State Governments

[Eddie Jones]

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.

[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.

[craigb]

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

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.

[graemet]

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

[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

[masoth]

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.

soth

[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!

[silentC]

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.

[Bleedin Thumb]

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).

[Eddie Jones]

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.

[Eddie Jones]

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!

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?

[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. 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

[silentC]

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).

[Slavo]

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

[Sturdee]

.

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.