As a migrant, there’s something I just don’t get in Australia (State Govt vs. Federal Govt)

Yorkshire-Man on 03/01/2019 - 14:37
Last edited 04/01/2019 - 22:56 by 1 other user

Hi All,

I’m a migrant, been here for 20 years so I consider myself to be a local these days, but there is one thing I still don’t get so turning to OzB for opinions.

State Government.

So I get the ‘historic’ point of state government but what I don’t get is why the Australian Public don’t rile more about its exsistence. There is a ‘parliament’ in every state, we duplicate all these departments (think health, education, roads / traffic) in every state & the amount of money this wastes is nothing short of massive.

We could massively reduce income taxes or keep them the same and massively improve infrastructure / social housing / poverty etc by simply abolishing them & the duplication / waste yet no-one seems interested in it ?

Whenever I ask people either shrug or fret about the amount of government jobs that would be lost.

Keen to hear your views…

Edit - Thanks all, great input. I’m from the UK, biggest political mess on the planet however i do feel that there is less government duplication. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland do have their own parliaments however this is over a population of 70m people. Fascinating to see the majority of people here still support state governments.

Edit2 - So many comments below seem really focused on ‘Power Balance’ and ‘Local Focus’. To be clear what baffles me is the pure duplication here. Sure, most of these depts need local representatives, what I would change is more the back office of Depts like (for example) vechicle licencing… we still need local offices but the ‘back office’ duplication state by state must cost say, a billion dollars a year. Purely in IT / infrastructure / admin costs alone ? Fascinating that so many OzB people are not so interested in these savings on offer :)

Financial

Comments

  • dazzledayz on 04/01/2019 - 19:01
    +2

    If we abolished state govts, the Feds would have to expand their own bureaucracies to fill the void left by the dissolution of state bodies.

    Quite a few of these the feds have no experience with like Health, Education, Police, Emergency Services, Motor Transport, Rail and Public transport etc etc.

    Any federal bodies fulfilling any of these functions do so only in oversight NOT hands on admin.

    This would cost more than the current arrangements and in all likelihood be much less efficient (trust me, that's possible).

    The only saving would be in Pollie pay packets and perks but in their place you'd have more departmental permanent heads and they don't come cheap.
    (they do however come with a large supporting bureaucracy though).

    It's nice to dream but dreams can turn into nightmares without much trouble.

  • Herbse on 04/01/2019 - 19:15

    It's designed so that there's representation on every level, even the smallest levels. Plus there are thousands of projects and issues that need to be dealt with, which one single person for each section of the country could not do.

    It's easy to just say, let one person do the job of 4. But the reality is different.

    The country is not a business, in a business the only person who benefits are the business owners. I can't see why anyone would compare or even say that a country should be run like a business.

    • MITM on 04/01/2019 - 19:58
      +1

      Workers in a business benefit too, sometimes more so than the owners.

      Every country is run like a business in that the country must be profitable in trading with other countries. Fortunately we have huge natural resources other countries pay top dollar for (and in US$ - hence our sudden balanced budget) and in return we have big tvs, cars and houses.

  • Maxxjet on 04/01/2019 - 19:39
    +2

    A migrant here too, fascinated by the AU political system as well, as I am from a country with the biggest ( profanity) central government. Among the 3 level of Govts, my opinion in its usefulness is State > Fed > Council - I fully support the abolishing the council as I see it as the most incompetent, easily corrupt and most irresponsible one among the 3. The mayors/councillor in particular are just a waste of ratepayers money ( and by the way, on top of tax payer, why on earth we want to be rates payer? )

  • p1 ama on 04/01/2019 - 19:53
    +3

    State governments are very powerful in Australia. In fact, I would say that most of the "government" you see in everyday life is actually state, not federal. Say you catch public transport, or take the new highway, report something to the police, take your kids to school…etc. They are all provided by state governments.

    There tends to be an inverse relationship between the level of government and accountability and giving people what you want. Imagine that decisions about which highways to build were only made in Canberra. This would likely mean that cities like Melbourne or Sydney would be prioritised over cities like Darwin. You could make similar arguments about things like schools. Having government closer to the people means that they are better able to provide for the people who elected them.

