Abolish state governments

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'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.

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?

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.

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.
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?

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.
"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.

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.
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.

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?

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.
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.

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.

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?

Abolish state governments

Uncle Festivus

Gspot

Julia

In Memoriam

Gspot

greggy

Gspot

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

mark70920

harriss2

Odduna

Gspot

Gspot

Gspot

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Kauri

E/W Learner

Gspot

Odduna

greggy

Gspot

Gspot

Similar threads

Abolish state governments

In Memoriam

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

E/W Learner

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency