----- Original Message ----- From: John Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 8 December 1999 8:09 PM Subject: Civil Representation in Australian Government > Economic Reform Australia > ERA EMAIL NETWORK > > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 > From: David Keane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Civil Representation in Australian Government > by David Keane > > At the ending of World War II, the United Nations Charter was signed upon > the ideal of representing "We, the Peoples". In practice, representation to > the United Nations was chosen by national governments, and "we the peoples" > have been excluded from any meaningful participation in government. > The Rio Earth Summit demonstrated the profound strength and maturity of > the civil sector of society, and moves were set in motion to formerly link > civil society with the United Nations. Finally, on 14/July/97, UN Secretary > General Kofi Annan recommended that the General Assembly of the United > Nations in the Year 2000 be a "Millennium Assembly focusing on preparing > the UN to meet the major challenges and needs of the world community in the > twenty-first century, and be accompanied by a companion 'People's > Assembly'". In response to the challenge, civil society met at the Hague > Peace Conference in 1999, and decided to hold its inaugural People's > Assembly in Apia Western Samoa in April 2000. > The aspiration is that the 21st century will be the century of the people, > in which new means for care and management of our planet must be > established. The idea naturally emerges of developing people's > representation in national governments. The idea has been tried in Sweden, > in which a People's Assembly was elected. The Assembly had no legal powers, > but would look at sustainable, futuristic, green and ethical issues through > a general forum, and make recommendations to the government. The Swedish > experiment has found favour, as a People's Assembly has now been elected > there four times. > The people's representatives must be elected quite independently to the > party political process, and their platform ever starts from ethical > considerations. Open-ness, transparency and consensus will be mandatory, > and their influence will come through their capacity to lift up and develop > a clear vision for a long-term, sustainable, eco-friendly and harmonious > pathway into the future. > The model of economic rationalism being imposed upon Australia, reflects > the nature of our autocratic, Canberra centred style of government and > economic decision making. If we are to reverse the disastrous consequences > of this economic direction, we need simultaneously to democratise the > process of economic evaluation and implementation. Calls for transparency > and sustainability will be slow to become effective, unless they are > simultaneously linked with calls for revolutionary introduction of new > democratic processes. One of these new democratic processes involves the > introduction of people's participation in government. The second involved > restoring the Constitutionally guaranteed right for economic equity between > the Commonwealth and the States. > > Commonwealth/State Economic Equity > > The Commonwealth government has no Constitutional authority to financially > pressure the States, by selectively administering money derived from > collection of income tax, or GST tax, or by directing the manner in which > the States should acquire their revenues. > > The plain fact is that the Commonwealth government does not have exclusive > Constitutional authority to collect income tax, GST tax, or other taxes > apart from customs and excise. Before 1942, both Commonwealth and States > collected income tax, and the constitutional validity of this arrangement > has never been disputed. > > In "Uniform Tax (1942)" the High Court held valid all the essential > elements by which the Commonwealth forced the States out of the income tax > field. The crux of that decision, was that under the "defence power" at > times of "hot war" (then in the middle of World War II) the Commonwealth > had virtually unlimited power over the national economy, including forcing > the States out of the income tax field. > > But during that same decision, it was made quite clear that such authority > did not extend beyond the period of "hot war". Justice Latham pointed out > that there was nothing in the Commonwealth legislation which deprived a > State Parliament of the power to impose income tax, at times of peace. > > Once the collection of income tax was entrusted to the Commonwealth, the > system has maintained itself by its own economic and political momentum. > Even though, since the end of the Second World War, with the ending of the > special 'hot war' conditions, there has been no constitutional reason for > the States not to resume collection of income tax, nor for the States to be > bound to accept Commonwealth dominance in economic affairs. > > In theory, the States could in peace-time re-impose income tax at any > time. They could do it in practice if they all combined together to give > the Commonwealth an ultimatum as to time and method of resumption, but > there are formidable difficulties in the way of any one State or a small > group of States acting separately. In part, this is because under sections > 51 (ii) and 99 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth would be unable to > impose income tax at different rates in different States. > > If the States ever did team together to re-impose State controlled income > tax, then the States would have re-asserted their constitutionally valid > financially equitable position with the Commonwealth. > > The States are Hurting > > The States are hurting economically and socially. Their dissent was for a > while cut short by the Commonwealth government's imposition of GST, and > asking the States to wait and see how it works out. The promise was that > the GST would be the panacea for all the State's economic ills. Yet in > truth it is hard to see how such a regressive tax can help anything. In a > year or two the gaping gaps in the GST promises will become all too > obvious, and the voice of dissent will re-emerge from the States like a > volcano that has been blocked. > > At such a time, it will be vital to present a vision before the States for > total reform of Australian economic management, starting with > democratisation of the economic decision making processes, involving > (1) the States combining together to demand economic equity with the > Commonwealth in management of Australia's economy. This will demand the > establishment of a federal economic council, with equal representation of > Commonwealth and States, and will be characterised by complete transparency > and consensus in decision making. > (2) the inauguration of a "People's Assembly". This may be initiated by a > single State government, several State governments, or by the Commonwealth > Government. The People's Assembly will have authority to establish forums > and enquiries, and will make recommendations to the governments (both > national and State) but will have no legislative power. The People's > Assembly will work with the principle of assistance and empowerment for the > people through a department of creative networking in people's > participation, of voluntary research initiatives within the general > population. > > ----ooOoo---- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
