The thread on Plato's influence on the US Constitution got me thinkin- WI the Australian Federation was shaped by different influences than OTL ? During the 1880s and 1890s discussion on what form of federation the proposed new Australian Commonwealth was to take cented on whether it'd be a strong central govt with weak regional govts like Switzerland or Canada, or a weaker central govt with strong state govts a la the US. Eventually, the latter model was adopted by 1900-01, which also influenced the division of legislative powers within the new Cth, and which were further shaped by the High Court in subsequent yrs (which I researched a fair bit in law school for assignments in areas like Constitutional Law). WI this process had gone differently, and our Fed/Cth had taken an entirely different form based on the other influences discussed ?
Australian Federation, Commonwealth shaped differently by 1901
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Well the most obvious is Australia becomes a Republic akin to the USA. In the OTL, the idea was raised, but rejected because the great bulk of the Founding Fathers believed that the UK would reject the idea.
Then there is the possibility of some form of socalist/Marxist republic. Such radical thoughts were around, in the 1880s-1900, although I don't think anyone actually had a model which could be put into practice. It was more talk than anything.
Other than that, some form of the EU system, where there's a rotating presidency, a weak central govt, with strong state govts is possible, but I don't think it was ever seriously discussed.
And finally, we get the same system as is currently the case, but different states & territories. Basically, WA & QLD remains separate, but NZ joins, along with an even stronger Senate.
Then there is the possibility of some form of socalist/Marxist republic. Such radical thoughts were around, in the 1880s-1900, although I don't think anyone actually had a model which could be put into practice. It was more talk than anything.
Other than that, some form of the EU system, where there's a rotating presidency, a weak central govt, with strong state govts is possible, but I don't think it was ever seriously discussed.
And finally, we get the same system as is currently the case, but different states & territories. Basically, WA & QLD remains separate, but NZ joins, along with an even stronger Senate.
I think that a weaker central gov. was the only other real option available, the others being far too radical or too central. A very weak central government that only looked after defence and international politics, while everything else stayed at a state level. This might well have encouraged NZ to join as Hexicus suggested. But it would be a very loose confederation of states, like on the early USA or CSA where each state did pretty much whatever it pleased. Maybe in this case, there would have been threats of secession (a civil war?) greater disputes over environmental issues, no national projects, Queensland keeping PNG, etc. In this scenario Johny Howard would not even DARE try to introduce his industrial reforms.
Actually, in order to get NZ in, you could still have the same federal govt as now, but a much stronger Senate. Plus there maybe a couple of Sections dealing with definate State Rights in the Constitution, rather than the current situation where everything is rather vague, as against the current Section 51 which reserves definate Federal Rights.
Last edited:
PJ Norris said:
Well Johnny "Human Blowfly" Howard is actually going to have it tough over the IR reforms. The Constitution is rather clear on this matter where it states in Section 51, Para XXXV:
In other words the current system is Constitutionally correct, whilst the one Howard wants is completely unconstitutional.
The Senators were ment to the representives of theirs various states hence the reason that state premier can select a replacement senator if one is require between senate elections. This was one of the reasons behind the fall of the Whitlam government. now days the Senate is split along party lines but if the roles of the House of Rep and the Senate were reversed this could make for a stronger state government role. The Senate subits the House reviews.
Macsporan
Banned
I think that a system where the Federal government had control over railways, roads and water would be a very good idea.
Australia has very little water and very large distances.
It has also had only two national development projects in its entire history: the Snowy Mountains and the Darwin Railway.
This is disgraceful. And all because of small-minded jealous little state govenments.
We still haven't got a high-speed rail-link between Sydney and Melbourne and no major irrigation projects to divert wasted water from Northern Australia to the southern population centres.
And what about a national company law and criminal code? Would that be too much to ask?
I don't think this country will ever amount to anything given its current constitutional arrangements.
We need change.
What do we get, some nasty little right-wing prick who talks through his nose.