    State governments are able to raise taxes and through agreements with the federal government, collect the revenue of some federal taxes like GST. This allows people from Queensland to vote about which roads to build in Queensland and people from Victoria to vote about which roads to build in Victoria.

    Australian states have a lot of freedom and in many ways, have many of the functions of countries in their own right. States like Victoria and NSW are more populous than many countries around the world and by itself, WA would be one of the biggest countries in the world. You can think of the federal government as simply the states joining together to unite certain shared goals, not too different from how European countries formed the EU.

  • greatlamp on 04/01/2019 - 19:54
    +3

    One of fhe best things about this country is how little power the local governments have.
    In many countries (in EU and USA) each state is essentially a different country. The only things shared are services that cannot be divided like the military, and currency

    This creates huge social problems
    You live in a wealthy area, your kids public school has its own bus fleet, and rowing team

    You live in a poor area, your public school can't afford to build new classrooms.

    Your town doesn't have footpaths because theres no funds, meanwhile the rich city up north has an underground subway system with trains every 4 min.

    I would fully support nationalising more services, the choice to build a new freeway should be made on a cost/benefit analysis, not just because it buys you votes in a state election

    There is no reason each state needs to issue its own drivers licences and number plates. Why make it possible to lose your licence in Victoria, but be fine in NSW

    Of course we still need a local level of government. The states currently are too big to represent their population.
    The city of Melbourne gets new infrastructure that regional cities never see.

    Powerful local councils cause their own problems, Local councils need to be big enough to be efficient and attract enough attention that they are scrutinized. A city like Melbourne or Sydney should have 4-6 local government councils, with rural areas represented by their own councils of roughly equal size and power

    • MITM on 04/01/2019 - 20:09

      If you lose your Victorian licence, you cannot drive TO NSW and continue driving IN NSW as you have NO license (or do you have a NSW licence too ?).
      If you move to Queensland from Victoria (or elsewhere) you have 2 weeks to convert/apply for a QLD license or fines apply.

      • greatlamp on 04/01/2019 - 21:17

        unfortunately unethical people have no problem driving without a licence and then obtaining a licence in another state

  • MessyG on 04/01/2019 - 20:57
    +2

    I like local government with federal oversight. Too much power concentrated in one space with total governance over the populace is a bit terrifying imo. They tend to police each other, especially when they're on opposite sides of politics.

    Local councils OTOH…

  • Bespoken on 04/01/2019 - 20:58
    +1

    Sorry Lolitsme, you don't get it because you are from Sydney. If you lived in one of the smaller states you would realise that the country is run for and by the eastern states. I don't like all the levels of government, but without a state government, the smaller states would not have any government for them . For example, when the Sydney property market became a problem, regulatory tightening was applied nationally, as when the eastern economies overheat, interest rates increase to cool them down are applied nationally. Essentially, be it economically, socially or culturally, Australia federal government policy reflects what is best for Sydney and Melbourne. There are some definite advantages to having an Éastern Australia and a West & Central Australia.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2019 - 21:47
    +1

    By eliminating a mid-tier level of government, which is much more locally accessible than the federal government, you further remove power from the people and centralise it in a form they can do little to affect.

    Removing the state tier and you have a situation like England forced to remain in the EU… the political power is removed from the people in the 'state', and they effectively become 'serfs' in a system they do not control - increasing the likelihood they have to live under rules and a regime that is less to their liking than one they would elect for themselves if able.

    Its existence is democratic, its removal is the erosion of true democracy.

    E.g. scenario:

    NSW and VIC favour introducing euthanasia laws (65/35), WA is adamantly opposed (90/10), with centralisation under a federal regime without state based counterbalance Western Australians are forced to accept euthanasia laws despite not agreeing to them.

    Sound far fetched? States like WA & QLD are significantly more conservative than ACT+NSW+NT+VIC. It would not serve the interests of the majority of residents in those states centralising more power in Canberra.

    In terms of self-determination and democracy the world is significantly better served by small states and devolved power than its centralisation.

