There is nothing in this piece other then a idea that the Author hasn't thought to hard about.How big would local Gov been? Why not get rid of the Fed government and just have State Government reps on a Fed board or something along those lines. These issues need to be explored this article doesn't

When you take a step back and think about it, there really aren't too many reasons to keep out current governmental arrangements.

The problem is that Australians are conservative and opposed to change and will find any excuse to oppose this sort of shake up, no matter how good an idea it is.

So, I guess we'll keep the state governments. Mores the pity...

As a longserving and senior Qld State bureaucrat I can only applaud Patrick's insightful observations. The amount of political corruption of government administration and the waste of taxpayers' funds on 'looking after' party hacks through 'enquiries' and 'consultancies' is enough to make me sick. State politicians are far too removed from individual consitituents due to geography and/or electorate population growth to really be accountable for failure to deliver on election promises anyway, and local governments and politicians are close enough to their consititents to make better informed decisions, allocate resources effectively and equitably, and be directly accountable for poor policy and program administration where Commonwealth $ fail to reach those they target. I'm ashamed to say I'm a State bureaucrat after all I've seen in my career, truly ashamed...

We could wind back the federal government so that its only reponsibilties were foreign affairs and defence.

We should also be looking at the existing state borders. As a city person, over the last 30 years my house has increased in value from $16,000 to $1.3 million. While in that time a relative's house in a small town 200 km away has increased in value from $8000 to $50,000.That is grossly unfair. There are 2 different Australias.

The current states should shrink to something a little bigger than their metroplitan areas and everything left over become the one state which would be made of up people in similar circumatances.

At a time when the Australian government has been taking a larger slice of GDP in the form of taxes, it has reduced the states revenue as a percentage of GDP. In 1996 state revenue was 7% of GDP, it is now 5% of GDP.

The states have less money to provide the same services as previously so either they skimp on recurrent expenditure - salaries or they skimp on capital works - infrastructure.

Whether people are moral or corrupt depends on their family background not on their current work environment. The most wasteful environments I have ever worked in have been large unaccountable private enterprises, in the top 100 enterprises in Australia.

It is true that the states are a terrible waste of resources in this time and age. I endorse what the author is saying.

But why stop there? It's not just the states that are redundant, but the State which is redundant too!

"Universal Rights, Common Wealth and Confederacy"

Presentation to the 11th Shed A Tier Congress, Gippsland, Victoria, 9-10 July 2005

http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette/0507shedatier.html

There will need to be a constitutional revision to ensure that our bicameral system works properly. The current bicameral has passed some of the worst legislation in Australian history - The Anti Terror laws and Work choices all denying citizens their rights and expanding the power of government and achieving the opposite affect of creating a greater gap between the people and the political process. The States may be redundant however a lot more consideration needs to given to the checks and balances that would operate in a two tiered system. With the trend to a supra national governing bodies like APEC how do we incoporate their emergence as a possible third tier of government. If things are left as is we may have a fourth tier of government.

The starting point of the argument is quite correct: infrastructure is deteriorating, and it is a state responsibility. But the article leaves out some vital information.

As a student many years ago I remember finding out about Vertical Fiscal Imbalance: the condition where the responsibilities of the different levels of government were out of kilter with their income base. The reality is that this imbalance has now reached a ludicrous level in this country: the commonwealth reaps far more in tax revenue than it needs, while the states have ginormous demands and greatly reduced tax income. This of course suits the Costard/Howello government, which now has billions of pork fat (read: vote buying dollars) in the kitty. Indeed, I have little doubt that the Hon. Peter foresaw some such outcome when the GST was introduced.

I don't have a vast attachment to the present system: indeed I do see some merit in a county system like the UK's. But the argument for change ought to be more soundly based than the one made by the author of the article.

Genre

Well said billie... "a time when the Australian government has been taking a larger slice of GDP in the form of taxes, it has reduced the states revenue as a percentage of GDP. In 1996 state revenue was 7% of GDP, it is now 5% of GDP.

The states have less money to provide the same services as previously so either they skimp on recurrent expenditure - salaries or they skimp on capital works - infrastructure."

However whether people are moral or corrupt depends on their own personal integrity (and up bringing), as well as how productively is earned or operates as a "best practice" in their workplace. (ie: Workplace bullies and the our poor treatment of whistleblowers).

