Elsewhere: Pure Poison, Grog’s Gamut, Loon Pond.
Previously on LP: Discussion of Bob Brown’s Territories Bill which is wrongly alleged to be a sneaky way to establish same sex marriage.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
These dangerous anarchists in the ACT parliament?! They just keep drafting legislation and voting for something which they think is right. Australia beware!!
On a more serious note, I rew-ly hate this kind of article which goes into minute detail in its description of a political action, like drafting certain bills etc, but gives no explanation of what the issue is, or what principles are being debated. Another mediocre effort by Mr. Kelly. When is he going to retire btw? Can’t be much longer…
Yep, a spectre is haunting Canberra, the spectre of Democracy!
In case you missed this interesting tidbit in the comments at Grog’s,
“Regulators Reject Proposal That Would Bring Fox-Style News to Canada”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html
Now how do we get that enacted here?
Our country is a good place to live because our form of government is something more that simple democracy. It does not simply allow a majority to impose anything it likes on the rest of us. It works because it has various checks and balances that at times do block the will of the majority. This is something that most Australians understand.
So I am not opposed in principle of there being provisions that allow the commonwealth parliament to over-ride legislation of states or territories. Think Joh Bjelkie before you argue with this statement. Think of states like WA and Qld who had electoral boundaries that were anything but democratic. Think of the appalling way Aborigines were treated by some of the states.
On the other hand I don’t support the current system that allows a federal minister has the power to veto territory legislation. Imagine minister Abbott if abortion or euthanasia was involved.
Bob Brown’s legislation takes the sensible middle ground. It provides a more democratic process without a check that will block really awful legislation.
yeah this democracy stuff is old hat.
Much better to have the minority, Paul Kelly for example, to impose things on us.
With crap like this, no wonder the Oz’s circulation’s down to 130,000 per weekday. I wonder if they can crash through 100,000 by the year’s end.
“I wonder if they can crash through 100,000 by the year’s end.”
Give Christopher Pearson more columns per week, please, Mr Mitchell, he is so araldite.
My history teacher in high school told us that what Australia neeeded was a ‘guided democracy’
Paul Kelly is motivated by being really, really opposed to euthanasia. His writing on the subject is oddly emotive, in contrast to his detached, uber-rationalist style – the Mr Spock of Australian journalism – when he writes on anything else.
One wonders whether he has been touched personally by the issue. There is another very well known Murdoch columnist who is also strongly against euthanasia (no names, no pack drill), whose mother suffered horribly when she was dying of cancer, so much so that she tried to kill herself. The reaction of the columnist? To oppose euthanasia.
Sam, ‘the Mr Spock of Australian journalism’- that’s a great line. Though perhaps PK is a tad more pompous than Mr Spock?
Kelly strikes me as being more like the character Pooh-Bah in The Mikado, described as ‘the Lord High Everything Else’. Spock is both incapable of dishonesty and genuinely curious about the universe. I should get out more.
Kelly, pompous? Like the frikkin pope to 130 000 dickheads paying for the daily liturgy.
Meanwhile I got this on face book:
Assuring to see people can recognise a con job when they see one.
I cant work out if the Organ is getting more fringist because of declining distribution, or the other way around.
Perhaps we should keep in mind that the ACT is really little more than a glorified city council with tickets upon itself when we think of it being the equivalent of a state.
Likewise the Northern Territory has a very small population (less than the city of Brisbane) compared to the six states, frankly rather than making it into a state there is a good argument for it becoming part of South Australia.
So ask yourselves the question would you want a local council making life and death decisions that will affect the whole country?
Because when it comes down to it the administration in both territories is really on that sort of level.
Iain, the NT used to be part of SA, but we gave it back ages ago.
Too expensive.
Perhaps we should keep in mind that the 360,000 people of the ACT were given self-government by the Federal Parliament.
Best we let them get on with it.
“Kelly, pompous? Like the frikkin pope to 130 000 dickheads paying for the daily liturgy.”
Well no, there aren’t 130,000 paying for it because a large chunk of that distribution is given away. Crikey had the freebie figures up once.
They have a giveaway map, Mobius Echo.
“Perhaps we should keep in mind that the 360,000 people of the ACT were given self-government by the Federal Parliament.”
