Australian DIARY


ARCHIVES 1997-2007  --- ARCHIVES 2007 +
JUNE 2015


Sydney's Lord Mayor is the Independent (No party affiliation)
Clover Moore. She won a seat on the South Sydney Council circa 1980. In 1981 the Labour State government amalgamated part of South Sydney with Sydney City Council. Clover won a seat in Sydney City. She was well regarded in that position, and was favoured to take the position of Mayor in 1987. Before that happened the State Government sacked Sydney council and appointed a commissioner to manage the city.  Clover contested at the next State Election and won a seat in the Legislative Assembly (lower house) in the NSW Parliament in 1988.   In Australia, state governments have complete control of local government.  In 2004 the then NSW Labour government offered the then Lord Mayor of Sydney (independent Frank Sartor) a cabinet position and then amalgamated Sydney Council with the strongly Labour electorate of South Sydney probably with the expectation that a Labour candidate would win the newly created Lord Mayor position. Without relinquishing her Legislative Assembly seat, Clover Moore contested and won that election and has been Lord Mayor of Sydney since.

In 2012 the NSW State government introduced what became known as the “Get Clover Law” by legislating that a person could not be a member of both state and local government. Clover relinquished her seat in the NSW Parliament.


The NSW Baird Liberal government appears to have decided to attempt an increase of major party control of local government, perhaps hoping to capture the Sydney City Council into the bargain. . To this end it proposes to amalgamate 41 NSW local councils to 18 (via James Robertson SMH). It is calculated that larger councils would be dominated by the Liberal­-Labour axis, because the cost of being elected increases as the size of the electorate increases.

The Queensland and Victorian governments have already carried out amalgamations. In both states there was wide dissatisfaction following amalgamation. Both Premiers (Beattie and Kennett) lost their jobs at subsequent elections. After widespread dissatisfaction the incoming (Newman) Queensland government fulfilled an election promise to allow de-amalgamation, but when it came to the crunch it only allowed four councils to vote on de­amalgamation.

In all four the majority were in favour of de­amalgamation. Ex Premier Kennett of Victoria is on record that further amalgamations should not be attempted.  In Sydney's east, five councils are to be merged. (Sydney, Woollahra, Waverley, Randwick, Botany Bay). Woollahra reports that 70% of it's residents do not like the idea. Clover Moore is very much against the merger. Sydney Council has a population of around 200,000. The enlarged council will have a population of around 500,000.

My prediction is that despite widespread objections, the NSW amalgamations will go ahead. I further predict that Clover will remain Lord Mayor of the enlarged Sydney Council, and that Premier Baird will be removed from office either before or at the next election.



In Australia, we currently have two levels of Independent Government, State and Federal.  Local Government is completely under the control of State Government.  I would like to suggest the formation of a new political party called the “Local Government Party”. I would further suggest that it have the following policies.


The state of NSW has a constitution that basically says the Legislature shall “have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever:"

I suggest that any amalgamation be challenged in the High Court on the ground that amalgamation is not for the “good government” of the people of NSW, and submit that a referendum on the issue would be a good way to settle the matter.


In Australia we like to think that we have representative government. I think of it as a periodically elected dictatorship. To my mind for example the Swiss have representative government. Any time the elected representatives do something that the electorate does not like, they have a choice.

They can either sack the Governor (As Governor Grey was sacked and Arnold Schwarzenegger took power in California) or they can enact citizen initiated legislation to overrule the unwanted law.

I suggest that local government (councils) immediately implement “ivote” (or a similar system) to enable a vote to be called by any member of the public (subject to evidence of significant public support) on any
government or council regulation or legislation on sacking and especially on amalgamation.


In the USA there are three distinct levels of government (Federal, State and Local), and powers of each level cannot be infringed by other levels. Each Local Government area makes it's own building laws, and this gives personality and individuality to each city. Think San Francisco and Los Angeles. Two such different cities could not exist in NSW because the State Government could not resist legislating "for the good of the people" even if that were not what the local area wanted.  Or look at New York City (Manhattan) versus the city from which New York State is governed. (do you even know what city that is?).  Albany has no character, and the Governor of NY is not as well known as is the Mayor of NY.

I would suggest that the new party have as a policy that the “NSW Constitution Act 1902 Section 51 (2)” be revised to read:

(2) The manner in which local government bodies are constituted and the nature and extent of their powers, authorities, duties and functions shall be as determined by a local government constitution.

and such further amendments to the NSW constitution as would make our Local Government more like that in the USA.


Nancy Pelosi (God Bless Her) has put an oar into this incredibly undemocratic act by our governments.

I mean, a treaty about trade that is a secret?  Why?  What is there that must be hidden from we the people?  And nobody is outraged?  That makes me suspicious that the people who own or control or influence the media have some sort of personal ends in mind, something that does not allow close examination, something that has been made worthwhile to our politicians who are selling us out.

"We are making a binding treaty about everything that is going to give up some sovereignty and you the people will pay the price so that we in power can extort more out of the rest of you".

Do you wonder that politicians really do not want people to have access to long range killing weapons?  If I was doing that sort of thing to my fellow man I would also be worried about LETHAL REPERCUSSIONS.  Of course the organ grinder is not visible, and will not suffer opprobrium.  That is what he pays bribes to avoid.


The UN has ventured into partitioning states on a few occasions.  Notably Israel, where two warring sides were partitioned along the ceasefire line.  Then there was Cyprus and Sudan.  Korea was another example, as is Crimea.  The dissolution of the USSR is an example of an internal decision on partition.

Should not a group of people be allowed to separate into states?  There are caveats.  For instance, a small population might live in a resource rich area.  They would love to partition into a state and tax all that wealth.  A perfect example might be the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, which is settled by Shia. 

So perhaps we should adopt a model where a new state is formed within the Federated nation.  The people who want to partition are given a state with wide powers.  They control everything except resources and defense.  They do not control internal migration.  But apart from those few powers their powers should be wide, including establishing Sharia law, police, enacting civil and criminal laws and determination of income tax. 

The Federal government would enforce taxation of national resources (Minerals, bandwidth) and have a Federal court to settle disputes between the states (Pollution etc.).  The Federal income from resources should, after prescribed deductions for Defence etc, be distributed pro rata to the states.  The Federal Government should have a constitution that could only be changed by a two thirds majority of votes in all states.

So I suggest that this become a directive for the UN. Any people who meet prescribed conditions who want secession should be supported in their endeavour.  Likely applicants would be the Kurds of Turkey and Iraq and Iran.  Texas (Oh that's right, they believe they can secede from the union at any time), Quebec maybe? Sumatra, the Rohinga of Burmq, Hong Kong, Arnhem Land, Scotland, West (Sunni) Iraq.  ISIL.

This chapter is a work in progress.  Suggestions are solicited.