Thread: State Governments

But if there were no States, then the problem would be looked at from the point of view of the country as a whole, .... it would remove one element of the finger pointing that goes on.

Silent - I pasted the quote only so you might see my reply better...

I'm not sure if my communication skills allowed me to use the example to convey the information I wanted....

The different land types direct the landuse, and it is the individuals that make the decision as to what they grow for their greatest self interest. They band together to serve their common interest.... creating schemes and regulatory bodies like the Murray Goulbourn Water, who organise and attempt to direct State bodies to act in their interests as well as in the interests of the local region (State).
So in that respect, doing away with State Rights and Responsibilities wont change land useage.... unless its changed via a centralised mandate.

Centralisation generally leads to poor decisions that are imposed upon others, at a cost saving - decentralisation leads to decisions being made in consultation (or by individuals), at a greater cost than centralisation.
Unfortunately the centralised decisons usually cost more than the cost saving made by doing away with other levels of governance.... due to (incorrect) solutions being provided to resolve balance of power in political life (retention of power by the dominant party).

The trick, as always, is balance and responsibility.... and I dare say that State Govt's are more responsible to constituants than the Fed Govt.

I guess I'd finish by pointing out the cost of vote buying.... its bad enough now, imagine what will happen when everything is available to one party only? Self interest to be served with all the resources at the command of one party.
Not accountable enough for me.

organise and attempt to direct State bodies to act in their interests as well as in the interests of the local region

That's what I'm on about. State borders are arbitrary lines in the sand. Look at the NSW/Vic border. Does it make any sense at all to have a boundary running along a river so that towns on one side fall under one body and towns on the other fall under different one? What if the two States can't agree on something that affects the river in general? If there was no State govt and there was a regional 'council' for want of a better term, there wouldn't be this extra politicing that goes on to get both States to agree with your proposal.

we need the state government because small issues and small towns get lost

Mate, I hate to tell your daughter this, but the State governments don't stop this from happening. I know this only too well after moving here from Sydney. Morris Dilemma and his mates have enough trouble on their hands with those Sydneysiders without worrying about our little towns and communities. If there was a Far South Coast Council, at least we'd be dealing with people who know the South Coast doesn't stop at Wollongong.

Silent,
Everybody knows that the lines are arbitary, which is why they enter agreements to administer areas based on more logic than just State boundaries, e.g.the Aulbury Wodonga regional governance.
I just don't think the argument for Fed Govt's to adminster the lot is really justified by the so-called benefits of centralisation.

Its an interesting discussion though.

Here's another example:
There has been a reasonably strong push in Far North Qld for the creation of an new state, from about Rockhampton upwards and out to the NT.
Why the desire for a new state? To put local needs first, and get away from centralisation for an area/region that defines itself very differently from the Brisbane-centric viewpoint of the Qld State Govt.

The same kind of de-centralisation push has been talked about for a WA only system, a WA/SA combined region, a WA/SA/NT region and even a WA/SA/NT/FNQ region.
There's even been talk (for longer than Federation been around) of the need to dissolve the Aus nation into smaller nations under a Commonwealth arrangement.
All to leverage power from Fed Govt control of the division of funding to the States to ensure that power is placed, more firmly, in the hands of the individuals.

Don't confuse my argument against State govt with a desire for centralisation. I just think we could get by with two tiers instead of three.

dadpad talks about what happened at Benalla shire. Well, that already happens in NSW and it is Sydney that cops the lion's share of spending. The rest of the State has to grovel for funds to build (or even keep open) hospitals, schools etc. I know Sydney has major problems in that area too, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they get first bite of the cherry. Maybe that's as should be, but I can't help thinking that if you took the NSW State govt out of the picture, a 'Sydney council' would have no difficulty in maintaining the status quo in that regard. So where is the benefit in having the extra tier?

The question is, why do we have local members in Federal parliament? Aren't they supposed to represent regional interests? Why do we also need them at State level?