Sure. But to all practical intents and purposes it’s really a region of NSW and should be governed as such. Ottawa has a population three times the size of the ACT and gets along just fine as a city in the province of Ontario.
No probs with the federal triangle in Canberra being directly run by the Commonwealth but the rest of it is a massively expensive and unnecessary confection created out of 19th century inter-colonial rivalry. I think we’ve moved on.
Ah so Paul Kelly with his nice paddy name is opposed to euthanasia is he? Another Vatican fifth columnist!
Iain Hall #14
“a local council making life and death decisions that will affect the whole country?”
Please explain.
19th C be damned.
Residents of the ACT lived for many decades essentially as a province of the Federal Parliament, administered by one Federal Minister with a pseudo council as window dressing.
Self-government came to the ACT only in 1989, courtesy of that same Federal parliament, and has flourished there since. Looks like it is the ACT that has moved on.
Likewise the NT, whatever their difficulties of distance, population and so forth – self-governing since 1978.
On what possible grounds are the residents of the ACT or the NT less entitled to freely elected democratic government, debate, legislation, and administration than all other Australians?
David Irving @15
Just because it was “given back” is no reason not to revisit the idea of unification with SA.
calyptorhynchus @21
If we let local councils have the same powers as state governments do you think that would be a good idea?
To Geoff Honor: As a resident of Canberra I do not want to be governed from Sydney. We have a competent, representative, relatively honest government – it actually is a more democratic polity than in most ofthe states in terms of accessibility to our representatives. Besides which we do not have shonky councils.
I just wanted to clear something up about Fox News and Canada. You can certainly get it here, as a `pay extra`channel. With the company I am with, you get it as part of the `news` bundle of channels. There`s a bit of a kerfuffle out here as a right-wing media group is launching a new Canadian based news channel that sounds like it is going to be a `Fox News`style channel, and the media group in question are trying to make it one of the channel that all cable customers get as part of their basic service, like the CBC Network News channel is.
On Iain Hall and Geoff Honnor’s logic, the six States are also mere creatures of 19th C inter-colonial rivalry.
On their argument, here in New HonnorHallandia, we’ll just have to bite the bullet.
Time to snatch away all State and Territory elections, members, Parliaments, laws and services too. All just dangerous or outmoded 19C clap-trap.
Time to move on, then – to New HonnorHallandia, the 21st C State-monolith. Clearly the very model of a modern State for us.
Oh my word. Won’t that be fun.
Iain Hall, you’re being more than usually dillish. In what sense is Ministerial fiat more responsible than giving the Federal parliament the power to overturn a territory law?
This is starting to become a major issue, that on minority rule. Just like the outragous holding of the balance of power by the Greens and the Independents. (Please note, of course when Brian Harradine held the balance of power it was a-OK from my reading of the boradsheets back at the time. I assume the media will be fine with the BOP again when it’s held by conservative interests again.)
Minority rule? Please explain?
Last time I looked the current Federal government had an agreed majority for Budget measures and motions of no confidence. All other legislation will get passed if the government is able to convince a majority of members in the Lower House to support it or it will not be passed if it doesn’t. That seems clear enough to me.
Were is the minority?
According to Iain Hall, “the ACT is really little more than a glorified city council “. Well, no. The ACT became self-governing because the Feds didn’t want to keep spending money on it, but it was set up with its own departments of health, education, and so on, its own court system, its own police force and other emergency services, and is treated as a full member at COAG meetings. That’s not a city council, not even a glorified one. Our local elected members rule over much more than any city council does, and they set policy directions for the ACT. If our (admittedly unrepresentative and largely tertiary-educated) populace happens to believe that recognising civil unions as equivalent to marriage is a good idea, and our assembly passes a law to that effect, why should a single minister in the Federal parliament be able to overrule it without even giving a reason? Is a minister in the federal government really better qualified to decide these matters than the whole ACT Assembly? Would Iain Hall prefer that someone like Kevin Andrews should be able to simply dismiss a matter that has been debated and voted on in a democratically elected parliament?
Will do. I’m getting really annoyed at the media and the coalition geting all upset about “ruling from the minority” when it seemd to be all well and fine when Harradine held the balance of power. Minorities and balance of power always seem to annoy people depending on who it is holding it.
@14
“So ask yourselves the question would you want a local council making life and death decisions that will affect the whole country?”
