only way to
guarantee its repair is to take control of the river system from the states
and hand it to the commonwealth.

The states have been arguing over the management of the basin for 100 years.
The river's health is almost terminal - we can't afford the argument to
carry on any longer. The clock is ticking.

This is not the first time this issue has been visited. The question of who
should have control over our waterways was hotly debated in the Federation
conventions in the 1890s.

South Australia lost that debate to NSW in a motion put forward by George
Houston Reid, the future prime minister, and section 100, as it came to be
known, was inserted in the Constitution. It reads: "The commonwealth shall
not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a
state or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of
rivers for conservation or irrigation." But section 100 has failed dismally.
The commonwealth has been unable to achieve a co-operative approach to the
management of the Murray-Darling river system as the states have jealously
guarded the powers granted to them by section 100.

At the time of the Federation conventions delegates were mostly concerned
with navigation of the waterways. South Australia wanted to be sure that
navigation of the waterways would not be hindered by customs from Victoria
or NSW.

One hundred years on from Federation the issue is not navigation of the
waterways - it is the ecological and economic survival of the Murray-Darling
river basin.

That's why it is critical for the commonwealth to take control from the
states by holding a referendum to remove section 100 from the Constitution
and replace it with a new head of power under section 51 of the
Constitution. The new provision could read: "The control and regulation of
the Murray-Darling river basin and the use of the water thereof."

This provision would give the commonwealth the power to enact laws relating
to the Murray-Darling river basin. There is also a strong argument that it
should be a concurrent head of power.

A concurrent head of power would allow states to legislate over water and
land management issues relating to the Murray-Darling river basin in so far
as those laws are not inconsistent with commonwealth legislation. In such
cases the commonwealth legislation would prevail.

The concern over the survival of the Murray-Darling basin is no Y2K scare.

Three recent authoritative studies on the ecology of the basin have been
conducted - the Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment 2000, the National
Land and Water Resource Audits Australian water resources: environmental
perspective and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's salinity audit.

The findings of these studies are unequivocal. The Murray-Darling river
system is in tremendous danger. In fact, the Murray-Darling Basin
Commission's salinity audit found that in 20 years' time, on two out of
every five days Adelaide's tap water will be undrinkable.

SOME premiers, in particular Queensland's Peter Beattie, have paid lip
service to environmentalists for too long. Beattie has held out against a
co-operative and unified approach to management of the Murray-Darling river
basin.

Beattie's Labor Government has failed to sign the capping agreement which
NSW, Victoria and South Australia signed in 1997, based on 1993-94 water
flows. In fact, Queensland still takes all the water from some rivers that
are supposed to flow into the Darling, such as the Condamine.

The Queensland Government's obfuscation may start costing it dearly. Only
last week the Queensland Government was warned by the National Competition
Council that it must reduce water extraction from rivers at the head of the
Murray-Darling basin catchment area or risk losing millions of dollars in
the next round of National Competition Payments.

The report by the competition council noted that in 1993-94, 60 per cent of
the natural flow from the Balonne River reached the Murray-Darling basin
wetlands. By 2000 the flow had plummeted to just 26 per cent.

But financial penalties are not enough to save the Murray-Darling basin. The
commonwealth must proceed with a referendum to take control of the basin
from the states and deliver it to the hands of the commonwealth.

Only then can we hope to see a unified, co-operative approach to revive the
Murray-Darling basin. This is one new year's resolution we can't afford not
to keep.

Christopher Pyne is the federal Liberal MP for the South Australian seat of
Sturt

# Article, by Jim Snow

SHED A TIER OR TWO

Jim Snow.

The ongoing debate about Australia's federal structure has been
stimulated by the Centenary of Federation celebrations. Those who
support change come from across the political spectrum and across the
nation. When the government called for community discussion on
federation and peoples' expectations the issue of reducing government to
two tiers was not even listed as an item for discussion and 60 community
meetings around Australia declared a wish to reduce the number of levels
of government.

The hazardous events of the second half of 2001 gives some urgency to
the calls of those people. It is vital that our political system is in
good shape to cope with the stealthy advance of globalisation and the
challenges of terrorism and mass migration. The strength of our nation
to meet those challenges can only come from:

well-motivated communities,

efficient spending by governments and people,

maximum creativity and

willingness by government and people to adapt.

People have a right to demand of our political system the efficiency and
reform governments have demanded of industries, workplaces and
organisations using taxpayer funds. There is a need to move away from
the assumption that the only sector that should be exempted from micro
and macro economic reforms and efficiency targets is the political
sector.

Emeritus Professor Geoffrey de Q Walker of Queensland recently wrote
that our federal structure gives us `the best of both worlds,
coordinated national government and diversity, creative experimentation
and liberty'. Those who wish to rationalise the political structure
reply that we have not achieved those aims and we can do better on each
of those attributes.

Coordinated national government has not been very successful.
Coordination is difficult under the present federal system and too often
involves complex strategies, unproductive compromise, delayed action,
reversal and rejection. Recent issues resolved by coordination include
road transport and gun laws. In both cases there have been threats by
the states that they will overturn agreed laws. There are many examples
of issues that need coordination and have so far failed. The Murray
Darling Basin and salinity, medical registration of migrant Doctors
(evident when across-border emergencies have occurred), prescriptions
illegal in one state and legal in another, access to education, health
and other services in the closest `regional' centre - these are just a
few issues that cause high costs, unfairness and environmental and
social problems.

The next quality, diversity, was there at federation but was, over the
decades, mangled by increasing Commonwealth power, with the Commonwealth
ready to leave only those powers it does not want to the States (as a
lawyer R.G. Menzies told a court hearing before entering politics). In
place of diversity we have a confusing mish-mash of federal and state
laws that result from our failure to work out where uniformity best
suits our nation and where diversity leading to maximisation of local
initiative is best encouraged.

The need for encouragement of local initiative is very evident when we
consider another alleged attribute of our federal system, `creative
experimentation'. Creative experimentation barely exists as the states,
dominated by their capitals, stifle most local initiatives with their
centralist policies. Thomas Jefferson clearly realized that creativity
and experimentation could happen when communities have power. Overly
centralist governments have taken away that power.

As to liberty, our seven-centralist governments have given us no more
liberty than New Zealand with its one level. Liberty must be achieved in
conjunction with responsibility: otherwise the liberty of one individual
will destroy the liberty of another. Responsibility cannot be achieved
without a liberty that gives people influence.

Lack of influence has huge ramifications: powerlessness or lack of
democracy means I do not feel I have any say. I feel no part of the
decision making process. If I am young I will, seek relevance from
vandalism or drugs or I will just become apathetic. If I am a parent I
will tell my kids to `fight for number one because there is no one there
to help you'. If I am old I will feel that there is theft and brutality
and there is no security in this world. Civic responsibility thus
declines and social disorder increases. By fostering neighborhood power
and responsibility we reduce the financial and social costs of disorder
and apathy.

Of the constitutional options floating around we have those who want to:

Maintain the status quo. Even supporters of the present system admit
that it is hard for the States to perform their proper role. Prof.
Walker blames the High Court. Detractors point out the buck-passing,
duplication, overlapping and the billions of dollars adding costs to
taxpayers, consumers and businesses. Political representatives have
demanded that industries, workplaces, non-government organisations and
the public services introduce efficiencies and micro and macro reforms,
why not demand that our constitutional arrangements - the political
system - also submit to reform? We have as much right to demand
efficiency, streamlining, transparency and clear roles in our political
system (the last unreformed sector of Australian life) as the guardians
of that system demand of everyone else.

Change boundaries. Establish more States and / or Territories on the
basis of more rational boundaries.

Shed a tier (State governments) and fund and direct more services
through local government.

Merge two tiers (State and local governments). The merged local sector
would be free of domination of non-metropolitan areas by outside blocks
of voters from the city and vice versa. Creative experimentation and
diversity would be freed from the shackles of the distant and
disdainful.

There is little support for the next two options; the first because it
is so counter to the wishes of national government and the growing
support for shedding a tier of government and the second because the
idea of shared government has barely been discussed:

Strengthen the existing State arrangements. This option, if it is to
have any permanency, requires referenda or constitutional change to
clarify the proper roles of government levels. Otherwise we are left to
the whim of the courts and the political parties.

Shared government involving a local sector (where we live) directly
linked to a functional sector (what we do) in the national parliament.
The proposal would require more elaboration than the scope of this
article allows.

Proposals for reform of the political system need to be discussed by
people just as the federation proposals were discussed in the 19th
century, perhaps electronically as well as communally.

Shedding a tier or merging two tiers would bring less costly government.
Mark Drummond a research student at Canberra University clearly shows
that the savings from removing one tier of government can save $30
billion per year for taxpayers. Add to that the savings for businesses
(other than lawyers) and consumers. The savings are compatible with
decisions about where uniformity is appropriate and where diversity is
appropriate.

Shedding or merging tiers would provide an opportunity to make decisions
on uniformity-diversity options. The problem with our existing system is
that there are some decisions that are not made on a uniform basis and
should be (trade and professional registrations, road laws and some
health arrangements including cloning and medicinal supply arrangements
for example). There are some decisions that would be more suitably made
locally (certain employment, education, health and social security
decisions for example). Community discussion is needed on where
uniformity serves best and where diversity serves best so that tasks can
be better allocated, the competitive edge of local areas increased and
corruption reduced. The right balance would better accommodate regional
preferences.

The status quo does not accommodate regional preferences now: the NT
voluntary euthanasia legislation and heroin trials (whether right or
wrong) are examples of Commonwealth overriding State local decisions.
The disregard of regional preference for their capital city links are
clear under the existing federal structure. Broken Hill prefers to
relate to Adelaide, not Sydney, Deniliquin to Melbourne, not Sydney .
Broome feels more affinity with Darwin than Perth. Tweed Heads relates
to the Gold Coast and neither population is particularly enamoured with
either Sydney or Brisbane. Townsville likes the idea of
self-determination and Mildura and Wentworth have more affinity with one
another than with Sydney or Melbourne.

Conclusion.

Worldwide challenges to the viability of nations and the security of
their citizens require arrangements that :

Improve creativity and diversity

Improve the efficiency and coordination of the political system

Increase fairness and liberty

Increase the involvement of citizens in decision making by bringing them
closer to government

Increase civic responsibility

Reduce wasteful costs of government

The present federal arrangements are based on unsuitable geographic
boundaries, are costly, socially regressive and excessively centrally
controlled. The division of powers between the levels of government is
confusing to citizens and is not working well.

Consideration should be given to fostering local and electronic
discussion leading to options that would reduce the cost of government
and effectively decentralise political power.

