Reform of the federation.

[madmug]

The cultural problem is the ridiculous opposition to primary industry and sense of entitlement that the rest of Australia should fund Tasmania to remain a giant nature reserve.

Oh, another instant expert.
From your grasp of the conversation thus far & the issues we've covered, clearly you havent read anything above. But you still feel inclined to throw some self opinionated crap onto the thread.
Thanks for adding nothing of worth.

 

[Elroo]

I can't think of a single right-wing commentator who thought bailing out the banks was a good idea.

It was Obama that did that, remember?

George Bush would disagree with you.

 

[madmug]

George Bush would disagree with you.

Dont spoil things with the facts.

Spiv dosent bother with them, why should you? he's all about emotional belief systems, not facts

 

[Power Raid]

Its fractured implementation was partially the result of resistance from the states, if the federal government was able to put into force a unified national policy it would've avoided some of the issues surrounding it. My main issue is that there's problems which arise when the federal government funds a policy area which is technically a state power, you get a disconnect between what the state's want and and the intent of those providing the funds.

Take a step back and ask wtf is the federal government wanting to implement policy over a state service?

Is it because they care or are they desperate to remain relevant or is it a big power grab?

If they were just being generous then simply hand over the funds.

That is exactly what they would do if they cared for our constitution as much as they cared for education. But we all remember what little respect our government had for that.

Thank god; we dodged a massive bullet there.

 

[Taylor]

I don't think the fed should have ever started pushing money and health and education, it's an easy win for election point scorers but the states become too dependent on it.

 

[madmug]

I don't think the fed should have ever started pushing money and health and education, it's an easy win for election point scorers but the states become too dependent on it.

States dont have the taxation measures that would pay for the services they are supposed to perform. Part of the problem is they probably dont want the stress of raising taxes, its easier to stick your hand out. Thats an old argument but probably has more than a grain of truth in it.

The problem with stronger states is we will end up with different health systems, education systems & god only knows what. ie a dogs breakfast of laws & rules which make operating as a country, a bloody dam site harder than it is now. Its hard enough now with Federal, State & council laws.
Cut out the middle man for god sake.

 

[Redalert]

Take a step back and ask wtf is the federal government wanting to implement policy over a state service?

Is it because they care or are they desperate to remain relevant or is it a big power grab?

If they were just being generous then simply hand over the funds.

That is exactly what they would do if they cared for our constitution as much as they cared for education. But we all remember what little respect our government had for that.

Thank god; we dodged a massive bullet there.

Its because the states don't bring in enough revenue to cover the high costs associated with a number of their portolios, and undertaking large scale investment generally requires federal assistance, particularly for the poorer states. Take out federal funding and the quality of services in areas like health and education deteriorates, while it also places additional pressure on state budgets which are fragile enough already.

The federal financial power means that they can indirectly influence state policy, in spite of what the dated constitution says. In any case the idea behind protecting states' rights was raised in 1901, but over the last 100 or so we've that eroded that through High Court decisions like Tasmania Dams, meaning its less and less relevant.

My point is I still don't see the reason behind retaining the state power at all, may as well give it entirely to the federal government.

 

[Taylor]

Small power states could be totally ignored in funding as long as NSW and VIC are looked after and governments would be re elected.

 

[madmug]

Its because the states don't bring in enough revenue to cover the high costs associated with a number of their portolios, and undertaking large scale investment generally requires federal assistance, particularly for the poorer states. Take out federal funding and the quality of services in areas like health and education deteriorates, while it also places additional pressure on state budgets which are fragile enough already.

The federal financial power means that they can indirectly influence state policy, in spite of what the dated constitution says. In any case the idea behind protecting states' rights was raised in 1901, but over the last 100 or so we've that eroded that through High Court decisions like Tasmania Dams, meaning its less and less relevant.

My point is I still don't see the reason behind retaining the state power at all, may as well give it entirely to the federal government.

The simple fact is that a 3 tier political system is totally inefficient in a modern country like Australia. Having 7 centres of political power in the states & Federal Gument, is just plain stupid. They were created during Colonial times. Their time has come & gone.
In the name of common sense & efficiency, they should go. We have too many politicians causing too much confusion & inefficiency, get rid of the middle man.

 

[Pessimistic]

Feds for legislation, states for operation.

Make it so as much as is practical

 

[Taylor]

What stops the population states legislating the less populous states over the sofa and taking what they want?

 

[madmug]

Feds for legislation, states for operation.