With regard to SSM I don’t see why it’s a life and death matter. With regard to euthanasia the whole idea is to give the citizen the power of decision. And given that they are state or territory based decisions I don’t see how they effect the whole country You really need to think through your comments before committing them.
The States and territories are an anachronism from colonial time. Australia should get rid of them and the terrritories and current local government and move to a two tiered approach with larger regional governments. Cut out the ridiculous doubling up – either the Federal Governemnt does something or regional governemnts do something. Why on earth do we have state and federal health and eduction departments????
Why do we need territories at all??
Beautiful listening to Ross Solly on Canberra ABC handing President Brown his arse on a platter – oh yes I have overridden territorians rights in the past but this will stop me doing it in the future blah blah blah – stinking hypocrit.
Did I mention that I should be President for Life and damn I like what Singapore has done.
If you want to get rid of one level of governmen make the ACT a template for the regional Government model – great idea – we already have done away with local government
In terms of abolishing the states by referendum, it turns out that Section 128 of the Constitution has a sting in its tail:
In short, that means that if even one state votes against abolition of the states, then the referendum fails. This is because abolition of the states would ipso facto involve alteration of representation of the state in either House of Parliament.
To be quite blunt about this, it is easier by referendum to get rid of the monarchy than it is to get rid of the states.
So Razor, short of a revolution, it looks like states are here to stay.
Russ@30
I think we can take that as a ‘yes’ from Iain.
Russ@30
Look none of those institutions prove that the ACT is anything more than the way that I have described it. IN the USA the police force is the responsibility of each city and town council and that does not make them qualify as “states”.
The telling question for those who want to pretend that the ACT government is that much more than a city council is do they take care of emptying your rubbish bins? Because if they do then that makes them closer to the function of a city council than a state in my book and as the the old saying goes if it has feathers and quacks like a duck… it is what precisely?
PatrickB @ 32
when it comes to euthanasia the problem with any Australian jurisdiction making it legal is that it effectively makes it so for the whole country because it will create thano-tourism. Both SSM and euthanasia are issues that should only be decided at a federal level and this attempt by the Greens to get these in by the back door is an affront to our democracy
“someone like Kevin Andrews”
Is there anyone like Kevin Andrews? Apart from the man himself, of course.
“On what possible grounds are the residents of the ACT or the NT less entitled to freely elected democratic government, debate, legislation, and administration than all other Australians?”
On what possible grounds would ‘freely elected democratic government’ be denied to the residents of Canberra if they were resident in a NSW local government area?
“On Iain Hall and Geoff Honnor’s logic, the six States are also mere creatures of 19th C inter-colonial rivalry.”
Nope that’s not my logic – you’re impressively wide of the mark in fact.
The six states are certainly creatures of 19thC colonialism as are many federated nation states. My point however is that Canberra would be more plausibly and less expensively governed were it to be treated as a regional city in NSW. The only reason it isn’t is because of 19th rivalry between Victoria and NSW.
BTW, my position has nothing to do with my views on gay marriage and civil unions which pretty much mirror those of the ACT government. I should also point out that I spent many of my formative years in the ACT and – lest there be any doubt – I’m extremely fond of Canberra
Geoff: What does “plausibly governed” mean?
Shifting government from the current model to NSW would result in a much less responsive and less democratic outcome for Canberra I reckon.
I understand though I don’t agree with your argument about “more economically governed as part of NSW” – I doubt whether there would be much by way of savings in making the change.
Katz @36 – the Constitution can be changed by Referendum – even the section you refer to. Just need to win the argument.
GH 39, 40 Impressively cute attempted wriggles. Won’t wash.
The ACT and NT are not about to lose their self-governing Territory status.
On another tack:
There *is* a genuine constituional issue unique to the ACT – the Legislative Assembly and its enactments must not come into conflict with powers necessary to those of the Federal gov’t, nor with the Federal “seat” as such. These have been dealt with in the ACT ‘s case by over-riding legislation provisions.
The question is whether that requires the ACT Assembly to be patronisingly hobbled in other policy areas is another matter entirely, and hence the current bill put to Parliament.
Lastly, in the absence of an “Administrator” of its own with some residual “reserve” power, unlike the NT, the ACT also lacks a final independent arbiter or umpire. Some limiting power does lie with the Federal Minister, though again, whether that should extend to a power of veto on lesser matters is another issue altogether.