"I shudder for my country when I reflect that people are dumb."
Australia has very little water and very large distances.
It has also had only two national development projects in its entire history: the Snowy Mountains and the Darwin Railway.
This is disgraceful. And all because of small-minded jealous little state govenments.
We still haven't got a high-speed rail-link between Sydney and Melbourne and no major irrigation projects to divert wasted water from Northern Australia to the southern population centres.
And what about a national company law and criminal code? Would that be too much to ask?
I don't think this country will ever amount to anything given its current constitutional arrangements.
We need change.
What do we get, some nasty little right-wing prick who talks through his nose.
"I shudder for my country when I reflect that people are dumb."
'Tis true. The system's shoddy.
The way the system is worked at the moment, there is very little incentive for the states to cooperate sufficiently to build the infrastructure this country needs. The Constitution needs some serious restructuring and cleaning up. It's pretty organised as is, but no way is it totally clear how it works.
Thing is, it allows for great flexibility, it's evolved lots over the last hundred years, with the more decentralised system which we started with being gradually wrenched around into what we have today.
Thing with the Senate is that, unless we ban political parties, the current status , with the Upper House being dominated by parties rather than the States, is inevitable.
There needs to be parties to gain enough support to get bills put through the senate; there's no way a bunch of independents would be able to gain enough support to get elected in a state. It seems that parties are a necessary evil if we don't want direct democracy... And if we're talking about efficiency, we don't.
Really, what the current government doesn't seem to realise is that they're the only Australian-owned organisation with the money and the motivation to improve the mediocre infrastructure we've got. Bastard Liberals. There simply aren't enough people in this stupid backwater to sustain our lifestyle. We need some serious public works to get more of this country livable.
*Cry* I'm too passionate, and off-topic.
Back on, a likely change in the original constitution would be the spelling-out of parliamentary democracy (actually mentioning Cabinet or the PM might have been a good idea), or reducing the Governor-General's Constitutional rule to what they intended it. It's quite plausible IMO that the framers of the Constitution might have spelled out the division of powers between the State and Federal governments, with heavier weighting towards the states, requiring constitutional amendment to change the balance. In that case, there might have remained a more divided systrm until the present day. That might have caused problems during the two world wars, with uncoordinated industry, as well as a larger gap between the major and minor states in terms of economy; IRC, Victorian and NSW GST covers a pretty big gap in the WA budget (We keep hearing Bracks and Carr bitching about this).
This could lead to strong, sectarian politics, with the smaller states ganging up on Vic and NSW in the Senate to defeat them on lots of things, possibly resulting in them bribing another state to allow an annexation of either NT or NZ to tip the balance, kinda like the Mason-Dixon divisions in 1800s USA.
With some sort of expansionism, there might be stronger conflict with Indonesia, though it's doubtful whether state divisions would overcome the White Australia Policy, so I don't know whether we'd be adding Papua New Guinea or any more Pacific territories. I think it's more likely that the States would compete to build up population bases, perhaps during the 20s with English immigrants and more widespread population bases. They might eventually form a stronger union, perhaps if threatened by a invasion during WW2 or the Cold War... I should add that I don't think either of these would be butterflied, BTW. We really aren't that important in world affairs when one thinks about it...
Though honestly, I hope that situation changes sometime in the near future.
The way the system is worked at the moment, there is very little incentive for the states to cooperate sufficiently to build the infrastructure this country needs. The Constitution needs some serious restructuring and cleaning up. It's pretty organised as is, but no way is it totally clear how it works.
Thing is, it allows for great flexibility, it's evolved lots over the last hundred years, with the more decentralised system which we started with being gradually wrenched around into what we have today.
Thing with the Senate is that, unless we ban political parties, the current status , with the Upper House being dominated by parties rather than the States, is inevitable.
There needs to be parties to gain enough support to get bills put through the senate; there's no way a bunch of independents would be able to gain enough support to get elected in a state. It seems that parties are a necessary evil if we don't want direct democracy... And if we're talking about efficiency, we don't.
