# Abolish state governments



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

Here's something that bugs me more than anything else.

In 1901 our national government was established. Six seperate British colonies became Australian states. Now this may have been alright in the 19th century, when communication and transport was different, but having this same colonial thinking system today is clumsy and way too expensive.
There is duplication for running our multiplicity of parliaments, a massive overload of bureaucrats, a tangle of conflicting laws, rail gauges, titles of land, lease holds and opportunities for euthanasia to name a few.It costs the nation more than $35 billion a year to maintain the state governments and it can be argued these governments are beyond their use-by dates and are inefficient in their duplication of services to the people.

We are thinking of removing the Crown from government; why not think about removing all the states and territories at the same time?


Develop a two-tiered system of governance, within one national constitution, and as a nation we will save about $30 billion a year. Eliminate the duplication of services by defining duties and responsibilities, within the constitution, for the national and regional governments. This will empower the people at regional level and fracture the power of the political parties, thereby bringing governance closer to the people. We are entitled to be governed by world best practices and we are not.

<www.abolishstategovernments.com>


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (29 May 2007)

Why dont we do away with local government while your at it, perhaps we should take it one step futher and have only one party, that would be great we would never have to vote.

Then all we have to do is change our name to China Jnr, transformation complete.

I agree with taking some state powers and making them federal such as power, water etc but there is still a place for state governments. Is there any democratic countries in the world that have only a federal system?


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 May 2007)

Nah, i just think WA should just secede from the rest of Australia. Now, that would stuff ya!!!!


----------



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> Why dont we do away with local government while your at it, perhaps we should take it one step futher and have only one party, that would be great we would never have to vote.
> 
> Then all we have to do is change our name to China Jnr, transformation complete.
> 
> I agree with taking some state powers and making them federal such as power, water etc but there is still a place for state governments. Is there any democratic countries in the world that have only a federal system?




We would abolish local governments too, as they are amatuer, incompetent, and rife with petty corruption in it's administration of land zoning and developmental approvals. 
With 30 something new Regional governments(2nd tier) being on a larger scale, and set up with new powers, could bring a new professionalism to this government.


----------



## greggy (29 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> Here's something that bugs me more than anything else.
> 
> In 1901 our national government was established. Six seperate British colonies became Australian states. Now this may have been alright in the 19th century, when communication and transport was different, but having this same colonial thinking system today is clumsy and way too expensive.
> There is duplication for running our multiplicity of parliaments, a massive overload of bureaucrats, a tangle of conflicting laws, rail gauges, titles of land, lease holds and opportunities for euthanasia to name a few.It costs the nation more than $35 billion a year to maintain the state governments and it can be argued these governments are beyond their use-by dates and are inefficient in their duplication of services to the people.
> ...




Interesting theory. I remember Jeff Kennett, a former Liberal State Premier, proposing the same thing.  My only worry would be that too much power may end up being in the hands of the federal government.  
Providing your figures are accurate a $30 billion saving on an annual basis is massive indeed.  With that sort of money, more hospitals and schools could be built, major infrastructure projects would be able to be paid for in cash, not debt, the list goes on and on.


----------



## Broadside (29 May 2007)

At the moment states point the blame for problems in education, healthcare, water infrastructure, etc at the Feds....and vice versa.....I would be all for abolishing the state govts, they really add no value whatsoever.  It will never happen.  But if there was ever a referendum I couldn't tick the yes box fast enough.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (29 May 2007)

I think it's a good idea. There are good arguments for nationalizing things such as health care, education, law enforcement, environmental and transport laws, regulations & standards.
The main reasons for doing so is uniformity & conformity while eliminating bureaucratic duplication & expense.

We should amalgamate local councils too while we're at it.


----------



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

greggy said:


> Interesting theory. I remember Jeff Kennett, a former Liberal State Premier, proposing the same thing.  My only worry would be that too much power may end up being in the hands of the federal government.
> Providing your figures are accurate a $30 billion saving on an annual basis is massive indeed.  With that sort of money, more hospitals and schools could be built, major infrastructure projects would be able to be paid for in cash, not debt, the list goes on and on.




Correct.
However, you must get rid of this colonial thinking of too much power to federal government. The states boundaries were drawn in the sand some 100 odd years ago. They do little to support the Pilbara from Perth, Nth Queensland from Brisbane or Gippsland from Melbourne. We could set up regions defined by climate, geography, population concentration, industry and other factors which affect our lives.


----------



## Mousie (29 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> I think it's a good idea. There are good arguments for nationalizing things such as health care, education, law enforcement, environmental and transport laws, regulations & standards.
> The main reasons for doing so is uniformity & conformity while eliminating bureaucratic duplication & expense.
> 
> We should amalgamate local councils too while we're at it.




*Rules/laws/taxes that make sense should be nationalised*
Too many crap laws/legislations enacted caused by a minority few in any one particular state already

*Services should be privatised*
Inefficient healthcare and education is brought about by big goverment not being able to take care of everything at once

That should do it in a nutshell IMO


----------



## Kauri (29 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> Correct.
> However, you must get rid of this colonial thinking of too much power to federal government. The states boundaries were drawn in the sand some 100 odd years ago. They do little to support the Pilbara from Perth, Nth Queensland from Brisbane or Gippsland from Melbourne. We could set up regions defined by climate, geography, population concentration, industry and other factors which affect our lives.




  By abolishing State Govt's. Fed govt. would do little to support the Pilbara from Canberra, Nth. Queensland from Canberra, or Gippsland from Canberra. Keep the State Govts. and get rid of the Feds>>>


----------



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

Kauri said:


> By abolishing State Govt's. Fed govt. would do little to support the Pilbara from Canberra, Nth. Queensland from Canberra, or Gippsland from Canberra. Keep the State Govts. and get rid of the Feds>>>




No, but the Regional governments set up in these areas would.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> No, but the Regional governments set up in these areas would.




So we abolish state and local governments only to set up "regional governments"? Lol.