# Corowa article

I've written an article on the Corowa debacle, at

http://www.sydney.indymedia.org

Predetermined outcomes at the Corowa Confererence

article id 8707.

Klaas wrote in reply :

The following proposals have been accepted although a broader context is
alluded to in all of them, including even "models": Fischer, Johnston,
Pepperday, Mollinson, Kowalik, and Kjar. One could say that they principally
deal with the Head of State issue but add a broader constitutional context.
The socalled "Approved Design of the Conference Structure and Program and
Program" (24/9/2001) states that the "Conference is designed solely to devise
the constitutional process which would best enable Australians to consider how
to deal with the issue of the Head of State". This document requires that a
proposal deals with the Head of State issue. It does NOT state that each
proposal cannot add broader context eg to illustrate that the Head of State
issue needs to be seen as a first step towards a Republic - as the Woldring and
Mollinson proposals do. To see this as an unrelated issue is nonsensical. It
is pedantic to try to separate the Head of State issue, in an obviously
Minimalist fashion, from likely necessary constitutional changes which have
been in fact been mooted at ConCon already. This Conference would fall in the
same trap as ConCon if it insists on that. One gains the impression that this
is actually the intention, again, in spite of the socalled Fresh Start that was
required to get the Conference going again.

# Indymedia article posted

All,

I've just posted an article to indymedia, titled

"Remove the States - Reconnect the people with government"

http://www.sydney.indymedia.org

# Article by Tim Hughes in The Australian

Tim Hughes: Something rotten in states of the nation
By Tim Hughes
July 10, 2001

SO New Zealand might one day merge with Australia? At least New Zealand
cabinet minister Steve Maharey's suggestion last month of a possible union
shows someone has been looking at the big picture.

It may be our celebration of the federation of Australian states, but
lacking on this side of the Tasman has been any real debate about the
relevance of the states themselves.

There has been some lip-service: earlier this year the Victorian and NSW
governments announced a joint proposal to merge the border centres of
Albury-Wodonga into a "national city" with integrated health, education and
administrative services as one way of overcoming the discrepancies residents
face on anything from dog permits and driver's licences to school rules and
medical registrations.

As a media event, it made for good copy about the possible demise of
intra-community state rivalry. Badly lacking, though, was any commentary
analysing why the very idiocies that such a plan seeks to overcome still
exist.

For all its acknowledgment of the confusion still encountered by border
dwellers, the concept is a feeble attempt to address very real boundary
issues that were supposed to have vanished with federation 100 years ago.
While Henry Parkes's famous 1889 federation oration at Tenterfield rallied
the public largely on a fear of national defencelessness, it was not without
reason that he chose to deliver his speech only a stone's throw from a
colonial border. City dwellers were initially ambivalent about federation,
but their regional counterparts - especially those living near the borders -
embraced the idea and its abolition of the colonial duties they felt were
depriving them of economic growth.

A century on, what have we learned?

Streamlining two lots of red tape at Albury-Wodonga may be all very well,
but is the concept really about minimising anomalies at the middle tier of
government, or merely vesting responsibility to another - either a new
federal jurisdiction, or an enlarged local council with expanded powers? And
it's not as if Albury-Wodonga is alone here - what about Coolangatta-Tweed
Heads, or even the small NSW/Queensland border town of Mungindi?

AS state governments of all persuasions encourage - indeed, coerce - local
council amalgamations to create larger regional entities, the question must
be asked if the answer wouldn't be to do away with the states altogether and
have a county-style or district/borough system - such as in Britain -
instead. (It's not a new idea; in fact, it has long been a policy of the
Democrats, but few others seem brave enough to run it up the flagpole.)

A curious twist to the Albury-Wodonga proposal is the appointment of former
MP Ian Sinclair as head of the working party, given that for much of his 35
years as federal member for the northern NSW seat of New England his
constituents campaigned for a state of their own. Formally proposed in NSW
state parliament in 1922, the New England new state movement reached its
zenith in 1967 when then NSW premier Robert Askin held a referendum on the
issue. Despite the unwelcome inclusion of Newcastle into the proposed state,
a majority of voters were still reported to be in favour of cessation.
However, the proposal was narrowly defeated, allegedly because bureaucrats,
in the week before the referendum, claimed Hunter Valley dairy farmers would
be excluded from the Sydney milk zone.

Discontent in the area continues: regional NSW constitutes 90 per cent of
the state's land area and is home to 30 per cent of the population but gets
only 18 per cent of new non-road capital funding and only one of 32
government ministries and agencies is based there. Not surprisingly,
independents hold two northern seats.

Elsewhere, far north Queenslanders have been agitating for self-government
since 1852 when it was proposed by John Dunmore Lang. While in Western
Australia - reluctant even in 1900 to federate for the very reasons echoed
today - the Labor Government's wish to reduce the number of non-city seats
will surely drive an even larger wedge between the metropolitan south-west
and the state's vast asset-and income-rich interior.

Instead of the singularly specific Bob Carr/Steve Bracks proposal, the
federal parliament - which under chapter six of the Constitution has the
power to create, amend or subdivide states - could adopt a rare opportunity
to glimpse a bigger picture and debate the nation's future legislative
landscape.

Proper constitutional reform must not just look at a republic and a bill of
rights, but reassess current government framework in totality.
A true celebration of federalism deserves a more ambitious vision.

Tim Hughes is a journalist based in northern NSW

Following is the letter to the editor I've sent earlier today:

Dear Maam,

A century after Federation, it is timely to emphasise that one of our
federal government's primary duties is to guarantee national security.
Indeed, most federations, including Australia's, have formed at least
largely in response to "a sense of military insecurity and of the consequent
need for common defence" (quoting Sir Kenneth Wheare, 1946).

When people think of the colossal failings of our present top-heavy,
chronically centralised system of government, things like the rail gauge
fiasco, payroll tax, and the tens of billions of dollars wasted every year
in duplicated bureaucracy and regulation (at the expense of individuals and
communities, cities and the bush, small business, big business, the
environment, health care, research, education etc.) are usually the first to
come to mind. But national security too is critically affected by the
destructive state/territory divisions which Federation reinforced.

The group arguably most disadvantaged by the different sets of laws,
registration requirements, school systems etc. imposed by our state and
territory governments are Defence personnel required to serve in different
parts of the country, and especially their spouses and children. These
disadvantages reach chronic proportions for the thousands of impoverished
families of lowly paid lower ranking defence personnel.

At a time when unsatisfactory Defence Force recruiting levels have the
potential to significantly compromise our national security for years to
come, the Centenary of Federation should remind our political leaders of
their fundamental duty to provide consistent national laws and services that
help rather than hinder necessarily mobile workers and their families.

# Follow up on Democrats advocacy and Gavin P's important article

Below is a follow up to what was broadcast on ABC news
yesterday. Great to see that Mr Gary Humphries (Liberal leader and Chief
Minister of the ACT) supports moves, as did his predecessor Ms Kate Carnell.
A great number of Liberals seem to be coming out of the woodwork of late,
which is great!

In an earlier version of this email (which didn't appear to get through to
because it exceeded the memory limit) I attached what ABC radio Canberra
have faxed me, showing reference to reporter Richard Davis and Senator
Andrew Murray.

Also, I was privileged to speak on ABC radio Adelaide at 3.10 pm Adelaide
time (3.40 pm EST) along with Senator Murray and Mayor Brian Hurn, the
president of the South Australian local government association. We were all
on the same side! In short, we discussed how most people supportive of
state government abolition tend to support either:

(1) the establishment of regional governments (numbering 30 to 60 or so
... I used the Democrats' suggestion and the Chris Hurford model as two
present day examples here - noting though that Chris' model is somewhat
strictly two tier whereas the Democrats model comprises three tiers
[national and regional government and community councils]),

(2) stronger/better resourced local governments (like the model which
Max, Klaas, I and others have been exploring recently) with regional
governance carried out through voluntary associations of localities and
administrative regions for health, education and other functional areas.

It increasingly looks as though, in our advoacy work, we would do well to
promote and "test drive" two models more or less as above, whilst remaining
mindful that:

(1) these two models are certainly not poles apart but, rather,
represent possibilities that lie on a gradual continuum (largely depending
on the number of subnational governments/councils - a system of 150
"regions" might well have more in common with the type of system Max, Klaas,
I and others have explored than a regional government model as generally
envisaged with 20 to 60 or so regions),

and

(2) neat "one size fits all" regional/local divisions are unlikely to
do justice to the diversity of communities that make up our country.

By testing the public pulse on two models along the lines suggested above we
can significantly assist our overall cause by keeping debate in our general
corner so to speak. Whilst those of us not supportive of regional
governments might not share Gavin Putland's support for such regional
governments, I believe Gavin's article (again, at
valuable role in helping drag debate over toward our side ... by keeping the
staunch conservative pro-federalists (typified by the Samuel Griffith
society) at bay in THEIR (conservative pro-federalists) own terms. So our
general advocacy strategy can be seen as a multi-layered one involving:

A. articles/advocacy like Gavin's which accept benefits of a federal system
(a great way of legitimately appeasing/neutralising staunch supporters of
the status quo) but demonstrate that our present system delivers little or
none of these benefits in practice and that smaller, more numerous, closer
to the people units are essential in bringing the true benefits of
federalism to fruition;

B. exploration/consultation/advocacy of regional government/democracy
possibilities;

C. exploration/consultation/advocacy of
locality/community government/democracy possibilities.

[Please note: in the interests of pragmatism I suggest B and C above as
distinct advocacy strands notwithstanding my personal preference to avoid
being hung up on the regional/local distinction ... in B and C respectively
I refer to regions as units generally thought of as numbering 20 to 70 or so
and localities as units numbering say 100 or more, and possibly many more]

Framed as above, stage A can be something of a very powerful bridge to
stages B and C. Stages A and B can be marketed jointly, as can stages B and
C, though A and C would generally be regarded as too far apart to achieve
synergies through joint marketing.

I really do think Gavin's article and general advoacy line is extremely
valuable and powerful.

Tuesday July 3, 2001 Posted: 7:39pm AEST

ACT chief supports Democrats' proposed government restructure

Australian Capital Territory chief minister Gary Humphries says the
structure of Australian politics could be significantly improved by the
abolition of state governments.

The Australian Democrats have called for state governments to be abolished
and replaced by regional governments, which would be controlled by a
national body.

Mr Humphries says the system is essentially already in place in the ACT and
is working well.

"The ACT actually provides a model for the sort of thing they are talking
about, a regional government that covers a larger area than a usual
municipality for example, but which has state and local government style
operations combined in the one structure," he said.

