Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: Local Governments -- future referendum notes
From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev@levlafayette.com>
Personally, I've long been an advocate for the abolition of state governments. Now there's an institution well passed it's use-by date.
Can you explain the reasons? Most countries slightly bigger as the Vatican have three tiers of government. Naturally, coming from Germany, I compare the system I was "used to", try to make sense of the system here, and see some shortcomings and advantages. Both countries have one thing in common: it is very very hard to change a constitution. Germany consists of 16 states, and education is strictly off-limits for federal intervention. Result: the school systems differ a lot, have serious shortcomings but it is incredibly hard to get anything done. If you have kids and move from state to state.. well, that's a challenge. Australia seems to be comparably easy in that regard. What are the things that have to be dealt with on federal level? A federal law system makes sense, because Australians share more or less the same values, and why should the wheel reinvented many times. A fiscal union makes sense, because we share a currency and we also believe, fundamentally, that the people should have roughly equal means of living. It also works as an "insurance", because states rely on particular industries and are vulnerable if they fail. Agriculture, mining, manufacturing, the services sector, finance, they all have up and downs, and a fiscal union helps to navigate in this environment. Wide area infrastructure makes sense. Defence makes sense. But why should Canberra found an hospital here or a road or a train line there, if it is in the interest of the state only? I think we would be better of with state-wide collection of taxes and a yearly transfer as a lumpsum, and then the states decide to build a hospital, look after schools, roads or train. That would stop the blame-game blocking development here and there. Living in Melbourne, I would not think it is much fun to have that run directly by Canberra, which is already, at least mentally, half-way located in the outer Western Sydney suburbs, with all implications. The next lot seems to be a very Sydney-centric one, with Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison etc. as key players. Howard was living there and ignored the capital, more or less. And we already run politics as a showcase for Western Sydney and the Shire only.. Just look where the PM lives this week.. Nope, I am not found of them, not because they are Blue and not Red, just because they do not represent my surroundings in Melbourne at all. Australia may be unique in one way: In most of the states, most people live in the area close to its capitals, with a vast landmass sparsely populated. The differences in political culture is much bigger than between German states (with the exception of Bavaria who are not that typical German as believed abroad;-) I believe we need governments that run this population centres effectively in their interest and reflecting their culture, and that needs state governments. Regards Peter
On 5/03/2013 11:13 AM, Petros wrote:
Result: the school systems differ a lot, have serious shortcomings but it is incredibly hard to get anything done.
If you have kids and move from state to state.. well, that's a challenge.
Australia seems to be comparably easy in that regard.
National curriculum is fairly recent in Australia, in the past there have been greater chasms between each state education system.
But why should Canberra found an hospital here or a road or a train line there, if it is in the interest of the state only?
This is an area of debate, just recently [currently] we have the Victorian / Federal battles over hospital funding. And this is extending through to school issues. If you ask me, I see huge failures by our current Victorian government and if Gillard gets back in, it will be due to the extremely bad governance of Victoria and Queensland in particular. If people could see and understand what the Liberal/National state and the NT governments are doing, then I can't see how they can envisage Abbot's "team" to be anything other than extremely frightening for the future of Australia.
I think we would be better of with state-wide collection of taxes and a yearly transfer as a lumpsum, and then the states decide to build a hospital, look after schools, roads or train.
We have GST today, that is collected federally and distributed in an equitable manner throughout the country; of course debate occurs on this as well. The state governments can't be trusted to share the load, that is why we need this handled federally.
That would stop the blame-game blocking development here and there.
The blame game is a serious issue too, but when there are strongly opposing views state against federal, it's almost impossible to fix when responsibility for governance is used as a political tool and not for the greater good.
Living in Melbourne, I would not think it is much fun to have that run directly by Canberra, which is already, at least mentally, half-way located in the outer Western Sydney suburbs, with all implications.
Canberra is far enough away from Sydney for mine, sure Howard took advantage of the proximity, but he was just one Prime Minister in our history, mind you his government has been considered the most wasteful of recent times -- not that it's being regularly reported so that people can take in the facts which don't suit today's climate of Labor bashing in the media.
And we already run politics as a showcase for Western Sydney and the Shire only.. Just look where the PM lives this week..
NSW looks like a basket case in politics today, and the PM's visitation is somewhat of an aberration.... not sure it will achieve anything useful though. But Labor needs to try unusual things and this might be just one of many "stunts" to try to improve their standing. For mine, factions in Labor are worse than cancer... we need to be done with factions and get a leader whom can govern for the whole country without having to deal with factional issues that pains Labor so often and so relentlessly.
Australia may be unique in one way: In most of the states, most people live in the area close to its capitals, with a vast landmass sparsely populated.
Yes, we sadly have many areas prone to bush fires or flooding add to that the very extensive barren lands and it's no wonder that most of the population is concentrated where they are. World War II may have ended up with our defense of only the eastern to south eastern coastal areas, [as history tells us]. That being the most productive and valuable land in the nation (without regard to mining natural resource riches) and where most of the population lives. Kind Regards A
Can you explain the reasons?
Expense. Mark Drummond's PhD thesis showed that the cost in replicated services, lack of coordination etc, from Australia state governments costs an additional $20 billion per annum (2007 dollars) http://members.webone.com.au/~markld/PhD/thesis.html
Result: the school systems differ a lot, have serious shortcomings but it is incredibly hard to get anything done.
Exactly.... Same problems in Australia. Check out the history of Australian rail gauges if you want to see something that should be a no-brainer. The thing with Australia is that our state governments are too powerful and our local governments don't really exist; they are, effectively, an arm of the state government. Hope this helps, -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
participants (3)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Lev Lafayette -
Petros