Going from 5 states and 2 territories to one country
deverall11 said
08:09 PM Aug 26, 2014
Ladies and gentlemen,
If one wanted to have an educated conversation about the pros and cons of getting rid of all the states and territories as we know them and have one state, being the country, run by one government, where would one go?
1) your local MP?
2) someone in Canberra?
Larry
D and D said
08:31 PM Aug 26, 2014
First off, Australia comprises 6 not 5 States - Queensland, NSW, Vic, Tasmania, SA and WA. In regard to the questions you raise:
"Local MP" ... which one. Each of us is represented by a State MP, a Commonwealth MP, a Senator and,except for Queensland, a State upper house MP. The Territories are slight different again. Each has a vested interest in retaining the status quo and would probably be able to give you many reasons for doing so.
What do you mean "someone in Canberra"? My brother lives there but I doubt he's what you have in mind. There are thousands of public servants, lobbyists and others having some sort of political role but whether they'd be able to provide an educated scheme on the abolition of State governments.
If you really want an open and informed discussion on these sort of things I suggest you enrol in a politics course at a local university or online through the Open University scheme.
Regards, Dave
-- Edited by D and D on Tuesday 26th of August 2014 08:34:15 PM
Vic41 said
08:36 PM Aug 26, 2014
deverall11 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen,
If one wanted to have an educated conversation about the pros and cons of getting rid of all the states and territories as we know them and have one state, being the country, run by one government, where would one go?
1) your local MP?
2) someone in Canberra?
Larry
Hutt River Province
johnq said
02:59 AM Aug 27, 2014
deverall11 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen,
If one wanted to have an educated conversation about the pros and cons of getting rid of all the states and territories as we know them and have one state, being the country, run by one government, where would one go?
1) your local MP?
2) someone in Canberra?
Larry
That depends Larry, would you be wanting to talk about things like home insulation, school computers and solar panels? Because if you are, not many in Canberra would want to chat with you. Do not, whatever you do raise the subject of delivering a national program (of anything!).
However, if you see virtue in a hugely increased federal bureaucracy and believe that all federal politicians should spend their lives in five star hotels in tourist destinations overseas while boning up on their entitlements, then yes, 'Canberra' would be all ears and welcoming to a centralist.
Bryan said
06:57 AM Aug 27, 2014
deverall11 wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen,
If one wanted to have an educated conversation about the pros and cons of getting rid of all the states and territories as we know them and have one state, being the country, run by one government, where would one go?
1) your local MP?
2) someone in Canberra?
Larry
I doubt your local MP or someone in Canberra would be helpful. They wouldn't want to do themselves out of a cushy job.
deverall11 said
02:00 PM Aug 27, 2014
D and D wrote:
First off, Australia comprises 6 not 5 States - Queensland, NSW, Vic, Tasmania, SA and WA.
Yep forgot about Tas. Not intentional.
The reality of the matter is that those who would be in a position to make the decision to rid one layer of government would be voting themselves out.
In the meantime, until we can see the value in removing on layer of government, we will be paying more taxes. It is no coincidence that we are one of the most represented country in the world.
Larry
-- Edited by D and D on Tuesday 26th of August 2014 08:34:15 PM
Vic41 said
02:58 PM Aug 27, 2014
Why isn't NT a State, is it because of population size ????
Malaysia has one National government, with State Governors only. All the laws including road rules are the same wherever you go.
Is UK the same ?????
Gerty Dancer said
05:52 PM Aug 27, 2014
Having been a resident of Canberra for 20 years, it bothers me that there is this perception that everybody in Canberra is a politician. Its all because of lazy journalists IMHO, who report "Canberra said... " every night in the news instead of saying "The Federal Parliament" ... or a member of same. Most Canberra residents look upon the members of Federal Parliament as "Fly-in-Fly-out Contract workers who give us all a bad name.
