State Governments

Been meaning to bring this up for a while. Maybe I'm a bit simple, stoopid or lacking in understanding of things "Gumment", but I've thought for a long time that a lot of our problems in this, otherwise fantastic country, are caused, or at least aggravated, by the existence of state governments. Why are they needed? To keep a check on the Feds? But who then keeps a check on the state govts? To represent their state's interests? At the expense of the rest of Oz? To keep not-quite-good-enough lawyers and uni lecturers in comfy tax-payer funded bliss? SPOT ON!

Just imagine the cost of duplicating all the various govt services. Road construction/maintenance, driver licensing, vehicle registration, Policing, the legal system (I'm reliably advised there IS a system), state taxes and the miriad of others.

I suppose I can see why the system evolved as it did. I mean, the original states were originally separate countries, to all intents and purposes. So it was natural for them to insist on separate govts after federation. But is it needed now? What does it achieve? At what cost?

As far as I can see, huge amounts would be saved with a 2 tier govt. Feds and local. After all, this is one country, despite what some Queenslanders think. I'm sure I'm missing something basic that any nong could see, and would be grateful if someone would point me to the light.

Eddie,

Just make it easy on yourself & give your entire extended family as well as EVERYTHING you have earned to the Federal Govt.
If it wasn't for State Govt's we'd be bent over a much smaller barrel......... to give better access to everything we hold dear. :(

Of course you are right, it's what the cousins call a no brainer. :cool:

Just try and get the vested interests to give up their power bases though. Ain't gonna happen.

Pollies are all for "reform", so long as we aren't taliking about their jobs. :rolleyes:

The State governments are there so that the Federal government has someone to blame when things don't go right and vice versa. Oppositions are there to tell the government they're not doing it right without actually being able to suggest anything better, so we keep the party in power until they really stuff up, then change and find we're no better off. What's worse is that every time we change political persuasions, the new government spends millions replacing everything with something which is just as bad. (But with their mates with their snouts in the trough).
It doesn't matter who you vote for, it's always a politician that gets in.
Don't vote, it only encourages them!
Cheers
Graeme

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 :D

EJ, I agree with you. The States ought to be forced 'by the people' to
give up power to the Federal Govt. The only other level of administration would be regional - not the local nonsense that exists today (an aside; I worked LG for 20 years and it is collapsing).
The ONLY govt to levy taxes would be the federal mob which would fund the regional via tied grants based on a percentage per head of population and topped up for specific development.
One example could be a regional body representing, say, the Murray/Darling Basin elected by those directly related to the river system - Sydney and Melbourne would have NO SAY in how the major water basin is managed.
The regionals would have representation as 'The Senate' elected as independents only.
Of course, although I am not a republican, I do think the above could never happen till a republic is formed.:o

soth

Sorry Eddie, I don't agree.
The original consitution gave bugger all powers to the Federal govt's, and that's the way I'd prefer it. Over the years the Feds have slowly collected more and more power and unfortunately they are another step removed from the "end users". I'd prefer more power to go to the State Govt's, so that they can get on and do the job.
I take the "keep the bastards within hitting stick range" approach! :wink:

I think State governments are a ridiculous duplication of effort and waste of money. Why do we need separate legislation and beuraucracy in each State? It makes no sense in a country with a population the size of ours to have separate departments of health and education and police in each State. Those things should be all under a single umbrella. Each tier of government carries with it overheads that cost money in salaries, office space, advertising, transport etc. Too much duplication for too little reward. I'd prefer they sacked the State government and put the money into hospitals and schools.

Yes I agree also, I can understand the original concept of having states because thats how the nation developed but I think we have move past that stage and that the states have served their purposes.

Give the power to the feds so they have no excuses, expand the functions and finance local government to take care of community need and with all the savings invest in infrastructure for a change.

However as Craigb pointed out it won't happen. Even if the state pollies voted to lose their jobs (yeah right) we would still need to rewrite the Constitution (yeah right again).

BT and SilentC, you both say what I'm saying, but you put it better. The duplication of resources is probably the most glaring anomaly. To those of you who think the state gumments are the bees knees, please come up with a response. To make it easier, lets just pick an example. State Police forces. Please explain why ALL states should NOT have one, uniform set of laws, administered by ONE Police force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clinton1

Sorry Eddie, I don't agree.
The original consitution gave bugger all powers to the Federal govt's, and that's the way I'd prefer it. Over the years the Feds have slowly collected more and more power and unfortunately they are another step removed from the "end users". I'd prefer more power to go to the State Govt's, so that they can get on and do the job.
I take the "keep the bastards within hitting stick range" approach! :wink:

---

So you would prefer the existing situation, where 3 state govts insist on equal administration rights over the Murray river system? I mean, one of them - Vic - doesn't even have a border on the Murray! NSW "owns" all the river as far as borders go. Why doesn't WA chip in and claim a share too?

Without exactly defending the various state governments, I think I like the the idea of a set of regional governing bodies to allocate and control spending and services, someone right there...not fiddling with the controls from far-off Canberra. If you got rid of the existing state governments, on the basis that they are redundant, the new single desk would surely have to implement a new subset of governing bodies at (or in) each state anyway, simply to administer Canberra's intentions. And I don't think local government, as it exists, would handle the task.
The fact that most state governmets tend to be of the opposite political persuasion than the federal one, to me anyway, is a plus. Ensures that Canberra don't get too far up themselves. However, I don't like being taxed by two sets of the buggers!:((

Cheers

Local government would have to be expanded. One idea was to have 'super councils' that would be responsible for much larger areas than local councils currently are. They would be given budget for community projects etc. Things like education, health, police, vehicle rego, licensing, building legislation etc would be administered centrally. No more of this crap about the regs in Vic vs. the regs in NSW or having to pay a transfer fee because you bought your car in QLD but moved to Sydney .

The other thing about State govts is that the constitution gives the federal govt power to overturn any legislation passed by the States/Territories (eg the Euthenasia laws in NT).

I read somewhere a while back that if State Governments were given the flick, it would free up $20billion p.a. from reduced duplication (administration, junkets etc). Don't know how accurate the figure is, but wouldn't be surprised. Personally I'm all for a benevolent dictator like Steve Waugh, skippy or the little fat kid from Hey Dad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

.

The other thing about State govts is that the constitution gives the federal govt power to overturn any legislation passed by the States/Territories (eg the Euthenasia laws in NT).

---

No it doesn't given the Feds power over state government's legislation.

The example quoted is over a territory and not a state. The Federal government when it gave self governing rule to the 2 territories retained overal control of veto over their legislation which is not the same.

From the PM's web site:

"A Federal law overrides any State law not consistent with it."

If the Federal Government is able to pass laws in that area, then they can and do override any law passed by a State government or Territory.

More reading here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...report/c08.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...n_Constitution

OK I will pre-empt your objection:

1. Yes I'm aware the Euthanasia laws are not an example of section 109 in practice. I apologise, I should have researched that before making the comment. I assumed incorrectly.

2. Yes I am aware that strictly speaking s109 does not give the Fed govt the power to overturn State legislation. However, it gives them the power to pass contradictory legislation, which has the same affect.

My point is that this fact makes the States relatively powerless to prevent Federal govt interference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MajorPanic

Eddie,

Just make it easy on yourself & give your entire extended family as well as EVERYTHING you have earned to the Federal Govt.
If it wasn't for State Govt's we'd be bent over a much smaller barrel......... to give better access to everything we hold dear. :(

---

Problem is it isn't a smaller barrel. It's TWO barrels! That is my whole point. Once the Feds have "had their way with you" over THEIR barrel, the state gumment whips out THEIR barrel and does yer all over again!

Not convinced? Try state gumment Stamp Duty. The introduction of GST (which ALL goes to the states BTW) was supposed to mean the end of stamp duty. Did it? No bloody way it did! Why did the states keep it going? Because they can! No other reason.

You accuse ME of advocating giving everything I earn to the Feds and at the same time you support state gumments? Ha!

Quote:

---

So you would prefer the existing situation, where 3 state govts insist on equal administration rights over the Murray river system? I mean, one of them - Vic - doesn't even have a border on the Murray! NSW "owns" all the river as far as borders go. Why doesn't WA chip in and claim a share too?

---

A longwinded example (of my poorly put position):

The Murray forms the border of Victoria and NSW, and Qld is the watershed of the Murray.
Thus, if Qld takes too much (or all) of the water that leaves the Condamine and other watersheds - the Murray will get bugger all, and irrigators in NSW won't be able to pull water from the flood flows.

Victoria is a large watershed for the Murray, through the Goulburn water system and the Vic Alps.

NSW also 'feeds' the Murray through the Murrumbidgie and other watersheds.

Each state has a different landuse, primarily due to the type of land that is in the irrigation systems i.e. cotton and sorghum in Qld and Cotton, Sorghum, other fodders and veges in NSW, primarily fodder for dairy and citrus in Vic/NSW border regions.

The people in each state talk directly to their state reps, and the state reps are liable for any backlash arising from the regulatory and consultative bodies that negotiate water use in the Murray/Murrumbidgie/Goulburn systems.

If you had a faceless bueauracracy (spelling!) in Canberra (at another, longer, arms length), you would have to wait for a nations sense of dissatisfaction with the party, and a sense that the opposition would do better - before you could go and kick some backside.

Keep your enemies within arms reach! :wink:

Quote:

---

Each state has a different landuse, primarily due to the type of land that is in the irrigation systems

---

But if there were no States, then the problem would be looked at from the point of view of the country as a whole, not each Premier trying to "do the best for our farmers" at the expense of the rest. Maybe that problem would be easier to solve if you took away the borders. Rather than focusing on what NSW, Vic or SA farmers get out of it etc. At the very least, it would remove one element of the finger pointing that goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

2. Yes I am aware that strictly speaking s109 does not give the Fed govt the power to overturn State legislation. However, it gives them the power to pass contradictory legislation, which has the same affect.

---

But s109 only applies where there is a valid Federal law, so only in those areas where the constitution grants specific powers to the Commonwealth or the States have referred their powers to the Commonwealth.


Personally I believe in the need of the States and if there is duplication of States and Federal powers the Federal powers ought to be curtailed because history has show that the Commonwealth have stuffed up in all their specific fields.

Also there is a great need for reforming local government, especially in the larger cities.


Peter.

Ex-pollies don't care any more. Its all a bloody circus. I'm going back to my shed. :wink:

Quote:

---

only in those areas where the constitution grants specific powers to the Commonwealth or the States

---

From the first link I posted:

Quote:

---

The doctrine of the reserved powers of the States was overturned in the famous case, Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers Case),[4] in 1920. Since the Engineers case, the Commonwealth's constitutional powers have been interpreted as plenary powers, that is, powers that are unqualified by any implied reservation of powers to the States. Accordingly, it is more appropriate to refer to State and Territory areas of 'traditional responsibility', or State and Territory 'jurisdiction', rather than to refer to 'States' rights'.

---

What it boils down to is that the Federal govt is not limited to any specific areas of legislation by the Constitution and if they do limit themselves, it's not because they have to. They can do what they want. Which theoretically should be what we want them to, although that's obviously not always the case.

From the outside Aust is like 7 different countries. The red tape and shocking waste from the 3 levels of gummint (or does the Senate make that 4?) (Tassie has 30 local councils - one for every 14000 people!) borders on criminal. They all seem to work about 28hrs a week, have a new sub 40K car, and be on holiday when you need them.:((

My wife had to surrender her Tas driver's license when we moved to NSW - and then had to reapply for one here. Schools have different curriculums, and won't talk to each other. Tas doesnnt have compulsory rego checks on vehicles. Some states do DST, some don't, all that do seem to change over at different times. I fully expect for different currencies to be suggested (hey, it'd be fun to invent new names!), and to need a passport to move around. Sillyness. Mind you there's only the 2 levels in NZ, and they seem to be able to stuff everything there too.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy Mac

Without exactly defending the various state governments, I think I like the the idea of a set of regional governing bodies to allocate and control spending and services, someone right there...not fiddling with the controls from far-off Canberra.
Cheers

---

Hi Andy, That argument about the far away faceless government vs the we know what you want State goverment doesn't ring true in practice.
Every one still bitches about the state government being out of touch.
A good example of micro government not working is Sydneys' local councils. Sydney has 40 local Councils thats 40 x engineer department, planning departments parks and gardens, rates community services etc and people think that is good because they are interested in your local issues.

Then look at Brisbane City Council. One council for the whole area that is way bigger than Sydney. No sqabbling about funding, no overlapping or duplication of services and Brisbane (I hate to admit) is a very progressive council where ALL suburbs get their fare share of the pie.

I think there is a point there somewhere. Oh thats right less government is good for you.

"The Australian" did a review of councils Australia wide a year or two ago and found that in Australia there is only one council that works. Brisbane! Why because it is big enough to have to do something and likewise has enough responsibility for people to know when they should be blaming it rather than being bumped off to the State Government.

Councils are unmentioned in the constitution they just exist it is unclear under what authority.

State Governments have a neat trick that Canberrra does the taxing they do the spending. So Canberra gets done for taxing and they for the most part fly under the radar.

So couple of options, Give taxing back to the states seeing they do most of the spending, or send the responsibility for health police etc to the Feds and let state governments do the local stuff. I don't think roads should be counted as local stuff look at the neat job councils have done with speed humps and the like to serve local interests over larger interests.

Can't see much point of having councils unless you make them big enough to matter.

Legally there isn't much chance of doing anything to State or Fedaral Governments. Constitution is too hard to change. Local Government could just be shut down and State government take it over but I don't think that would happen either. Mind you wouldn't it be nice if The various states did building approvals. It is the sort of thing here that just is a untidy and lengthy mess.


Studley

Quote:

---

I don't think roads should be counted as local stuff

---

It took about 15 years to get a new bridge and approaches down here. It used to flood every year and block the highway for a day or two. Federal govt said it was a State responsibility, State said it was Federal. In the end they agreed to go halves but it took a long time and a lot of lobbying to get it.

Actually that reminds me of the Bridge in Berri. Was lobbied for for years and they finally got it. Mind you it is a big expensive looking bridge and really only gives you access between Berri and Loxton so I am not sure about that one. Dunno if it was a good investment. Great for Berri and I suppose Loxton too but not sure it get enough use to be really good use of money.

Actually the bridge to Hindmarsh Island was a big thing too. Great for the developer but who else? I am pretty sure if you wanted to spend money in that area they could have come up with a hundred better ways to use it.

Studley

"Councils are unmentioned in the constitution..." Councils are not recognized, a slight difference:
".....they just exist it is unclear under what authority." each State enacted an Act of Parliament, in Victoria called, oddly enough, The Local Government Act and this was change, readilly enough, in about 1983 to force amalgamations (amalgamaton is not my word). The States can, and do, mess with LG capabilities often!
Building Regs, Planning, Heath to name just three which the State says are under the administration of LG, but see if the LG ruling will stand-up when an appeal is made to the State.
THIS IS PURELY an ever growing cost to taxpayers and ratepayers which are pretty much the same individuals.

soth

commonwealth exclusive powers
Defence, currency. Customs, External affairs

Concurrent powers Sahred between the stae and federal government
Trade and commerce, Most Taxation,corporations, Industrial relations,Environment.

state powers ONLY
Health Education criminal Law Property.

My daughter did HSC legal studies last year. She says we need the state government because small issues and small towns get lost .. if a federal only system were instituted local government would need to be beefed up, essentially encompassing larger demographic areas, so instead of there being a local shire for me to bitch at there would be a Northeast county council prolly based in shepparton. Out of my reach. We here in Mansfield had a taste of this when amalgamation was forced on us. The Benalla centric councill sucked the rates out of the area and poured them into Benalla. The economic development officer stole successfull small businesses and rehoused them in Benalla using rate money raised here.
Anyhow thats all done and dusted, we got our shire back and have never looked back.

I tend to listen to my kids when issues like this come up. they are tomorrows taxpayers and tomorrows voters.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :wink:

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 :p

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :p

---

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