The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Abolishing the states - the benefits ignored > Comments

Abolishing the states - the benefits ignored : Comments

By John August, published 30/8/2005

John August argues the case for abolishing the states and territories of Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Great to see so many correspondents acknowledging that the current political system has failed.

Frankly i would not be upset with regional governments that looked and acted and had constitutional validity equivalent to new states, but it does seem rather a convoluted process of reform to rewrite the entire constitution to achieve that. When the current constitution is flexible enough to fix the problems. Political forces have always managed to impede the peoples move toward a fairer and more constructive democracy through the creation of new states, eventually that change must come, political social and economic considerations demand it. The question must be asked, why not just utilise the current constitutional provisions, everything that needs to be done to decentralise our nation and repower democracy can be done very simply that way.
Posted by Chuck, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 9:49:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Klaas, your notion of "a superior form of decentralisation" with power ceded to the commonwealth with delivery to a revamped local government flies in the face of economic modelling. Decentralisation only works if a new node is created through which the funds of government then circulate. Yours will do nothing of a sort and may actually speed up the degree of market concentration, not to Sydney or Melbourne, but to Canberra.

Greg Craven made the very telling point that if the Feds can heavy the states at the moment, imagine how ruthless they could be with an enlarged local council and no State powers in between.

And your apparent distaste at the very thought of a "conservative" occupying a post as Professor of Government and Law, and the implication that he might actually influence the opinions of students, will not sell too well in the bush.

My assessment of the abolish the states push is that it is a bright but cheap, and ultimately impractical diversion. It is designed to distract regional voters from the one realistic, available and achievable reform that can do most to deliver the good governance they thought was their right but have now been told is theirs only as a concessionary whim.

The simple test of any reform for the regions would be, would it protect our region from a future Mark Latham/Peter Garrett style Federal government?

So if the cities won't wear it because it diminishes their status and the bush won't wear it out of well founded distrust of left/green "reforms", then it is going no-where fast.
Posted by Perseus, Thursday, 1 September 2005 11:59:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What makes any of us think that the good people of perth WA would for one minuet consider uncoupling themsemselves from the cash cow of the Northern mining wealth. On the otherhand why should all the wealth go south when the north of the state is in need of infrastructure and development.

Are the states the core of the problem with duplication and waste. The USA has states but doesnt suffer from these problems to the extent that we do.
Posted by Jellyback, Thursday, 1 September 2005 5:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting point, Jellyback. The US has "farm states" that are not dominated by a metropolis and it is no coincidence that development is more evenly distributed.

While the respective state constitutions have provisions that appear to give the urban population a veto over the right to self determination, through the referendum provision, they would shred all moral standing if they were to do so.

Both the international and national political elite have, over the past half century, actively encouraged the self determination of over 100 small states with populations as low as 12,000 (Nauru). Half of these small states have full voting rights in the UN while the rest have powers equal to, if not greater than, an Australian State. And we just spent $3 or $4 Billion to gain independence for E.Timor.

In every case the principles established by the UN Declaration of Human Rights have applied. That is, the decision on self determination is the exclusive prerogative of the community concerned. The pre-existing dominant (colonial) community has had no veto over the aspirations of the minority.

The only exceptions to this rule have been by governments exercising dictatorial powers, ie, Indonesia in West Papua, China in Tibet etc. And the urban community in Australia would need to think very long and hard before they embarked on that road. For it would mark the formal, and unambiguous end of any moral standing or legitimate authority. It is a road that can only lead to Bosnia.

The New Farm States users group has a list of all the small self governing entities by population along with existing and projected new states. http://au.msnusers.com/NewFarmStates It shows the number of UN nations that are smaller than each state option, a real eye opener
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 2 September 2005 10:58:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John August stated;

In 2001, A.J. Brown surveyed Queenslanders and found about 60 per cent of the respondents expected and looked forward to basic changes. About 40 per cent were interested in more than minor change, including state abolition.

Well, is it really relevant how many people state their uninformed choice?

Perhaps had John August first appropriately explained what is appropriate constitutionally and how the governments are acting outside their powers, many may think twice before giving an answer!

His reference on 28 occasions to “CRAVEN” is itself underlining his inability to present a good argument. Not having read the original CRAVEN document I can hardly accept his references are not taken out of context.

But, as for abolishing the States, would be to abolish parents and children out of the family unit!

As I did set out in one of my books, published on 30 September 2003;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

The Commonwealth of Australia is not a dominion, monarchy, or republic as it is a POLITICAL UNION between the States!

The Commonwealth of Australia is as like the European Union. Would anyone dare to argue that the European Union should result to the abolition of France, the UK, Germany, and other member countries?

What was overlooked is, that the Commonwealth of Australia is having only limited legislative powers, to act on behalf of the States. Without the States there is no commonwealth of Australia!
The Commonwealth of Australia basically is an Agent acting with limited authority for all States!

Perhaps, he ought to have spent less time devoting to CRAVEN and more time to research his subject as to what the Commonwealth of Australia is about.

We all are part of our own local councils, as ratepayers/residents, would this mean we abolish home ownership, and leave ownership to your local council? After all, this is how silly this abolition of State argument really is!
If we do not like how State operate then fix the darn problem within the respective States, but do not compound upon them
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 5 September 2005 9:30:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John August here, commenting on postings. Perseus has posted a lot of material. Perseus, while you do make some arguments, you mix them with assurances, trying to make things true by using adjectives like "invariably" and "only realistic". Then there's slanted half-derogatory terms like "bright but cheap" which presume the truth. Merely stating something as though it were true does not make it true; stating it strongly does not make this any more likely.

"Abolishing States attracts regional Australians as an initial gut reaction to metropolitan malgovernance but once fully informed they invariably favour the modification of our notion of what a State can be"

The most that could be said is that when exposed to to a set of arguments people favour them. But why does this exposure means that people become "fully informed". A monopoly on wisdom ?

We've held numerous conventions over the years, our last in rural Victoria - in Sale and Mirboo North. We had a dialogue with locals including farmers. Tim Hughes, a farmer and journalist, spoke at our 3rd congress in 2002. I happy for them to figure out for themselves what they think of your ideas.

What about New States ? If they are different enough from our current states that problems are reduced, all well and good. But, they need to:

- Minimise parliament and bureaucracy
- Not destructively compete
- Not contribute to idiosyncratic laws over Australia

I wonder what Perseus has to say about the frustrations of Boilermakers, Teachers, Nurses and so forth with the current system ?

Importantly, our models have variable power passed to the regions. Power does go to the National Government, but regions can also have more automony than current councils.

Mark comments :

"New States - if anything like our current States - would almost certainly exacerbate the problems associated with border anomalies, duplication of centralised bureacracy etc."

To do a job worth doing, we have to go way past the simplistic "Add more states" idea. Yes, its easier constitutionally. Indeed.

I'd like to say more, but I'll stop here.
Posted by JohnA, Monday, 5 September 2005 11:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy