So, does recognition of a system of government in the manner proposed in 1988 achieve anything?
The states must retain a system of local government. At its narrowest, that probably means retaining at least two local government areas, although the High Court could construe the requirement to require the states to retain a meaningful system of local government. Although in the long term the High Court might decide that retaining a system of local government could create an implied right to, for instance, require some sort of consultation before a council is dissolved or amalgamated, much would depend on how the provision was drafted. If this is desired, it should be specified in the proposed amendment. However, the more requirements contained in the proposed amendments, the more likely that states would object on the grounds that it would affect their capacity to discharge their responsibilities to efficiently administer the state.
Related Questions
- Would recognition of a system of local government in the Constitution mean that the Australian Government can pass something like a Local Government Act?
- So, does recognition of a system of government in the manner proposed in 1988 achieve anything?
- How was the current proposed streetcar system plan developed?