# A superb article by Gavin Putland

Dear all,

Gavin Putland has just had published at the OnLine Opinion site a superb
article with title and web address as follows:
Why Australia's states are doomed.
By Gavin Putland

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2001/Jun01/Putland.htm

# Geoffrey de Q Walker's advantages

Geoffrey de Q Walker's "ten advantages to a federal constitution"
appears on the following web page :

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2001/May01/Walker.htm

(may last year ... a while back ...)

This bears comparison to Greg Craven's letters and Mark's reply from
a while back. These were posted on Mon, 9 Apr 2001 as
"Extracts from Mark's ad hoc list" and appear on the asc webpage.

I recall Klaas thinking really bad things about Greg's ideas and
expression - a comment on his professionalism, rather than a professional
dissagreement. How does Geoffrey de Q Walker compare ? I think quite
well - I still dissagree, but the ideas are better put.

# Brief mention of ARM

COURIER MAIL TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2002

BRIEFS

. THE republican movement used the Queen's Birthday weekend to launch its
change of direction by introducing a new twist - calling for the public to
have a say in the choice of state governors. It recruited some Labor
premiers to support the movement. I know that Australia will become a
republic some day but I do not support the Aust�ralian Republican Movement's
principles. Premier Peter Beattie should remember that Queenslanders voted
against ARM's policy and could be expected to do the same at a referendum
that would be re�quired to change the office of state governor. Until ARM
introduces ideas and methods to improve how Australians would be governed in
a republic - such as removing a tier of government - it is yelling into the
wind.

# Regional responsibilities

The state of our union
A.J. Brown

LAST year, as part of the Centenary of Federation celebrations, The Courier
Mail and Griffith University asked Queenslanders how they thought the
Federation was performing. The results show a new chapter in our history
might be unfolding.

The survey drew a great response. Altogether 1264 people participated,
including 704 Courier-Mail readers: 424 who cut a printed version of our
survey out of the paper, and 280 who completed it on the Courier-Mail
website. Also, NFO CM Research conducted a random telephone poll of
Queenslanders statewide, and surveyed 259 local government leaders at the
Local Government Association of Queensland annual conference.

The good news is that most people seem proud of Australia's tradition of
democracy, with 78 per cent of Queenslanders satisfied about the way
democracy works in Australia. And most people (63 per cent) expect it to
look different in another 100 years.

But what do Australians want their changing federal system to look like?

Nearly two-thirds of respondents favoured a two-tiered system of government
for Australia, with regional governments replacing states and existing local
authorities. Such a system was favoured by 63 percent of those who sent in
hard copy responses and 59 per cent of online respondents.

If many people want to see regional governments, either replacing or within
the present state, the big question is: What type of regions, and how would
they work? How many would we have? Here readers started to point out new
answers.

Historically, people wanting new states have only wanted a few, whereas
people wanting regional governments have advocated a vast number. Compared
with other respondents, Courier-Mail readers started to put these ideas
together: Almost half those wanting new states thought up to 20 or more
states was the right number for Australia, while over half those wanting
regions instead of states thought we could get away with about the same
number. Perhaps there is common ground to be found.

How do we further explore what structure might deliver a better deal for all
Australians?
First, we need more and better surveys, right across the country. Our
existing political leaders - federal, state and local - have to be part of
the discussion. Just like the negotiations that got six colonies to federate
in 1901, there would have to be serious give and take between all those with
vested interests in the present system.

One interesting result from our pilot survey was that local government
leaders, at least, are ready to do some new deals. Take the hot-potato issue
of amalgamation, which involves collapsing smaller councils into bigger
ones. Normally the local government community is opposed to having its life
turned upside-down by amalgamation.

BUT what about joining councils to form not just new, bigger councils, but
new regional governments as partners in the federation? More than a third of
local government leaders who said "definitely not" to amalgamation, and more
than half those saying "probably not", changed their tune.

If it involved a truly national overhaul, they supported it - provided not
just local government but state government was sent back to the drawing
board.

The survey raised as many questions for the future as it answered.

A.J. Brown (A.J.Brown@mailbox. gu.edu.au) is a Fellow at the Key Centre for
Ethics Law Justice and Governance, Griffith University. Full survey results
at www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag

# Ted Mack speech

Following is a copy of the speech Ted Mack delivered at the 'Interface'
event (organised and run by the youth organisation Nexus) in Sydney on 20
April (I spoke after Ted and have passed on my speech earlier).

INTERFACE: A FESTIVAL OF IDEAS ON AUSTRALIA'S MEDIA, EDUCATION AND
DEMOCRACY
COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS UNIVERSITY OF NSW 20TH APRIL 2002

Paper presented by Ted Mack

The question I've been asked to speak on is "Which bit of government should
do what and why?' This raises many fundamental issues. How much government
there should be? What in fact should government do? How many of levels of
government should there be? Who should decide these questions? How can
government structures and functions ever cope with accelerating change?

The answers to these questions involve establishing even more basic values.
What weight should there be in relation to the community versus individuals,
centralisation versus decentralisation, democracy versus elitism.

All these issues have been argued and fought over for centuries and will
continue to be in the future. There are probably no finite answers except
at particular points of time and the best we can probably hope for in the
face of Alvin Toffler's Future Shock is, as he suggests, to develop
temporary direction indicators.

Our current situation in Australia is that there are four levels of
government - local, state, national and international. The first three
levels and their basic functions were essentially set up in the 1890s and
early 20th century when the then six British colonies united to form the
Federation of Australia. That world no longer exists but unfortunately our
founding fathers could not foresee the future rate of change and to a great
extent locked us into what is now an obsolete constitution. Incidentally
this shows the folly of locking in the future with current values and
conditions It shows the difficulties of adopting such things as a Bill of
Rights. An example of this is the American's locking itself into the right
to bear arms some 200-odd years ago.

The result of our 19th century constitution is that we now have nightmare
systems of government. At one end the national government is rapidly losing
power to international institutions and at the other end local communities
are demanding more participation in decision-making. In the middle,
national and state governments are locked in a seemingly intractable
conflict that is resulting in inefficiency and frustration in almost every
area of public policy, for example education, health, transport, taxation
and the environment. Specific examples of this confusion are endless: the
century long frustration of different railway gauges; the environmental
degradation of the Murray-Darling River system while four state governments
and the commonwealth fight; the downgrading of the public school system
resulting from the Byzantine commonwealth-state funding arrangements; state
police having to go through extradition proceedings when suspects cross
state borders.

Last year in Adelaide I tried to purchase a tyre for my vehicle only to be
told that the tyre was legal in South Australia but illegal in NSW. It is
ridiculous that motor vehicle tyre classification should be a state function
when it should be an international standard.

It is virtually impossible for Australia to compete internationally with
our continuing massive level of over-government. We have nine legislative
governments and legal systems, 15 houses of parliament, 480-odd MPs and
associated bureaucracies - three times the level of USA, UK of NZ. Add to
that 700-odd mayors and 10 000 or so councillors all rapidly progressing to
the full-time public payroll.

Faced with all this it is tempting to say the states should be abolished.
Certainly having had an inside independent view of all three levels of
government it is the states that need the greatest level of reform.
Admittedly local government often seems more ratbaggy but that is only
because it is closer to, and more representative of, the people. After all
probably some ten per cent of the community are off the planet to some
degree and that is why they are usually represented by one or two people on
every council.

For all that there are clearly regional issues separate from local,
national and international issues that must be represented and administered.
Someone has to, for example, run Sydney's transport and water supply
systems, this is not a national or local issue.

We in Sydney must also make allowance for the depth of regional feeling
that exists in Australia. Many areas feel alienated and unrepresented.

Outside of NSW most people call themselves by the name of their state. We
in NSW, being the largest and most powerful state, do not feel that need.
One of the factors that contributed, I am sure, to a change of federal
government in 1996 was Paul Keating's inimitable and well-publicised
throw-away line to a British journalist when he said "Listen mate, if you're
an Australian and you don't live in Sydney you're just camping out", thereby
alienating about two-thirds of Australians.

The state boundaries were set out on a fairly arbitrary basis by the
British Colonial Office in the middle of the 19th century. As time has gone
on they have become even more inappropriate. In my view we need, in fact,
more states based on recognised regions. One reason decentralisation has
never worked in Australia is that we have never really decentralised power.
However we do not need overblown, obsolete, undemocratic, pseudo Westminster
systems of government. Most over-government in Australia is at the state
level, where there are 600-odd MPs. In the smaller states such as Northern
Territory and Tasmania, levels of representation are ridiculously high- it
often seems like every second person is either a sitting or former MP.
States or regions could be based on single chamber, proportionally elected
legislatures with directly elected premiers and appointed cabinets.

Globalisation cannot be stopped and isolation is impossible. Just as
national government is being forced to give up decision-making to
international forces, the states must cede powers to national government.
For example, it is little better than bureaucratic humbug for states to have
separate policies and laws on such things as corporate governance, abortion,
euthanasia, IVF procedures, or separate legal systems. Many issues however
require some decision-making at all levels of government, from international
to local, and this will become even more important in the future, for
example education and the environment.

What functions should be determined at each level of government need to be
based on the principle of delegating decision-making to the lowest level
practical and appropriate. That is the principle on which Europe is
proceeding in developing the European Union. It is the only way to proceed
if you believe in democracy and trying to combat apathy, alienation and
powerlessness in the community.

# Posting for recent feature

Some material posted to On Line Opinion from David Thomas:

What can be done to clean up the image of politics & politicians.
On any job measure our politicians would rank amongst the lowest. This is
not to say that many politicians are dedicated to hard work and achievement
of good outcomes. Unfortunately most would start out down the political road
with the right intentions but are quickly lulled into the reality of a
system that rewards mediocrity. They don�t rock the boat and, by biding
their time no harm comes to them. They look after each other on what matters
to them ie their perks and their scandalously generous superannuation
scheme.

The image of politicians and politics would improve-
1) if there were a lot less of them.
3 levels of government ie Local, State & Federal is wasteful. No business
would structure itself this way. Long ago( pre 1980�s) business did
structure its controls through a large number of hierarchical structures
that put it close to customers. With changes in communications this is no
longer necessary.
Suggestion would be to get rid of state governments as state governments are
relying more and more on funding from sources that are self destructive eg
gambling.
2) if there was no influence on the political parties from big business.
Limit contributions. Make contributions taxable ie no deductions. Full
disclosure of contributions.
3) if the major parties could show that they are different.
This �sameness� is caused by the influence of big business pulling their
strings.
4) if there were more independents
Working for the people. Politicians like Peter Andren who is one of a
minority who show real integrity.
5) if politicians were rewarded properly.
Salaries should be structured to reward results.
Superannuation should mirror the community norm. It is far too generous.
Bide the time and collect hansomely.
No perks after leaving office.
Fixed term for elections ie on the same date every 4 years.
6) if politicians actually ran the country
They set up bodies that are paper tigers eg ACCC. Politicians should make
decisions for a change. Big business runs the country eg the way petrol is
marketed is crazy and is begging for intervention. But then the government
don�t have any real power, do they?
7) if political parties actually had long term plans for Australia
Everything is short term except the politicians retirement funding!.

# Arthur Chesterfield-Evans speech in Parliament

Arthur writes :

" I made a speech on Tuesday 19/3/02 in honour of your conference, so I
thought I'd better send it to you. The ideas still need work."

Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans MLC
NSW Parliamentary Leader
Australian Democrats

Here it is:

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION

Page: 59

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [10.10 p.m.]: It is necessary to
reform the Australian Constitution and how Australian government works.
These are my thoughts, and not, necessarily Democrat balloted policy. This
Friday I note the 'Shed a Tier' group has an all-day conference at
Parliament House in Canberra. The group is part of an increasing number of
people talking about the necessity to change our system of government.

There is a lack of co-ordination between local, State and Commonwealth
governments. This is a major problem in policy areas where responsibility is
shared between Federal and State governments, such as in health and
education. In these areas cost shifting dominates policy-making, which
results in poor policy outcomes. A deal of State legislation is now
consequential on Federal legislation. State governments have been taking
power from local government for some time. Co-ordination with local
government is less considered, and local governments often complain that
they pick up the pieces as services are withdrawn by other levels of
government.

It is assumed from the Westminster tradition that there must be two Houses
of Parliament in each jurisdiction, the upper one to review the lower.
However, at the Federal level the number of voters does not correlate well
with the number of seats in either the upper or lower House. This is also
the case in some, but not all, States. For example, in the New South Wales
lower House Bob Carr received 43 per cent of the primary vote, which gave
him 56 per cent of the seats and 100 per cent of the power because of tight
party discipline. In the upper House Bob Carr received only 37 per cent of
the primary vote, the crossbench received 35 per cent and the Coalition
received 28 per cent, which suggests that voters would have given the
Government fewer primary votes in the lower House if smaller parties had a
chance. Despite being constantly criticised, the New South Wales upper House
is more democratic than the lower House.

Legislatures should be judged by how democratic they are, that is how well
the percentage of the voters correlate with the number of seats. There is no
special need for two Houses. If there were only one house with proportional
representation that made decisions more slowly with more public input and
less party discipline, it would give a real chance of better government in
Australia. We need to go beyond the paradigms of only two parties fighting
it out. Upper Houses have a longer term, which causes an inherent
conservatism because half of its members were elected "one term ago". This
is not more democratic, but their proportional representation may be. Lower
houses have an inherent gerrymander caused by single-member electorates.
Although this is a problem, its major manifestation is that Parliament is
losing respect because of its confrontational approach. Much of society is
now seeking a more consensual model.

I suggest that New South Wales, which currently has 50 Federal lower House
seats, could be divided into 10 regional electorates. These new 10
electorates would return five members each-still 50 members but from 10
regional areas. Elected by a Hare-Clark proportional system, locally based
politicians would win some of these seats, but some people with significant
stands on major issues would also win seats. It would be unlikely,
therefore, that a single party would win a majority. There would be more
diversity. This government of 50 could act as an interim State Government by
combining both Houses. Later it would replace the New South Wales State's
senators as State and Federal governments were combined. The Senate needs to
be reformed as the gerrymander between States is too much. In this system,
as the new regions were defined, progressive electoral boundary changes
would cross old State borders, and problems like the Murray-Darling basin
would be sorted out both by regional electorates and more open statutory
bodies.

State and Federal governments would be combined by a staged amalgamation of
the public services. State legislation would be divided into three
categories:
1. Legislation that could be Federal;
2. Legislation that could be regional; and,
3. Functions that could go to statutory bodies, such as environment or
regional transport.

The danger of centralisation is the danger of the central government getting
out of touch. This happens, but technology has a possible solution.
Government needs to be made open. Governments should have to justify why
information should be kept secret, rather than, as at present, individuals
having to justify why it should be made available. Statutory authorities in
an open system would then get submissions, discuss options via web sites and
make recommendations to governments with reasons. New Zealand already has
this 'Official Information' legislation, but not yet the technical process I
am advocating. I stated that New South Wales could combine its two Houses
early in the process, unless it was felt that 50 was too few politicians to
get through the material.

The question would then become how many Houses are needed at a Federal
level. If a proportional representation and more consensual type of
legislature were developed, the Senate house developed from my model would
have the same number of seats as the House of Representatives currently has,
but elected on the Hare-Clark system. The question would then arise as to
why the House of Representative would be necessary, except to have a
gerrymandered smaller electorate system. If more politicians were needed,
perhaps a more democratic way of electing them could be devised.

I have not defined the changes in putting together regional government or
how it would relate to current local governments. I do not know the answer.
This is an ongoing process of discussion and evolution. I hope to go to the
conference in Canberra because I want to join in the debate with a real
contribution. I emphasise that these are my ideas and they are not yet
balloted Democratic Party policy. The Australian Constitution needs a great
deal of change. We must go boldly in our thinking.

# Mark's Letter to Editor on education

Had the following make it into the Canberra Times on 1 January closely
related to ASC visions - a similar argument and similar $2 billion figure
applies to health care; with public order and safety the corresponding
figure is again over $1 billion per annum it seems:

START
The ongoing argument over public and private school funding is like herds of
animals fighting at a drying up water hole.

Australia has, broadly, at least the following 80 primary and secondary
education systems: the 8 public systems (one in each state and territory),
some 16 Catholic systems (systemic and independent sectors in each state and
territory), 16 Anglican systems, 16 other Christian systems, and another 24
systems which are non-religious or based on religions other than
Christianity.

It is all very well to promote or defend public choice in education, but
public choice considerations need to be weighed up against considerations of
sound economic management relating to scale economies and affordability, and
substantive issues of social cohesion, safety, child protection etc. The 80
or more education divisions referred to above impose significant scale
diseconomies as well as the obvious social divisions and opportunities to
buck-pass even on matters as critical as child protection from sexual abuse.

In the vicinity of $2 billion per annum, presently tied up in wasteful costs
of bureaucratic duplication and coordination, could be made available to
school "coalfaces" if the state, territory and federal education systems
coalesced into nationwide systems. This $2 billion per annum
equates to some $600 for each of our over 3 million school kids, or an
average of about $200,000 for each of our 10,000 or so schools.

So are we serious about the education of our children or do we care more for
duplicated sacred cow bureaucracies?
END

# 7.30 report transcript supporting national approach to electricity

Simon's and Klaas' comments earlier today show there is more than just the
state-based issue here with the electricity market (and the gas market
noting convergence of electricty and gas into an integrated energy market).

ROMAN DOMANSKI of ENERGY USERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA and DR ROBERT
BOOTH, an ENERGY CONSULTANT, both make comments indicating support for a
national approach absent of state involvement.

Transcript
9/01/2002
SA and Victoria face power crisis

MICK BUNWORTH: Weather like this has lulled Victorians and South Australians
into falsely believing that summer may have passed them by.

With only a handful of days breaching the 30 degree mark this season,
residents of the south-eastern states have so far been spared the hot, dry
weather that has fanned the flames of bushfires to their north.

But it may not last.

The Bureau of Meteorology predicts above-average temperatures in Victoria
and South Australia are a possibility for the remainder of summer and one of
the first things likely to wilt is the state's electricity supply, as air
conditioners are switched on and industry returns from holidays.

ROMAN DOMANSKI, ENERGY USERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA: The Energy Users
Association has as its members among the largest industrial and commercial
users in Australia.

A number of them have significant operations in Victoria and South
Australia.

They are now becoming increasingly alarmed that, later this month, over
February, when their operations start to ramp up again, that they're going
to be subject to restrictions.

That affects them in terms of lost production, lost productivity, inability
to meet orders.

MICK BUNWORTH: And the Energy Users Association is right to be worried.

Lie Yang, one of Victoria's two electricity generating companies, is about
to shut down to half its production capacity, with two of its four 500
megawatt turbines standing idle while badly needed maintenance work is
carried out.

Victoria's other electricity generator, Yallourn Energy, will lose one of
its four turbines next week.

ROMAN DOMANSKI: We've been telling them for six months now that they need to
take some additional steps to reduce their level of optimism and be more
prudent as the organisation which is responsible for managing the market and
ensuring that the lights do stay on.

MICK BUNWORTH: When the electricity market was established three years ago,
Victoria, New South Wales, the ACT, South Australia and Queensland all
became players.

The national electricity market management company, or Nemmco, was set up to
regulate operation of the market and each of the States and Territory have
representatives on its board.

Despite its optimism, Nemmco knows it has a problem.

PAUL PRICE, NEMMCO: I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that there
will be restrictions.

What's happened is there's been some unexpected breakdown of some fairly
significant plant in Victoria.

Now, this is at the time of year when people's consumption of electricity is
reaching its peak.

So, essentially, what Nemmco's view is that there is some tightness in the
system but that needs to be taken in the context of extreme weather
conditions leading to extreme use of energy.

MICK BUNWORTH: Why do you say that Nemmco is at fault?

ROMAN DOMANSKI: I don't say that they're at fault.

What I say is that they have to take some of the responsibility for what
might happen later this month or in February in Victoria and South Australia
as well.

MICK BUNWORTH: Victoria and South Australia are no strangers to black-outs
and power restrictions, enduring both two years ago when industrial action
affected power generation in Victoria.

It led many to question the direction of the electricity free market.

Energy consultant Dr Robert Booth was involved in the planning stages of the
market.

DR ROBERT BOOTH, ENERGY CONSULTANT: Well I think, because, in common with a
lot of other countries in the 1980s, the government-owned utilities became
very inefficient and it became very clear that there was a lack of
cooperation between the States in developing new power stations and
transmission lines.

MICK BUNWORTH: But that lack of cooperation between the states failed to
disappear in the new national market.

DR ROBERT BOOTH: The industry in New South Wales and Queensland has remained
almost entirely in the ownership of the Government, of the State Government,
and the state governments in those two states haven't hesitated to step in
to take some actions to protect the interests of their consumers.

I think Victoria and South Australia have been rather too hands-off and have
left things to the market to decide and I don't believe that a market
without proper guidance and without proper rules, will ever make the right
decisions.

MICK BUNWORTH: The right decisions might have seen the construction of
powerful interconnectors, allowing New South Wales and Queensland to sell
their surplus electricity to Victoria and South Australia.

Nemmco has now approved the construction of the interconnectors, but they
are at least a year away from completion.

Dr Booth says the pending crisis must now be addressed by the Federal
Government.

DR ROBERT BOOTH: The states have the constitutional responsibility for
electricity, but when you start to get blackouts in major states and when
the prices of electricity are higher than they should be, it's having an
effect on the Australian economy as a whole, and that's a national issue,
it's not a state issue.

ROMAN DOMANSKI: To just leave it to the states to do that, I don't believe
you'll get the desirable result, because there's too many compromises and
too many conflicting objectives and too many narrow-based concerns that
state governments have.

MICK BUNWORTH: Newly appointed Federal Industry Minister Ian MacFarlane is
currently on leave and was unavailable for comment.

But while arguments continue on how to fix the national electricity market,
there are those who say its reliance on greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuel
plants also needs a dramatic rethink.

STUART MCQUIRE: We still think it's pretty magical, like the sunlight lands
on the roof and it provides us with all our electricity and there's no
noise, smoke, pollution whatsoever.

MICK BUNWORTH: Stuart McQuire isn't worried about talk of an electricity
crisis.

He hasn't paid a power bill since he installed 18 solar panels on the roof
of his house 5.5 years ago.

STUART MCQUIRE: It generates a surplus and the way it works is it doesn't
store that surplus in batteries but the meter literally goes backwards and
it's done that over the 5.5 years the panels have been operating.

We've got a credit or a surplus of about two years' worth of electricity.

MICK BUNWORTH: But Dr Robert Booth says there is little incentive for others
to follow Stuart McQuire's lead on a large scale.

DR ROBERT BOOTH: We have a very strange system of pricing of our networks,
which imposes a very great burden on anybody wanting to use a distributed
form of generation, like a solar or a wind-type power.

Effectively, they pay the same price as if they were located some hundreds
of kilometres away from their load, whereas in fact they're more likely to
be located within a kilometre or two or sometimes cheek by jowl with their
own load.

So the network pricing arrangement is one of those details I mentioned that
needs to be redone and got correct.

MICK BUNWORTH: In the meantime, the vast majority of Victorians and South
Australians not lucky enough to have solar power are holding their breath
and hoping that the unseasonably cool weather continues.

# Letter to Editor by Bob Buick today

(taken from
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5746,ausletters1^^TEXT,
00.html)

WE need to ask ourselves whether Donald Rothwell's article on the eroding of
international laws by countries involved with the war against terrorism is
valid. Maybe the whole gambit of international legislation should be
questioned and discussed.

Rothwell quotes the UN Charters written in 1945 immediately after WWII, when
dreamers endeavoured to bind the world into one happy family. This dream was
blown to pieces within a few years with the onset of the Cold War, when the
super powers gathered nations behind them in commercial and military
alignments, pitting one against the other.

These groupings still remain, albeit in a loose alignment, and are the bulk
of the UN membership. Some of these members are smaller than Tasmania,
without any international interests, and this has increased the
ineffectiveness and the downfall of UN powers and influences in many fields.

There needs to be a rethink by all nations on how we are to survive and
prosper for the next century. This must include environmental and commercial
considerations, and the protection of humanity. Maybe the Security Council
should become a Supreme Council, downgrading the influence of the General
Assembly's powers; rules made by the "Supreme Council", rati fied in the
General Assembly, would become binding and replace the present charters and
conventions that are flawed in many ways, breaching some state
constitutional powers.

The UN has become a big family with the same problems most families
experience. Many don't pay their way but demand equal power and influence.
It is a white elephant with much to say and do but without clout. Like
Australia's state governments, the UN was needed at the time but has failed
to modernise and has become outdated and ineffectual in the day-to-day needs
of the people.
BOB BUICK
Glenfields, Qld

# Christopher Pyne articel on rivers

Christopher Pyne: Nation must wrest control of lifeblood rivers
By Christopher Pyne
January 03, 2002

The states have been arguing over the management of the basin for 100
years. The river's health is almost terminal - we can't afford the
argument to carry on any longer. The clock is ticking.

This is not the first time this issue has been visited. The question of
who should have control over our waterways was hotly debated in the
Federation conventions in the 1890s.

South Australia lost that debate to NSW in a motion put forward by
George Houston Reid, the future prime minister, and section 100, as it
came to be known, was inserted in the Constitution. It reads: "The
commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce,
abridge the right of a state or of the residents therein to the
reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation."
But section 100 has failed dismally. The commonwealth has been unable
to achieve a co-operative approach to the management of the
Murray-Darling river system as the states have jealously guarded the
powers granted to them by section 100.

At the time of the Federation conventions delegates were mostly
concerned with navigation of the waterways. South Australia wanted to
be sure that navigation of the waterways would not be hindered by
customs from Victoria or NSW.

One hundred years on from Federation the issue is not navigation of the
waterways - it is the ecological and economic survival of the
Murray-Darling river basin.

That's why it is critical for the commonwealth to take control from the
states by holding a referendum to remove section 100 from the
Constitution and replace it with a new head of power under section 51 of
the Constitution. The new provision could read: "The control and
regulation of the Murray-Darling river basin and the use of the water
thereof."

This provision would give the commonwealth the power to enact laws
relating to the Murray-Darling river basin. There is also a strong
argument that it should be a concurrent head of power.

A concurrent head of power would allow states to legislate over water
and land management issues relating to the Murray-Darling river basin in
so far as those laws are not inconsistent with commonwealth legislation.
In such cases the commonwealth legislation would prevail.

The concern over the survival of the Murray-Darling basin is no Y2K
scare.

Three recent authoritative studies on the ecology of the basin have been
conducted - the Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment 2000, the
National Land and Water Resource Audits Australian water resources:
environmental perspective and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission's
salinity audit.

SOME premiers, in particular Queensland's Peter Beattie, have paid lip
service to environmentalists for too long. Beattie has held out against
a co-operative and unified approach to management of the Murray-Darling
river basin.

Beattie's Labor Government has failed to sign the capping agreement
which NSW, Victoria and South Australia signed in 1997, based on 1993-94
water flows. In fact, Queensland still takes all the water from some
rivers that are supposed to flow into the Darling, such as the
Condamine.

The Queensland Government's obfuscation may start costing it dearly.
Only last week the Queensland Government was warned by the National
Competition Council that it must reduce water extraction from rivers at
the head of the Murray-Darling basin catchment area or risk losing
millions of dollars in the next round of National Competition Payments.

The report by the competition council noted that in 1993-94, 60 per cent
of the natural flow from the Balonne River reached the Murray-Darling
basin wetlands. By 2000 the flow had plummeted to just 26 per cent.

But financial penalties are not enough to save the Murray-Darling basin.
The commonwealth must proceed with a referendum to take control of the
basin from the states and deliver it to the hands of the commonwealth.

Only then can we hope to see a unified, co-operative approach to revive
the Murray-Darling basin. This is one new year's resolution we can't
afford not to keep.

Christopher Pyne is the federal Liberal MP for the South Australian seat
of Sturt

# NFF president Ian Donges expressing possible support for Christopher Pyne's idea

From http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/stories/s461376.htm

NFF 'open' to change in Murray management

The National Farmers Federation has not ruled out supporting
constitutional change to take the management of the Murray Darling Basin
away from states.

South Australian MP Christopher Pyne wants a referendum, to vote on
giving the Federal Government control of the nation's largest river
system.

President of the National Farmers Federation, Ian Donges says property
and water rights for farmers must be protected, but is open to the idea
of constitutional change.

Ian Donges: I mean I wouldn't close my mind to looking at major
constitutional change, because quite obviously we're not doing it well
at the moment. In the shorter term some common sense may prevail and
that would help us through what is obviously a very difficult and
convoluted problem that we are trying to wrestle with. But at the end of
the day you have to have an open mind, because if it doesn't work, and
if we can't get these agreements and co-operation between the various
states and the Commonwealth, then maybe constitutional change will be
the only way to solve that problem.

# Regional Government

Another great example of regional government in action is revealed in the
following article from The (Tasmanian) Advocate of 13 December 2001.

Heading. Cradle Coast Authority a success story

By Luke Sayer

The success of the Cradle Coast Authority was a great endorsement of the
faith shown in it by the councils of the region, according to its top
executive.

The authority's executive chairman, Roger Jaensch, presented his report to
the annual meeting at Wynyard last week.

He said the highlight had been the fact that the organisation, which was
only a concept two years ago, had been recognised as important - just as the
councils thought it could be.

"We are well on track to achieve the major goals. The most important are
those we have been able to act upon to date, Mr Jaensch said.

"Timing has been very good and we have been prepared to grab this with both
hands when it mattered.

"I think the authority can do more for this region than it ever hoped for.

"It was created with the right structure at a time when the State and
Federal Governments were looking for regional bodies to deal with."

Mr Jaensch listed the Authority's achievements as:

1. Securing the commitment of the State Government to major infrastructure
projects;

2. the regional partnership agreement with the State Government;

3. developing a model for delivery of Federal Natural Heritage Trust
funding; and

4. negotiations with the Federal Government toward a partnership for
delivery of up to 1.2 million dollars in the region over four years through
the Sustainable Regions programme.

Mr Jaensch said the activities and achievements showed that the Authority
had filled an important niche, providing co-ordination, organisation and
recognition.

"This good timing has given the Authority opportunities to get significant
runs on the board early in its life, in ways that might not have been
possible five years ago. On the other hand, there would not have been
opportunities if we had not had the ability to make use of them.

"I am not aware of any other regional body in Australia owned by Local
Government and responsible for regional development that has the political
authority to engage state and Federal governments in the way this society
can."

Mr Jaensch paid credit to the media, particularly The Advocate, for the role
it had played in presenting the Cradle Coast message to the region.

# More Tasmanian support

The following Letter to the Editor appeared on 22 August 2001 in
the Hobart Mercury, by Leo Foley of Lenah Valley:

Title: Sound Advice

Detractors continue to berate Bob Cheek for his rebellious ways. But on the
very day of his ascendancy, a main chance presented itself for Bob to prove
his bona fides in the public interest.

Not only will it put paid to his critics, it will also provide us with
better government, and all at a reduced cost. Too good to be true?

Not so. Just take the advice of The Mercury editorial (August 20), Bob and
abolish the State government. We'd like to see that!

