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 > Federation needs a fix > Comments

Federation needs a fix : Comments

By George Williams, published 27/3/2007

The community pays dearly for the duplication of services and inefficiency between federal and state governments.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I agree with the gist of this article. In fact I think that most people would agree that the current system is untenable. However I am afraid that it might, in the minds of many, be untimely.

Approaching the upcoming elections what the community, with Pavlovian efficacy, has been trained to expect is instant solutions. This after all is how voters are traditionally swayed.

All the shortcomings in education, dental and mental health will be immediately taken care of if only the right party is voted in. Given Australia's apathy in this area simply getting to the polls is about as far as many are prepared to go in order to exercise their democratic rights or community spirit.

If the chosen Government then renegs on their proposed instant fix-its the public settles down to comfortable private wrangling secure in the knowledge that they have done their utmost to effect change.

I fear that the pragmatic proposal of long-term solutions to produce realistic outcomes is far too prosaic for many. Media hype: saturation by an extensive television campaign, hysterical outpouring on talk-back radio and a few footie personalities or minor actors vapidly giving public support - that is what really works.

The only hope of stirring up public support for the proposals contained in this article perhaps is to play the money angle. Forget about peoples inaliable rights in a democratic society - keep telling 'em how much money its costing them individually.

This is after all a proven strategy - it's what won the last two elections. Well-being, a productive society, entitlements under UN charters? Mere bagatelles. But money? Ah that's a different matter, that'll get 'em every time.
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:09:12 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
The purpose of federalism is to divide power between polities, and a principal motivation for it is to ensure that no government has a monopoly in any area of legislative discourse.

Work Choices is a classic example of anti-federal thinking driven by a (wrong) belief that the separate governments in a policy should have different, rather than concurrent, responsibilities.

George Williams opposed Work Choices because he is a member of the ALP, actively seeking preselection for the ALP. Now he advocates streamlining federalism, which is exactly what delivered us Work Choices.

Leave federalism alone.
Posted by The Skeptic, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:10:56 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
It's time (thanks Gough) to dump state governments. One federal government is more than enough for 20 million Australians.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:59:54 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
Is the Constitution the play thing of our business elites ? Our American cousins seem to have less trouble with their 18th century Consititution than we do with ours, they even interpret it in the way it was written whereas our judges decide ours is old fashioned.
Posted by westernred, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 1:18:36 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
I have doubts about the $9 billion in savings. The claim comes from the following:
http://www.bca.com.au/DownloadFile.aspx?FileName=Appendix%5F2%5FThe%5FCosts%5Fof%5FFederalism%5FFINAL%5F28%2E10%2E2006%2Epdf

however when reading it, it appears that savings are repeated multiple times. For example, the BCA report says that 16% of the $16 B in minor state taxes could be saved by 'efficient' federal taxes. Where does this $2.8 B saving come from?

Well the actual elimination of state tax offices is listed separately saving an additional $150 million. And the transfer of grant money to the states is regarded as 'inefficient' costing $215 million.

The other line item savings are very vague eg "lack of coordination and/or inadequacies in Commonwealth oversight and accountabilities". This $2,296 million lost is probably dwarfed by the lack of co-ordination and accountability within government.

I'd want to see a more robust explanation of the $9 billion.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 2:03:23 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
An excellent article George. Twenty million Australians want value for their tax dollar and your solution will deliver it. Best of all it is an achievable plan to have just one legislature giving Australians one body of law.

I expect the real savings to be closer to $50 Billion a year based on economic modelling done by Mark Drummond. I understand that's made up of direct and indirect savings. For example, look at the efficiency gains of one ciminal law for all - ending the red tape and expense of inter-state extraditions. It saves money and time. Likewise in other areas. An Australian standard for education is overdue. And one local government Act for the entire country will rocket the delivery of local services and infrastructure from their current woeful state of disrepair.

A nationally regulated health care system, delivered locally would help redress decades of blame and neglect in this and many other sectors.

Transport and resource management also need a national vision and funding to match. The checks and balances arguement put up by states rights groups has long proven to be a theory with no substance, particularly the way politics plays out between the current 3 tiers of government. Strengthened local government working with a national parliament is definitely the way ahead.
Posted by Quick response, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 5:14:00 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
A good start would be to abolish State Govts,amalgamate the Councils and reform all our bureaucracies with the same economic rationalism private enterprise continues to endure.

It won't happen because our Public Service Aristocracies have too much power.Govts come and go,but they grow like a festering sore sapping the life blood from our economies.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:47:27 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
Some people really talk tosh, "Westernred" if you believe that there is no debate on what the US constitution say's then I want some of what your on. As for Federalism, I think we should get rid of the Federal Government rather then the states and have a setup like Austria. I'm sick and tried of only every hearing the eastern states mention when our Federal Government talks. Duplication implies that the bodies from the various states come up with the same laws and whatnot. This is not the case states are able and do make different rules and regulations. If we got rid of the state governments then the federal government would be focussed on Sydney and Melbourne and stuff the rest.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 8:57:50 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
Good article. The duplication of services are expensive. Try getting a state health or education minister to take control of their services. University funding is another case in point, especially if they're a dual sector institute. It's a nightmare of audits.

I digress but Howard Government is far more centralist and interventionist in the affairs of the states since any Government since WW2. I sense their frustration with state governments not getting things done. We're still playing the "I blame Canberra versus Canberra blaming the states' game.

I could swear that the states were going to roll back many of their taxes when they received monies from the GST.

I'm not so sure about the last writer re Sydney and Melbourne controlling the show. With the commodities boom, I suggest Perth and Brisbane are doing very well on their own.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:25:30 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
I agree we have too much government.
I would scrap the Federal government, give income taxing power to the states.
We would have trade, defence , immigration and anything else that needed to be federal done by a conference of state ministers, in the case of a deadlock we go to a national referendum.
There must still be free trade between the states and national sports teams.
The states would then have to compete with each other for businesses and workers.
Yes thats right governments competing with each other by giving better service to the people.
Any state government that was too hard on workers could lose their workers to other states, any government that was too hard on business would lose business and employment to other states.
I would also make politicians give a quote for their salary on the ballots, so they have to compete for their jobs as well.
If you are a great administrator you could ask for a higher salary, if you are a party hack with no talent you could ask for bugger all.
Posted by miketrees, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 10:49:44 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
Federation in 1900 was a good idea. A Federal minister would have needed
a month to attend a meeting in Perth.
Letters would take a similar time although the telegraph was there, but was unsuitable for signatures.
However a hundred years later all is different.
Get rid of the state governments and divide their responsibilities between the commonwealth
and local government.

We would put hundreds of pollies out of work but are they big enough men to do it ?
I doubt it, they would waffle on about how necessary they are to the country.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 2 April 2007 6:32:56 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
OK we have an expensive democracy? So what we have a democracy, of sorts.
I've been a centralist, get rid of State Govt. etc. "then along came John" and his idea of central control, hooray I'm cured.
The finally "standard curriculum" who other than a power hungry dedicated "every ones the same in needs" regardless of geography
ambitions and needs.
fluff
Posted by fluff4, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 10:59:42 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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