Lev writes :

>> Chapter V, Section 111

>> 111 States may surrender territory The Parliament of a State may
>> surrender any part of the State to the Commonwealth; and upon such
>> surrender, and the acceptance thereof by the Commonwealth, such part of
>> the State shall become subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
>> Commonwealth.

> Just wondering if this is an acceptable, across the board strategy that
> can be used on state-wide and even local levels, such as local towns who
> wish to defect to Commonwealth laws.  Or even more so, those who think
> health and education should be a national rather than a state
> responsibility.  Or maybe St.  Kilda would prefer to live with the
> Federal laws relating to ummm..  certain matters of personal freedom ;-)

Mark :

> You'd expect the states to oppose any such moves to link up with the
> Commonwealth, but what a fascinating exercise in democracy it would be
> if a community or two tried it!  Perhaps this suggestion might relate to
> something that could be worked in with deliberations on a bill of rights
> - the right to local self government of some sort of other, as well as
> our issue of moving beyond state governments.

Lionel :

> Given the Murray-Darling issue and the "new state"concept, this may be a
> way of focusing debate on how the Murray-Darling system can best be
> managed, given the States' control over water.  A new state formed under
> s.  111 may be a more realistic way to go than asking the states to cede
> that power to the Commonwealth.

> Perhaps in advocating a new state of Murray-Darling, a regional model of
> government could also be incorporated ie instead of accommodating the
> existing local governments within the basin, there would be an
> opportunity to establish regional governments say on the model of the
> ACT government (which is already within the basin anyway).

> In time we may then see the 'withering away of the State(s)' (apologies
> to former Marxist-Leninists) as regional government and the Commonwealth
> government would effectively share all the major functions of government
> between them with water finally being ceded to the Commonwealth upon the
> abolition of the states.  I'm suggesting a detour (the establishment of
> a new state) to reach the final objective (abolition of the states).

Lev writes in reply to Lionel :

> I don't think the detour is really necessary.  It will cause more
> political wrangles than it would solve, not the least being the
> necessary conflict between the numbers of MPs and Senators that they are
> entitled to and the political bunfight that would result.

> In my opinion it would be far more sensible for the South Australian,
> Victorian and New South Wales government to demarcate sections of the
> Murray-Darling basin simply propose to the Federal government: "Look,
> this is an interstate issue that affects the national economy.  Wouldn't
> it be sensible if you managed it?"

> From that level then a new regional government could be established
> (like the ACT and NT governments) without the stepping in the mire of
> Federal political representation.

Simon :

> It is one of two interesting thought experiments which could arise from
> s.124 of the constitution:

> 1.  What would happen if the states fragmented into many mini-states?
> Would they be like strong regional councils?  I think not since they
> would still have sovereign power, and a vast array of legislative
> powers.

> 2.  What would happen if all the states amalgamated into one?  Which
> would be more powerful, the federal parliament or the amalgamated state
> parliament?

> Note that s.111 is more about surrendering territory to the
> commonwealth, but s.124 is more about the states dividing up or
> amalgamating.

> A new State may be formed by separation of territory from a State, but
> only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new State may be
> formed by the union of two or more States or parts of States, but only
> with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.

Bob Buick (who cannot seem to figure out how to delete other people's
posts from his) :

> With any thought of state abolition with the retention of or creating
> new LGA surely all environmental, waterway and coastal protection would
> become a national government responsibility.  Delegation of
> administration etc under particular regulations and guideline could
> become a LGA function.  This would ensure all national natural assets
> would be under one control and the development of enterprises like
> Cubbie Station in Queensland would never gain happen.

--

> Which ever way one jumps on this there needs to a new constitution with
> a present state and their constitution being buried in a time capsule
> somewhere out in the Great Sandy Desert.

> For any lobby group to be functional and able to present a united front
> there needs to a similar plan with only two or three alternatives bound
> by the same thread of desire.  As I read the various plans and
> presentations we are involved in the micro details without any
> resemblance of a dedicated plan so all could work in unison to develop.

> Maybe those who have been at this the longest, who have the ability to
> research and develop a single plan with few minor alternatives, to give
> choice, need to do that.  We have on the table now, just scrub the state
> and leave LGA as is, there is another create possible 100 LGA (regions)
> based on present federal electorates, another with 50 regions and yet
> another with creation of additional states.

> What should be strive for?

> 1) Devise a change with minimum disruption to the national constitution
> and federal parliamentary representation,

> 2) Just rub out the states and leave nearly 800 LGA varying in
> population from about 800 to nearly a million and that is what the
> Brisbane City Council will soon be administering,

> 3) Wipe all tiers of government and create a new system.

> Maybe these subjects need to be discussed enabling a common direction to
> be established then plan what is needed to achieve the goal.

A.J.Brown wrote:

> Lev kicked off this interesting chat about use of surrendered state
> territory under Constitution s.111 to create a system based on federal
> territories e.g.  Murray-Darling basin, and Simon widened this to the
> other relevant sections, Ch VI on New States...  Lionel raised a detour
> into abolishing the states by creating more (yes!) but Lev didn't think
> it would be worth it...

> These are great ideas and should ALL stay firmly in the picture.  All
> those provisions have a crucially important history (my research
> specialisation) which has touched on all these ideas at different times
> -- only making it more complicated why they have never been used to do
> anything on the sort of grand scale required!

> The only precedent since federation is use of s.111 to convert the NT
> back from being part of South Australia into federal territory in 1911,
> on just the rationale you use for Murray-Darling, Lev.  Upfront it cost
> the federal government a whack of railway investment and =A36.17 million
> cash to take over a financial drain Adelaide couldn't wait to offload!
> In 1926 the federal government made similar offers for most of Western
> Australia, or failing that the Kimberley, but the deal fell through.
> (Interestingly when chatting to ex-WA premier Richard Court last year he
> didn't know about that.)

> I recommend anyone interested browse Ian Johnston's website
> www.newstates.net - get into the background pages and you find lots of
> mind-broadening stuff about our own history.  Also, I got into some of
> this history in an article in Melbourne Journal of Politics (2001)
> called 'Can't wait for the sequel: Australian federation as unfinished
> business' which I can email anyone or you can find at the end of the
> 'Australian regionalism' page on our website

> www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag.

Lev (in reply to first para above) :

> Whilst I am fully in favour of more and stronger regional governments
> (with constitutional recognition) I am merely being politically
> pragmatic about it.  I cannot see how a new state with a miniscule
> population in a nominally conservative region (Murray-Darling) would
> receive endorsement from both major political factions (think of the
> Senate seats*).  I can see it being established as a Territory however.