If you were apointed President...

Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Posts
103
Likes
0
Location
Australia
Other Teams
St.Kilda Saints
Thread starter #1
What would be the first change for Australia and/or the world you would do/improve?



I would assure single parents recieving more money.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Posts
13,342
Likes
5,187
Location
Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
Admin #6
BRE/\|< said:
What would be the first change for Australia and/or the world you would do/improve?



I would assure single parents recieving more money.
Ban 'Courier New' typeface and exile all who use it to New Zealand.
 

Hawkforce

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 9, 2000
Posts
7,139
Likes
3,061
Location
London
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham
#8
Err... make Australia a republic so that my appointment as President might mean that I'm the Head of State with Executive powers...

Just a thought.
 

Goldenblue

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Posts
8,729
Likes
3,176
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
#9
Tim56 said:
Tough one. Abolish the states. Single parents get enough already.
Agreed.

Abolish local govt, dump the Queen and any reference to God in our parliment, go a single currency with the Kiwis and call it the Anzac instead of dollar and encourage one economy with them.

Smaller parliment, place politicians on performance based contracts and sack instantly any govt who has members who bribe or mislead parliment if their party refuses to do so.

It's about time our parliment was for the people and not the politicians.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,231
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#10
Tim56 said:
Tough one. Abolish the states. .
Whilst many would agree there are too many layers of govt, in theory each state govt having their own income tax as they are able to do under the constitution would bring about stiff competition. Dont forget that Joe almost single handedly got rid of probate.
 

Tim56

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Posts
3,195
Likes
6
Location
On the fine line between
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne
#11
medusala said:
Whilst many would agree there are too many layers of govt, in theory each state govt having their own income tax as they are able to do under the constitution would bring about stiff competition. Dont forget that Joe almost single handedly got rid of probate.
Whilst it would help competition, there would also be a detrimental effect on allocative efficiency.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

pazza

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
31,476
Likes
5,414
Location
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
#12
Create a Bill Of Rights to be used in a preamble to our constitution..as to what will be on it, well, a committee of eminent persons would help out in nutting out the detail.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #13
Tim56 said:
Tough one. Abolish the states. Single parents get enough already.
Is it constitutionally possible to abolish the states?

Australia is a Federation of states, which means that it is possible for any of them to leave the Federation at any time.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Posts
10,086
Likes
175
Location
Elwood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
South Fremantle Bulldogs, Arsenal.
#14
Roylion said:
Is it constitutionally possible to abolish the states?

Australia is a Federation of states, which means that it is possible for any of them to leave the Federation at any time.
No it is not possible for them to leave at any time.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
13,029
Likes
8,625
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #16
1jasonoz said:
No it is not possible for them to leave at any time.
Why not?

How is, say Western Australia, which has threatened to secede at various times, during its' history, essentially different to Quebec in Canada?

In spite of the nationhood achieved by the Federal government, State governments essentially retained the status of colonies under the British Crown until the passage of the Australia Act 1986.

At a referendum in 1933, 68 per cent of voters in Western Australia agreed to secession, but this was opposed by the Labor Party which won government on the same day, and was later rejected by the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. A Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons advised the Imperial Parliament that the petition of the Western Australian Government to amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act should not be received unless supported by the Federal Government. Of course it was not supported.

This could be done under existing law, because although Australian federation was essentially independent by an Act of the British Parliament in 1901, essentially the States were still colonies of Britain until 1986. As Britain determined that the Australian Federal Government should decide whether Western Australia should secede, the move failed.

State Governors still have the exercise of all of the powers and functions of the Queen except the power to appoint and terminate the appointments of Governors. However, the Queen is not precluded from exercising any of her powers when she is present personally in a State, although the British parliament no longer has any power in an Australian state. This would still occur even if the federation of Australia became a republic. Should a State referendum agree to secede, could the Federal Government prevent this from happening?

Upon what grounds could secession be achieved?

Harry Hiller a Canadian sociologist who has studied secessionist movements in the Canadian province of Alberta during the 1980s, and the State of Western Australia in the 1930s and 1970s believed there were two:
1. the effects of discriminatory redistribution on the residents of a state

2. secession prompted by the unilateral breach by the central government of the constitutional arrangements that established the federation, to the detriment of the rights of self government of the residents of the State. An attempt to abolish the states by the Federal Government would definitely be an attempt to deny the rights of self-government. Hence on those grounds any state would have moral justification to secede. A move to abolish the states could therefore see the Federation broken up.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,231
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#17
The best case for secession is Tasmania as they wouldsupposedly need to leave in order to become a tax haven. The amount of wealth flowing into their would be unbelievable plus it would create numerous well paying jobs ie fund managers, lawyers plus gain migration from Australian from people attracted by zero or bugger all personal tax rates.