Administrations operating under out-dated or arhaic processes need to be openly reformed.

Technolology itself needs to be accessed, shared and balanced if two way communication and progress is to be achieved by citizen's living in communities everywhere.

I agree to that we ALL ought to care more about 'having hospitals that work, buses and trains that run and schools that are properly resourced'.

Good Article Patrick Baume. "Peter Beattie, perhaps not in the detail, but definitely in the purpose, is right about council amalgamations. It is only through a far more professional and properly resourced level of local government that Australia can be governed properly, for the benefit of all its citizens, not just those in marginal State or Federal seats".

We are hoping for a new inclusive approach by government.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

now the waste for instance in NSW is a disgrace

From 100% funding for schools,hospitals and so forth

40% is used for the state penpushers and 60% goes to what all should go on.

Keeping the corrupt states and since they are labor in a well paying jobs, for what to crap on us.

If labor wins the federal election it will be 60% for labor state gov

and 40% for the people.

They are not their for us.

But if you do insist on voting labor at least you will help the following;

Labor to hide paedophiles within ranks better
This does not include the problem at swansea, so how many more are writing or dictating policy within labor.

more corruption

Sexual assualts and physical assualts of children

Lies
Oh we wont privatise transport yeah right.
I told media,unions,papers before state election. I knew ,unions had to know also i told them but that is not what it was or is about, stuff the people get labor or liberal in and the jobs we can blame someone else.

You get what you get and most of you deserve it.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

That we in Australia suffer from one layer of government too many is, I think, well recognised. We also suffer from a surfeit of elected politicians. However simply to remove one layer will not work. Somthing needs to be done to all layers - and I think the author has the prefered outcome about right: devolve some State powers up to the Commonwealth and some powers down to the Regions (and I use Region here to represent amalgamated local government areas). State governments are next abolished.

The difficulty is less in recognising the desirable outcome than in devising a means to get there. I don't have the answer, but I believe the author has at least, in identifying a desired outcome, begged that particular question.

One hopes this debate really takes hold - Howard clearly is of the view the States are run by dunder heads - but his view is one based on opportunism and political expediency.

You could equally argue that the concept of the Federal Governement itself is not redundant in its current form.

The first rule in this discussion is that there be no sacred cows - but the process needs to governed and managed - it is all well and good people like those here shooting from the hip with bright ideas abot the future of Australian governance - as good a start as it is - but it needs a co-ordinated public debate - or we will get no where fast or somewhere no one really like to be.

I would be interested to know if any other national jusrisdiction has entertained or achieved a wholesale restructure of its form of government -

The very conservative nature of the body politic in this country and the stiff nature of our constitution leads me to think not much good if anything at all will however come from this discussion - still it might be fun to have a dig at this issue

If we did away with the states then I think that we would also need to do away with any thought of fixed term elections at the federal level.
As Australians appear to be hell bent on a lemming like political suicide at the next election the only hope we have is that people will recognise the problem and reverse the situation at state level.
Fixed term elections would mean that a political party dominated by outside interests (unions or big business) or open to blackmail or corruption for other reasons would not be able to be removed. Democracy demands that governments can be removed or balanced out by other considerations.
One of the problems with Labor all over is that democracy will fail to function as it should. Although they may argue on the surface the ALP and the state governments will work together to lock in what is most beneficial to them, indeed they are already doing that.

There are ways to fix it with removal of the states and for accountability this can be brought about by local councils and federal become aligned.

Thus we may need a few more federal reps but this will bring about accountability.

If the electorate do not like how the council and fed rep are doing their jobs then the boot up the bum.

This will also bring about better allocation to each electorate where this is what the mayor and fed rep are for and also better communication between the people and governments.

ie; when a council meeting is happening both reps to be there unless of course on duty at canberra.

So greater accountability
less waste and

The money being spent where it should be.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

"it is all well and good people like those here shooting from the hip with bright ideas about the future of Australian governance - as good a start as it is - but it needs a co-ordinated public debate - or we will get no where fast or somewhere no one really like to be."

I think that's basically right SneekeePete, but I think we're at the stage where these "best case scenarios" need to be placed in the public domain so that they begin to be seriously thought about as an option.

I fear that this sort of change could only ever happen in Australia by stealth over a long period of time, but you never know and I would love to see a serious public debate about this issue, despite what I agree are major practical difficulties in getting these sorts of changes passed in a referendum or even a series of referenda over time.

As i see it this argument is academic because the states are sovreignties and they will defend their power base to the death.

The authur also seems to favour bigger local councils. In the last few years we have seen council amalgamations and neither rates have come down or the services improved. Electricity suppliers the same.

Bigger does not necessarily mean better.

Every country of our size has at least three tiers of government – for an obvious reason.

There are 30 countries in the world (when you include Greenland with Denmark, of which it is a dependency) of more than one million square kilometres – as small as one eighth of our size. Every one of them has at least three tiers of government.

Some countries have more than three tiers. China has provinces, then prefectures, between the national government and local government (which has both counties and villages). France has regions and departments between the national government and local government. Italy has regions and provinces between the national government and local government

The United Kingdom has a regional system of government in place, with elected assemblies for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London and unelected assemblies in the rest of England and then local government of various sorts. In some places there are two tiers of local government, counties and then districts.

Tiny European countries like Monaco do not have three levels of government, but they are the exception.

Above the national governments of EU members is the European Parliament. In short, at least three tiers of government is the norm for any nation of any size. Having four levels are not unusual. Having five levels is not unheard of.

In the extremely unlikely event that the people of Australia gave up the habit of a century and voted to increase the power of the federal Cabinet by voting to abolish their states, you would still end up with a middle level of government, as the federal government would create administrative divisions to deal with the sheer scale of the place. The difference would be you would not get to elect anyone to oversee them.

I doubt very much that Australia has a higher number of elected politicians per head than other countries. I have seen the claim made, but I have never seen a precise presentation of figures from around the world to prove it

We need fewer people in non productive Govt bureaucracy and more in the engine room of risk,courage and enterprise that creates the wealth for the left to have the time and self indulgence to protest against the very system that sustains them.

The States are redundant and long may they demise.

All my adult life (over 40 years) I believed that the states and the senate should be done away with, since the advent of the Howard Governmebt I have changed my mind and now believe we should keep both.
There is not a shred of evidence that the feds could do a better job than the states, the bigger is better theory is rubbish it encourages conformity, stifles innovation and leads to bureaucratic waste.
As for council amalgamation I live in what used to be probably the smallest council in NSW, our rates were low, services were ok,infracstructure was excellant and we were debt free, we were merged with two neighboring councils, now the council is broke and our rates will have to rise to cover the debt, so as far as I can see we hve been sold down the drain and amalgamation has been a total failure.
We hear a lot about skills shortage, and I will tell you why, prior to the advent of econmic rationalism ( which is niether) govt and semi govt bodies i.e. railways electricity etc used to train thousand of apprentices a year, far more than they needed, now they have been privatised, our services are still crap and we have a skills shortage because industry never saw the need to replace this great resource.
This thread is same sort of nonsense theory, that usually has the opposite to desired effect, an even worst result or some completly unexpected disaster.
The stupid thing is these clowns are never held to account they just go there merry way leaving a trail of disasters behind them, completely oblivous to the damage they cause.

Frankly, we should be looking at this the other way round.

The States are fine. What’s more they are steeped in a shared history, culture and way of life. It’s the Federal government that’s the floating basket case – and answers more to Sydney-Melbourne CBDs than the rest of the country.

Federation was a mistake. I say ditch the redundant Federal government and make the states into independent nations. (And while we’re at it, give the NT and ACT back to the Aboriginal people, who will probably do a much better job of running them than any Federal Government has.)

We are brainwashed from the cradle to believe that merging little entities into big ones will increase their strength and efficiency. Yet history has repeatedly shown the opposite to be the case. Indeed, the bigger entities become, the more greedy and insecure they get, and the more they end up behaving like pains in the proverbial. Australia is already showing signs of this.

If NZ can stay small, honest and independent, why can’t we – at least seven times over

Australia has a population of 21 million. There are 52 countries in the world which have populations of more than 20 million people. Every one of these 52 countries has at least three levels of government. The four countries just below 20 million in population – Syria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and the Ivory Coast – have at least three levels of government. To find a country that does not have at least three levels of government, you have to find those which are smaller in both area and population than Australia.

Even New Zealand, which is often quoted because it abolished its provinces, has regions between the national government and the local government. The UK, which is also often quoted, has citizens who live under four levels of government (e.g., the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the Greater London Assembly and their borough council) or even five levels of government (e.g., the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the unelected regional assembly, the county council and the district council).

There are many responsibilities that fall somewhere between raising an army for defence and getting the streets swept. Such responsibilities include water management, education and health. That is why we have states and why we will keep them.

Removing the states will not save a cent. The bureaucratic processes and divisions of responsibility will simply go behind the scenes, and democracy will be rduced.

There is an argument for more states, as the constitution has provided for, but it is up to the people who want one to argue for it in their own region.

Australian's are a conservtive bunch and much would need to be done to convince them to change, despite regular complaining. But what has not been taken into account so far in this debate is the emotive factor. LOTS of people still see part of their identidy as being linked to a particular state (try going to a state of origin match for a taste of it if you dont believe me, or be a victorian living in northern NSW "mexican"). Perhaps this is why there has been a nationalistic push by the Feds - develop Australian identities rather than state identities, then they can do away with the states.

A complete overhaul is imminent in the way Australia is governed at local and national levels. It's clear that there is no place for unproductive state middle-men for the reasons that Patrick narrated so well.

Whether re-structuring comes through a national convention or by stealth, time will tell.

Ideally agreement about the best allocation of responsibilities between national and local levels will be determined at a convention. Root and branch reform is required.

Our aim should be to strive for a modern streamlined decision-making process - right for this millenium. Government must be tuned into the networks of stakeholders and empowering communities to deliver public services right for our needs and priorities. Too hard? Not really - it just takes leadership. Local government is ready to perform its role.

How Australia is governed from November this year will be a good litmus test for Rudd. It seems that public hospitals will be the first to major transformation - and the change cannot come soon enough. Mercifilly no Abbott 'trials' to delay us.

Can national funding of local social and physical infrastructure be planned to raise local empowerment? Sure thing. How? By allowing resident paticipation and recognising and rewarding innovation and encouraging inspired outstanding results.

The national government can simply delegate the local delivery of so many former state services to councils where there is a good governance mix of efficiency, transparency and equity. To do this, councils operate need to operate under the one body of national law. This is all eminently achievable now.

Practically, it's the best way forward with over $30 billion annual efficiency gains being our dividend when all state functions are transferred. Recent High Court cases have made it clear that there is lattitude under the corporations power for state hospitals to be taken over without consent if voluntary referral is not achievable or if a referendum lacks a majority of states.

Seeing value for money and accountability for tax revenue will be a fresh change to the tired old blame game for awful service standards.

I think you will find that the vast majority of OLO punters who want to do away with the States are either

A. Non labour voters or
B. From Victoria or New South Wales.

The very idea of the states was to ensure that those who lived far from the centre of Federal power received adequate representation. Living in North Queensland I find far more support for the idea of more states (ie New NorthQueensland State) rather than less. Not that I am a supporter of such an idea.

It seems people are happy to gloss over the massive fiscal imbalance that previous posters have pointed out. If you have 50% of spending responsibilities but only 30% of the available funding is it any wonder that problems are going to arise. It has certainly suited the Federal Gov’t to maintain this state of affairs and this has directly led to their attempts to take over, in an AD- HOC manner, state responsibilities.

Everyone should know that representative liberal democracy with the rule of law and separation of church and state is the WORST form of gov’t going around, except for ALL the alternatives.

Checks and balances( including having more than one tier of gov’t) which are our protection from tyrants, are also the leading cause of inaction and/or friction in gov’t.

Loosening up these checks and balances will allow a much more streamlined approach to implementing gov’t. Unfortunately it also means that we have less opportunity to ensure our elected officials are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing. It’s an unfortunate trade-off, but that’s life.

As Margaret Thatcher (I think) said, the best form of gov’t is a benevolent dictatorship, the only problem is deciding who should be dictator. I think it should be me. Anyone agree??