For example in our area we have Gary Nairn, who is the Federal member for Eden Monaro. Then we have Andrew Constance, who is the State member for Bega. Granted Eden-Monaro overlaps Bega and a couple of other State divisions.

The only reason we need both is because we need representation at both State and Federal level. Then we have the Bega Valley Shire, which roughly corresponds to the State division of Bega.

If you abolished State government, we have the division of Eden Monaro to take care of local considerations in Federal jurisdiction and we have some form of local govt as a department of Eden Monaro to pick up the garbage and fill the potholes. The concept of a State/shire is replaced by Eden Monaro and all the other divisions in NSW, with potential mergers on the borders and where deemed necessary.

Each division has an elected representative that sits in Parliament and then you have permanent staff that do all the administration and day to day activities etc that is currently undertaken by local council and, to a certain extent State govt.

All legislation is passed at the Federal level. No contradictions, no different laws in each State. Just a single homogenous body of law that is implemented by the Federal govt and administered by the regional councils (or whatever you call them). I reckon it's a bloody brilliant idea.

And for anybody who thinks it can never change, have a look at the EU. If you think we have problems, look at what they had to deal with.

Originally Posted by silentC

.

And for anybody who thinks it can never change, have a look at the EU. If you think we have problems, look at what they had to deal with.

And yet they are all independant and sovereign nations, with its own laws, languages, traditions, currency, armies etc. In other words much stronger than our states but they cooperate on those issues that are of concern to them all.


In effect an strong argument in favour of increasing the power of our States and for reducing the power of the Federal government which only wants to grab more power rather than cooperate and negotiate with the States.


Peter.

I'm not saying the EU is an example of what or how it should be done, just as an example of something that was seemingly impossible at the outset and yet has been achieved.

If there were no States, there would be no need for cooperation

We could also do away with this ridiculous notion of State rivalry and we could focus our attention on our real foes, the Kiwis and the Brits

Edit: Isn't the Euro eventually going to be the single currency in the EU? With the exception of Denmark and the UK, anyway.

Originally Posted by silentC

Edit: Isn't the Euro eventually going to be the single currency in the EU? With the exception of Denmark and the UK, anyway.

Has been for the last 5 years I thought.

Originally Posted by silentC

Edit: Isn't the Euro eventually going to be the single currency in the EU? With the exception of Denmark and the UK, anyway.

It is a misconception to think that the Euro is a single currency.

Each participating country converted its own currency into its own euro. So there is a french euro, dutch euro, german euro etc. Each countries' euro currency has on one side its own national face and the common euro face on the other side.

Each participating countries' central bank and government is required to ensure that its currency (and inflation) remains within a narrow margin in relation to the other euros. If not the other central banks are allowed to intervene in that currency and country to ensure that the relativity is maintained. In particular they can impose special taxes on that country to pay for the support of that country's currency.

That is one of the main reasons why some countries did not participate because they could not keep their currency afloat and stable without inflation.

The thing that makes it work is that all prices are only in euros and a euro is acceptable in all participating countries, irrespective of country of issue, and for the same value.

Originally Posted by silentC

We could also do away with this ridiculous notion of State rivalry and we could focus our attention on our real foes, the Kiwis and the Brits

But we wouldn't have State of Origin etc to hone that rivalry!

Each participating countries' central bank and government is required to ensure that its currency (and inflation) remains within a narrow margin in relation to the other euros. If not the other central banks are allowed to intervene in that currency and country to ensure that the relativity is maintained.

Sounds complicated and difficult to manage. A bit like the different regulations and laws in each State of Australia

Originally Posted by Andy Mac

But we wouldn't have State of Origin etc to hone that rivalry!

State of Origin is only a good idea when NSW is winning

Originally Posted by Andy Mac

But we wouldn't have State of Origin etc to hone that rivalry!

Bugga! I'd overlooked that? Hmm? Back to the drawiing board.

The push in Qld for a new northern state has been around for a couple of generations (at least) and was/is solely about State tax expenditure.