Make it so as much as is practical

Defense? & which state benefits from having bases & gets contracts to build stuff?, foreign affairs? Interstate commerce, pensions etc etc etc
Surely having a 2 tier system of one central Gument made up of representatives from across the nation, backed up by strong local/regional Guments would be much more efficient.
Of course it would.
Its that bloody obvious

 

[Pessimistic]

Local councils are just clubs even more addicted to parkin fines than the states

No more of those thanks

 

[Pessimistic]

What stops the population states legislating the less populous states over the sofa and taking what they want?

Like in britain or europe ? Good point

 

[Taylor]

Like in britain or europe ? Good point

WA alone is bigger than the UK and here the bush already gets neglected enough that an entire party swept to power through a royalties deal for the regions.

The Scots were so happy that nearly half voted to leave.

Do you believe that the insignificant number of WA MPs could have any sway in moving a federal focus from the majority of the population in NSW and VIC?

 

[Taylor]

Let me qualify that.

As long as the senate is voted along party lines there is no protection for less populous states.

If the senate stood up for their states the house of reps would need to look after their interests a bit.

 

[Max zero]

Let me qualify that.

As long as the senate is voted along party lines there is no protection for less populous states.

If the senate stood up for their states the house of reps would need to look after their interests a bit.

Thats more an issue with party politics in general. I propose we ban organised political parties.

 

[madmug]

Thats more an issue with party politics in general. I propose we ban organised political parties.

Yay!!!!

 

[Redalert]

Thats more an issue with party politics in general. I propose we ban organised political parties.

And have 76 Bob Katters try to run the country. Fun times.

 

[Power Raid]

Its because the states don't bring in enough revenue to cover the high costs associated with a number of their portolios, and undertaking large scale investment generally requires federal assistance, particularly for the poorer states. Take out federal funding and the quality of services in areas like health and education deteriorates, while it also places additional pressure on state budgets which are fragile enough already.

The federal financial power means that they can indirectly influence state policy, in spite of what the dated constitution says. In any case the idea behind protecting states' rights was raised in 1901, but over the last 100 or so we've that eroded that through High Court decisions like Tasmania Dams, meaning its less and less relevant.

My point is I still don't see the reason behind retaining the state power at all, may as well give it entirely to the federal government.

That just proves that our funding model is wrong at that the federal government was seeking to exploit that to undermine our constitution. It is a disgrace that we have such disrespectful governments .

 

[Max zero]

And have 76 Bob Katters try to run the country. Fun times.

And?

Either you trust the people to elect who they want or don't. If you think people are so stupid to vote in 76 Katter's then why bother with pretence of democracy in the first place? Just set up an autocratic government and be done with it.

 

[Power Raid]

Its because the states don't bring in enough revenue to cover the high costs associated with a number of their portolios, and undertaking large scale investment generally requires federal assistance, particularly for the poorer states. Take out federal funding and the quality of services in areas like health and education deteriorates, while it also places additional pressure on state budgets which are fragile enough already.

The federal financial power means that they can indirectly influence state policy, in spite of what the dated constitution says. In any case the idea behind protecting states' rights was raised in 1901, but over the last 100 or so we've that eroded that through High Court decisions like Tasmania Dams, meaning its less and less relevant.

My point is I still don't see the reason behind retaining the state power at all, may as well give it entirely to the federal government.

Who in their right mind would want to centralise power to anyone power base?

Should we move the government to Moscow?

 

[madmug]

Who in their right mind would want to centralise power to anyone power base?

Should we move the government to Moscow?

Nah, just leave it in Washington where it is now

 

[Redalert]

And?

Either you trust the people to elect who they want or don't. If you think people are so stupid to vote in 76 Katter's then why bother with pretence of democracy in the first place? Just set up an autocratic government and be done with it.

These people voted the Palmer United Party and Pauline Hanson into positions of power, don't put anything past your average voter. I'm not a massive fan of either major political party but at least I can trust either of them not to do something completely idiotic, like calling our biggest trading partner mongrels on live television.

And that's not even touching on the issues associated with trying to run a government full of independents. Political parties exist for a reason, they're not ideal, but they do their job.

 

[Redalert]

Who in their right mind would want to centralise power to anyone power base?

Should we move the government to Moscow?

Me? Greater centralisation is not an inherently bad thing.

That just proves that our funding model is wrong at that the federal government was seeking to exploit that to undermine our constitution. It is a disgrace that we have such disrespectful governments .

The courts say otherwise.