----------



## Sprinter79 (29 May 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> So we abolish state and local governments only to set up "regional governments"? Lol.




ZING!!!!!!


----------



## greggy (29 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> Correct.
> However, you must get rid of this colonial thinking of too much power to federal government. The states boundaries were drawn in the sand some 100 odd years ago. They do little to support the Pilbara from Perth, Nth Queensland from Brisbane or Gippsland from Melbourne. We could set up regions defined by climate, geography, population concentration, industry and other factors which affect our lives.



Its not colonial thinking at all.  Many people would be worried at the prospect of too much federal power.  Also, a number of the states might try to secede.  The first one would probably be WA where the secessionist movement was once quite strong.  Why try to change things now when Australia isn't doing too badly with the way things are?  Yes, the savings may look promising, but there again governments at each level can already cut down on waste if they really wanted to.


----------



## Kimosabi (29 May 2007)

Imagine what trouble we would be in if we had Federal Liberal Upper and Lower house majority like we do now, but also had State Liberal Upper and Lower Houses Majority's or the opposite with Labour.

What's amazing about the current system, is it alway's seem to balance itself out so that one side of politics doesn't get too much power if they sway to far to either the right or left side of politics.

I suspect we may wind up with a Labour Lower House, but a Liberal Upper house at the next election. I don't think Australia is quite ready to trust Labour with a majority of both houses yet, or the Liberal's will keep the Lower House but lose the senate.

I think the Liberals have moved away from the centre since they have had majorities in both the upper and lower houses during their Current Term of Government.

Generally, whichever party stays in the centre best will win/retain government. This is a great system of government because we have minimized the reduced the risk of getting either a Dictator or Socialist government running the country, unless things go really crazy.


----------



## greggy (29 May 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Imagine what trouble we would be in if we had Federal Liberal Upper and Lower house majority like we do now, but also had State Liberal Upper and Lower Houses Majority's or the opposite with Labour.
> 
> What's amazing about the current system, is it alway's seem to balance itself out so that one side of politics doesn't get too much power if they sway to far to either the right or left side of politics.
> 
> ...



Well said Kimosabi. I reckon its an asset having different parties in control at different levels of government.  I prefer it at the federal level when no party has control of both houses. To remove a layer of government would also increase the federal government's power.


----------



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

greggy said:


> Well said Kimosabi. I reckon its an asset having different parties in control at different levels of government.  I prefer it at the federal level when no party has control of both houses. To remove a layer of government would also increase the federal government's power.




LOL. So we need 1 Federal, 6 State and2 Territoriitory Governments all with their own education, health dept etc. Add to this 750 Local councils, plus committee's, all for a population under 20 million. And if we try to rationalise, where politician are then held accountable and can't blame one another, we become a communist country.
 With all this waste of money, at the end of the day what do we get...Liberal or Labor? Yeah great democracy. And when you say* too much power *to Federal government with representatives in each Regional government...TO MUCH POWER TOO WHAT? GOVERN OUR COUNTRY! Yeah great again....much better for two different governments to fight and bicker and finger point and look after themselves while nothing happens about water, salinity, health etc. 
But hey, compared to Zimbabwe, we have a great system.


----------



## marklar (29 May 2007)

The grand scheme to abolish the states is good, there is a massive amount of duplication and buck-passing going on, particuarly with Labor states and Liberal federally.  You'll still need a local council to deal with parking and waste collection (could you imagine dealing with DoTaRS for a parking fine?) one only has to look at the ACT to see how appalling things can get without local councils.

Health and Education in this country are both stuffed due to the ineptitude of state governments and lack of accountability at the federal level.

m.


----------



## mark70920 (29 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> LOL. So we need 1 Federal, 6 State and2 Territoriitory Governments all with their own education, health dept etc. Add to this 750 Local councils, plus committee's, all for a population under 20 million. And if we try to rationalise, where politician are then held accountable and can't blame one another, we become a communist country.
> With all this waste of money, at the end of the day what do we get...Liberal or Labor? Yeah great democracy. And when you say* too much power *to Federal government with representatives in each Regional government...TO MUCH POWER TOO WHAT? GOVERN OUR COUNTRY! Yeah great again....much better for two different governments to fight and bicker and finger point and look after themselves while nothing happens about water, salinity, health etc.
> But hey, compared to Zimbabwe, we have a great system.





Yes with Little Johnnie controlling both house and no State governments all the power in the country would effectively be in one mans hands (as it is in Zimbabwe) Sydney would be the new Capital and the rest of the country would get shat on. Australia is one of the most stable democracy in the world , I think the founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Its worth paying for.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2007)

Mousie said:


> *Services should be privatised
> Inefficient healthcare and education is brought about by big goverment not being able to take care of everything at once
> *



*
It might work as long as it's a genuine privatisation and not simply private hospitals receiving taxpayer funds. I've yet to see a single example of a government service being outsourced but still paid for by taxpayer funds without a major rise in cost and/or reduction in quality.*


----------



## Uncle Festivus (29 May 2007)

mark70920 said:


> Yes with Little Johnnie controlling both house and no State governments all the power in the country would effectively be in one mans hands (as it is in Zimbabwe) Sydney would be the new Capital and the rest of the country would get shat on. Australia is one of the most stable democracy in the world , I think the founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Its worth paying for.




Effectively Little Johnny does control the country as he controls both houses & the allocation of GST revenues. The result of this power is obvious in many ways eg Workchoices legislation; when it became apparent that he could not only lose his job but his seat as well, out comes all these amendments.

Not to mention the open ended advertising campaign for any party ideology that needs to be foisted apon the public paid for by the taxpayer. What's this immoral act up to now - $800 million & climbing? That's a lot of hospital beds or better roads that we are not getting. This is not party specific, they are as bad as each other when in power.

What is needed is a different mind set to go along with a reduction in state jurisdiction if not total elimination. Why do we still have the unrepresentative system of 2 major parties? Wouldn't it be better to be able to vote for the best person for the job, without forming voting blocks called parties. Why should a conscience vote make front page news because of it's rarity.