Geoff: What does “plausibly governed” mean?
So, an Australian city of 350,000 doesn’t require the grandiose trappings of an independent city state in order to be properly managed and democratically governed. .
‘Shifting government from the current model to NSW would result in a much less responsive and less democratic outcome for Canberra I reckon.’
Compared to, say, any other city in NSW? How so?
‘I understand though I don’t agree with your argument about “more economically governed as part of NSW” – I doubt whether there would be much by way of savings in making the change.’
There would be for Canberra – you wouldn’t require a public service bureaucracy in order to deliver state government service delivery like health and education – but there would be increased costs for NSW, certainly.
On the responsiveness issue – ACT politicians are highly accessible – they live in the city that they are responsible for governing – not having to commute to Sydney. That puts us well ahead of cities like Orange, Bathurst, Albury. They can’t hide and they can’t blame things on some remote metropolitan area that doesn’t understand the local issues.There is no buckpassing of the issues between State and local government. It is the one and the same government that is responsible for both.
And with the Hare-Clark electoral system you can vote out a particular local rep who is not doing a good job without having to vote for the Opposition.
So? You need one referendum to dump the queen. You need tow referenda to dump the states.
QED.
@46 – Jesus, you’d hate living in Kununurra.
What is the optimal distance any voter should live from their parliament?
Should WA seceed then? Canberra is such a long way away!
Perhaps we should keep in mind that the 360,000 people of the ACT were given self-government by the Federal Parliament.
Given? We voted against it twice (really), but the Labor Feds shoved self government down our throats.
Thanks Chaps
@47 – I’m no tbeing argumentative – I actually would like to know what neds to be done to get rid of the States and Territories – why two referenda? Do you mean we need two consecutive referendum or are there two particular sections of the constitution that require changing and hence they are called two referenda?
Razor, as it presently stands, if one were confident that electors in all states would vote to abolish the states, then only one referendum would be required.
As it stands, if the electors of only one state voted “no” then under sec. 128 that referendum would fail.
Therefore, in order to have an abolition referendum counted in the usual way, first it would be necessary to abolish the relevant parts of sec. 128 in the normal way.
Then, if a majority of voters in a majority of the states voted yes, it would then be possible to have a referendum to abolish the states counted in the usual way — i.e., a majority of voters in a majority of the states.
These two referenda could not be held simultaneously.
Could South Australia and Northern Territory rejoin with recognition of original inhabitants >> such as,
South Australia & Indigenous Northern Territory (SAINT)
Would the right-wingers on here be so against democracy if the Libs were in power in both the NT & ACT?
I somehow doubt it.
Jacques de Molay
speaking as a “right winger” I’m all for democracy but what I’m not for is over egging the pudding by pretending that the ACT government or that in the Northern territory should be the same as the states in all but name.
All these tacky little territories and states that have been split off NSW should be brought back into the fold.
Central Government from the capital, Sydney, no need for seperate states or territories.
harleymc
“” no need for seperate states or territories.”"”
Where to get porn and fireworks?
So, let’s make this a bit more abstract:
Instead of arguing about whether or not a certain jurisdiction should even exist, lets assume for the moment that a government somewhere exists: Why shouldn’t this government democratically be able to make decisions about partnerships (and implicitly marriages)?
Further, assuming that this government is part of a fedaeral system, why should questions related to marriage be a federal matter? In fact, why can’t local governments make decisions about marriage? Is marriage an issue of national significance?
Joe
it should be a federal matter for the sake of national consistency, a consistency that should reflect the views in all states rather than just in the ersatz “states” that we call the territories.
So when Victoria legislated to make seat belts compulsory, they should have waited until all of the states and territories were in agreement? Politics by lowest common denominator.
How exactly would these “life and death decisions” affect the whole country, unless you are privy to a conspiracy by the ACT & NT to take over the country?
@23, perhaps because neither party wants to be reunified.
Hopefully not, I&U.
@59, and SA would have spent the last 50+ years convincing the rest of the country that deposits on soft drink and other beverage containers is a good idea. But we would have stood shoulder to shoulder on the seat belt thing.
Jane #60
It affects the whole country if one state or territory legalises euthanasia because there is nothing in our law that would prevent thano-tourism thus someone from any of the other jurisdictions could be legally killed under the auspices of what is effectively the equivalent of a city council.