As a migrant, there’s something I just don’t get in Australia (State Govt vs. Federal Govt)

Yorkshire-Man on 03/01/2019 - 14:37
Last edited 04/01/2019 - 22:56 by 1 other user

Hi All,

I’m a migrant, been here for 20 years so I consider myself to be a local these days, but there is one thing I still don’t get so turning to OzB for opinions.

State Government.

So I get the ‘historic’ point of state government but what I don’t get is why the Australian Public don’t rile more about its exsistence. There is a ‘parliament’ in every state, we duplicate all these departments (think health, education, roads / traffic) in every state & the amount of money this wastes is nothing short of massive.

We could massively reduce income taxes or keep them the same and massively improve infrastructure / social housing / poverty etc by simply abolishing them & the duplication / waste yet no-one seems interested in it ?

Whenever I ask people either shrug or fret about the amount of government jobs that would be lost.

Keen to hear your views…

Edit - Thanks all, great input. I’m from the UK, biggest political mess on the planet however i do feel that there is less government duplication. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland do have their own parliaments however this is over a population of 70m people. Fascinating to see the majority of people here still support state governments.

Edit2 - So many comments below seem really focused on ‘Power Balance’ and ‘Local Focus’. To be clear what baffles me is the pure duplication here. Sure, most of these depts need local representatives, what I would change is more the back office of Depts like (for example) vechicle licencing… we still need local offices but the ‘back office’ duplication state by state must cost say, a billion dollars a year. Purely in IT / infrastructure / admin costs alone ? Fascinating that so many OzB people are not so interested in these savings on offer :)

Financial

Comments

  • Hybroid on 03/01/2019 - 14:40
    +7

    Wouldn't the point be having 'locals' in areas that theoretically will look after the best interests for that region? In the same way that Barangaroo's development has it's own government arm called BDA focused on Barangaroo itself.

    https://www.barangaroo.com/the-project/barangaroo-delivery-a…

    • michael carroll on 04/01/2019 - 13:07
      +1

      the system is broken world wide sorry

  • GG57 on 03/01/2019 - 14:41
    +35

    I would rather eliminate the even lower level of government (local councils / shires), which appear to provide even less value.

    Having said that, I would certainly support the introduction of some consistencies between state governments (taxes, road rules, etc.) to further eliminate waste.

    • field1985 on 06/01/2019 - 16:16
      -3

      Agreed. The states make sense, councils not so much. NSW has 129 councils, Victoria over 80, most of which are concentrated in the cities, yet Brisbane can manage fine with just one.

    • kev98 on 06/01/2019 - 16:33
      +2

      Who will collect my bins and tell me I can’t do an extension then?

  • dcep on 03/01/2019 - 14:49
    +25

    In 1901, Australia became a nation. This is known
    as federation. Prior to federation, each of the
    six states was a colony with its own government
    that made decisions for the people living in that
    colony. (The territories gained self government
    later.) However, some people thought it was a
    good idea for Australia to have a government that
    made decisions for all Australians.

    Each Australian state and territory has its own
    government and its own constitution. The
    decision making body for each state is the State
    Parliament which is located in each capital city.

    Under the Australian Constitution, the states
    are responsible for all the areas not listed as
    federal responsibilities. However, often both
    levels of government are involved and the federal
    government will give money to the states to carry
    out their programs.

    State governments receive funding from a
    number of sources including revenue from the
    federal Goods and Services Tax and state-based
    fees, levies and charges.

    State governments are responsible for education,
    health, the environment, transport,
    public works, primary industries, industrial
    relations, community services, sport and
    recreation, consumer affairs, police services,
    prisons, and water – to name just a few.
    That means whenever you go to hospital or a
    police officer in your community takes action
    against someone breaking the law, your
    state government is at work.

    The Australian Constitution lists the matters that
    the Federal Parliament can make laws about.
    Some of these include the defence forces,
    pensions and family support, employment,
    immigration and customs, post and
    telecommunications, imports and exports,
    passports, the media, airports and air safety,
    income and company taxes. These services are
    paid for by the taxes collected by the federal
    government.

    https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/educatio…

  • tranter on 03/01/2019 - 14:51
    -4

    Are you saying there is less duplication and waste and better efficiency in your home country?

    • Yorkshire-Man on 03/01/2019 - 15:18
      +10

      I am from the UK, far from the perfect model, however I do feel the government there do not duplicate nearly as much as here :)

      • whooah1979 on 03/01/2019 - 15:23

        How about that Brexit?

        • Yorkshire-Man on 03/01/2019 - 15:32
          +5

          Disaster, stupid in the extreme

          • whooah1979 on 03/01/2019 - 15:34

            @Yorkshire-Man: That what you (we) get when soft people are at the top.

          • SlartiBartFozz on 04/01/2019 - 13:03

            @Yorkshire-Man: So you suggest the well - managed, four - levels of government is superior to Australia's fumbled three - level government?

