I know some regulars say YES, but does anyone here think state governments are worth hanging onto, and if so, why? And if not, why not? Let’s have a forum poll.

>THE Queensland premier now earns the same as US President Barack Obama, the state opposition says, and faces a backbench revolt over a controversial decision to give MPs a $57,000 pay rise.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/queensland-mp-sean-choat-to-give-pay-rise-to-his-electorate/story-e6frgczx-1226676440902

Yes.

Bubblecar said:

>THE Queensland premier now earns the same as US President Barack Obama, the state opposition says, and faces a backbench revolt over a controversial decision to give MPs a $57,000 pay rise.

Doesn’t get such a nice house though.

… must say that the US President is woefully underpaid for the job.

party_pants said:

… must say that the US President is woefully underpaid for the job.

+1

But there are lots of perks. You get grey hair prematurely, secret service agents following you and your family around all the time and you get to sit in the same seat Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman in.

Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

… must say that the US President is woefully underpaid for the job.

+1

But there are lots of perks. You get grey hair prematurely, secret service agents following you and your family around all the time and you get to sit in the same seat Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman in.

Ewww. I’m sure they are alowed a new chair if they want one.

Like on Yes Minister, the first thing a new minister does is order a new chair. Bernard offered a choice of two chairs to go with two kinds of minters – one sort of folds up instantly and the other goes round and round in circles.

Yes, after what the Vic state gov did to TAFE

ruined my art education and now Im unhappy

and I wont forgive them, ever

Come on people, vote in this poll. It’s compulsory.

I say YES.

maybe state gov should be reduced to a federal department that deal with local councils

So that’s three YES so far.

I hold an uninformed opinion and therefore feel I cannot vote in this poll.

Divine Angel said:

I hold an uninformed opinion and therefore feel I cannot vote in this poll.

Just say YES. I don’t know much about it either.

Bully!

No.

morrie said:

No.

Why not?

Score so far:

Yes: 3
No: 1
Don’t know: 1

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/queensland-mp-sean-choat-to-give-pay-rise-to-his-electorate/story-e6frgczx-1226676440902

Queensland mps now look like those greedy CEO’s

Is there a market for a used Farry O’Barrell?

Bubblecar said:

morrie said:

No.

Why not?

I am against centralised control. I have seen too many examples of it failing. Centralised IT control in large organisations for example. Centralised purchasing systems, centralised maintenance systems. It usually involves the imposition of excessive bureaucracy and ‘standards’ that do not match the needs of all the end users.

I did a survey of maintenance systems in a large multinational corporation once. It was interesting that sites tended to change from centralised to distributed maintenance systems on about a ten year cycle. It was an example of change for the sake of change.

I gauge governments by the extent of environmental damage they do, so whether the State government with their ability to lay waste to large tracks of land for ?development, or is it local government with their continual obsession of cleaning up the environment (another word for removing indigenous vegetation and introducing weeds). I say a pox on them all!

I believe that state politics largely serves little purpose from a governance standpoint that can’t be rolled up to a Fed level.

I think if we were to roll up things like education, policing, road authority etc to the Fed level we could eliminate a lot of duplication of effort and provide a far more consistent and standardised service in these areas.

I also think that the pay raise given to the sitting QLD MPs is extraordinarily hypocritical given the austerity measures they have put in place over the past 18 months. The lack of a senate means that any sitting QLD govt can do pretty much what ever they want…

The salary paid to the POTUS is more of a stipend than it is anything else… he was a millionaire in his own right before being elected, now he lives a essentially expense-less life.

Absolutely positively definitely yes we should get rid of them.

However we can’t due to the Australian constitution requiring them. But the constitution does not state how small the state government can be. ;)

diddly-squat said:

I believe that state politics largely serves little purpose from a governance standpoint that can’t be rolled up to a Fed level.

sorry… and can’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be rolled up to a Fed level.

How much are other states’ MPs paid?

Divine Angel said:

How much are other states’ MPs paid?

Over or under the counter? In NSW, millions for the right people.

in breaking news, it seems the QLD govt is going to back-flip on the pay rise

morrie said:

Divine Angel said:

How much are other states’ MPs paid?

Over or under the counter? In NSW, millions for the right people.

well no…

The pay increase in Qld was going to basically put them in line with the Feds… I can’t see there being too much difference between this and what the pollies from other states are paid. One of the issues here in Qld is that in 2009 pay rates were frozen, but MP’s are paid a biannual parliamentary allowance that they can use on a completely discretionary basis. The idea was to trade some of the allowance for a raise in base pay

Spiny Norman said:

Absolutely positively definitely yes we should get rid of them.

However we can’t due to the Australian constitution requiring them. But the constitution does not state how small the state government can be. ;)

which raises the question

how small can it be

but we dont want a Fed gov becoming like the American Gov, big bloated and inefficient

CrazyNeutrino said:

Spiny Norman said:

Absolutely positively definitely yes we should get rid of them.

However we can’t due to the Australian constitution requiring them. But the constitution does not state how small the state government can be. ;)

which raises the question

how small can it be

but we dont want a Fed gov becoming like the American Gov, big bloated and inefficient

Given the bureaucratic processes that are required by government, it’s not at all surprising that they are inefficient in many areas. The idea is that the inefficiency comes at the cost of transparency and audit-ability.

This is after the 2009 pay freeze was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between government in the form of administrative public servants, and government in the form of politicians and parliaments etc.

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

You pose an interesting idea, how do I subscribe to your newsletter?

The Rev Dodgson said:

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

Why?

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

Why?

Because if NZ can function perfectly well as a nation with about 3 million people, there is no reason why the Australian states can’t as well.

Also we’d get more seats on the UN.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

Why?

Because if NZ can function perfectly well as a nation with about 3 million people, there is no reason why the Australian states can’t as well.

Also we’d get more seats on the UN.

Being a separate nation to NSW and VIC does sound appealing

>Because if NZ can function perfectly well as a nation with about 3 million people, there is no reason why the Australian states can’t as well.<

Ah, so we should abolish the Oz parliament and be governed by New Zealand. Interesting idea but would need a bit of tinkering with the constitution.

Yes, but it will not happen.

Is Mr Car allowed to vote in a poll that is about governments that he doesn’t vote for anyway?

Bubblecar said:

>Because if NZ can function perfectly well as a nation with about 3 million people, there is no reason why the Australian states can’t as well.<

Ah, so we should abolish the Oz parliament and be governed by New Zealand. Interesting idea but would need a bit of tinkering with the constitution.

No, functions that are better served over a larger region, such as defence, would be transferred to the World Government, and everything else would be handled by State or local government.

Of course we’d need to set up a World Government, which initially would just have the countries that were previously part of Australia, but as soon as other countries saw how well it worked I’m sure they’d be queuing up to join.

We’ll need new flags.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Because if NZ can function perfectly well as a nation with about 3 million people, there is no reason why the Australian states can’t as well.<

Ah, so we should abolish the Oz parliament and be governed by New Zealand. Interesting idea but would need a bit of tinkering with the constitution.

No, functions that are better served over a larger region, such as defence, would be transferred to the World Government, and everything else would be handled by State or local government.

Of course we’d need to set up a World Government, which initially would just have the countries that were previously part of Australia, but as soon as other countries saw how well it worked I’m sure they’d be queuing up to join.

Isn’t that similar to the European Economic Union and the government in Brussels?

Divine Angel said:

We’ll need new flags.

I vote for just a smiley face on the new flag

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

… must say that the US President is woefully underpaid for the job.

+1

But there are lots of perks. You get grey hair prematurely, secret service agents following you and your family around all the time and you get to sit in the same seat Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman in.

Ewww. I’m sure they are alowed a new chair if they want one.

I dunno, the chair is probably not a 50 buck unit from Office Works. It is more likely it was carved from oak from a British ship sunk during the revolutionary war with leather highlights from a cow from Abe Lincolns own farm and brass work from melted down cannons from the assault on Tripoli.