Its a no brainer. You only have to look at the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to see how successful it would be.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Posts
2,397
Likes
0
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Everton FC, Parra Eels
#18
Abolish states? Countries as large as Australia, Canada and the USA need government to be decentralised, not centralised. Funny that, in the UK they actually devolved powers to Scotland and Wales, and some have been talking about regional devolution for England (which IMHO, would be a good idea to serve parts of England which feel somewhat aloof from Westminster and Whitehall).

As for the Quebec secession issue and reserve powers, here's a piece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_governor#Canada

Now another issue, what if another Australian state or Canadian province were to be created? The issue in the past about the NT attaining statehood, and the British dependency of Turks and Caicos Islands becoming a Canadian province (mainly because of the large number of Canadian tourists who go there). In both countries' constitutions, a state or province is an entity which is a constitutional component of a federation, and creating a new state or province would likely require changes in the country's constitution (last time that happened, was in 1949 when Newfoundland joined Canada after going bankrupt in the Depression).

Creating a territory in both countries, on the other hand, is much easier because it can be done by an Act of Parliament. The constutions of the NT and ACT, as well as the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut, are acts of the Australian and Canadian parliaments respectively- unlike the constitutions of states and provinces.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Posts
10,086
Likes
175
Location
Elwood
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
South Fremantle Bulldogs, Arsenal.
#19
Roylion said:
Why not?

How is, say Western Australia, which has threatened to secede at various times, during its' history, essentially different to Quebec in Canada?

In spite of the nationhood achieved by the Federal government, State governments essentially retained the status of colonies under the British Crown until the passage of the Australia Act 1986.

At a referendum in 1933, 68 per cent of voters in Western Australia agreed to secession, but this was opposed by the Labor Party which won government on the same day, and was later rejected by the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. A Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons advised the Imperial Parliament that the petition of the Western Australian Government to amend the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act should not be received unless supported by the Federal Government. Of course it was not supported.

This could be done under existing law, because although Australian federation was essentially independent by an Act of the British Parliament in 1901, essentially the States were still colonies of Britain until 1986. As Britain determined that the Australian Federal Government should decide whether Western Australia should secede, the move failed.

State Governors still have the exercise of all of the powers and functions of the Queen except the power to appoint and terminate the appointments of Governors. However, the Queen is not precluded from exercising any of her powers when she is present personally in a State, although the British parliament no longer has any power in an Australian state. This would still occur even if the federation of Australia became a republic. Should a State referendum agree to secede, could the Federal Government prevent this from happening?

Upon what grounds could secession be achieved?

Harry Hiller a Canadian sociologist who has studied secessionist movements in the Canadian province of Alberta during the 1980s, and the State of Western Australia in the 1930s and 1970s believed there were two:
1. the effects of discriminatory redistribution on the residents of a state

2. secession prompted by the unilateral breach by the central government of the constitutional arrangements that established the federation, to the detriment of the rights of self government of the residents of the State. An attempt to abolish the states by the Federal Government would definitely be an attempt to deny the rights of self-government. Hence on those grounds any state would have moral justification to secede. A move to abolish the states could therefore see the Federation broken up.
The case of WA succeding or any other state is totally differant to the issue of Quebec. Heres a link below to a study by Murdoch university on the succession issue in Canada, and a section about why the Australian constitution, and other reasons stops this.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n1/thomson61.txt
 

utility

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Posts
9,207
Likes
5,762
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#20
mulhollanddrive said:
I would be a dictator and make people do things.
I'd do the complete opposite, I'd move towards anarchy... first on the list would be getting rid of state governments, such a huge waste of money.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Posts
103
Likes
0
Location
Australia
Other Teams
St.Kilda Saints
Thread starter #21
I am certainly not purposely proposing to sound as if I'm sexist, but, are you just so glad there is yet a female president? I certainly am.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#22
I wouldn't abolish state governments, but I would seriously consider abolition of local government and roll it back into state government functions.

Certainly I'd abolish all those ridiculous urban councils that exist in Australian cities (Brisbane excepted). There is absolutely zero need for 18 local government regions in the Perth metro area when one could do just as good a job. IMO anyway.
 

Bombers 2003

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
34,490
Likes
4,769
Location
Yatala
AFL Club
Essendon
#23
Two things.
1-Begin a investigation into the Howard Government with a aim to charge and prosecute the members of the government with criminal conspiracy against the people of Australia.
2-Introduce a system of Executive Government.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Posts
2,397
Likes
0
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Everton FC, Parra Eels
#24
Mr Q said:
I wouldn't abolish state governments, but I would seriously consider abolition of local government and roll it back into state government functions.

Certainly I'd abolish all those ridiculous urban councils that exist in Australian cities (Brisbane excepted). There is absolutely zero need for 18 local government regions in the Perth metro area when one could do just as good a job. IMO anyway.
Well in the USA and UK you have a form of two-tier local government with services divided between the two. In the USA anyway, where most states are divided into counties and then cities and towns. County powers vary from state to state though but in some they retain considerable importance. A further explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_%28United_States%29
 
Top Bottom