Australian Politics.

kiwigeo said in part: "5. Without sitting down and thinking really hard I cant think of many good reasons to have State and local governments. It's an old institution that might have worked in the past but has long outlived it's usefulness."

As an American, I'll wade in with why we believe that is a bad idea. Centralization of governmental powers leads to abuse of those powers. Ours is a confusing quilt of ideas, laws and customs. It works and we like it this way. Currently there are efforts to introduce more centralization but there is resistance from the people and the effort is being balanced, to some degree, by our two party system of government.
Not trying to offend by saying you are wrong or ours is better. I'm saying we like what we have. It is confusing and that is part of the control.

Big Shed: I know the difference and yes it's important. My memory failing as always :) I don't KNOW that she's an athiest either. Has anyone heard her say that ?

The American situation is different to ours. First you ahve 10 times the population (or 15 or whatever it is). Second you have a more evenly distributed and denser population.

We have something like 85% of our population in urban areas so there is a tremendous disparity between rural and urban voting power. We have concentrated pockets of population on the east coast and vast tracts seperating the other populations around the country. We are very much more like Canada than the USA, and in some ways Canada's government is an inversion of ours, with principle and residual power resting with the provinces while here those rest with the federal government.

Anyway the upshot is the state governments rule principly for the cities, and are undermined by federal actions. Meanwhile they undermine and thwart the local councils. When something is positive they all line up to take credit, when it goes wrong the point fingers at each other and duck blame.

The nature of your government is a debate you have to have, not us, but Australians recognise widely I believe that our system is not serving the people as best as it could. We have had loud and sustained cries for structural reform form some decades now, but apart from a general "ditch the states" or "ditch the councils" there is little detail concensus of how or what. That is a big part of why I wanted to encourage this conversation. I am interested in the opinions of people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

, but Australians recognise widely I believe that our system is not serving the people as best as it could.

---

IMO you are wrong. On the whole Australians are well satisfied with the situation as our voting record at referendums designed to change the constitution shows, It's only a small but vocal minority that sees benefits in change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

We have had loud and sustained cries for structural reform form some decades now, but apart from a general "ditch the states" or "ditch the councils" there is little detail concensus of how or what.

---

The only reform we should have is return some powers back to the states and reduce the Commonwealth government back to what the founding fathers agreed to. The Commonwealth usurpation of powers by financial intimidation is what IMO is wrong with the system.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

Of course it also says explicitly that only the federal government can levy taxes and look how effective that is....

---

My understanding was that the states and the Commonwealth can levy taxes ( but the Commonwealth taxes were a priority to the states) and until WW2 that was the case

To assist the war effort (lack of manpower) the Commonwealth raised the level of income tax to the average combined tax and gave grants to the states in return.

Unfortunately after the war the Commonwealth refused to go back to the original position and refused to reduce the level of their taxes.

So whilst states can still level income tax it would be in addition to the Commonwealth income tax.


Peter.

I just quickly re read the constitution. I couldn't find the section but I thought there was a statment somewhere in it that ONLY the commonwealth may levy taxes and that was the basis of the tobacco excise case some years back, which in turn led to the petrol excise being shifted to the commonwealth. Might have been based on differential rates between states though...

I suppose we move in different circles. People I talk to don't support referendums because they don't trust the government and referendums are usually structured to favour them rather than us. The disparity between city and country is probably (?) less of an issue in Victoria. When I lived in NSW there seemed to be a resentment of the Sydney centric government and it's a BIG issue here in Queensland where there have been real movements to split the state.

One thing I am sure of: given I have a certain opinion/view and most people I know share it, that does not by any means ensure other groups in society hold the same view. :)

Which of course means they are wrong...

http://australianpolitics.com/articl...ion-as-amended

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

I couldn't find the section but I thought there was a statment somewhere in it that ONLY the commonwealth may levy taxes and that was the basis of the tobacco excise case some years back, which in turn led to the petrol excise being shifted to the commonwealth. Might have been based on differential rates between states though...

---

Excise is not a tax, it is an excise. It is administered by customs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman1776

As an American, I'll wade in with why we believe that is a bad idea. Centralization of governmental powers leads to abuse of those powers. Ours is a confusing quilt of ideas, laws and customs. It works and we like it this way. Currently there are efforts to introduce more centralization but there is resistance from the people and the effort is being balanced, to some degree, by our two party system of government.

---

Trademarks are a good example of how bogged down someone can become in the web of State vs. Federal America. You have to register Trademarks state by state because no one authority has the ability or control to establish a trademark that covers the US. Reading between the lines I'd suggest this is to support the incomes of IP Lawyers in the US and for no other reason than to people off. Even the EU have come together and organised one place you can go and register a trademark across all member countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

IMO you are wrong. On the whole Australians are well satisfied with the situation as our voting record at referendums designed to change the constitution shows, It's only a small but vocal minority that sees benefits in change.

---

That's not my view and it's not the view of many of the people in my circle either.

HH.

Getting sick of the W card being played for gillard... Who cares that she is a woman, it does not somehow give her magical powers or make her any more a better politician then a man or a hermaphrodite..

I really doubt she is going to be a long lived PM, while she may win the next election due to the silliness of the libs putting abbott in charge, she will not survive for much longer then that.. Her hands are just as much spoiled by the complete amateurish performance of this government as rudd's and swan's...

Remember she was part of the gang of 4..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HappyHammer

That's not my view and it's not the view of many of the people in my circle either.

HH.

---

Sorry, can you clarify what you said there. Are you saying you and people you know are in favour of retaining the states, or are you saying your in favour of abolishing them ? Your sentence can be read either way.

In a perfect world politicians would be elected on the basis of their ability to do the job. That unfortunately does not happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .RC.

I really doubt she is going to be a long lived PM, while she may win the next election due to the silliness of the libs putting abbott in charge, she will not survive for much longer then that.. Her hands are just as much spoiled by the complete amateurish performance of this government as rudd's and swan's...

Remember she was part of the gang of 4..

---

I think she will get a good number of the under 30 swinging vote. It will be interesting how she handles the miners. That issue IMO was more important in Mr Rudds demolition than what has been reported or portrayed by Gillard. There is no doubt the miners sent the backroom boys into panic with their advertising.

Despite my opposition to Mr Rudds policies I have enormous respect for his dedication no matter how misguided.

As has often been reported no Prime Minister should be treated in the manner he has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

I suppose we move in different circles. People I talk to

I have a certain opinion/view and most people I know share it, that does not by any means ensure other groups in society hold the same view. :)

Which of course means they are wrong...

---

Isn't that human nature. We mix with people who share our interests and views. Life would be a drag if we hung around around with people we had nothing in common with. You didn't join this forum because you're interested in V8 supercars.

I believe this was one of KRudds undoings. An astute politician would surround himself with (and listen to) a diversity of opinions, not just those that are complimentary to his own point of view.

Bob

10 million women in Australia and this is the best we can do.

We are in the hands of a mob of professional politicians and union head bashers with no business experience and we allow them to run our biggest company.... called Australia.

And please don't tell me that the Canberra public servants fix the mess behind the scenes.

I think I'll move to WA. Things are really happening there and they don't give a fig for Canberra.

greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

I think I'll move to WA. Things are really happening there and they don't give a fig for Canberra.

greg

---

Moving to Perth. Should be great......once you've negotiated your way through the grossly overloaded shambles of an airport and once your taxi driver has worked out where hes going. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2c1Iw

I think she will get a good number of the under 30 swinging vote. It will be interesting how she handles the miners.

---

It depends on her internet filter... I doubt she will drop it and a lot of youngsters hate it. I think she will regain a lot of the swinging green voters who would have preferenced labor anyway...

I find it totally sad how gullible people really are.. Here we have the #2 now #1 and people think she is going to fix everything. Reminds me when Anna Bligh took over in Qld, she continued the party line of wrecking everything.

I have learnt once a political party becomes incompetent the only way to fix their incompetence is to vote them out, simply changing the perceived leader is only a cosmetic change.

I see "Hard working Australians" is the new Gillard catch cry. Hmm even worse than "Working Australian families" how condescending! Man am I sick and tired of pollie speak.