Or something. Only semi TIC, I know Army HQ has a special leather and riveted chair for the Chief of Army…but is now in an outer office where guests can sit on it though they rarely do.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Because if NZ can function perfectly well as a nation with about 3 million people, there is no reason why the Australian states can’t as well.<

Ah, so we should abolish the Oz parliament and be governed by New Zealand. Interesting idea but would need a bit of tinkering with the constitution.

No, functions that are better served over a larger region, such as defence, would be transferred to the World Government, and everything else would be handled by State or local government.

Of course we’d need to set up a World Government, which initially would just have the countries that were previously part of Australia, but as soon as other countries saw how well it worked I’m sure they’d be queuing up to join.

Funnily enough the predicted one world order and global blocs of countries seems to be declining and the tendency for many groups is to discover a point of difference or patriotic pride then agitate for independence and a world trending toward Balkinisation not central authoritah. Especially if said group can discover a cultural affinity going back generations with an oil field on the old lands in order to finance the new country, …

Seems Obama does have a different chair than Clinton
http://chellgrove.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/president-obamas-oval-office-chair/

Divine Angel said:

Seems Obama does have a different chair than Clinton
http://chellgrove.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/president-obamas-oval-office-chair/

wonders who has Bill’s chair?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

Seems Obama does have a different chair than Clinton
http://chellgrove.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/president-obamas-oval-office-chair/

wonders who has Bill’s chair?

Dunno, but Monica got to keep the dress.

Divine Angel said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

Seems Obama does have a different chair than Clinton
http://chellgrove.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/president-obamas-oval-office-chair/

wonders who has Bill’s chair?

Dunno, but Monica got to keep the dress.

I thought her mate had the dress? Or did Monica hand in her own dress for testing?

IIRC Monica kept the dress but handed it over to the guy doing the investigation; I’m not sure who had the dress tested though.

Divine Angel said:

IIRC Monica kept the dress but handed it over to the guy doing the investigation; I’m not sure who had the dress tested though.

Well that was a bit stupid of her. The least she could have done is give it a wash with some bleach if it absolutely positively needed to be handed over.

Well yeah. If you’re having it off with the POTUS you’d want to destroy the evidence. That’s just common sense.

Divine Angel said:

Well yeah. If you’re having it off with the POTUS you’d want to destroy the evidence. That’s just common sense.

she was lucky the cia didnt wisk her away

Divine Angel said:

Well yeah. If you’re having it off with the POTUS you’d want to destroy the evidence. That’s just common sense.

I will have to go back and check it out (I will see how interested I am later). She was either compelled in which case she should have given it a wash to make it nice and clean after the date, or she wanted to prove she was giving gobbies to the prez and to that end presented the dress.

But I was impressed by Bills lawyerly dissection of what is a sexual relationship and what is a gobbie albeit he was using that argument to deny the gobbie. He should have employed Kennedys security team instead.

Gobbie… I haven’t heard that term since high school.

I like the Qld Gvt pollies getting such an obscene payrise.

After their sacking 15000+ public servants, cutting untold frontline programs and taking environmental protection in the state back to “the good old days”. All for the causes of saving money and cutting green tape, it should give the people of Qld one more kick in the balls to remind them to vote them back out at the next election.

I think that state governments are in no danger of being abolished soon, or in the near future. In a sense they mediate power of the federal gov, having benefits both ways re that, and mediate power between the fed and local government. Not at all a bad situation IMO.

Divine Angel said:

This is after the 2009 pay freeze was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Not sure how it can be unconstitutional

WWDVD?

wee wee digital video disk?

OCDC said:

WWDVD?

LOL

OCDC said:

WWDVD?

He’s hot-footed it to Singapore so his opinions don’t matter any more.

Teleost said:

I like the Qld Gvt pollies getting such an obscene payrise.

After their sacking 15000+ public servants, cutting untold frontline programs and taking environmental protection in the state back to “the good old days”. All for the causes of saving money and cutting green tape, it should give the people of Qld one more kick in the balls to remind them to vote them back out at the next election.

that had to be done for the mps obscene payrise

what should state mps be paid?