It is simple,most of us don't give a rats about or local councils and let non paid secret agenda representives infuriate us to the point of frustration,yet we have not control over the system that manipulates us.The State Govts are useless.In NSW of the $21 billion we spend on the PS,we spend $7 billion on bureaucrats.For every working person in NSW ot costs $2,300.00 pa to keep them.This is why we have a run down state.Iemma/Carr have taxed us into submission and now wonder why they have less tax receipts on a shrinking economy.How these bunch economic vandals got back into power escapes us all,because no one will now admit to have actually voted for them.

Almalgamate the Councils,make them far more professional and responsible to the electorate.No more poorly paid micky mouse jobs for developers or single issue lunatics.

The only people you will find defending the states in NSW are the bureaucrats with their lazy lifestyles and fat salaries.Often we are paying one bureaucrat $100,000.00 pa to manage two front line workers.No wonder the Iemma Govt and its PS Unions had a totally false campaign of saying front line workers were going to be slashed.What they feared most was all the bureaucrats being sent to tend real patients and clean the bed pans.Coster said 15mths ago that they had too many fat cats and the Unions silenced him and made a deal with Iemma.What a bunch of gutless wonders!

Most of our Labor State Govts are a total farce.We can slowly eliminate the states by giving their responsibilities to both the Councils and the Federal Govt.Reduce duplicity,the blame game and waste of our taxes.

Well arjay you should read my post about council amalgamation, it is a complete failure here, our council is broke and we are saddled with underdeveloped towns from the other two previous shires, what amalgamation does is is dump crap shires in the lap of good ones and then they drag the lot down.

Alanpoi,local Govt is a disaster because ordinary people do not take part in decision making.Local Govt generally does not have professional people running it.The solution is is to take the State finances and pay professional people to run it.The Councils are starved of finances by the states so they remain chaotic and talentless.

Pay fewer talented people more money to run our Govts and we will all have greater satisfaction.

gonginalong (the article author, Patrick Baume) says in the 15th post to this thread " I fear that this sort of change could only ever happen in Australia by stealth over a long period of time, ...".
See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6297#92539

Patrick refers of course to, essentially, the removal of the States, and that necessary consequence of such, the removal of the Constitution and all that depends upon it. He speaks as if that change by stealth would as yet lie in the future.

Patrick may not realise it, but he is already proven right. This change by stealth over a long period of time is the very record of federation since no later than 1 May 1911. It may very well be that the now-obvious neglect of investment in necessary infrastructure by the States that Patrick cites as justification for their removal is but the end-game of the long-running fraud that has been Federation.

Selwyn Johnston's OLO article, "Water … a failure by successive governments", gives an excellent potted history of such deliberate end-game infrastructure neglect, see: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5477 . The Comments thread is: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5477#70515

Viewers interested in this discussion may find this post of mine on Selwyn's article thread thought-provoking: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5477#70863

The significance of the date 1 May 1911 is revealed in this post to the OLO topic "The Last Refuge of the Intellectual Weakling": http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=950#17049 . Viewers may have to read other posts on this thread to grasp the real significance of what may have been going on all these years.

What I am not prepared to cop is that this nation-debilitating change by stealth should go on to its intended conclusion under the oversight of either side of national politics, manned to the gunwales as the present ship of State is with unperceivers and sell-outs. Thinking about it, Your Excellency?

Australia’s GDP is about $US674 billion using purchasing price parity. Every country on the planet with a higher or similar GDP has at least three levels of government. Every one of the 45 countries with a GDP of more than $200 billion, a third of Australia’s, has at least thee tiers of government. Some have four; others have five.

Australia’s GDP per capita is about $US32,938. There are 37 countries with a GDP per capita of more than $US20,000. 31 of them have at least three tiers of government (including the EU Parliament). Of the six exceptions, four have a population of less than one million. Of the remaining two, one is Singapore, which has an area of 704 square kilometres. The other is the United Arab Emirates, which has an area of 83,600 square kilometres and a population of about 4.5 million people.

If this strange obsession with abolishing the states were to succeed, Australia would be the only country with a large population, the only country with a large area and the only country with a high GDP not to have at least three tiers of government. The only two-tier country which has any similarity in GDP per head is the UAE and its population is one fifth of ours and its area is not much bigger than one hundredth of ours.