There are various groups involved in the Constitution who might be interested in this?
johnq said
10:50 PM Aug 27, 2014
Hi Gerty,
Memories
I was one of the 65% of Canberrans who voted against self government, but they introduced it anyway.
The new federal parliament - the feds bulldozed a beautiful hill of historical significance and a joy to Canberrans and then dug a hole of larger dimensions where it had been. When I took visitors to see it being built the comments always were that if the Australian people could witness for themselves the excesses of those federal parliamentarians the whole shebang of them would likely be put on a ship and pushed off from the shore, with charges set to explode when the water depth exceeded 20 fathoms (surely even a politician couldn't put his hand out that far).
deverall11 said
11:22 PM Aug 27, 2014
Vic41 wrote:
Why isn't NT a State, is it because of population size ????
Malaysia has one National government, with State Governors only. All the laws including road rules are the same wherever you go.
Is UK the same ?????
At last somebody has a bit of common sense.
I think people in general are afraid of changes. I was NOT proposing to change things at the minute but simply gathering some information. It seems only one member has the drift of my direction.
Larry
-- Edited by Webmaster on Thursday 28th of August 2014 05:40:31 AM
Vic41 said
02:47 AM Aug 28, 2014
I think Malaysia may have one National Government (national laws, road rules etc) because they mostly just copied what had already been put in place by the British before Malaysia became independent (with some variations due to being an Islamic nation).
Can any ex pats from Britain tell me whether they have state governments in the UK, it would seem they just have councils (local government) by this link?
If that is the case then they do not have expensive State governments like we do, which would be a lot cheaper, but would still have members in their national government representing different parts of the country I would imagine looking after that part of the countries interest (the same as we in Australia have Federal MP's for each State and electoral division).
It does seem like a duplication to me too Larry.
Although the government will not acknowledge it publicly, Hutt River Province is legally a country by itself within Australia and has the documents and court findings to prove it. So much so that they are not entitled to any government assistance or benefits (indeed Prince Leonard is a WW2 War Veteran but cannot get a Vets pension because of it) but this is understandable and the province supports itself. If anyone doesn't believe me then check it out yourself. In saying that Larry, I wasn't being flippant, but they would fit into the criteria you were explaining.
D and D said
10:59 AM Aug 28, 2014
Vic, the UK is a combination of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The British Parliament comprises a lower house or House of Commons in which the members elected in distinct electorates across the combined countries sit and the upper house or House of Lords in which the members are appointed (not elected). There is only two levels of government - local (councils and the like) and national government. As a result of the UK joining the European Economic Community there is also a European Parliament in which the UK has a designated number of elected members but I'm unsure of its influence on UK law. Another change that may occur is the Scottish Independence Referendum later this year I think which may result in Scotland becoming and independent country with its own parliament, legal system etc. totally separate from the British Parliament - interesting times.
In regard to the state and territory governments in Australia, in 1975 Gough Whitlam floated the idea of abolishing state governments and enlarging the coverage and influence of local governments. As is obvious, it was not well received nor successful.
While the differences between Australian states and territories can be annoying, you should have a look at the differences in the US federation.
Vic41 said
11:26 AM Aug 28, 2014
Thanks for the feedback D & D, I thought that might be the case (no State Governments) but wasn't sure.
Seems to make sense to me, each electoral district still has it's Federal representative pushing for its state in Oz, so why the extra layer as deverall11 says, just and added expense to the taxpayer.
I have my doubts the Scottish independence vote in September will get through, but who knows, we will just have to wait and see.
Ladies and gentlemen,
If one wanted to have an educated conversation about the pros and cons of getting rid of all the states and territories as we know them and have one state, being the country, run by one government, where would one go?
1) your local MP?
2) someone in Canberra?