No.

transition said:

I think that state governments are in no danger of being abolished soon, or in the near future. In a sense they mediate power of the federal gov, having benefits both ways re that, and mediate power between the fed and local government. Not at all a bad situation IMO.

+1

That reminds me, what was the go with proposed amendment to the constitution regarding the so-called recognition of local government? I never heard anyone actually say what it was about, but I got an inkling the issue-behind-the-issue was about enabling the Federal government to deal directly with Local Governments i.e. to fund, to influence, ‘around’ state governments.

Well, since no-one ever asked, my opinion is that there ought be a cut-off IQ point below which people lose the entitlement to vote.

I realise there are some encouraging thrusts in this direction already – our prisons are full of intellectually disabled and mentally ill drug addicts – but I think we can go one further and quantify the level of intellectual function required to influence the outcome of an election.

Let’s start by drawing the line above the ability to discriminate between a Science forum and a Politics forum….

Rule 303 said:

Well, since no-one ever asked, my opinion is that there ought be a cut-off IQ point below which people lose the entitlement to vote.

I realise there are some encouraging thrusts in this direction already – our prisons are full of intellectually disabled and mentally ill drug addicts – but I think we can go one further and quantify the level of intellectual function required to influence the outcome of an election.

Let’s start by drawing the line above the ability to discriminate between a Science forum and a Politics forum….

I thought this was a holiday forum… I guess I don’t get to vote anymore.

Stealth said:

I thought this was a holiday forum… I guess I don’t get to vote anymore.

What, a forum about taking a holiday? Really?

Rule 303 said:

Stealth said:

I thought this was a holiday forum… I guess I don’t get to vote anymore.

What, a forum about taking a holiday? Really?

Well let me describe today’s holiday. Get up at 8.00am, drive up the mountain (no need for snow chains as 4WDs are exempt). Grab the skis and hit the slopes by 10.00am. Stop skiing around midday as the snow fall is getting heavy. Start skking again at 2.00pm until master stealth gets too cold, so he plays with nana and poppa while skiing goes on. 4.00pm skiing stops as the lifts close and the wifes legs are too wobbly to continue.

Stealth said:

Well let me describe today’s holiday. Get up at 8.00am, drive up the mountain (no need for snow chains as 4WDs are exempt). Grab the skis and hit the slopes by 10.00am. Stop skiing around midday as the snow fall is getting heavy. Start skking again at 2.00pm until master stealth gets too cold, so he plays with nana and poppa while skiing goes on. 4.00pm skiing stops as the lifts close and the wifes legs are too wobbly to continue.

Sounds alright…

I had you pegged as a Westralian, for some reason. Are you in Vic / NSW?

yes

Rule 303 said:

Stealth said:

Well let me describe today’s holiday. Get up at 8.00am, drive up the mountain (no need for snow chains as 4WDs are exempt). Grab the skis and hit the slopes by 10.00am. Stop skiing around midday as the snow fall is getting heavy. Start skking again at 2.00pm until master stealth gets too cold, so he plays with nana and poppa while skiing goes on. 4.00pm skiing stops as the lifts close and the wifes legs are too wobbly to continue.

Sounds alright…

I had you pegged as a Westralian, for some reason. Are you in Vic / NSW?

I am a WAlien, and I am here in Perth working 15hrs days. But my wife and kids have nicked off to NZ to visit Mrs Stealth’s family and do a spot of skiing on Ruapehu…

Keeping me updated on Facebook on all the fun they are having…

I do think that the debate should be limited to those who are domiciled within territories controlled under the Australian Constitution.

Stealth said:

Rule 303 said:

Stealth said:

Well let me describe today’s holiday. Get up at 8.00am, drive up the mountain (no need for snow chains as 4WDs are exempt). Grab the skis and hit the slopes by 10.00am. Stop skiing around midday as the snow fall is getting heavy. Start skking again at 2.00pm until master stealth gets too cold, so he plays with nana and poppa while skiing goes on. 4.00pm skiing stops as the lifts close and the wifes legs are too wobbly to continue.

