Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Abolishing the states - the benefits ignored

By John August - posted Tuesday, 30 August 2005


Far from being "set in stone", our founding parents saw the Constitution as a dynamic document, not something operating as the "dead hand of the past". It seems they did not appreciate the difficulties that party politics would engender. The processes for constitutional change were never intended to be an insurmountable barrier - they were there to ensure changes would be worthy. This is in contrast to commentators like Craven who seem to say the constitution is written in stone and we even think about changing it at our peril.

Constitutional change is not the only possibility. Craven notes the states have been under siege. He seems to be saying that just because the states are so weak, no one could be bothered to kill them off now. But, to us, they're still as wasteful, still as frustrating as they've always been. Craven stops short of observing that, in time, the states could wither away to a mere shell and changes to the Constitution would be merely cosmetic. This is not something we advocate - it would mean that we never engaged with the issue of what Australia means and the ad hoc progression would be destructive and wasteful. But it is another possibility if we refuse the potential for constitutional change.

One worthy constitutional change is state abolition. While Craven claims otherwise, BF would be willing to accept Australia not going in that direction, if everyone really did think that. Perhaps we have a respect for Australians which Craven lacks. In any case, state abolition has not really been discussed and has never really been on the table. It may have to be done in stages, but we plan to make principled advocacy towards this goal.

Advertisement

So, I hope you're feeling a little more positive about the idea of abolishing the states. Disagree with us if you will but please, disagree with us and not a straw man - not something nobody is in fact saying!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

Article edited by Eliza Brown.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

33 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John August is the convenor of Abolish the States Collective, and of the group Sydney Shove.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John August
Related Links
Issues, Problems and Solutions in State Abolition
Symposium on the Future of Regionalism

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John August
Article Tools
Comment 33 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy