State Governments

[silentC]

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.

[silentC]

More reading here:

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

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

[silentC]

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.

[Eddie Jones]

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!

[Clinton1]

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!

[silentC]

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.

[Sturdee]

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.

[Shedhand]

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

[silentC]

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

From the first link I posted:

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.

[TassieKiwi]

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.

[Bleedin Thumb]

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.

[Studley 2436]

"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

[silentC]

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.

[Studley 2436]

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

[masoth]

"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