  • drfuzzy on 04/01/2019 - 22:21

    I worked several years for a COAG entity and I couldn't agree more.

    State government delivers a poor outcome because:
    - there is certainly billions of dollars spent on duplication and wasted services
    - there is a lack of agreement between the states
    - there is a lack of agreement between the states and the Commonwealth
    - some states are willing and resourced to invest in services and others are not
    - the system of government stifles innovation

    • p1 ama on 04/01/2019 - 23:31
      +1

      Would you be able to elaborate on your points? I've been employed in the public service and other government-funded roles for most of my adult life and I don't see many of the issues you see, and some of the things you cite might even be good. Let me explain.

      there is certainly billions of dollars spent on duplication and wasted services

      I don't doubt this and I certainly think that there is some duplication, but to be honest, when the federal budget revenue and expenditure is in the tune of around $400 billion, you're talking about perhaps a 1% (if even) of the total revenue collected. I get that there's an efficiency gain, but it's not like it's a central issue.

      there is a lack of agreement between the states

      Isn't this a good thing? Lack of agreement between the states is a reason to have state governments, not the other way around. If all of the states agreed, then I would say yes, abolish state governments.

      there is a lack of agreement between the states and the Commonwealth

      Again, yes, this is a great thing. Certain policies at the federal level might have different effects on different states and this disagreement needs to be heard.

      some states are willing and resourced to invest in services and others are not

      I don't quite catch the point. There will be states that are poorer and states that are richer. That's not going to change regardless of whether we have state governments or not.

      the system of government stifles innovation

      How? This sounds like such a blanket statement that I can't really understand what you mean. What innovation are you talking about specifically? What does innovation have to do with having state governments?

  • abuch47 on 04/01/2019 - 22:50
    +1

    I love government and am a socialist at heart. Councils can go, roadlaws and others things can be unified.

  • Yorkshire-Man on 04/01/2019 - 23:33

    So, as an example, purely looking at NSW RMS, so vechile licencing… the budget docs list the costs for ‘other operating expenses’ for 2018 says we will spend $2.3bn. This is money for offices / IT etc, staff costs are separate. Assuming each dept spends a similar amount there’s got to be $8bn in duplication… multiply this by every dept & the amount of good we could do with these savings is massive… without cutting services…

    • p1 ama on 04/01/2019 - 23:40
      +3

      I don't understand your argument. The costs for offices, IT…etc. don't just go away when you unify vehicle licensing. You would still have to have licensing offices in every state, you will still need staff in every state, the offices will still require IT services. Your figure of $8 billion saved just by "federalising" vehicle registration just doesn't seem to add up.

      • Yorkshire-Man on 05/01/2019 - 10:52

        Sure, we will still need offices. But if NT, QLD, NSW, VIC, SA, TAS & WA each spend $2bn then you would think that you could save $8bn on the duplication… and this is a small dept, just vechicle licencing ! Something that surely in a country of just 22m people should be harmonised in 2019 ?

        I honestly think there’s got to be $50bn+ in duplication in state government departments in Australia.

        I (personally) would keep taxation the same & funnel that money to solve all of our social problems, boost our health budget, fix social housing, house the homeless, build hospitals & pay our teachers better.

        • p1 ama on 05/01/2019 - 20:25
          +1

          You're just picking numbers to suit your argument. You've looked at the figures of the most populous state in Australia and assumed that NT, TAS, SA, WA which are much smaller states in terms of population spend the same? Do you really think that's realistic? Your $50 billion figure is just as wild.

          Even then, the general argument you're making does not necessarily hold. You're basically saying that there are economies of scale associated with integrating across states. Yes, on a surface level that makes sense. However, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that larger organisations tend to become top-heavy and expenses relating to coordination and management actually increase compared to if they were separate.

          My point is, it's not easy to theorise what would happen if we simply "abolished" state governments. Even on a larger scale, there would be disastrous consequences for the less populous states. We have federal and state elections because they largely deal with different issues. If all state issues became federal issues, do you think the federal government would give two hoots about building roads in the NT? Of course not, they are represented by less seats in the house compared to the larger states and only two seats in the Senate. This will create drastic inefficiencies due to the politics of it all.

          Let's put it another way, would you like folks from the EU to come down and tell you where to build hospitals and what roads should and shouldn't be upgraded?

          • Bystander on 06/01/2019 - 19:37

            @p1 ama: I think the point here is that we don't need each state duplicating back end support services etc for each department. eg. amalgamating IT support for RMS NSW and all other State motor transport departments etc would obviously generate significant savings. Having one management group to consider new road rules etc would also definitely deliver savings. So would having one national licencing system. Economies of scale do work in these examples.

            This is just one small example from one department. There are many other examples of government services that should be federalised.

            • Yorkshire-Man on 06/01/2019 - 23:27

              @Bystander: Exactly, spot on.

              The example I picked was one of the smallest Depts as well. Health & Education are wayyyyy bigger, and we deprecate the whole ‘back office’ in every state.

              Personally I think $50bn is conservative. Imagine what social good we could do with it whilst having no impact on front line services… in fact we could boost them.

              • p1 ama on 07/01/2019 - 03:09

                @Yorkshire-Man: Yes, I agree that there are certain things which should be nationalised. Welfare used to be state run, but is now national, for example.

                However, if you want to unify licensing and vehicle registration, there will need to be unified road rules. There do exist different laws in each state. For example, in Victoria, U turns are allowed at lights unless specified not. In NSW, they are not allowed unless specified that they are.

                Is it silly to have these differences? On the surface, yes, but the fundamental question is who should set road rules. Should road rules in Darwin be set by local people from the NT, or people from Victoria who have no idea about traffic in Darwin?

                Similarly, road rules in Europe are largely different. You don't have the same road rules in Germany as you do on England. Maybe you haven't explored Australia enough, but I urge you to spend time travelling different parts of Australia and you'll see why we need to have different laws in different places.

                I think your analysis is too simple really. You are assuming that we have a federal government who delegates certain things to the states. That's completely the opposite of what was intended when we federated. The most important unit of government are the states, with certain things delegated to a federal government if necessary.

                You're probably comparing the situation to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, but the case is actually more like the UK in the EU. You should see it as the states giving up powers to the federal government.

                Either way, I agree that there are things that should be federal and the move is certainly towards that, but abolishing states would cause many issues that you've yet to address.

                It's easy to point at things and say they are wasteful. It's much harder to actually come up with solutions to these problems.

                You haven't answered the two important questions:

                1) If we abolish states, how will you ensure NT people decide on NT issued and Vic people decide on Vic issues?

                2) Would you agree to completely abolish the UK Parliament and give all power to the EU to take over and manage your hospitals and roads (sharing the same system with all other EU countries)? All the savings you cite apply there too. If not, that's the same situation here.

                • Yorkshire-Man on 07/01/2019 - 09:41
                  +1

                  @p1 ama: 1) If we abolish states, how will you ensure NT people decide on NT issued and Vic people decide on Vic issues?

                  This is a tiny country (by population). Do you really think that, given the choice of day ‘Totally free healthcare & way better schools’ OR ‘You can make sure we can do hook turns where people in NSW can’t’ people would choose the latter. Personally, I don’t.

                  2) Would you agree to completely abolish the UK Parliament and give all power to the EU to take over and manage your hospitals and roads (sharing the same system with all other EU countries)? All the savings you cite apply there too. If not, that's the same situation here.

                  Your example cites different countries… Australia is one. Europe is a trading block, hence the harmony of rules… it’s like saying Australia & New Zealand are one country… they aren’t. QLD & VIC are all one country, yet we duplicate all their major govt departments & waste billions in the process.

                  I get you prefer state control, that’s ok, just personally I see massive government waste & duplication… which was needed in the 1800’s when we rode horses & Australia is a MASSIVE place… it’s just not in 2019, it’s wasteful.

                  • p1 ama on 07/01/2019 - 15:53

                    @Yorkshire-Man:

                    This is a tiny country (by population). Do you really think that, given the choice of day ‘Totally free healthcare & way better schools’ OR ‘You can make sure we can do hook turns where people in NSW can’t’ people would choose the latter. Personally, I don’t.