Or go a step further and be able to vote directly on legislation ourselves & do away with them altogether.


----------



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

mark70920 said:


> Yes with Little Johnnie controlling both house and no State governments all the power in the country would effectively be in one mans hands (as it is in Zimbabwe) Sydney would be the new Capital and the rest of the country would get shat on. Australia is one of the most stable democracy in the world , I think the founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Its worth paying for.




Are you for real. Please tell me you don't believe this crap you write. The liberal party(and it's head spokesman, that's all he is) will get voted out at the next election if the people aren't happy. Very different from Zim.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2007)

Yes, do away with State governments.  Maintain local Councils (considerably amalgamated from the present status quo) for purely local matters.

Broadside makes the relevant point about the continual squabbling over who should have done what between Federal and State govts, e.g. some aspects of healthcare/water infrastructure/roads/education.

I'm opposed to the privatisation of healthcare and/or education or any other service which affects the basic wellbeing of citizens.  We should be paying sufficient tax to provide adequate levels of funding for these basic services.

The State govt in Qld has messed up pretty much everything here.  The only reason they are still there is that the opposition - unbelievably - is even worse.


----------



## Gspot (29 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, do away with State governments.  Maintain local Councils (considerably amalgamated from the present status quo) for purely local matters.
> 
> Broadside makes the relevant point about the continual squabbling over who should have done what between Federal and State govts, e.g. some aspects of healthcare/water infrastructure/roads/education.
> 
> ...




I think the same can be said for every state, and the blame is always laid somewhere else. Do you know Julia that Peter Beattie has 750 people working for him and his seat alone.
The billions wasted on these governments, cannot be justified. The wa labor party saw public spending grow from $15 biliion to $16.3 billion in the last year.........for a state of less than 2 million people. And we still pay for everything we do. Not one thing back from the government, after being taxed for everything. "And still not enough teachers, nurses, police."
And because we aren't like Zim or Nth Korea, then everythings fine.
If Britain had the same system as us, they would have over 40 goverments, what a great democracy that would be .


----------



## greggy (30 May 2007)

mark70920 said:


> Yes with Little Johnnie controlling both house and no State governments all the power in the country would effectively be in one mans hands (as it is in Zimbabwe) Sydney would be the new Capital and the rest of the country would get shat on. Australia is one of the most stable democracy in the world , I think the founding Fathers knew what they were doing. Its worth paying for.



Good point mark70920.  Compared to many other countries, Australia is doing pretty well. Any attempt to abolish state govts here would be vigorously opposed by both state and local govts.  It could well lead to states such as WA and Qld seceding.  The current system helps to unite us all. 
It also seems to me that Gspot has just plucked his savings figure out of the air and that his radical policy would cause political and social dissent on a scale never seen before.


----------



## Gspot (30 May 2007)

greggy said:


> Good point mark70920.  Compared to many other countries, Australia is doing pretty well. Any attempt to abolish state govts here would be vigorously opposed by both state and local govts.  It could well lead to states such as WA and Qld seceding.  The current system helps to unite us all.
> It also seems to me that Gspot has just plucked his savings figure out of the air and that his radical policy would cause political and social dissent on a scale never seen before.




Now Greggy I thought you were smarter than this.
Correct Australia is doing very well, thanks to China and metal prices. (God help us when there's no more holes to dig. )
However infrastructure, water, hospitals as well as police, nurse, teacher numbers,are all suffering in these booming times. 
Restructing governments so that state/local become one and are set up in 30-40 diferent regions, following the same national agenda, would allow our tax dollars to get to where they need to be spent. But of course state/local govs would oppose it, because there the ones feeding the most.
"More indians less chiefs", and a system for the 21st century, not the 19th.
Again states were drawn in colonial times, that are meaningless today.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> "More indians less chiefs", and a system for the 21st century, not the 19th.
> Again states were drawn in colonial times, that are meaningless today.



Is that so? What have the feds done for the North West Shelf? Would we in WA actually have _any_ water if things were controlled by the feds?

If it wasn't for the visionary previous liberal government (I am a lefty and will admit this fact), we would not have any of the infrastructure or development in the North West/ Kimberley that is helping keep Australia's economy afloat in this boom. And the same goes for the current Labor goverment in terms of water management.

We are sending ourselves broke here, trying to keep up with infrastructure needs that simply aren't being funded from Canberra. How would this change when the federal government simply fails to acknowledge the needs and circumstances facing WA now?


----------



## mark70920 (30 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> Are you for real. Please tell me you don't believe this crap you write. The liberal party(and it's head spokesman, that's all he is) will get voted out at the next election if the people aren't happy. Very different from Zim.




I am talking about the concentration of power , power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember Zimbawe was a democracy the shining light of Africa. Its safer to have the power spread out , so to do big things it takes alot of people to agree , therefore alot of thought will go into big changes , it will not be done on the whim of one person.

In the UK they are devolving power back to regional governments in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland.

Big Central all powerfull Governments are dangerous and if you think otherwise your are a idiot.


----------



## harriss2 (30 May 2007)

Gspot,

What a great name!  I'd like to share a joke with you.  This one emerged in the early '70's after women had finished burning their bras.

Q.:  "What do men miss most?"

A.:  "Anniverseries, birthdays, the porcelain, the point, the gspot..."


----------



## Odduna (30 May 2007)

I have a few questions regarding issues raised so far in this debate.

1. How was the $30 billion calculated?

2. Has the federal government (both parties) proved themselves capable of handling the whole country? 

3. Why is there so much duplication between all levels of government? 

4. Could we save the $30 billion from other sources? such as real taxaion reforms? 

Will be interesting to see the answers to these questions.