Bob Cheek is the Tasmanian (Liberal) leader of the opposition, and among
other things he has supported the reduction or abolition of payroll tax (see
for example http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ha/ISCheekBob.htm) and has
stated as follows, from the Tasmanian ABC website of 5 Jan 2002:

The State Opposition has accused the Government of being in denial about
Tasmania's economy.

It says a new report by Melbourne economist Geoffrey Rae savages the present
economic management, as it points to over-regulation, the loss of jobs and
population and high business taxes.

The Opposition Leader Bob Cheek says Victorian businesses have payroll tax
of five-point-four-five percent, compared with Tasmania's six-point-two-four
percent.

Mr Cheek says the report also underlines the amount of over-regulation in
Tasmania.

"The Bacon Government has instigated 900 reviews since they came to power.
That is nearly one a day. They've introduced nearly 248 regulations - the
most for eight years - since they've been in power.

We're an over-regulated, strangled economy and everybody else outside the
state recognises that except the Bacon Government which is in denial mode,"
Mr. Cheek said.

# Dr Christine Sharp mentioning Shed a Tier invitation in WA parliament

Folks here is a great web page showing words spoken in the WA parliament by
WA Greens politician Dr Christine Sharp.

The web page is http://www.mp.wa.gov.au/sharp/speeches/elect-ref.htm

and the full text follows below.

ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2001

Second Reading

18 -19 -20 September 2001

HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [9.47 pm]: I rise on behalf of the Greens
(WA) to offer conditional support for the Electoral Amendment Bill, because
the Greens accept the need for change to the current system. However, we do
not consider that the proposal in this Bill is a complete reform proposal;
nor does it meet all the objectives that the Greens consider need to be
enshrined in a process of change of electoral distribution.

I began the day by having breakfast at a function organised by the Western
Australian Municipal Association. I had breakfast this morning with
Professor David Black, who spoke to the gathering at Matilda Bay on the
general subject of one vote, one value. At the beginning of his remarks
Professor Black said that he considered that whatever he said to the
gathered audience would be fairly irrelevant, because this was a subject
about which people tended to have fairly strong views; therefore, the
members of the audience were most unlikely to change their views because of
what he said to them during his speech. To very briefly summarise his
position, he then went on to suggest that this was a very complex and
difficult issue and that one way of resolving the overall tensions that
arise from this proposal for one vote, one value can be found in the fact
that in Western Australia we enjoy a bicameral system. Clearly, the
existence of two Houses gives us the opportunity to found each House on
different principles and to allow them to meet different considerations. I
note also that this is not the first time Professor Black has expressed
those views. Indeed, the Commission on Government report said at page 340 -

Associate Professor David Black, of Curtin University, took the position
that if malapportionment was necessary it should only be used in one House
of Parliament:

. . . I cannot believe that it is necessary to have two Houses of Parliament
both malapportioned to a substantial extent. If there is a major argument
for malapportionment, if there is an argument for giving country voters a
greater say, I can understand that being in one house, but I cannot see why
both houses should have to embody the same principle. Surely the whole
concept of bicameralism involves different bases of representation in one
house from the other, and by different bases I mean more than using PR for
one and single member for the other.

The Greens have approached this by accepting that we are dealing with an
issue that puts into tension two confronting principles. They are both
enshrined in the words "demographics" and "democracy". Is it not interesting
that both those words have their root in the Greek word "demos", meaning
"the people"? We live in a State in which the demos has some fairly extreme
characteristics. The most extreme characteristic of our demography is that
three-quarters of our population live in one metropolitan region. On the
other hand, in the principle of democracy, it should clearly be enshrined
that everybody should have an equal say in choosing a Government. It is very
wrong that persons living in one geographic location should have less
influence than persons living in another location. Two principles are at
stake here. The Greens think that these two principles are in conflict;
therefore, we say that the Electoral Amendment Bill is an incomplete reform
proposal.
I will refer first to the principle of one vote, one value. At the very
outset in referring to the democratic principle that all voters should be
counted equally, I must say that I am a very recent convert to this
principle. I guess, therefore, I am somewhat of a contradiction to what
Professor Black maintained this morning when he said that people do not
change their position on this issue. I have changed my position fairly
substantially over the course of this year. Earlier this year I was opposed
to the notion of any form of electoral reform, because I live in the country
and have enormous sympathy for the difficulties experienced by country
communities. I was also concerned about the timing of any changes that would
disempower country people. That was very much a gut reaction when, during
the election campaign, as Hon George Cash has recounted to us this evening,
some comment appeared in the newspapers, albeit not very much comment. Hon
George Cash was right that discussion was not generated by the Labor Party
during the election campaign, but was brought to public attention by the
then Premier, Hon Richard Court. My initial reaction was to oppose reform,
according to my basic instinct as a country person. I did not want to see
any change that would disadvantage country people.

I have since then genuinely changed my position considerably because, I
suppose, out of necessity I have been forced to be exposed much more to the
arguments surrounding one vote, one value and how best to proceed with
electoral reform in Western Australia, about which I knew very little at the
beginning of the year. I have read the article and the chapters in the COG
report, which provide a very clear expos� of both the arguments for and
against vote weighting and make some very clear recommendations against
malapportionment.

I have also been exposed to the fact that Western Australia is the last
State in Australia to keep substantial malapportionment as a basis for its
electoral system. I gathered from the forum on electoral reform organised in
this Parliament that this State is regarded in other States as a dinosaur
State. I can also see that the status quo is unsatisfactory when the voters
in Eyre number 9 415 at last count compared with 37 720 in Wanneroo. That is
a proportion of four to one vote values between those seats. The more I have
read and come to understand how our system works, it has become apparent
that change must occur and that the system is entirely unsatisfactory.

However, to take up the theme with which I began my speech, the Greens (WA)
consider that the changes inserted into the electoral amendment Bill do not
address the issue adequately. We feel that the model proposed by the
Minister for Electoral Reform is not a balanced deal for Western Australia.
I am sure members will have noted that the provisions in the Bill concerning
the Legislative Council maintain the status quo; that is, the Government is
proposing change in the other House but not in this House. The Greens think
it is very important that if we are to move towards the democratic principle
for the demos in one House we should be considering why we have a bicameral
system and what it means for the role of this House and for the principles
on which this House is established. That is why we offer only conditional
support for this Bill. We believe the Government has neglected to consider
the way that the Legislative Council is constituted.

Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [8.58 pm]: I support the motion. Clearly,
the Greens (WA) do not have the answer to the complex question being sought
at law. I have listened to the arguments, and what is being suggested
tonight is plausible. The provisions of section 13 of the Electoral
Distribution Act 1947 are clear. I understand the argument that the repeal
of the Act in the manner suggested could well be found to be a mechanism to
set aside expressly a requirement in manner and form.

In supporting the motion, I ask whether the Government can provide further
information to guide this discussion about the implications of seeking a
declaration. My questions are practical. First, if the motion were passed
tonight and the Attorney General were to concur that it would be wise to
seek this declaration, am I right in assuming that debate and the passage of
the legislation through the House could continue? In other words, can the
Government assure us that it is not a holding mechanism on electoral reform
and that the two could happen concurrently?

Hon Barry House: Are you asking whether it would be sub judice?

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: No, I am asking whether, if the declaration is sought,
that can happen simultaneously with debate about the repeal legislation.
Secondly, if the Attorney General were to concur, would this require a
substantial impost on the taxpayer? If a private citizen goes to the Full
Bench of the Supreme Court, it is a very costly and timely business. Is this
going to cost the taxpayer extraordinary amounts of money? I know, for
example, that the fight for the native title legislation that the State
entered into a few years ago cost the State a lot of money. We would like to
be assured that this declaration can be done not only in a timely way and
concurrently but also without requiring an unreasonable imposition on the
taxpayer.

Thirdly, I am given to understand that the Government itself has discussed
this matter and, because of the motion before us and the notice that was
given, has sought an opinion from the Solicitor General. The Greens have not
been privy to the advice received by the Government and, although I
understand that there is a tradition that the advice of the Solicitor
General to the Government is not released, we would like to know if the
Government can provide the House with some indication of what was the
opinion of the Solicitor General regarding the validity or otherwise of this
matter.

Assuming that the answers to these questions can be provided, and that they
do not undermine the basic logic of our support for the motion - which is
simply that this is a very important matter, that electoral reform is taking
up an enormous amount of the time and energy of this House, and before it
the other place - it makes a lot of sense for this matter to be cleared up
now rather than for us to go through the entire process, as lengthy and
possibly painful as it may be to us all, only to find that the repeal Bill
or the then Act could end up before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court
anyway.

With those questions in mind, I support the motion and seek some advice from
the Government.

HON CHRISTINE SHARP (South West) [9.26 pm]: To recap what I was saying last
night, it is the intention of the Greens (WA) to support the provisions of
electoral reform for the Legislative Assembly in this Bill. We support one
vote, one value in the Legislative Assembly in quite a strict way, with a 10
per cent variance, with the exception that we proposed to the Government. It
has accepted our argument that, given the enormous size of some of the
districts in the arid region, it would be sensible for us to consider a
weighting mechanism similar to that used in Queensland. Western Australia is
larger in scale than Queensland, and that model has not been followed
exactly. In Queensland, in areas of over 100 000 square kilometres, it has a
multiplication factor of one per cent, whereas the provisions in this Bill
will provide for a factor of 0.5 per cent. That is simply because if we
followed strictly the Queensland weighting provisions, it would turn out
that, in at least one seat, the number of notional votes would exceed the
amountnumber of real votes. We felt that that would be slightly ridiculous
and would overuse the weighting provisions. Nevertheless, when one looks at
the largest electorates in the State under that 10 per cent variance, one
finds that the seat of Pilbara would cover 872 891 square kilometres, the
seat of Eyre would cover 587 796 square kilometres and the seat of Ningaloo
would cover 437 927 square kilometres. They are enormous areas.

Hon M.J. Criddle interjected.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Indeed, but there is a lot of space in between those
towns. Last night I proposed to the House that our support for the Bill
before us is conditional only because of our concerns with the provisions
for this House. As members will have noticed, the provisions in the
amendment Bill reaffirm the status quo for the Legislative Council. I draw
that to member's attention because I do not believe that was the Labor
Party's original intention when it was planning electoral reform for this
State. Indeed, I think the Labor Party was very keen that one vote, one
value should apply in both Houses. In discussions with the Labor Party we
were given a range of ways in which a one vote, one value model could be
applied in the Legislative Council. One of the most obvious models was that
the Legislative Council should cease to be divided into regions and that it
should cover the entire State on a proportional representation basis. There
were other, much more bizarre proposals such as dividing the State into two
regions by drawing a line from Fremantle through Midland across the State to
the South Australian boundary, with one region north of the line and one
south of the line.

Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Was that a genuine proposition?

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Yes. Another variation was to divide the State into
quarters. Clearly, to base political representation on the area divided by
two straight lines is not terribly attractive in any sense because
boundaries should represent some kind of community of interest or natural
region.

When the Greens (WA) studied the possible models, we were concerned that
whatever provisions were to be advanced for the Legislative Council, they
should endorse a principle of regionalism or, as the Greens prefer to call
it, bioregionalism. The "bio" means that the Greens are keen to see that
regions are not just any old entities that may suit the political
necessities of the time, but that they are based on natural entities,
whether in the very smallest bioregions - catchments are usually used - to
natural entities. The regions members represent in the Legislative Council,
with the exception of that anomaly called Perth, are natural entities in
that they reflect both major climatic zones and land uses.

Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Surely you are not suggesting that electoral reform
should be based on climatic zones.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: I am suggesting that if a regional basis is being
proposed for electoral boundaries, it should relate to the region having
some natural foundation. If we suggest that climatic zones are in some sense
unreasonable, I suggest that is because Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich lives in the
city and is completely out of touch with the fact that the climate has a
very profound impact on people's lives.

To think in terms of the philosophy of bioregionalism seems to be new. It
was not apparent in the way that the Labor Party had been thinking about how
the upper House should be organised nor when we go back to it in the
Commission on Government report regarding vote weighting in the Legislative
Council. It does not include that notion on its list of theoretical
arguments. It has lists of arguments for and against vote weighting. It
lists those arguments at page 341 and includes -

� weighting allows for greater constituency representation for the group
that genuinely requires additional representation;

� it is difficult for members of parliament to service large and remote
electorates;

� if electoral districts were of a similar size, then the metropolitan vote
would swamp the country vote;

� perceived extra wealth generated in country regions should attract extra
voting power;

� special minority groups should be compensated in terms of enhanced voting
power; and

� communities of interest in the country should be determinants of electoral
boundaries.

However, that does not include a notion of regionalism. Indeed, the
Commission on Government then expressly says in its first recommendation on
the Legislative Council that the present regions for the Legislative Council
should be abolished.

The Greens have taken a distinct departure from the COG's position. In its
justification of its recommendations, the COG says -

There is no justification for the electoral system to be weighted on a
geographical basis because proportionality will ensure a diversity of views
are represented in the house.

Certainly because of proportional representation that is true. If we were to
move to a statewide upper House on a proportional representation basis we
could be sure that the low level of quota required for someone to become a
member of the upper House would enable a plethora of parties and views to be
represented. It would not be dominated by the two major parties. In that
sense, it would provide diversity. However, it seems to me - this is the
point for me - that the crux of the matter is it would still not deal with
the requirement that to manage an area in the country we must know something
about the country we are managing. Clearly there must be some familiarity
with conditions of the region be they climatic, natural resource management,
or social issues. People who are completely distant from a set of
circumstances and geographical and natural resource management needs cannot
make commonsense, practical decisions about things they do not know about
because they are unfamiliar with them.

Hon John Fischer: That is a good reason not to move everyone into the city.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: In the most modern moves in Australia towards natural
resource management - I am thinking here, for example, of the national
action plan on salinity - the federal Government is very much working on a
regional model. That is an interesting overlap with the argument I am making
tonight.

I would also like to go further and point out to the House that the Greens'
long-term ideal model would be to shed a tier of government and remove the
State Government entirely, so that we would have federal, regional and local
government. Funnily enough, I found in my e-mails last week an invitation to
a seminar in Canberra about this issue called "Shed a Tier"

Hon N.F. Moore: Which Labor member's office did that come from?

Hon Barry House: Was it from Gough Whitlam?

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: It was a political science seminar. The Greens (WA)
believe that it is important that people have a relationship with the
country they are managing. The idea that people who are unfamiliar with a
place and a community can make wise decisions for someone else at another
place -

Several members interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order, members! Hon Christine Sharp has the call.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: For that reason, when the Greens were confronted with
all these straight lines on the map, we decided that the House should be
managed on regions that were natural entities; and also that the Legislative
Council should provide the same mechanism for protecting regional interests
in this House, a matter about which I am sure members on the other side of
the House will speak long and hard during this debate. To reiterate the
point, we should exploit the fact that this is a bicameral system in order
to be able, under electoral reform, to deliver two very important
principles; that is, the democratic principle that all voters should be
equal, and the very important principle that the regions should be protected
in such an enormous State as Western Australia. Under our model, the State
should be divided into six regions, and each of those six regions should
have six representatives. The reason we call this a Senate model is that the
number of representatives per region is the same. In other words, all
regions are treated equally, regardless of how many people live in that
region.

It has also been suggested that one of the disadvantages of a six by six
model is that if one multiplies six by six, one comes up with 36, and that
means that two additional members would be required in this House. I note in
passing that, interestingly, the Commission on Government, in its
deliberations on electoral reform, suggested that there should be an
additional four members of Parliament, although, on its argument, they
should be in the Assembly and not in the Legislative Council. However,
because we opted for that regional approach, based on the logic of the
Senate, our six by six proposal would mean the inclusion of two additional
members in this Chamber.

In theory, it would have been possible for a regional approach under which
there were fewer than six representatives per region. However, one of the
stumbling blocks for such a proposal is that some constitutional change
would be required. Therefore, the Greens dismissed that as too complex for
the House to deal with. However, for us, the principle was that regions
should be equal in their representation.

I will also deal in passing with the issue of self-interest, mainly because
of remarks attributed to the Attorney General that were reported in The West
Australian today. The implication of those remarks was that the Greens were
all about setting up a system which was unprincipled and which was merely to
improve our own situation. The Greens believe that our proposal is more or
less neutral to our electoral prospects. However, quite a few people have
advised us to the contrary. They have said that our proposal is not
particularly favourable to us. If it is slightly unfavourable, we believe
that, because we have dealt with this matter carefully and responsibly, we
will make up any ground we lose as a result of the other problems.

When we ran our proposal for a six-by-six model through the computer, we
found that the Greens member most at risk was me. Applying the support that
we received through first preference and other preference votes in the
recent state election to a theoretical state election, I would no longer be
with members in this place.

Hon M.J. Criddle: Are you going to stand by this proposal?

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: What does the member think I am doing right now?

Hon M.J. Criddle: I am just asking whether you are going to stand by the
proposal.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: Yes, the Greens will stand by the proposal.
Consequently, we may have to defeat the Bill. While I am touching briefly on
the notion of self-interest, I cannot help drawing members' attention to the
fact that although there has been a lot of discussion about how electoral
reform and the removal of seven country members will be a huge blow to
protecting the interests of country members, it seems rather paradoxical.
When one looks at the past 30 or 40 years in the country - the past 15 years
in particular - one sees that the decline in the country has taken place
despite the electoral system being extremely weighted in its favour.
Therefore, I cannot see any logic in the argument that the demise of vote
weighting in the Assembly will necessarily cause any further decline. In
fact, the decline in rural prosperity is due more to global issues than to
our electoral system.

I would like to talk about this at length, but I will run out of time
tonight if I do. Ironically, if the Parliament and Government comprised more
members from the metropolitan region, there could be a change in the policy
principles that have dominated this State for many years. We have displayed
an absolutely slavish devotion to free trade, which has been very much
driven by country people and by the needs of agriculture, that being the
basis of our economy. That has served the State and, indeed, the whole of
Australia very poorly. It has been an economic disaster for this State.
Ironically, the changes proposed may lead to an improvement in the country,
rather than its further decline.
The Greens are suggesting to the Government and to this Parliament that
electoral reform should be a package. It should not be arrangements for just
one House that happen to be politically advantageous at the time; it must be
an overall package. That package must include three elements. The first is
the changes to the Assembly, as I have outlined them and as they are in the
Bill before us. Secondly, there must be changes to the Legislative Council,
as I have just discussed; that is, a Senate model that provides a basis for
regionalism in this State. The third component of our package is that there
must be a review in order to improve access to members of Parliament and
participation in the parliamentary system. As the Greens' position paper
states, that should generally consider methods of facilitating greater
participation in the democratic process and improving levels of enrolments
to include all eligible voters. We are mindful that in certain areas,
particularly in remote areas of this State, many citizens, including many
young people, are not enrolled. We have suggested that the review be carried
out by a task force or select committee that would travel around the State
taking evidence and report back to the Parliament within six months. We have
also stated our position that any electoral reform package must include
immediate improvements, including enhancement of communication, and
administrative and staffing facilities for remote and large electoral
districts. That should include free telephone services for those who want to
contact members of Parliament, additional electorate officers and/or staff
in appropriate districts and regions, staff to receive suitable allowances
for travel with or on behalf of members, the appointment of agents to act as
contact points for members, free teleconferencing using telecentres, and
electronic networking centres to be established where necessary. We have
also requested that the Government review the voting age and consider the
introduction of an optional franchise for 16 to 18-year-olds. Interestingly,
that proposal has provoked the most interest nationally. We have received
many inquiries from young people throughout Australia wanting to know about
the proposal and strongly supporting it. Of course, the basis of the
proposal is a concern that young people should not be marginalised from the
political process. Many 16-year-olds are mature enough to exercise that
option.

I reiterate that the Greens' support for this legislation is conditional on
an instruction being sent to any committee charged with inquiring into this
matter following the second reading debate. We are keen to see such a
committee receiving and considering any proposal or submission relating to
the basis upon which persons are elected to the Legislative Council and the
number of members constituting the Legislative Council and related matters.
In other words, at the end of the passage of this legislation, if those
conditions are not met, we will have to reject the Bill.

Hon M.J. Criddle: Do you mean you want these instructions to go to the
committee after the second reading speech?

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: When the Bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Legislation at the end of the second reading, which I understand is the
intention, it should be accompanied by an instruction from the Leader of the
House that the scope of the inquiry should include consideration of
provisions relating to the Legislative Council.

While the Greens concede that the electoral reform Bills before the
Parliament are extremely important, the issues with which they deal are not
on our agenda; they are not core Greens (WA) issues and they are not being
driven by our party. Our priorities are issues such as greenhouse gases,
globalisation, salinity, forests and economic management.

We understand the reason for the timing of the Bills. The current provisions
require the Electoral Commission to begin the redistribution process early
next year. However, that timing has created considerable angst in some parts
of the State and it is most unfortunate. Clearly, many people in the regions
are already suffering from both economic and climatic difficulties.