                    No, I'm not talking about minute road rules. I'm talking about where new hospitals and schools will be built, which road projects will be prioritised.

                    Australia might have a small population, but it is a very large country by area. This means that what happens in NT and WA and even QLD is largely irrelevant to what happens in Vic, for example. Are you suggesting that if all decisions were made at the federal level, more money and services would not flow to the areas where there are most votes and highest tax revenue? Of course it would. That could have disastrous consequences for people in smaller states.

                    Your example cites different countries… Australia is one. Europe is a trading block, hence the harmony of rules… it’s like saying Australia & New Zealand are one country… they aren’t. QLD & VIC are all one country, yet we duplicate all their major govt departments & waste billions in the process.

                    No, not at all. The principle is the same, it's the idea that government should be closer to the people. If you don't like the French or Germans deciding on your rules, the people of NT and QLD don't like people from NSW and VIC to either.

                    I get you prefer state control, that’s ok, just personally I see massive government waste & duplication… which was needed in the 1800’s when we rode horses & Australia is a MASSIVE place… it’s just not in 2019, it’s wasteful.

                    Not really. If you identify a place where there is government waste and duplication, then it can be addressed. For example, you cite federalising car registration. I agree with you and think that's a pretty logical thing to do.

                    You misunderstand my point completely - I don't prefer state control, I think there are functions that are better served federally, and functions that are better served at the state level. If there are logical reasons why some functions should be federalised, then I agree with that. However, your initial argument was to abolish state governments completely. I don't think that will yield positive outcomes.

  • Rohangiga on 05/01/2019 - 00:29
    +1

    It does annoy many and I think they should get rid of state governments. But the politicians will never go for it as they will be putting themself and their mates out of a job!

  • Hirolol on 05/01/2019 - 01:13

    Start a Facebook group/riot/change.org
    Which ever is more effective

  • jacross on 05/01/2019 - 07:46

    We have a multi-tiered system of government to support the aims of federalism and decentralisation of power (both have wiki articles).
    We have duplication because the Commonwealth Govt has steadily increased its practical scope since federation (the Engineers case was an important constitutional moment).

    Personally I'm in favour of decentralisation of power so I'd be looking for a strengthening of state govt power (or possibly some sort of 2 tier system with 20-30 odd super local govts).

    Decentralisation of power allows us different regimes, experiments, ways of political life within the one country.

    Also, just because there is a federal health program and state health program doesn't necessarily mean there is massive duplication. They often serve different aspects of the broader topic.

    • dazzledayz on 05/01/2019 - 10:22

      So something along the lines of the German Federal System.

      That could work in Aus though our regions are significantly more varied than the above.

      Our historical cadastral land divisions are by Counties, of which there are over 600 nationally so that seems a bit much.

      If you go the political route you get 150 divisions which are our federal electorates which is still waay too many.

      The Bureau of Meteorology comes closest with 47 regional divisions for all states combined except for NSW which has 26 Yielding 73 in total.

      So if NSW were rationalised to a more suitable (lower) number it could be workable along those lines.

      Your super council numbers on regional lines are:

      NT 7, Qld 8, SA 12, Tas 4, Vic 7, WA 9 and NSW 26 for a grand total of 73.

      If this were artificially reduced to a saner number along the lines of geographical area combined with some population distinction it may be feasible.

      Perhaps the way to go would be to remove both State Governments AND the Senate where current Senators are replaced by 2 Super Council (regional) representatives responsible to both their regional electorate and also their regional council/local govt.

      We currently have 76 Senators but if we got the regions down to about 50 they could each field 2 Senate replacements without the numbers getting out of hand.

      Put a gutsy Federal ICAC along the lines of NSW in place to keep the bastards on their toes and we may be on a winner.

      This arrangement would go a long way towards empowering the often neglected rural areas with lower populations and may also promote a more decentralised economy and bureaucracy.

      Definitely worth a thought?

