For those interested in a debate about political models…

I was just reflecting today that it’s getting close to 3 years since my* activist group briefed the Christians, Greens, and Democrats in the NSW Upper House… and yet this would not have worked that well in Queensland’s Upper House because.... they do not have one.

They did, but it was disbanded decades ago. Are NSW wasting money even bothering with an Upper House? Just how many “checks and balances” do State’s need?

Should we get into a bit of Unicameralism in NSW?

Would we save some serious money by just disbanding the States and having the Federal government run infrastructure, education, and hospitals from a Federal level and have local Shires look after the rest?

Anyone out there study this stuff?

* I say ‘my’ group because I formed it, yet I have since ‘resigned’ as leader and do not hang out there very often. We have too many disagreements. I’m so much more optimistic than they are!  ;-)

Someone should probably brief the Brisbane City Council. By the time they finish all the tunnels they want to build there probably won’t be any petrol left to drive through them! Though maybe they could be retrofitted for trams?

Dave Lankshear - 12 June 2008 02:01 PM

For those interested in a debate about political models…


Should we get into a bit of “Unicameralism” in NSW?

Would we save some serious money by just disbanding the States and having the Federal government run infrastructure, education, and hospitals from a Federal level and have local Shires look after the rest? .....

I just had a quick reminder not to try to speed-read some posts that introduce new words into the conversation. At first ( fast ) glance, I thought we were looking at ‘unicamelism’ which is a horse of a different colour.

I think that there would be some merit in firstly getting rid of state upper houses. Overall, for a country of a mere 21 million people, we seem to be way over represented by politicians and bureaucrats in federal, state and local spheres. And the bureaucratic duplication in health and education especially is a waste of resources and money that should be funneled into providing face to face services at the service-provider end.

Also, there are too many differing standards and laws in all manner of areas in our different states. There should only be one national standard that applies wherever we live, visit or move to.

With regard to local governments, I would prefer that there were no political parties involved - and just have ‘your local representative’ actually representing my and my neighbours’ views - and not those of the local ‘party’.

As to camels, well they can be likened to a cup of tea. How do you like yours - one lump or two ?

Hi David

An interesting question to me as it’s an old hobby horse of mine.  I have long been of the view that three levels of government in our small nation (using population rather than land mass as a measure) is excessive and inefficient.  So my vote (if I ever get the opportunity) would be for a bicameral federal government and a unicameral provincial or county style of local government.

With regard to the federal parliament, I am satisfied that the upper house has demonstrated its usefulness as a constructive restraint on the government of the day.  I would acknowledge that there are times when it has been more obstructive than constructive, but I think that’s just a cost of having the checks and balances that it provides.

As to local government, it doesn’t seem practical to me for the federal government to have to work with the number of local governments that our current system has.  So I would move to a larger unit of local government.  NSW, for example, might equate to 6 or so provinces/counties.  In other states there may not be as many.  Indeed, these provinces would not necessarily reflect current state boundaries.  Some of the more heavily populated counties may need administrative sub-offices in major population centres as well to provide better services.

In any case, I’m sure that we could improve efficiencies and save tax payers dollars without losing the democratic safeguards and benefits that we currently enjoy.

Bob

Australia has the world’s largest feral camel population. Sounds like a good reason for Al Stewart to arrange a bishops “eco-holiday” ;-)

Australia only has a population of 21 million… and yet has a Federal Government and all our 7 States. California has a population of 36,553,215 and yet only has a Federal Government and ONE State government (with all the local city councils as well of course).

I’m for abolishing Australia’s State governments and just having the Federal government run a national education, health, and infrastructure program — while of course retaining local councils and their functions. As long as we can still vote in a Federal democratic system, what would we lose by abolishing the States?

Thanks Bob… you posted just a nano-second before I did, or I would have mentioned your nice summary.

It seems even my Greenie mates agree.

I would certainly back abolition of the States and consolidation of the Shires into more efficiently working administrative regions.  Would save taxpayers heaps of money which could be injected into more worthwhile activities and projects.

What’s this? Something my conservative Christians and my Greenie mates agree on?

Dave Lankshear - 12 June 2008 03:48 PM

What’s this? Something
my conservative Christians and my Greenie mates agree on?

Do not speak of such things . . . -:)

There are too many political jobs on the line t odump the states, because it needs to pass by referendum - and they are votes arranged by one of two political parties, which run the states already.

States are great when you’re a colonial settlement and you really can’t communicate with the other side of the country, but with the advent of Internet, email and even Blackberries, the barriers to government just aren’t there now.

Leigh Hardwick - 12 June 2008 09:42 PM

There are too many political jobs on the line t odump the states, because it needs to pass by referendum - and they are votes arranged by one of two political parties, which run the states already.

States are great when you’re a colonial settlement and you really can’t communicate with the other side of the country, but with the advent of Internet, email and even Blackberries, the barriers to government just aren’t there now.

Hi Leigh

I think you’ve just introduced another question to the thread: Could it ever happen?  But leaving that aside for a minute, what do you think is the ideal governmental structure for 21st century (and beyond) Australia?

Bob

Just to feed back that my other greenie and social reform forums are still overwhelmingly positive about dumping the Australian states.

California functions with one “State” and they have 36 million people.

But leaving that aside for a minute, what do you think is the ideal governmental structure for 21st century (and beyond) Australia?

Digital referendums on pretty much everything.

Bob,

The only way you’ll get ideal government is a trip to Armaggedon. New creation for President!!!

I think right now that we need to dump the States as a starting point. Ridiculous amounts of transperancy is needed, because I am not interested in running the country. But others are. Whether that’s in Parliament or in the newspaper. A democracy needs to be transperant to be effective. We don’t elect representatives to be dictators for 3 years. That’s a good start.

Digital referendums are a great idea if you’re in the top .01 of the global economy, but most people don’t have genuine access to a PC (internet and skills to use it!) and there is no ability for most people to participate in such wonderful democracy, especially when you consider a lot of people can’t speak English or read, let alone criticially. I think the nation should just focus on spreading the tax load as best it can and try to make good decisions in Parliament. Transperancy allows review of that.

But to conclude. You’re going to be disappointed in seeking even the “ideal” in this Age.

I think right now that we need to dump the States as a starting point.

Speak for yourself, Leigh.  As a Western Australian, I tend to think a better starting point might be to dump the Commonwealth.

Alan Dungey - 13 June 2008 02:48 AM

I think right now that we need to dump the States as a starting point.

Speak for yourself, Leigh.  As a Western Australian, I tend to think a better starting point might be to dump the Commonwealth.

I think he was speaking for himself Alan - isn’t that what these forums are all about?

Bob

I agree that all the different layers of government is inefficient but arguably it provides a measure of safety in the event of a failure in one level of government.

I know in America, all the different state goverments (50 in all!) provide a training ground for future presidents / presidential candidates. Perhaps this kind of things happens in Australia as well in that some representatives at a state level move on to the federal level.

Whether the benefits of all the diffferent levels of government outweigh the costs I don’t know. As a matter of interest, what are the costs of our present system, compared to what the costs would be for a government structure without a state level?

rgds

I think he was speaking for himself Alan

Well I wouldn’t know.  I guess he can speak for himself about whether he was or not.
:-)

Seriously, apart from the occasional whimsical sigh in the direction of secession, I do find it surprising that we Australians knock our federal constitution so much.

It’s one of the most successful in the world.  Federal countries rate very highly on the index of global political freedom - four federations:  the USA, Canada, Switzerland and Australia are 4 of the 6 oldest continuous democracies in the world.  4 of the six oldest democracies are also constitutional monarchies (Canada, Australia, Britain, Sweden).

Our constitution combines both of these excellent features.

I suspect Australia would be better off if there were more than 6 States because I think NSW is too large and dominant; and Queensland soon will be as well.  I would support more States in order to strengthen the federation.

But in considering new federal units, we must remember that political institutions are organic - they belong not only to the present generation, but they are an inheritance from former generations, which we should try to pass down in a healthy state to future generations.  We should be hesitant about tampering with them.  If you don’t understand the effect and implications of a proposed constitutional change, it is very sensible to vote NO to it.  Australians have voted NO to most proposed chances to the constitution, which just goes to show that they are very sensible people on the whole.