----------



## Gspot (30 May 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Is that so? What have the feds done for the North West Shelf? Would we in WA actually have _any_ water if things were controlled by the feds?
> 
> If it wasn't for the visionary previous liberal government (I am a lefty and will admit this fact), we would not have any of the infrastructure or development in the North West/ Kimberley that is helping keep Australia's economy afloat in this boom. And the same goes for the current Labor goverment in terms of water management.
> 
> We are sending ourselves broke here, trying to keep up with infrastructure needs that simply aren't being funded from Canberra. How would this change when the federal government simply fails to acknowledge the needs and circumstances facing WA now?




How many residents working in the Pilbara, Gascoyne, or Kimberleys paying alot of taxes, enjoy seeing the states $1 billion surplus this year, go all on the railway to mandurah. And then the next on the desalination plant, or new stadium. Must love paying taxes for the people of Perth. Alot of West Aust would like to become their own country, but maybe the North West would like to do the same from South West.
 And water is the states responsibility. This is why their is a water problem, because it can't be handled on a bigger scale (on the east coast).
Ps I'm tipping the dockers this week. Go Dockers! Ouch!


----------



## Gspot (30 May 2007)

mark70920 said:


> I am talking about the concentration of power , power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember Zimbawe was a democracy the shining light of Africa. Its safer to have the power spread out , so to do big things it takes alot of people to agree , therefore alot of thought will go into big changes , it will not be done on the whim of one person.
> 
> In the UK they are devolving power back to regional governments in Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland.
> 
> Big Central all powerfull Governments are dangerous and if you think otherwise your are a idiot.




Liberal could win the next election, yet John Howard could lose his seat and be kicked out of cabinet. Hence John Howard has just as much power as any other politician. He has been made leader of the party, and is their spokesman. Beacause they are in government he is the spokesman for the country.
Please don't think we could become a Zimbabwe, because we want a more efficient, accountable system.


----------



## Gspot (30 May 2007)

Odduna said:


> I have a few questions regarding issues raised so far in this debate.
> 
> 1. How was the $30 billion calculated?
> 
> ...




Okay Odduna, lets start with 2.
Unfortunately the two parties have corrupted the voting system over the years to make it a two horse race, and if you want to win a seat you must tow the party line. So you don't always get the right person for the job.  
So lets look at the voting system while we're shedding a tier of government.
Also the federal government can't handle the whole country, because the states won't allow it. The states would be worthless then and unable to justify their entitlements.
3. Because every state has their own education department, with their own education minister, beauracrats, advisors etc, who work own their own curriculum. The WA government has spent tens of millions dollars going down the Outcomes Based Education model, which other states have tried and abandoned...I think? Yet WA does their own thing, like every state and territory. Now on average every state spends about 1.5 billion a year on their education departments.
 Every state and territory also has their own police/ laws, so if a policeman was working in SA and wanted to come to WA to work, he would have to go do a 6 week course to be trained for WA Police. Becacuse again we have 6 state and 2 territory police ministers with all their advisors, fat cats, public servants doing their own thing.
 Now you do the same with Health, Fisheries, Water, Transport, Port, Enviroment etc, and their you have billions wasted every year on duplication. 
All these governments, departments, and 750 councils don't forget*, for 20 million **people*.
4. If we were to rationalise our system, and save these billions,we could cut G.S.T, stamp duty, land tax and more. Now wouldn't that be good.

As for q1. I have a book at work that tells me who does the figures, so I'll get back to you tomorrow. But I know the federal/state/local govs have never done a report on i's overall spending and how it could be better spent.
The more you look at our system of government the more crazy it seems. It's time we started to questioned how they spend our taxes, because for a country so rich in resources we spend alot on taxes.....for what?


----------



## chops_a_must (30 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> How many residents working in the Pilbara, Gascoyne, or Kimberleys paying alot of taxes, enjoy seeing the states $1 billion surplus this year, go all on the railway to mandurah. And then the next on the desalination plant, or new stadium. Must love paying taxes for the people of Perth. Alot of West Aust would like to become their own country, but maybe the North West would like to do the same from South West.
> And water is the states responsibility. This is why their is a water problem, because it can't be handled on a bigger scale (on the east coast).



Most workers in the NW are originally from Perth.

Your proposal suggests that WA's water would be controlled from the east, yet you state here (in the above post) that it is a problem when controlled in the east. Can you not even see the problems in the argument here?


----------



## Kauri (31 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> How many residents working in the Pilbara, Gascoyne, or Kimberleys paying alot of taxes, enjoy seeing the states $1 billion surplus this year, go all on the railway to mandurah. !




A few of the Pilbara workers actually own homes in Mandurah and Rocky... there are not too many that are going to retire in the Pilbara..  and the surplus...don't forget the $1bill. that they have put away this year for the new *State funded* hospital...




Gspot said:


> Ps I'm tipping the dockers this week. Go Dockers! Ouch



Have you heard that Tana is looking to get in at the top with Freo and wants Suma as coach with Jackovich as his assistant???


----------



## Gspot (31 May 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Most workers in the NW are originally from Perth.
> 
> Your proposal suggests that WA's water would be controlled from the east, yet you state here (in the above post) that it is a problem when controlled in the east. Can you not even see the problems in the argument here?




WA water can be funded by federal gov, with many representitives from WA.
Unfortunately the problems on the east coast, are caused because the states are responsible for water management/infrastructure, and can't agree on any anything, hence why the federal government is trying to step in.
Queensland, NSW, Vic and Sa all fighting over the Murray, and what's best for their state, not caring about the rest of the country. Therefore stalemate, while the problem gets worse.
This is an example of Australia, where 6 state, 2 territory govs, selfishly doing their own thing(like 8 countries in 1) in supposedly 1 country.
Did you know states spend over $5 billion unnecessarily, competing with one another for overseas investment. What a joke this must seem to these overseas countries.