Really, what the current government doesn't seem to realise is that they're the only Australian-owned organisation with the money and the motivation to improve the mediocre infrastructure we've got. Bastard Liberals. There simply aren't enough people in this stupid backwater to sustain our lifestyle. We need some serious public works to get more of this country livable.
*Cry* I'm too passionate, and off-topic.
Back on, a likely change in the original constitution would be the spelling-out of parliamentary democracy (actually mentioning Cabinet or the PM might have been a good idea), or reducing the Governor-General's Constitutional rule to what they intended it. It's quite plausible IMO that the framers of the Constitution might have spelled out the division of powers between the State and Federal governments, with heavier weighting towards the states, requiring constitutional amendment to change the balance. In that case, there might have remained a more divided systrm until the present day. That might have caused problems during the two world wars, with uncoordinated industry, as well as a larger gap between the major and minor states in terms of economy; IRC, Victorian and NSW GST covers a pretty big gap in the WA budget (We keep hearing Bracks and Carr bitching about this).
This could lead to strong, sectarian politics, with the smaller states ganging up on Vic and NSW in the Senate to defeat them on lots of things, possibly resulting in them bribing another state to allow an annexation of either NT or NZ to tip the balance, kinda like the Mason-Dixon divisions in 1800s USA.
With some sort of expansionism, there might be stronger conflict with Indonesia, though it's doubtful whether state divisions would overcome the White Australia Policy, so I don't know whether we'd be adding Papua New Guinea or any more Pacific territories. I think it's more likely that the States would compete to build up population bases, perhaps during the 20s with English immigrants and more widespread population bases. They might eventually form a stronger union, perhaps if threatened by a invasion during WW2 or the Cold War... I should add that I don't think either of these would be butterflied, BTW. We really aren't that important in world affairs when one thinks about it...
Though honestly, I hope that situation changes sometime in the near future.
Mayhem said:
The structure of the Constitution clearly shows the separation of government into the Executive; the Legislator; the Judicary; & the States.
Section 1 clearly gives the Parliament legislative power.
Section 61 clearly gives the Crown executive power. But Sections 49, 62 and 63 spell out a Cabinet type government. In Australia it's officially called the Federal Executive Council.
Section 71 clearly gives judicial power to the courts.
Mayhem said:
Sections 51, 52, 106, 107, & especially 108 deal with the Federal verse State laws & rights.
Section 128 states specifically about referendums.
Mayhem said:
Problems did occur during WWI & WWII. The most notable was over income tax. That was suppose to be a State right, but it became a Federal one during WWII without any referendum.
On another note - it's true that VIC & NSW pay for everyone else's bills.
Mayhem said:
As you, & as others have pointed out, the Founding Fathers always saw that the Senate was meant to be a House of Review on behalf of the States - especially where the small States could stop NSW & VIC dictating to the rest of the nation what would happen on any issue. But as things have developed, thanks to the parties, I'd dare say it was always going to become what it is today (which is what you said in the first half of your posting
).Edit: The real reason why NZ didn't join the Commonwealth had nothing to do with Senate power or anything else like that. It was because their PM at the time believed that NZ would one day become the Britain of the Pacific &, thus, joining the Australian Commonwealth would deny NZ this future. Well we're 100 years later & we're still waiting for NZ to become this Britannia Pacifica!
Last edited:
Macsporan
Banned
Perhaps our POD should be sometime in the middle 1800's where the Mother Country refuses to allow the Colony of NSW to break up into the States of Victoria, Queensland and so on.
That way Australia has no need of Federation and becomes a unitary state.
As I see it once State Governments exist they will permit only a weak National Government which therefore lacks the authority to do or change anything significant.
That way Australia has no need of Federation and becomes a unitary state.
As I see it once State Governments exist they will permit only a weak National Government which therefore lacks the authority to do or change anything significant.