Those who think that the abolition of the states would produce administrative efficiency are wrong. A national government would substitute its own administrative divisions and subdivisions for the states, just as government departments do now and just as private corporations do with their multiple layers of decision-making.

Those advocating the abolition of the states do not seem to have any facts to support their arguments.

Well lets see

40% of 100% the state government uses in red tape.

So schools miss out on the extra 40% funding due to states incompetence.

But hey people blinded by the fact that the unions say this must be right.

Unions only care for one thing labor in government.

One also has to look at how the states run incompetently.
It is a shame people do not say what they think but just pander to party lines.

This has caused us the most amount of grief.
Public transport being privatised
the unions knew before nsw state election who cared they didnt had to get labor in.

When you lot work out that government is about the people and not these hitler,communist parties then things will change.

You dont even have what it takes to make a stand without polls,unions,corruption,sexual abuse,physical abuse of children and peadophiles not including swansea.

So when it comes down to it if we where to do a check on these parties you wouldnt touch then with a forty foot barge pole.

But this is all ok as long as these people do not live next to you.
But its ok for these people to create policy for you and your children.

Who are hypocrites and predators

You keep voting them in.

Then therefore you get the corruption you deserve and less jobs no manufacturing.

You are all pathetic.

wake up to yourselves and have a really close look at what you vote for and stand for.

Tapp,

You are a disgusting braindead pervert and frankly I am amazed that the moderators allow you to continue posting.

I suppose some posters must get a laugh at your insane rantings and disgusting accusations.

Mate you really have a natural home under a rock with the talk back radio hosts.

Why don't you crawl back under it.

Now Accusations No

FACT

And if the labor party wish to take me to court they are welcome.

It would be good for a change to see the truth in the newspapers instead of party spin.
I have also included my full address which i believe the labor party would have, This since i have facts you can even give to rudd but i dought i will here as he should be in jail.
Are you really scared of the truth.
I am not scared of you or any other party ,unions, but i will keep posting the truth as that is what it is The Truth.
If You have a poroblem with my facts take me to court< I will have a good laugh and dont forget to bring your checkbook.
If OLO asks me for proof, I am quite willing to give them that information.
If you want it look, it isnt to hard to find once you know what you are looking for.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton
38 Palisade Street
Edgeworth,NSW
2285
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Tapp, not only are you brain dead but a lousy speller.Most of what you write is gobbledy gook.I remember the late 60s when a lot of child molestation was going on and nothing was done about it,except to allow those responsible to retire and take their super with them.Liberal were in power then and they shoved it under the carpet.If you are typical of independants,it's no wonder people vote for the major parties.Most people i know that have voted independant have admitted it was a protest vote anyhow.Get a life and stop spruicking rubbish.

I amazes me how pathetic some of you really are.
You would be the ones jumping up and down about this type of action but its ok for the ALP.

Show me the proof of the liberals as i havnt found much or is it just crap from you.

Here is part of labor corruption and peadophile predator action
This obviously how the labor party works and where was ruddy having a laugh and hiding it as well.

10 November 1993
Code of silence
On October 28 Keith Wright, ex-honourable member for Capricornia (ALP), was convicted of rape and indecent dealing with a girl under the age of 14, and sentenced to eight years in jail. Now that the verdict is final, and there can be no question that his once-promising political career is dead, his ex-colleagues have gathered, stiff-necked and righteous, to kick the corpse.

“We all knew about Keith”, a valiantly anonymous “powerful figure” in the Queensland government told the Sydney Telegraph Mirror on October 30.

“We all saw Keith regularly in action ... It didn't surprise me that he slept with her [the then 13-year-old girl with whom Wright had what he called a “sexual relationship” for three years] -- and the thing that makes me feel real bad now is that I thought it was all a joke, the way he chased women.”

It was a joke until it threatened election prospects, and then it became serious enough to take action -- not to take steps to prevent Wright physically and psychologically abusing young women, but to remove him to a position in which his crimes were less likely to be brought to public attention.

It was the abused woman herself who finally brought Keith Wright to some measure of justice, reporting to the police and testifying that she had been unable to stop Wright's sexual advances (although she had managed to summon the courage it took to ask him to leave her alone, he ignored her) and that he had forcibly raped her at least once