----------



## Odduna (31 May 2007)

Gspot said:


> Okay Odduna, lets start with 2.
> Unfortunately the two parties have corrupted the voting system over the years to make it a two horse race, and if you want to win a seat you must tow the party line. So you don't always get the right person for the job.
> So lets look at the voting system while we're shedding a tier of government.
> Also the federal government can't handle the whole country, because the states won't allow it. The states would be worthless then and unable to justify their entitlements.
> ...




Ok, i will await for response to question 1.

Regarding response to question 2. 
You are now saying that the voting system is corrupted. 
How will a new system be developed to overcome it? 
How would we be able to stop people geting around new voting system? 

You are also blaming state governments for stuffing things up currently. If that is the case, how have the state governments affected immigration department issues (wrongful detentions), issues with personal income tax system (complicated system which the state governments have had nothing to do with since the 1940's) and issues with department of defence (unable to account for their own assets?)  

Response to Question 3 - I would argue, using historical data, that the federal government rather than state governments have created the majority of duplication in the system. And regardless, some duplication will be required even under the new system you are suggesting, in that how can the government effectly control with a centralised system issues at a micro level - ala a school. As an example, lets look at banks (private sector), they have regional administrations that look after certain amount of  branches. Those regional administration offices are duplicating services provided by in central office. Why they do this, greater control of outcomes.

Response to Question 4. Saving money under the current system can be done, and even at the federal level. Lets take tax reform as an example. Tax reform is not just about reducing tax rates. Tax reform also handles issues such as equity issues, simplicity/compliance costs, tax avoidance etc. The current personal income tax system in australia is one of the most complicated systems among OECD countries. Personal taxes need not to be complicated. A report by CPA Australia indicated savings of $4 billion dollars with basic changes to work related expenses deductions for employees. Under the reforms, CPA Australia stated that flow through reduction in costs would occur in managing tax affair deductions as well as reduction in compliance costs for ato. 

While a reduction in state governments may save some money, we need to work out at what cost. We also need to examine the current federal system, and what would need to be reformed before we can even look at getting rid of state governments. 

You seem to be only looking at wasteful/selfish actions undertaken by state governments. 

I believe the federal government has proven even in areas where it has sole responsibility been incapable of bringing this utopia you seem to make by abolishing state governments. 



Gspot said:


> This is an example of Australia, where 6 state, 2 territory govs, selfishly doing their own thing(like 8 countries in 1) in supposedly 1 country.
> Did you know states spend over $5 billion unnecessarily, competing with one another for overseas investment. What a joke this must seem to these overseas countries




Umm, many countries in the world have a 3 tier government system. 
Germany operates in this way, so does the United States. 
I believe china may also operate on this method as well.


----------



## greggy (1 June 2007)

Gspot said:


> Now Greggy I thought you were smarter than this.
> Correct Australia is doing very well, thanks to China and metal prices. (God help us when there's no more holes to dig. )
> However infrastructure, water, hospitals as well as police, nurse, teacher numbers,are all suffering in these booming times.
> Restructing governments so that state/local become one and are set up in 30-40 diferent regions, following the same national agenda, would allow our tax dollars to get to where they need to be spent. But of course state/local govs would oppose it, because there the ones feeding the most.
> ...



Hi Gspot,

I agree that there is a lot of waste out there.  Still the existing govts have the power to cut back on waste if they wish to.  For instance, there's too much being spent on political advertising at both state and federal govt levels.  It also seems that Ministers have too many highly paid advisers.  Still , despite our differences, I commend you for the amount of time and effort you,ve put into your thoughts on this topic.  You are clearly passionate about it.


----------



## Gspot (1 June 2007)

Odduna said:


> Ok, i will await for response to question 1.
> 
> Regarding response to question 2.
> You are now saying that the voting system is corrupted.
> ...


----------



## Gspot (1 June 2007)

Odduna said:


> Ok, i will await for response to question 1.
> 
> Regarding response to question 2.
> You are now saying that the voting system is corrupted.
> ...




Oddunna over the years the two major parties have corrupted the system, so that we only have those to chose from. why is it that the candidate with the most votes doesn't always win. It's a system, where alot of backdealing and dishonesty takes place, where the person that wins, doesn't have the people to thank and look after, but the dark, greedy party powerbrokers.........Heard of Brian Burke?
And your right in questioning Federal gov and their **** ups. Believe me, I ain't no fan. Defence has cost us billions from the current lot, and their 10 point water plan is very dodgy. But to me simplifying the system where we have less of these baboons, hence less **** ups is a start. And talking and debating about change is the a start to a long, a challenging task.........but it has to be done for the good of our country.
As far as a different system, we could have to look at different models. The best one I see is having a National gov, with national ed system, health, law, transport. And then have 30 to 40 Regional gov that are an amalgamation of state and local, and have reps in the national government. They could be stratigically set up around the country, depending on population and geography. Look at the brisbane council and how well it works, with all the good things they're done. Now look at Perth, and all the fighting between state gov, perth council, vic park council, belmont council, swan river trust, aboriginal affairs etc. Transforming Perth and the foreshore around will take forever, as these guys agree on nothing. Selfishness.
We have 15 houses of parliament for less than 20 million people. The only reason you wouldn't agree that a new system for the 21st (not the 19th) century, is because you work and live quite nicely of it. 
Not saying you personally Odd....unless?


----------



## Odduna (1 June 2007)

GSpot,

How was the $30 billion saving calculated?  

How would this new structure stop the 'corruption' of the current voting system? 

I believe these questions are fair, as were my last ones.

Regarding your response to my last post.  

It appears you do not like the fact i may have a different opinion, as now you are trying to infere i am currently benefiting from the current system. i am not a member of any political party nor a public servant, either at local, state or federal levels. Mind you, it is none of your business. 

Please stick to the argument of abolishment of state governments and provide the facts to support, rather than trying to allude i benefit from the current situation which is an attempt to personalise the argument. 

Please note: i am not the only one who has asked where you got this figure from and how it was calculcated.


----------



## Gspot (1 June 2007)

Odduna said:


> GSpot,
> 
> How was the $30 billion saving calculated?
> 
> ...