Sounds alright…

I had you pegged as a Westralian, for some reason. Are you in Vic / NSW?

I am a WAlien, and I am here in Perth working 15hrs days. But my wife and kids have nicked off to NZ to visit Mrs Stealth’s family and do a spot of skiing on Ruapehu…

Keeping me updated on Facebook on all the fun they are having…

And here I was thinking you were poncing about on the ski slopes too. :D

Stealth said:

I am a WAlien, and I am here in Perth working 15hrs days. But my wife and kids have nicked off to NZ to visit Mrs Stealth’s family and do a spot of skiing on Ruapehu…

Keeping me updated on Facebook on all the fun they are having…

Oh dear.

I hope your next wife works out better.

Rule 303 said:

Stealth said:

I am a WAlien, and I am here in Perth working 15hrs days. But my wife and kids have nicked off to NZ to visit Mrs Stealth’s family and do a spot of skiing on Ruapehu…

Keeping me updated on Facebook on all the fun they are having…

Oh dear.

I hope your next wife works out better.

I tell her that.

morrie said:

I am against centralised control. I have seen too many examples of it failing.

The problem is that States are still too large to give genuinely ‘local’ control of institutions like schools, hospitals and roads.

The normal line is to collapse three layers of government into two, with Federal government responsible for funding, setting standards and national issues, and then an enhanced regional government – larger/stronger than current local government but smaller than states – responsible for delivery of services.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

Tasmania would be stuffed. The large revenue shortfall required to maintain service standards anything like current expectations would, I imagine, lead directly to a much more aggressive pro-forestry policy exacerbating many times the existing tensions in the community. And services would decline significantly anyway.

MartinB said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I vote we keep the state governments and get rid of the national one.

Tasmania would be stuffed. The large revenue shortfall required to maintain service standards anything like current expectations would, I imagine, lead directly to a much more aggressive pro-forestry policy exacerbating many times the existing tensions in the community. And services would decline significantly anyway.

Obviously we have to refine the detail on this proposal.

Perhaps Tasmania would be better to join Victoria, or maybe the other two large islands in the region.

MartinB said:

morrie said:

I am against centralised control. I have seen too many examples of it failing.

The problem is that States are still too large to give genuinely ‘local’ control of institutions like schools, hospitals and roads.

The normal line is to collapse three layers of government into two, with Federal government responsible for funding, setting standards and national issues, and then an enhanced regional government – larger/stronger than current local government but smaller than states – responsible for delivery of services.

Where are they doing that?

Most large countries seem to have at least three layers of government and parts of the UK have five. Eurozone, UK, country, county and local.

Dare I say NZ? :-). Anyway I wasn’t arguing the merits per se, just giving the line.

Ultimately, the real issue is not so much exactly how many levels there are but:
a) What is the cost of the different levels and
b) How are the responsibilities at different levels defined and how do they overlap.

The criticism is that Australian state govs are relatively expensive for our population base (though no, I have no comparison figures to hand) and have badly overlapping responsibilities with the Federal government. If those issues were sorted out, we could have 10 levels of government if we liked…

Incidentally I am not sure if there are any places in the UK that have all 3 of a country, county and local governments. There are no counties in Scotland or NI, and nothing below county level in Wales.

Whoops, no, you’re right – there are community councils in Wales. My mistake.

MartinB said:

Dare I say NZ? :-). Anyway I wasn’t arguing the merits per se, just giving the line.

Ultimately, the real issue is not so much exactly how many levels there are but:
a) What is the cost of the different levels and
b) How are the responsibilities at different levels defined and how do they overlap.

The criticism is that Australian state govs are relatively expensive for our population base (though no, I have no comparison figures to hand) and have badly overlapping responsibilities with the Federal government. If those issues were sorted out, we could have 10 levels of government if we liked…

I don’t disagree, but I’m suggesting that things like taxation, education and health should be handled entirely at a state level. Whatever is left we can hive off to a World government to reduce costs.