      • jacross on 07/01/2019 - 08:59

        If you're looking for something that divides the country into roughly 50 then the Regional Development Australia network does this (or used to, it got changed but it used to be about 55/56 areas and included metro).

        I don't have particularly strong beliefs on how it should look these days though but yeah you've got the general idea.

  • lonewolf on 05/01/2019 - 08:54

    I do agree either state or more useful would if local councils were gotten rid off. I find local councils seem to be so corrupt not saying that state and federal governements arent…but probably have a bit more visibility at least.

  • raiseyoursteaks on 05/01/2019 - 10:26

    I agree with your comments Op.

  • SpotTheOzzie on 05/01/2019 - 11:12

    Good timing on this.

    We have issues with our street - Road is worst than Parramatta Road (Bumpy, dirt, ash fault ripped apart for those interstate), none of the street lights work. So I rang my local council. Local council said technically our street is zoned in a different suburb's council (i.e. the suburb next to us, even though we're 3 blocks away from where that suburb begins on maps).

    So we're at a weird crossroad right now, literally. My suburb's council said we're not in the jurisdiction for them to help us, and the council with which we are zoned in has dubbed our issues low priority because they have to 'attend issues in their suburb first'.

    What?

    • Baysew on 05/01/2019 - 11:32
      +2

      In answer to your now deleted question -

      For example,
      in 2012-13 the fees range from $7,740 per year for a small
      rural council to $25,580 for a big metropolitan council.

      Contact the local council member and let them know that they are in a low priority voting area and you will vote for someone that looks after your suburb first.

      PS Please stream it - love your work.

      • SpotTheOzzie on 05/01/2019 - 11:52

        I only deleted the Q because I literally googled it, found the relevant doc ;)

        Thanks for the props, my last stream I found out that building around the corner is a brothel after I was interviewing a random person asking what he was doing coming out of this dark no-through road street at 1am. Fun times.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 12:55

    Spot on about the duplication. I never get things like driver's license and vehicle registration system per state for a country of this population size.
    Tho I believe the government is well aware of this and trying to make progress.
    For example, medical professional registration was per state basis some years ago which is now consolidated in single national wide system AHPRA.

  • tightasian on 05/01/2019 - 14:23
    +1

    All for the OP. Try the stupid 7 different state revenue office websites. For same thing, they build 7 different interfaces and don't give damn to each other.
    For 22 million population, one set of government is more than enough.

  • AnthonyM on 05/01/2019 - 14:41

    I don't think there's much evidence of waste at all, which undermines the whole argument.

    Australia has the 8th lowest total tax take of any OECD country:
    https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-spending.htm

    And yet our quality of life stats are amongst the highest of any nation on earth - usually the top one or two.

    I'd argue that the 3-tier approach is pretty effective at providing the services relevant at each level: immigration, defence, foreign affairs, etc federally; education, police, health, trains & highways at state; garbage, road maintenance, parks and gardens at local.

    And whilst there is probably some waste, there are plenty of easier ways to solve these than abolishing whole tiers of government. For example, most welfare was originally a state concern, but it has become apparent over time that the Commonwealth can do this better, so now it does.

  • Bobby Hill on 05/01/2019 - 16:42

    Nobody wants duplication and certainly, we do not want wastage, but prima facie abolishment of state governments serves no purpose. The result will instead create greater burden, more uncertainty, decreased democracy, and ironically, increased costs. The suggestion of which would be reactionary, if it wasn't for the fact that it was the state governments/colonies that bought about the federation, but I digress.

    If we put aside the fact that the abolishment of state governments will never happen, even if there is total resentment towards them, on the basis of historical and constitutional importance, the OP's argument is that there are duplications and inefficiencies with back-office costs i.e IT/infrastructure/admin costs. I think this is largely overstated (we still haven't seen comparison figures, not to mention operating costs for state offices are largely sunk costs and will still be present regardless of model).

    But even if there was a significant gap, shouldn't the focus be on unifying/streamlining these underlying areas (e.g IT systems), instead of suggesting that a whole tier of government be abolished?

    Or better yet, propose that certain individual duties/portfolios be handed over to federal control, similarly to what has been done for many years now (e.g social security)?

    In actuality, roles are already fairly streamlined (certainly in comparison to other first world countries), with the federal government acting as an overseer/financier and the state government taking a hands-on role (e.g health, education, transport, housing, policing etc). This also takes into account the large geographical size of Australia which is a huge variable/differentiator, compared say to the UK. And even the later has 4 parliaments.

    However, there might be a legitimate argument to abolish local government (i.e councils) with state governments taking control. The gain here is more clear from a logistics point of view given geographical size and location, and better resource pooling. But again we will need to look at actual data, not simply burn the whole house down because we want to kill one spider.

  • UFO on 05/01/2019 - 16:52
    +1

    Referendum on:

    1) President picked by the people, not by John Howard's mockery of a model where THEY pick the President.

    2) Full 5 year terms. No exceptions (unless a law has been broken and 'impeach' them for a new President). Let them bring in whatever changes they like, and if people don't like it in 5 years they can change it.

    3) While you're at it, eliminate the two party system completely. Let the conservatives form a group of consensus, let the greenies do the same etc… but none of this TOW THE LINE crap. Voting must be by conscience only… for and by the will of the people, not the Party. And this bullcrap question time that does NOTHING?!?! GONE!!! Local members of parliament elected to do the will of those that elect them. Proposals are put forward to vote and then decided on openly. All voting results reviewable by the public so each and every one of them is accountable on how they vote. No pork barrelling like Barnaby did will occur because the majority would never allow it for the criminal crap it is! Everything voted on, majority votes win… no 'sides' just open and transparent Government accountable to the people. Ministers are voted on by those members elected. Majority votes wins the portfolio. The President has veto powers and is elected directly by us. He's the popular vote and is the 'check balance'.

    4) Eliminate the States. Rewrite the Constitution completely.

    5) National services for everything from Emergency Services, Health, Education…. Roads and infrastructure. Everything. Administered locally by Local Super Councils, but paid for by the Federation.

    The State Governments serve no purpose. They are a relic of a bygone era where the states were separate entities before the nation was even founded.
    An extra level of bureaucracy and wastefulness and duplication not needed.

    Doesn't have to be done all at once. But slowly remove responsibilities from the states like health and education completely, and over say 10-20 years remove the husk that remains.

    • Bystander on 05/01/2019 - 19:28
      +2

      +1

      And start by having just 1 legal system rather than the 9 we currently have.

      From memory Howard talked about having one national set of laws for businesses but the legal groups blocked it. They make a killing out of the system the way it is.

      Ridiculous!

  • sectokia on 05/01/2019 - 17:26
    -1

    At federation governments were much much smaller. Income taxes were under 5%. The purpose of the federal government was largely military, border protection, and ensuring free trade.

    States has responsibility any anything and everything else, and it evolved into them funding health, education, housing, whatever you want to come up with.

    Naturally… being a democracy with forced voting, this has evolved to people just voting themselves "free stuff", as such the government has continually expanded from less than 5% of GDP to our current level where Federal + State + Local is now consuming ~50% of GDP.

    Part of the problem with states expanding is that the constitution does not allow states to tax income. So federal government basically collect the tax and hand off money to states - and in doing so they give it with strings attached. This was obviously never the intention, but its now how things work. This is why Federal politics is always talking about health/education/etc. which are all state funded and state run issues. Its why the federal goverment has a department of education that runs no schools and has zero students etc.

    Eliminating state governments would be a colossal mistake. States are very useful because they can be used to prove which ideas (ie. regulation) work and which do not. Without states having different regulation - blanket regulation is thrown across everyone, and people will just support it politically - without needing any evidence that it actually works. This is why there is a constant battle to regulate everything on a "national" level - so you don't have to prove your regulation actually has the position outcome that is claimed. This happens in everything from health to education to workplace law etc. Its is underestimated how many bad ideas are tried in a state - and then repealled because they are shown to be worse than what exists in the 'do nothing' scenario in other states.

    Also I don't think there is as much duplication as you think. Do you think a "department of mains road" operating federally would have less employees than the sum of each states department of mains road? History tells us flat out that the answer is no. The move removed governments are from the people, the more inefficient and bloated they are. Running all state schools from Canberra would result in even more admin staff and more cost.

  • Bystander on 05/01/2019 - 20:17

    Time and again I see duplication. Today while comparing electricity providers I see that the Feds have provided this
    https://www.energymadeeasy.gov.au
    and the State Govt this
    https://energyswitch.service.nsw.gov.au

    A small example of duplication that would have cost millions. Multiply that by every department in each state gong through similar procedures for every policy and administrative decision they consider.

    Why do we need separate education systems, separate Police forces, etc?

    $ Billions wasted every year.

  • El Grande on 06/01/2019 - 02:03
    -1

    I don't see it as a waste. If a $100 note changes hands 3 times it ends up back in the governments pocket. This waste triggers spending and creates jobs. It's the governments job to keep people spending and paying taxes. This ticks both boxes.

    PS: If you don't like you know what to do. Complaining on OZBargain is not it.

  • field1985 on 06/01/2019 - 16:23

    Should the nations in the EU be dissolved and controlled (health, police, transport, etc) by the EU from Belgium?

    Because the countries in the EU are the equivalent of the states of Australia for all intents and purposes.

    Our states just got around to agreeing to it a century earlier without any war for many of the same reasons the EU was formed.

    • dazzledayz on 06/01/2019 - 17:52

      "I wished to found a European system, a European Code of Laws, a European judiciary: there would be but one people in Europe," declared Napoleon nearly 200 ago.

      Interestingly, it was also Bonaparte who was, to a large extent, responsible for the Australian Colonies achieving their first steps toward independence.

      French botanist, Nicolas Baudin, commanded the expedition that first completely mapped the Australian coastline in 1802 and, but for an unfortunate man overboard incident, almost claimed Tasmania for the French at the Frecinet Peninsula near Swansea.
      This, coming on the heels of La Perouse's visit in 1788 and the visit in 1792 of two French ships, La Recherche and L'Espérance, which anchored in a harbour near Tasmania's southernmost point they called Recherche Bay, prompted urgent settlement of Tasmania and convinced the Home Office that free settler migration needed to be ramped up.

      Many Officers and Soldiers who fought during the Napoleonic Wars emigrated to or served in NSW both before, and moreso after, Waterloo (1815).
      At a time of great colonial expansion, this influx had a significant influence in the colony's transition to a free society from a convict one.
      MacQuarrie himself had previously taken part in the capture of Egypt from the French.

      Now the wheel comes full circle and we argue for the adoption of Napoleonic theory with regard to Australian political organisation.

    • Bystander on 06/01/2019 - 19:44

      The EU is in no way comparable.

      Different countries with different languages and cultures going back centuries.

      A better comparison would be the USA.

  • sajidmib on 06/01/2019 - 21:55

    all states were British colonies .. as they say "Divide and rule"

    then when they had full control, all of a sudden Federation 1901 … that to me is "Stunt 101"

  • spb on 07/01/2019 - 07:20
    -1

    If you were to get rid of state and territory governments I would imagine you would end up with a similar number of staff at Federal level as you have now with separate state and territory governments anyway.

    Policy decisions would still need to be fragmented between areas to properly target what people wanted or needed, and the federal government would need extra staff to execute that. It would hard to argue that some policy decisions wouldn't need to differ between areas either, just compare NT to NSW if you tried to apply the policies you have in place for NT to NSW or vice versa it would be a disaster.

  • HighAndDry on 07/01/2019 - 12:07
    -1

    what I would change is more the back office of Depts like (for example) vechicle licencing…

    There's no duplication of vehicle licensing - that's purely a State govt matter.

  • Baghern on 07/01/2019 - 22:50

    This has been proposed multiple times.

    One of the big problems is you will then have a tonne of local councils with a lot more power, than they can be trusted with

    Federal government already struggle with their current responsibilities.

    Their also isn't 100% duplication, health, education, roads / traffic. State and Federal control different aspects

  • diddy50 on 14/01/2019 - 12:59

    Bigger Local Councils, means less of them. I'd vote for that

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join