These matters are extremely complex, and the Greens have gone to
considerable effort to deal with the complexities responsibly. We have
sought advice from members of the community about the legalities involved. I
must acknowledge those persons - without naming them - who have advised the
party. The Greens' party status is not recognised in this Parliament, so we
do not have the required staff to provide the appropriate advice. We do not
have lawyers, so we must rely on the community providing information when we
request it. Nevertheless, we believe we have dealt with the matter
responsibly and carefully. We have been through a complex process within our
party to consult all members. We have held two general meetings and we have
produced two position papers for circulation to members.

We have found this issue very difficult. In fact, it is the most difficult
issue this relatively young party has had to address in this place. We have
managed the pressure generated by this issue by dealing with it
straightforwardly and being transparent and open about it. We have put our
position; in fact, we are the only party in this Parliament that has
developed and enunciated a position. If members do not have a copy of the
party's position paper, we would be delighted to provide one.

Like many people, Hon George Cash has suggested that the Greens are "doing a
deal" with the Government. I am bemused about what people are referring to
when they say that. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

[Leave granted for the member's time to be extended.]

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: As I said, I am bemused by this accusation. What does
it mean? If "doing a deal" means having meetings, discussing the issue and
communicating where we stand, then we are doing a deal. On the other hand,
if the suggestion is that the Greens have met with government members behind
closed doors and said, "We will support you on this because we know it is
important, if you do something that is important to us", I assure the House
that that has not happened. I would also like to explain to the House that
not only have we had quite a few meetings with the Attorney General and with
other members of the Government, but also we have had several meetings with
members of the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation. Those
meetings have all been in private and they have all revolved around the
position which we have presented publicly, and which we have not changed
from mid-July when we provided it on the same day to the Government, the
Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party, the national
director of One Nation and the media.

Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.

Resumed from 19 September.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: (South West) [3.38 pm]: I shall shortly finish my
speech. I will conclude my comments from last night about the way in which
the Greens (WA) have approached the Bill before us and the issue generally.
I refer to two matters: first, because of the constellation of factors
around five members of the Legislative Council and the fact that the five of
us represent regions from the pastoral regions to the largest metropolitan
region, we feel that we have been a microcosm for some of the tensions and
difficulties in resolving this issue. Because we represent both country and
city electorates, we have had to come up with a position that we feel does
justice to all of those electorates to put us in a situation in which
electoral reform can build bridges between country and city people, rather
than destroy goodwill between the regions and this Parliament. Our whole
approach has been to look for the principles upon which this Parliament and
our two Houses should be grounded; to use that as a starting point and to
build up from there; not to look at our own immediate electoral advantage;
and, in particular, to work on consensus principles. Working on a consensus
model is a very time-consuming way of doing things. I assure members that it
has been very frustrating for the Labor Party to deal with the Greens (WA)
on this matter not only because it does not like our final position, but
also because we have taken our time on it and have really worked it through.

Eventually, we came up with a position that we think not only has kept us
together as a team working on consensus, but also provides an opportunity
for some degree of consensus in this Parliament and in the wider community.
We have also clearly rejected any methods for achieving electoral reform
which are based on anything that we consider shonky in any way to ensure
that this Bill passes through the Parliament with complete integrity. For
example, we supported the motion on the repeal of the Electoral Distribution
Act that we considered in this place yesterday evening. We will be
interested to learn of the Attorney General's response to that legal issue
to ensure that we can feel confident that if we are to be associated with
these moves, it is not at the expense of our reputation. We hold very dear
the fact that the Greens act from a position of principle. Sometimes we are
accused of being very naive, but we would prefer to be absolutely sure that
at least we have done what we consider is the right thing and that our
conscience is clear.

Lastly, I will touch on the issue of the request of the Liberal Party that a
referendum be held on this matter. Again, being green and "frustrating", I
do not want to give the House a final position on this issue today because
we do not have a final position. If we are to reach consensus on that, it
may take another round of meetings and activities, which we have not done. I
give some indication that our initial position is that we do not support the
notion of a referendum, because it is a very complex issue. It is not an
issue that necessarily fits easily with the simple yes or no vote that a
referendum to the wider population gives the community an opportunity to
engage in.

This is not the first time in this speech that I have quoted Associate
Professor David Black. I assure members that I am not privy to any special
relationship with the professor; it is just that I seem to go to the same
events at which he speaks. Earlier this week he spoke on a referendum. I
noted that he offered a similar position; he was of the view that electoral
reform is too complex an issue to be put out for a referendum. We also feel
that - I have spoken in this House on this issue - the emphasis on whether
to have a referendum has been used in some ways as a political red herring
to enable the Opposition, in particular, to avoid finalising its own
position.

Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.

Hon CHRISTINE SHARP: (South West) [4.36 pm]: Prior to the afternoon tea
suspension I said that the Greens (WA) are concerned that a referendum
should not be used to block change. Almost invariably, referenda are decided
in the negative. The Greens support the notion of electoral system change.
We are also concerned that a referendum should not be used when it is
difficult for parties to affirm or to reach a position. I reiterate: the
Greens do not have a final position on referenda.

This is not an issue that can be easily reduced to a simple yes/no formula
in the way that the daylight saving issue can be presented. The solution to
this issue must be found in this Parliament. After all, that is the role of
this place. The word "parliament" means to parley or speak, and there will
be much talking about this issue. We hope that an effective committee
process will help all parties work through these issues genuinely to reach a
final position that attracts some degree of support across this Parliament.

The Greens are keen to see the Bill referred to the Standing Committee on
Legislation after the second reading debate. That inquiry should involve all
parties represented in this Chamber. It should also involve wide community
consultation; that is, both metropolitan and regional Western Australians
should be included in the process. It should also focus on arriving at a
satisfactory resolution to this complex but very important issue of
achieving electoral reform.

# Max on ABC

At
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/riverina/regriv-22mar2002-7.htm the
following appears:

Posted: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:20 AEDT

Environment priority for anti state campaigners
A lobby group calling itself Shed a Tier says the environment would be
better off if the State and Territory governments were abolished.

The group says the Murray-Darling river system is a classic example of an
environmental asset spanning many different jurisdictions making it
difficult to coordinate one environmental policy.

Chairman Max Bradley says without the states the Federal Government could
give the environment more attention and more funding.

"At the moment we have got one state wanting to clear huge amounts of
timber.

"We have got other states saying we are not putting pollution into the
Murray River but they put it into the other rivers and then it runs into the
Murray River.

"We need to have this stuff stopped so we can get the environment where we
need it."

The third annual Shed a Tier congress will be held in Canberra today.

Mr Bradley says the resolutions passed at the congress will be passed to
federal politicians but there are some key things they want done for the
environment.

"We want more money spent on doing actual work rather than on duplication
and on bureaucrats and just buck passing on the whole issue."

This is repeated at
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australia/nsw/orange/regor-22mar2002-5.htm

# Mark's interview with Julie Doyle.

My interview this morning made it on to the Country Hour in SA, Victoria
and Queensland.

The largest text summary, from the SA site, is as follows:

Call for a referendum over river management - Julie Doyle

There's been a renewed call for a referendum to hand over responsibility for
river management to the Federal Government. The call is coming from the
"Beyond Federation group", an association that wants to see State
Governments abolished altogether. The group held a congress in Canberra on
Friday looking at the way States Governments have managed the Murray Darling
Basin Commission. They're now gathering a petition calling for a referendum
to make river management a Federal Government responsibility. The petition
being circulated by the group calls on the federal government to hold a
referendum to remove section 100 from the constitution. The section gives
state governments the power to manage the countries river systems. It also
calls for an extra line to be inserted in section 51, to hand over power
over river management to the Federal Government. Mark Drummond, the
co-convenor of the Beyond Federation Group says as long as states have the
responsibility for the basin, problems such as salinity and river health
will not be addressed. He says "It's the fact that we've got opportunities
for buck-passing, an absence of absolute responsibility because any one
jurisdiction can feel that the others can share some of the load. It's the
fact that we've got five big governments all involved sometimes with an all
rights no responsibility, all care no responsibility type attitude, that is
the thing that we're really critical of."
Mark Drummond: Co-convenor of the Beyond Federation Group

# ALP theme based approach like that in Shed a Tier congresses

Dear friends,

At
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=News&story_id=137019&subcl
ass=national&m=3&y=2002

is an article from the 26 March edition of the Canberra Times,
which indicates that the ALP share our idea of addressing challenges - in
our case in pursuit of a better system of government - according to a theme
by theme approach (as per our planned further Shed a Tier Congresses):

Labor thinks about themes
By ROSS PEAKE, Political Correspondent

Momentum is building within the Labor Party for de-facto branches to be
established around themes such as the environment to attract more voters.

The issue-based branches or forums would not have a physical location but
would allow rank and file members to debate issues. They would attract
people interested in ideas rather than the tedium of branch meetings.

The concept of themed branches has been put to the party's review of policy,
being conducted by former prime minister Bob Hawke and former NSW premier
Neville Wran.

Opposition youth spokeswoman Nicola Roxon floated the concept in a speech to
last week's Young Labor conference.

"There is quite a lot of support for issue-based forums to be one way people
can be actively involved in the party," she said yesterday.

"For anyone who has been involved in local branch meetings, there are very
mixed views about whether they are positive experiences or not."

Some state ALP branches require rank and file members to attend a number of
meetings before being eligible to vote in preselection ballots.

"My view is there should be a whole lot of ways you can show commitment to
the party and it shouldn't have to be through a local branch structure," Ms
Roxon said.

"I haven't been prescriptive about how it would work, but I think what you
would want to start with is having forums.

"In a city as big as Sydney or Melbourne you might want to have them in
different places so people can attend and debate and talk about issues they
are concerned about. It is defined by its issue rather than geography.

"There are lots of people who are interested in being able to use their
membership of the party as a way for developing and talking about ideas, and
I think there is some sense that might have been lost at branch meetings."

# Speech for interface - nexus Sydney Saturday 20 April

Here's the speech I have drafted for delivery tomorrow in Sydney at the
Interface event (refer www.nexus.org.au) at the College of Fine Arts,
UNSW, Sydney. The session I'm speaking in starts at 1.45 pm in room
E101. Ted Mack, Judy Greenwood and Ann Symonds are the other speakers
at the session I'm in.

'The buck stops where?
Which level of government should do what and why?'
Speech by Mark Drummond (markld@ozemail.com.au) at

Interface: A festival of ideas on Australia's media, education, and
democracy
Saturday 20 April 2002
College of Fine Arts, UNSW, Sydney

Good afternoon everyone.

Firstly I'd like to thank Miriam Lyons for inviting me to speak today and
for doing such a fabulous job in organising Interface. And thanks also to
everyone involved in planning for this event, and to everyone who has made
it along to share in what really can make a big difference