1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

State and Territory politics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by boyo, Nov 1, 2013.

  1. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  2. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Should a conviction for fraud, corruption, etc. preclude a politician from a parliamentary pension and a gold card?

    Discuss.
  3. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    Do we even need to discuss that? I think that would be a 100% yes vote.
  4. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  5. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Should Australia remove a layer of government and remove state governments, but keep the states as geographical areas?

    Some say that Australia is over-governed.

    Discuss.
  6. Hugh Jarse Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    10,842
    I concur. In the old days when it was a 1 week steam ship ride between Capital Cities, it was useful to have more local government.

    Now you can fly to nearly all major cities in an hour, do your business and be back home for dinner. There is phone, email, video conferencing if you can't be bothered flying.

    What do you do with all the unemployed bureaucrats if you get rid of State governments and their public service machinery?
    There are apparently about 700000 of them that in any other enterprise would be declared surplus to requirement and reorganised out of existence.
    BPC likes this.
  7. Rob42 Ron Walden (29)

    Likes Received:
    519
    Well, I'm going to stand up for state governments, more for the concept than the reality. If we need to reduce the amount of government, I'd rather get the Federal government back to focussing on its core functions, and leaving items like health and education to the states, as far as possible. Duplication of funding and oversight leads to confusion and buck-passing, obviously. But better then to let the states do what they are supposed to be doing, and keep the Federal government out of it.
  8. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    Why not rid ourselves of the 800 odd local councils and the thousands of councillors etc
  9. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693

    Some things need to be unified. Road laws for example and a national education curriculum though the states do have a role. Inconsistency in these areas is of no benefit to anybody. Being such a diverse nation, abolishing the states could also be very counter productive as they cater for more specialized services applicable to the regions they represent. Being in Northern Australia, the best example of this would be Indigenous policy. Some of the stuff over the years that has come from Canberra has been out of scope despite the best of intentions.

    The funniest example of centralizing government from Canberra is Royal Darwin Hospital. It is and exact replica of Woden Hospital in Canberra. Why the hell does a hospital in Darwin require snow shields? It was established before the NT obtained self government. The location of the hospital is very poorly planned and no local future considerations for the expansion of Darwin were considered either.
  10. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693

    The problem with this is the constitution is just not geared to handle modern day challenges and a global community. The classic example of this is the Commonwealth through the Tasmanian Dams case reinforcing its section 51 powers regarding foreign affairs. Personally I think it vital the Commonwealth have an element of control over environmental policy for an example. If not, Joh would have logged the Daintree without even having to have his plans scrutinized by an upper house which QLD doesn't have.
  11. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693

    Why would you do that without judging the viability and role of each council on its individual merits?

    Shire reform is nothing new and it hasn't been smooth sailing.
  12. Rob42 Ron Walden (29)

    Likes Received:
    519

    I don't disagree, I'm not suggesting the Federal govt be abolished, and obviously there are areas like environmental policy that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. I'm mostly thinking of areas where increased levels of Federal funding over the past few decades has led to confusion between states and Commonwealth as to who is responsible for what. Eg education.
  13. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Inside Shoulder likes this.
  14. Inside Shoulder Nathan Sharpe (72)

    Likes Received:
    9,494
    Speaking of walkabouts - did you see the footage of Greg Smith parading through the X getting a "feel" for what its like. with 20 coppers all round him - fantastic fact finding effort.
    And what about this for a means of devising important, liberty infringing, policy:
  15. Rob42 Ron Walden (29)

    Likes Received:
    519

    Nothing like a bit of nepotism to change your outlook on policy. A real shame, as Smith had been a voice of sanity when it came to crime and punishment until catching the mandatory sentencing contagion.
    boyo and Inside Shoulder like this.
  16. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    Nice idea but ended when the states handed over tax powers to the Federal gov't
  17. Hugh Jarse Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    10,842
    Logic says ditch the State governments. In most instances, they are only interested in being the Lord Mayor's of their respective State Capitols, with little attention being paid to areas outside the greater metropolitan areas.

    Problem is Canberra is not up to the job of replacing the State Govts, if we did away with them.

    We are struck with what we have got.
  18. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    To get the number of politicians down and save money abolish the 800 local gov't and the 8000 local politicians that go with it.

    Then redraw the state boundaries so they have better populations.. Abolish Tasmania put it back into Victoria, rejoin NT and South Australia into WA. So with 3 States we save on 24 Senators and 50 odd House of Reps. That should save 100 million a year.

    What is fair in Tasmania with less that 500,000 people having say 10 senators while NSW has the same number. That is unrepresentative of the majority. Then there would be no greens and we could get on with developing the country.
  19. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    I understand you don't particularly like the greens, not many people do. Surely though, there is enough material out there to criticize them about without having to resort to plain making stuff up?
    Braveheart81 likes this.
  20. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    22,799
    House of Reps electorates are based on population, not on equal state representation like the senate. You could reduce the number of seats without redrawing any boundaries if that was the aim.

    Your Greens bashing would make more sense if there were more than 2 of their 9 federal senators from Tasmania.

Share This Page