----------



## insider (1 June 2007)

Gspot said:


> Odduna said:
> 
> 
> > GSpot,
> ...


----------



## Gspot (22 February 2008)

A good read, for those not stuck in the 19th century.

A column about Australia, by David Dale, published in The Sun-Herald 17/2/2008
A smart shrink once wrote that to be happy, a human being needs three things: something to do, someone to love and something to look forward to. This column can't help with the first two, but I've been pondering lately the question of the next big social transformation this country needs, once we've sorted out the republic. The answer is: abolish the States.

Fixing the republic is almost too easy. We need only change the title of our head of state from governor-general to administrator. We've become constipated by the word "president", which sounds scary because it seems to set up an alternative power base to the prime minister. An administrator, chosen by the government (as now) but no longer in need of rubber stamping from a monarch in another country, would merely open official functions and be available to act as referee if there's an insoluble dispute.

When that's done, we can move to a less symbolic but more important advance -- simplifying the political structure. There's no better time to start because we have unprecedented cooperation between Canberra and the States, and unprecedented public support for the central government (a Morgan poll taken just before last week's apology shows that if an election were held now, Labor would get 62 per cent of the two party preferred vote -- a swing to it of nine points since its victory in November). Do the State leaders have the courage to put themselves out of a job?

Australia must be the most over-governed nation on the planet. We elect 226 politicians to Canberra (76 senators, 150 members of the House of Representatives). We elect 585 politicians to upper and lower houses in our state and territory parliaments.

And we elect 6300 alderfolk to 677 local councils. That's a total of 7,120 elected officials, or one politician for every 3,000 people. Along with them come thousands of public servants, all busily contradicting, confusing and duplicating the work of their counterparts in the other tiers of government. 
Continued here

As Australia's most interesting prime minister, Gough Whitlam, observed: "There are few functions which the State parliaments now perform which would not be better performed by the Australian parliament or by regional councils. The States are too large to deal with local matters and too small and weak to deal with national issues." At the other end of the spectrum, John Howard saw no value in "state parochialism" and remarked that if Australia's system of government had been established at the start of the 21st century, it is unlikely a federal structure would have been the outcome.

Like our monarchy, the States are a hangover from an age when this continent contained colonies with boundaries drawn up by English bureaucrats who didn't understand the geography. Lets eliminate them, and at the same time amalgamate the 677 councils into 100 regional governments, each representing about 200,000 citizens.

The central government would deal with defence, law enforcement, health, education, and environmental and economic management. The regional bodies, with 20 elected officials each, would be responsible for garbage collection, road maintenance, building regulations, licensing of pubs and casinos, fire protection and community activities. 

You can already envisage one useful side effect of abolishing the States and amalgamating the councils -- the liberation of a great deal of magnificent real estate (houses of parliament, ministerial offices, treasury buildings, town halls).

But lets not be greedy. Instead of selling them off, we should preserve them (as theatres, hospitals, museums, prisons, libraries and colleges). Then our grandchildren will see that the visionaries of 2010 knew how to respect the past as well as when to move into the future. That's something to look forward to.

What do you think? Should we abolish the states and when?


----------



## Nicks (22 February 2008)

Abolish the states is dangerous. If you dont live in the former Vic or NSW then you will be hard pressed to find federal politicians whom would fund your area of residence, as no doubt they will look after the votes.
I think it could work if you base voting electorates not on population.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 February 2008)

All this "financial benefits of abolishing the states" stuff sounds awfully like the "microeconomic reform" a decade ago that made our water, gas and electricity more expensive in the interests of "competition". 

Yep, it's just great having the ability to chose who to pay all those extra $ to whilst everything falls apart and Australian industry goes to hell as a direct result.

The whole thing just sounds like the latest way to keep all those consultants busy IMO. If the economists messed up so badly with utilities then why trust them with the very structure of the country?


----------



## Gspot (22 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> All this "financial benefits of abolishing the states" stuff sounds awfully like the "microeconomic reform" a decade ago that made our water, gas and electricity more expensive in the interests of "competition".
> 
> Yep, it's just great having the ability to chose who to pay all those extra $ to whilst everything falls apart and Australian industry goes to hell as a direct result.
> 
> The whole thing just sounds like the latest way to keep all those consultants busy IMO. If the economists messed up so badly with utilities then why trust them with the very structure of the country?




Smurf,

A report showed we could save $30 billion *a year*, by abolishing these waste of space governments. 
Meaning more money to fix the problems we have today, because of this bureaucratic monster!


----------



## nioka (22 February 2008)

NSW forcibly amalgamated a lot of the shires and municipalities against the wishes of the locals. The reason was to save a fortune. Our shire was one affected. No costs were saved. Costs went up, rates went up and we have a bigger and better, make that worse, bureaucratic white elephant controlling our destiny. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We no longer have a local rep we can talk to. Town planning is a shambles, infrastructure is failing etc etc etc. Abolish the states and that will increase the problem.
 Having said that I believe the commonwealth should take over hospitals, national infrastructure ( main roads,ports,rail),water,police and education.


----------



## Gspot (22 February 2008)

nioka said:


> NSW forcibly amalgamated a lot of the shires and municipalities against the wishes of the locals. The reason was to save a fortune. Our shire was one affected. No costs were saved. Costs went up, rates went up and we have a bigger and better, make that worse, bureaucratic white elephant controlling our destiny. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We no longer have a local rep we can talk to. Town planning is a shambles, infrastructure is failing etc etc etc. Abolish the states and that will increase the problem.
> * Having said that I believe the commonwealth should take over hospitals, national infrastructure ( main roads,ports,rail),water,police and education*.




So what would state governments do then?


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 February 2008)

Gspot said:


> Smurf,
> 
> A report showed we could save $30 billion *a year*, by abolishing these waste of space governments.
> Meaning more money to fix the problems we have today, because of this bureaucratic monster!



My point is that there were plenty of reports suggesting that we'd save $ billions through reform of gas, water and especially power. Now we just get to sit back and watch our bills go up and another nail is dirven into the coffin of Australian manufacturing.

If they can completely get it wrong about utilities where the underlying finances are pretty well understood and can be compared internationally then why would they do any better in assessing the benefits of governmental reform, a far more complex field where the information is less available?

Everytime you hear about infrastructure problems, just remember that most of them are a direct result of previous "reforms" and attempts to save money. The skills shortage is much the same - not training apprentices being one of the easy "savings" made back in the 1990's. Now we're paying, paying and paying again whilst the consultants who wrote the reports advocating such moves laugh all the way to the bank.

In other words, if someone can't build a tin shed then is it wise to trust them to properly build a house? Given that the reformer's sheds have thus far been barely adequate at best (with a few exceptions most notably on the waterfront) I'm just not confident in their ability to build a mansion. 

Most consultants hired by or otherwise involved with government, at least the ones I've had experience with, are told the outcome before they start work - hence the great stuff ups. How can I be sure this one is any different? Once bitten, twice shy...


----------



## nioka (22 February 2008)

Gspot said:


> So what would state governments do then?




Regulate all things LOCAL. eg Local roads, local water distribution, sporting fields, parks, building regulations, town planning, public halls etc. Just take out the NATIONAL items. Be basically an association of local governments. Remember if we abolish the states we abolish the senate.


----------



## Gspot (23 February 2008)

nioka said:


> Regulate all things LOCAL. eg Local roads, local water distribution, sporting fields, parks, building regulations, town planning, public halls etc. Just take out the NATIONAL items. Be basically an association of local governments. Remember if we abolish the states we abolish the senate.




So then what would local governments do then?
This is the reason we abolish a tier of government, being state!
Having  6 state, 2 territory and 1 federal department for education in a country of 21 million is crazy. The same goes for law, health, ports, transport, water etc. It's crazy. 
Again, if we can save *$30 billion a year,* by nationalising, cutting out the duplication and having one department, with the best system working directly with schools, hospitals etc, then we MUST give it a go.
An end to the colonial way of thinking, everyone.
And don't worry about power going to Victoria and NSW, because these lines drawn in the sand 200 odd years ago, wouldn't exist if we were to start new.


----------



## Happy (23 February 2008)

Gspot said:


> So then what would local governments do then?
> This is the reason we abolish a tier of government, being state!
> Having  6 state, 2 territory and 1 federal department for education in a country of 21 million is crazy. The same goes for law, health, ports, transport, water etc. It's crazy.
> Again, if we can save *$30 billion a year,* by nationalising, cutting out the duplication and having one department, with the best system working directly with schools, hospitals etc, then we MUST give it a go.
> ...




Biggest joke seems to be ACT with all the ministers for roughly 40 square km artificial territory.


----------



## Gspot (22 July 2009)

_The difference between revenues and expenses, if the latter is greater than the former, is what we call a deficit. The way you eliminate it is to increase revenues or reduce expenses, or some combination of both. The trouble is, increasing revenues through taxes means removing potential business and household spending from the economy-not exactly a good idea at the moment.

--But if you reduce government spending, doesn't that reduce stimulus too? We'd argue it doesn't. We'd argue that the government could probably be 30% smaller and Australians would get by just fine. They'd keep more of their money and expect less in the way of services delivered inefficiently by the government._

This is from The Daily Reckoning.

I also saw in the news last week that the NSW government were looking to selling off public open space to help pay for it's ever increasing budget. I suppose they don't have much choice, since their sold off everything else that was worth $$$. 

_--Shenhua is 68% owned by the Chinese government. The story says the Foreign Investment Review Board approved Shenhua's purchase of six farms "of about 2,000 hectares." Last year, the company paid the New South Wales government A$300 million for an exploration lease near Gunnedah, where it reckons there may be 500 million tonnes of coal just waiting to be dug up and mined, beginning as soon as 2013.

--Selling pieces of land with valuable resources to foreign governments in order to paper over large structural budget deficits is not exactly what we'd call great statecraft or prudent management. But it does show you that Australia's national income is directly influenced by how it chooses to handle "the resource question." Sell the assets outright for a few hundred million now? Or try, in some cases, to benefit from more value-added commodities without surrendering ownership of the assets?_

This also in The Daily Reckoning.

Yes, let's keep going down this path, our grandchildren will speak Chinese maybe, but their grandparents and grandparents before, that worked for these huge government departments, had bloody good fun.

Remember everyone, the system we have today, is still the same as what it was in the 1800's. Why no change? 
Because the biggest welfare sponges in this country would be out of work, and wouldn't be able to rack up $100,000's in flights every year, when they do retire with their huge super packages. Now why would they want to change that?

Suuccckkkkeeeeerrrrrrssssssss!


----------



## communique (22 July 2009)

Thank you G Spot for this thread and your previous posts.  Our family has believed for sometime on what you espouse.  We believe we are over governed and we are extremely cynical about the duplication that appears to occur between the feds and the states.  We are under the impression that to change the constitution to get rid of the states you would have to be voted in at state level on that platform i.e. a new party dedicated for that purpose.  Obviously the state Labor/Liberal parties wouldn't entertain the thought of imploding.  There are some very high profile people who believe in what you are saying and we believe an increasing number of the general public  agrees with you.  

Someone needs to step up and start a political party on this basis!!!


----------



## Gspot (22 July 2009)

_Abolishing state governments would need a referendum, but if successful would save about $30 billion a year, with up to $4 billion in savings generated from eliminating "crazy" border anomalies, says Canberra academic Mark Drummond.

A two-tier system involving the federal government and increased collaboration between local councils would cut duplication in bureaucracy and reduce business and other compliance costs.

"I don't believe we should retain the states and territories in their current form," Mr Drummond told The Australian._


Australians everywhere should take more notice of this, and put pressure on the media to look into it more, rather than the pathetic party politics that dominate the airwaves. Any hard working taxpayer should be angry at how our hard working dollars are wasted.


----------



## Gspot (22 July 2009)

While Commonwealth-state-local government relations do not attract a great deal of public interest, many of the problems in health, education and other key services result from buck-passing between governments and lack of accountability.
Many people saw a regionalised system as a way of getting rid of one level of government and what they regarded as irrelevant state borders, "historical curiosities left over from the colonial period".
Dr Brown said the findings showed that people believed state governments were too large and remote from the communities they served.
He said Australia had a four-tier system involving federal, state and local governments as well as regional organisations. He believed the nation was moving towards having stronger federal government and regional organisations while the responsibilities of the states and councils were diminishing.
Under the Howard Government, the trend to centralisation had occurred more quickly than ever in Australia's history, Dr Brown said. Programs such as the National Heritage Trust, which funds environmental management programs, and AusLink Roads to Recovery, distributing funding to councils for road improvements, bypassed the states completely.
He said about 3.3 million Australians lived within 100 kilometres of a state or territory border and faced a tangle of confusing laws and charges.
The annual cost of "crazy border anomalies" was $4 billion, with 60 per cent of this attributed to health and community services.
State-run ambulances in border regions often had to travel long distances when it would be faster and cheaper if there were no state borders so that the closest ambulance could be sent.

In a recent discussion paper, the council said: "The line between Commonwealth and state responsibilities has become blurred and confused. In many ways, the old 'federal contract' between the Commonwealth and the states has broken down."
Earlier this year, the president of the Local Government Association, Councillor Paul Bell, said if anyone were to draw up a plan for government from scratch, "you wouldn't pick the dog's breakfast we have today".


Some more interesting and rather disturbing reading...don't you think?


----------



## Buckeroo (22 July 2009)

Gspot said:


> While Commonwealth-state-local government relations do not attract a great deal of public interest, many of the problems in health, education and other key services result from buck-passing between governments and lack of accountability.
> Many people saw a regionalised system as a way of getting rid of one level of government and what they regarded as irrelevant state borders, "historical curiosities left over from the colonial period".
> Dr Brown said the findings showed that people believed state governments were too large and remote from the communities they served.
> He said Australia had a four-tier system involving federal, state and local governments as well as regional organisations. He believed the nation was moving towards having stronger federal government and regional organisations while the responsibilities of the states and councils were diminishing.
> ...




Rather than getting rid of the State Governments, the problem may lie with having Labor in power for too many years. Labor is a spending socialist party hence the reason most States are basket cases. They haven't run efficiently for years.

I think though, the pendulum is about to turn once the Liberals start taking over - I'm sure the States will look a little leaner once the Libs begin balancing the books. And you may find it will be the Federal Government that we may have to get rid of because of their excessive spending & inefficiencies.

Cheers


----------



## Boggo (22 July 2009)

Get rid of the local governments and individual councils.

We have a council area south of where I am and the CEO has just given himself a $36000 pay rise and is now on $285000 pa, that's more than the state premier gets and is up there with Krudd.

What a bloody waste of money.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

I am with you GSpot ... get rid of a layer of government. NOT state governments BUT local government level. Shires can be amalgamated. Massive inefficiency can be resolved with a strike of a pen. YEEEHAAARRR ! You know what I am talking about. One man working while 7 guys lean on shovels? YEP ... you do !!!!!

LOLOLOL Boggo  ... I posted that !!!!


----------



## Mr J (22 July 2009)

This might be true. Just what do local councils do? The hospitals, schools and public transport are usually running, so we know that the state governments do something. Councils just seem to add speed humps, tear up the road and hand out parking tickets.


----------



## trainspotter (22 July 2009)

Yeah baby, collect rates and spend it on overseas trips for themselves as councillors to see how things are done in ITALY ! Pffffffffttttttttt !!

All the amenities they supply are EASILY supplied by independent subcontractors for at least 1/4 of the price. NO CEOS, NO CIVIC ENGINEERS, NO MAYOR (by the way what is this relative to in this day and age?)

I could go on and on ... parking inspectors? ... Sorry ... Give me a break !!!!!


----------



## Happy (24 July 2009)

Labor government will probably not do it.

This could increase unemployment and spit out some unemployable folk that have lavish lifestyle to support.

Best do it in good times with Liberals under main flag.


----------



## Gspot (28 July 2009)

Happy said:


> Labor government will probably not do it.
> 
> This could increase unemployment and spit out some unemployable folk that have lavish lifestyle to support.
> 
> Best do it in good times with Liberals under main flag.




Spot on Happy.
Notice Ruddy is looking to reform/ repair our health system, and rather than cut the duplication/ administration, that could save millions$$$, instead he'll just slug the taxpayer MORE. 
Is everyone happy to keep going down this path? I'm not!


----------



## Buckeroo (28 July 2009)

Gspot said:


> Spot on Happy.
> Notice Ruddy is looking to reform/ repair our health system, and rather than cut the duplication/ administration, that could save millions$$$, instead he'll just slug the taxpayer MORE.
> Is everyone happy to keep going down this path? I'm not!




Afraid we're all going to have to live with it Gspot - with KRudd's popularity increasing, 65% of the population seem to like this sort of stuff....beats the hell out of me why! 

Cheers


----------



## Julia (28 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Afraid we're all going to have to live with it Gspot - with KRudd's popularity increasing, 65% of the population seem to like this sort of stuff....beats the hell out of me why!
> 
> Cheers



Well, Buckeroo, with the voting population being 100%, and the Opposition's performance so absolutely woeful, people are opting for the government in polls.  I reckon if we had a viable Opposition, that 65% would soon change.

Btw, are we all noticing Tony Abbott's positioning himself further forward these days?   In an interview on the 7.30 Report last night, he happily conceded that his ambition was to lead the Liberal Party.   Followed that by saying that his time would be in the future and it's Malcolm's time now.

If Tony Abbott ever became leader of the Libs, I think I'd have to vote Labor.


----------