Larry
First off, Australia comprises 6 not 5 States - Queensland, NSW, Vic, Tasmania, SA and WA. In regard to the questions you raise:
"Local MP" ... which one. Each of us is represented by a State MP, a Commonwealth MP, a Senator and,except for Queensland, a State upper house MP. The Territories are slight different again. Each has a vested interest in retaining the status quo and would probably be able to give you many reasons for doing so.
What do you mean "someone in Canberra"? My brother lives there but I doubt he's what you have in mind. There are thousands of public servants, lobbyists and others having some sort of political role but whether they'd be able to provide an educated scheme on the abolition of State governments.
If you really want an open and informed discussion on these sort of things I suggest you enrol in a politics course at a local university or online through the Open University scheme.
Regards, Dave
-- Edited by D and D on Tuesday 26th of August 2014 08:34:15 PM
Hutt River Province
That depends Larry, would you be wanting to talk about things like home insulation, school computers and solar panels? Because if you are, not many in Canberra would want to chat with you. Do not, whatever you do raise the subject of delivering a national program (of anything!).
However, if you see virtue in a hugely increased federal bureaucracy and believe that all federal politicians should spend their lives in five star hotels in tourist destinations overseas while boning up on their entitlements, then yes, 'Canberra' would be all ears and welcoming to a centralist.
I doubt your local MP or someone in Canberra would be helpful. They wouldn't want to do themselves out of a cushy job.
Why isn't NT a State, is it because of population size ????
Malaysia has one National government, with State Governors only. All the laws including road rules are the same wherever you go.
Is UK the same ?????
There are various groups involved in the Constitution who might be interested in this?
Hi Gerty,
Memories
I was one of the 65% of Canberrans who voted against self government, but they introduced it anyway.
The new federal parliament - the feds bulldozed a beautiful hill of historical significance and a joy to Canberrans and then dug a hole of larger dimensions where it had been. When I took visitors to see it being built the comments always were that if the Australian people could witness for themselves the excesses of those federal parliamentarians the whole shebang of them would likely be put on a ship and pushed off from the shore, with charges set to explode when the water depth exceeded 20 fathoms (surely even a politician couldn't put his hand out that far).
At last somebody has a bit of common sense.
I think people in general are afraid of changes. I was NOT proposing to change things at the minute but simply gathering some information. It seems only one member has the drift of my direction.
Larry
-- Edited by Webmaster on Thursday 28th of August 2014 05:40:31 AM
I think Malaysia may have one National Government (national laws, road rules etc) because they mostly just copied what had already been put in place by the British before Malaysia became independent (with some variations due to being an Islamic nation).
Can any ex pats from Britain tell me whether they have state governments in the UK, it would seem they just have councils (local government) by this link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Local_government
If that is the case then they do not have expensive State governments like we do, which would be a lot cheaper, but would still have members in their national government representing different parts of the country I would imagine looking after that part of the countries interest (the same as we in Australia have Federal MP's for each State and electoral division).
It does seem like a duplication to me too Larry.
Although the government will not acknowledge it publicly, Hutt River Province is legally a country by itself within Australia and has the documents and court findings to prove it. So much so that they are not entitled to any government assistance or benefits (indeed Prince Leonard is a WW2 War Veteran but cannot get a Vets pension because of it) but this is understandable and the province supports itself. If anyone doesn't believe me then check it out yourself. In saying that Larry, I wasn't being flippant, but they would fit into the criteria you were explaining.
In regard to the state and territory governments in Australia, in 1975 Gough Whitlam floated the idea of abolishing state governments and enlarging the coverage and influence of local governments. As is obvious, it was not well received nor successful.
While the differences between Australian states and territories can be annoying, you should have a look at the differences in the US federation.
Thanks for the feedback D & D, I thought that might be the case (no State Governments) but wasn't sure.
Seems to make sense to me, each electoral district still has it's Federal representative pushing for its state in Oz, so why the extra layer as deverall11 says, just and added expense to the taxpayer.
I have my doubts the Scottish independence vote in September will get through, but who knows, we will just have to wait and see.