MartinB said:

Incidentally I am not sure if there are any places in the UK that have all 3 of a country, county and local governments. There are no counties in Scotland or NI, and nothing below county level in Wales.

Are you sure about that? Scotland certainly has counties, although it’s possible they don’t have county councils; I just assumed they did, but I admit to never having had a letter from one.

MartinB said:

morrie said:

I am against centralised control. I have seen too many examples of it failing.

The problem is that States are still too large to give genuinely ‘local’ control of institutions like schools, hospitals and roads.

The normal line is to collapse three layers of government into two, with Federal government responsible for funding, setting standards and national issues, and then an enhanced regional government – larger/stronger than current local government but smaller than states – responsible for delivery of services.

Can you provide an example of where that system is being used sucessfully, Martin?

As you were. I see that the question has been asked.

The answer to everything says:

“In 1975, legislation passed by the Conservative government of Edward Heath (1970–1974) introduced a system of two-tier local government in Scotland (see Local government areas of Scotland 1973 to 1996), divided between large Regional Councils and smaller District Councils. The only exceptions to this were the three Island Councils, Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney which had the combined powers of Regions and Districts. The Conservative government of John Major (1990–1997) decided to abolish this system and merge their powers into new unitary authorities. The new councils vary widely in size — some are the same as counties, such as Clackmannanshire, some are the same as former districts, such as Inverclyde and some are the same as the former regions, such as Highland. The changes took effect in 1996 with shadow councillors elected in 1995 to oversee the smooth transition of control.”

So it seems we were both right about Scotland, I was just a little out of date.

The local government reforms of 1996 seem to have abolished county councils and replaced them with district councils such that counties remain only as a historic division (although confusingly it seems that some districts get referred to as counties anyway)

Actually there are community councils in Scotland too, but they seem to have even less power than in Wales or England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Scotland

“Community councils represent the interests of local people. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consult community councils on planning, development and other issues directly affecting that local community. However, the community council has no direct say in the delivery of services. In many areas they do not function at all, but some work very effectively at improving their local area. Elections for community councils are determined by the local authority but the law does state that candidates cannot stand on a party-political ticket.”

Almost stretching the point to call that a level of government…

Given that this change is never going to happen, it’s moot, but it is true that it would seem that elsewhere regional government structures don’t replace local councils.

>>Almost stretching the point to call that a level of government…

Not sure, given the political science definition of politics.

Locals in councils, not excluding community groups, have a substantial say in where resources go, something of a coal face hands on involvement in not only the distrubution of resources but the processes too. The mix of informal and formal involved are interesting to observe. Sometimes a bit vicar of dibley parochial, but not too bad wth some lightheartedness , but empowering also of local people.

transition said:

Locals in councils, not excluding community groups, have a substantial say in where resources go, something of a coal face hands on involvement in not only the distrubution of resources but the processes too.

Except that in this case they don’t, if the quote that I provided is accurate.

>>Except that in this case they don’t, if the quote that I provided is accurate.

Yeah, I square bracketed something like “where it works” in there and this forum doesn’t show anything bracketed that way.

Well my point was that community councils in Scotland are barely a level of government, given their highly limited functions. I wasn’t making any point about community councils or local government in general.

Shooting, prospecting, hunting, cattle-grazing and logging: does this sound to you like the management principles that should apply to Australia’s national parks? Because if you live in Victoria, NSW or Queensland, this is the future your state government has in mind.

State governments = waste of space

While we are on this general topic, there is a move in WA to amalgamate local councils in the metro area that are unsustainable at their present sizes.

http://www.dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/LG/AdvisoryBoard/StructuralElectoralReform.aspx

Ian said:

Shooting, prospecting, hunting, cattle-grazing and logging: does this sound to you like the management principles that should apply to Australia’s national parks? Because if you live in Victoria, NSW or Queensland, this is the future your state government has in mind.

State governments = waste of space

Sadly, WA looks like going towards shooting in National Parks if the Bungalow Bill Party has it’s way.