I think the European Union experiment is nothing like what this conversation is about - we ARE one country, overgoverned beyond belief, at breaking-point cost to the community.

In Mildura (as one instance) three local administering bodies exist ALL under the State umbrella, and each raising separate funds (tax). In addition Mildura participates in the Boarder Anomalies Committee (some such name) which is a nonsense and achieves VERY LITTLE, if anything, because it has no administrative power - it smiply reports/recommends to State, and advises LG on what its Meetings discuss.

It is not widely known Broken Hill (in NSW) is on South Aust time and relates more to SA than Siddeney - many community members feel isolated (politically) from a Syndey-centric NSW government. The huge LG area has often discussed seceding to SA, and the same can be said of Wentworth Shire across a couple of bridges from Mildura - which shows how isolated Sydney makes these taxpayers, because Mildura also complains of the Melbourne-centric arrogance.

Removing State governments would in a very short period pay any cost involved in the restructure of regional administration, and the adoption of country-wide 'everything'. Then those cost savings could/should be left with the tax payers. I estimate a saving of some $????s annually.

Actually, I believe this change will happen, and sooner rather than later.

soth

Personally I'd just ditch the councils. Legally there is much more chance of that happening too.

Either way what about all the money that gets chucked at the bush. Like every time there is a drought. How many uneconomical farms are out there and should have gone broke been shut down except for the subsidies due to drought.

What about the latest offer from the Commonwealth to take over water includes billions on dollars to provide capital investment for farmers to use water better! Damn that sucks. What about money for capital investment for photographers! You wouldn't believe the cost of the stuff we are using and the market pressures that digital compacts have put on us.

So what about it poor hard working photographers deserve a hand out just like farmers after all this crisis we face is much worse than any drought because it is not going to end and it is only going to get worse.

Did that fly? Nah didn't think it would. So why does it fly for the country? Complaining about not getting money is a bit slack. Politicians count the votes and send the money where the most votes are.

Personally ending subsidies will get the no hopers out allow the rest to prosper and you end up with a wealthier region and a wealthier country. Subsidies have long ago been proved to rob liberty and cause an economy to take the long slippery slope to oblivion. Such are Russia. Actually look at Europe and it's famed socialism and Eurosclerosis. Sweden long the darling of the socialist left has been bought out by and large and America continues to be the number one economy. Challenged by China it is true who do it by pursuing the free market.

Nah ditch the Councils who are an extra and unneccesary level of government, they tax but basically do nothing apart from clog up enterprise and put in a few speed humps so they can say they did something.

Studley

Originally Posted by Daddles

Eddie, I'm amazed a South Australian should ask that question. We've got one of the largest states and a tiny population to service it ... mainly because a lot of it isn't worth inhabiting in quantity. We get shafted year after year with the federal handouts and it's only vigorous defence of our autonomy that's kept us afloat ... which is why we should be worried about the state liberals appearing to be little more the Wee Johnny's apologists at the moment.

Richard

and see, I didn't feel the need to point out that we were the ONLY free settlement in the commonwealth. No man ever served in chains here - we sent all our convicts to Port Arthur

It's a pity that us New South Welshmen, West Australians, and Victorians have to support you buggers in South Australia.
If you were aware of that then you might quit your whingeing: -

New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia receive less than equal per capita shares under the Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation arrangements because the Commission has assessed their fiscal capacity to be relatively strong. For example, the Commission assessed that New South Wales has a relatively stronger capacity to raise revenue from land tax and stamp duty on property transfers; Victoria has a relatively lower cost of providing state government services; and Western Australia has a relatively strong capacity to raise revenue from mining activities. The remaining States receive more than an equal per capita share of funding because the Commission has assessed their fiscal capacity to be lower and/or their costs of service delivery to be higher.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2003-04/bp3/html/chapter1.htm

You can pay us back our $415.30c (plus whatever it was for all the rest of the years) whenever you want. Then you can complain about getting "shafted"