            Brexit will ultimately lead to a system more like Australia I guess, but with smaller territory governments.

            Personalty, I think it's hard to go past the Swiss cantons system, as best practice.

          • sasukewa on 06/01/2019 - 11:07
            +1

            @Yorkshire-Man: EU also duplicate governance

      • orangetrain on 03/01/2019 - 18:31

        Doesn't wales, etc have state and council governments? I reckon Western Australia is like Scotland. Both wanting to secede.

        • SlartiBartFozz on 04/01/2019 - 13:06
          -2

          WA and Northern Qld too, i hear.
          The rest of us will probably be better off if they leave, in the long term.

      • MrBear on 04/01/2019 - 08:49
        +4

        You should try the US sometime. Now that is a s**tshow of government bureaucracy from city, township, county, state to federal. They even have their own police at each level…

      • Geoff-bargain on 04/01/2019 - 13:41

        I was just in the UK a few months ago and friends there were amazed by some of the duplication that we have due to having state governments for such a small population. I would really love to get rid of the state governments but the pushback from politicians would be immense. The vast majority of them could never get a job in the private sector paying over 100K so they will fight very hard to keep this inefficient system.

        • User245246 on 05/01/2019 - 11:50
          +1

          Australia: 7,682,300 km2
          UK: 241,930 km2

          • trilby on 07/01/2019 - 13:06

            @User245246: A valid point when communication was difficult and rail or horse and buggy was the way to get messages around.
            Don't think it's such a good point in the internet age.

        • [Deactivated] on 11/01/2019 - 12:44

          Never mind the politicians, the pushback from the Constitution makes it impossible. The states are, in effect, seperate countries who entered into a federation to provide for some common services. The federal government cannot simply "do away with" the states, because it does not have the power to do so. The end.

      • gromit on 04/01/2019 - 17:08
        +2

        Given the UK has almost EXACTLY the same thing with Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales I am not sure how you can suggest it has less duplication. Also for similar historical reasons you have the separation there we have it here, though I agree some consolidation is definitely in order in Australia now

      • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 16:33
        +2

        Its called Devolution this occured in Australia prior to federation; in the UK you have Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, Northern Ireland Assembly and London Assembly.
        There is a large North/South Divide in the Uk as there is a Eastern States vs Everyother state divide in Australia

        With all respect Australia is 32 times bigger then the UK, yes population is 42 million less than UK however infrastucture is on a different scale in Australia , with substantially greater population growth.

        In the eastern coast there is an LPG gas shortage due to the lack of a gas reservation policy unlike Western Australia which has one
        Also Perth which has had pregressively dropping rainwater is Drought proof due to its very progressive policy Desalination plants - a controversial policy at best in the eastern States
        Devolution has it benefits

  • trilby on 03/01/2019 - 15:03
    +6

    Couldn't agree more - 1901 was over a century ago with completely different communications, so that you could justify separate states. This isn't the case anymore and is just such a waste of money with duplications and double the number of elections, to say nothing of different standards, laws and systems.
    The big trouble is that it's in no politicians interest to do anything about abolishing the states.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/01/2019 - 12:46

      Politicians can't abolish the states. Outside of the powers explicitly granted the Commonwealth government by the Constitution, the states are sovereign.

      I am surprised at how many Australians don't understand their own country.

      • trilby on 11/01/2019 - 13:16

        But they can initiate action to enable it to get to that stage, and support action of others. It would take quite a while, but only a handful have expressed their misgivings about the system.
        It's interesting that most of the comments are about why the system is how it is, not many debating the reason why it still should be this way and why steps aren't being taken to change the situation.

  • moph on 03/01/2019 - 15:03
    +13

    Australia is a federation of states. The states are actually (meant to be, under the constitution) the most important political institution. The Federal government has a very limited number of powers under the constitution which are clearly defined (mostly related to trade between the states, quarantine, immigration, military functions, and other things that don't make sense to do at a state by state level). Over history the Federal government has gained additional powers by 1. coordinating the states to all agree on following the same rules which it comes up with, often by applying some financial incentive or 2. convincing courts that new powers actually come underneath the categories that are defined in the constitution. So although there may be some overlap in function, the fact that there's health departments at both the federal and state levels doesn't mean that their functions are actually duplicated; the Commonwealth health department operates to ensure the states' health departments are coordinated and the federal government's health policies are implemented. Regardless of that, if we were to abolish the states and replace them with Federal government agencies, there would still need to be deliberation, decision making, and policy making at a local level, because Federal parliament doesn't have enough sitting days to consider every question that would arise if they had to deal with state-level issues.

    How much money is lost to duplication of function between state and federal governments is an interesting question, but not one that I think will have a clear or obvious answer.

    If any layer of government was to be removed, it would be local governments, which only exist because the states have legislation allowing them to.

    • [Deactivated] on 11/01/2019 - 12:47

      Some states have constitutional recognition of local government. Queensland's constitution outright requires it have a system of local government.

      • moph on 14/01/2019 - 12:23

        Interesting, I didn't know that.

  • swapsey on 03/01/2019 - 15:03
    -7

    Where did you migrate from?

  • colinjames on 03/01/2019 - 15:04
    +4

    so you missed the memo about the Australian federal government serving at the pleasure of the States with clearly defined and limited responsibilities as defined by the Constitution.

    Start reading here
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Australia

    You may also want to investigate the checks and balances to power that having multiple levels of government provides.

    Where you see redundancy, I see the opportunity for innovation and experimentation although the increasing federalism has reduced this.

  • spackbace on 03/01/2019 - 15:07
    -6

    You're from the UK?

    How's Brexit going…?

    • tranter on 03/01/2019 - 15:13
      +1

      How's WAxit going?

      • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 02:10

        The GST fix which is $4.7 Billion over the next eight years helped stave that off for the time being -
        If WA did leave - Australia would lose its largest state, 33% of its total area, 10% off its population, 14% of its GDP, 18% of business investment 41% of its exports by value
        with regards to global resource production WA produces 33% of the worlds Iron Ore, 34% of Rutile 22% of rare Earths, 12% of LNG, 11% of diamonds, 11% of Aluminia.
        WA would have a GDP per capita of $70500 usd which would place it in the top 5

    • whooah1979 on 03/01/2019 - 15:25

      I didn't see your reply.

    • Yorkshire-Man on 03/01/2019 - 15:48
      +8

      Disaster. I’m not here to troll anyone, or to say I hail from a place that’s perfect :) Just fascinating (as per the responses here on a forum like this) that people don’t see the enormous waste as a problem.

      Genuine curiosity.

      • Harold Halfprice on 05/01/2019 - 23:13
        -1

        The even bigger waste are the councils. Useless and unnecessary.

        The only thing my council seems to be 'good' for is fining residents in our street for parking outside their own house without a permit - which are also limited per household. Haven't seen or heard of a single non-resident getting fined yet - but the council refuses to remove the permit zone. Guess they gotta make up for the waste of money that they are.

    • NotSureAboutThatMate on 05/01/2019 - 03:29
      +1

      How is this an argument against him?

      Wouldn't the UK government's terrible handling of Brexit be vindication of his criticism of government inefficiency?

      Wouldn't coming from a country that so astonishingly rebelled against the unwanted (and arguably harmful) additional layer of government - the EU - add some context to this view of his?

      • chriise on 05/01/2019 - 16:14

        I agree - however it appears OP would suggest removing the state powers as the fix, rather than fed, if wanting to remove any duplication of powers.

  • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 15:07
    +2

    The roots of it are in Australia's history. Before federation, Australia was a group of seperate colonies, with seperate militaries, rail systems and more. They were fiercely competitive. Each state effectively operated as a seperate nation. This competitiveness didn't simply end at Federation, the various states argued as to where to set the capital even and eventually decided to set up a seperate territory for the capital. This also kind of boosted the authority of the Federal Government as now they had their own autonomous territory(territories are bits of land not claimed by the states, they operate according to commonwealth law or are granted autonomy, they are not directly managed by the Federal Government, it was more symbolic). So to answer your question, I believe the roots of the seperate governments are based in the past. The original colonies alienated the idea of an Australia early on instead of pursuing it, rather making Queenslands and NSWs. This then carried on through history to the systems of government we now have today. Also, there is a very large difference between Federal Government and State Government, they have very strict levels of 'jurisdiction' I guess regarding laws. The Federal Government makes laws mainly about the whole of Australia, for example, military or immigration whereas state governments make laws regarding their transport etc.

    If you are asking why this is the case, it is because that is what those colonies agree upon when signing the Australian Constitution, the constitution is a legal document dividing the powers between Federal and State levels of government.

    But I seriously don't think anyone would be better off with no state government. Would you rather have a referee for each game of soccer on a playing field with 8 games on at once, or a single referee watching over each game at the same time?

    • TheBilly on 03/01/2019 - 15:38
      +2

      They were fiercely competitive. Each state effectively operated as a seperate nation. This competitiveness didn't simply end at Federation, the various states argued as to where to set the capital even and eventually decided to set up a seperate territory for the capital.

      Obviously NT and SA got whooped !!

  • adam on 03/01/2019 - 15:16
    +7

    Western Australia doesn't have the same education and health care priorities as Victoria, etc. It makes sense for states to control things local to their particular needs and not have this all homogenised federally. The feds should have as little control as possible and, IMHO, that is far too much currently. As others have said, the feds have increased powers gradually and slowly, usurping them off the states.

    But Australia in not unique in this structure. In fact I can't thing of a single country that doesn't have states/counties or other form of sub-governments below the federal level.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 15:40
      +6

      nobody has the same education priorities as victoria. i hear they do a whole year at school on avocado lattes and deconstructed vegemite toast

    • [Deactivated] on 05/01/2019 - 17:01

      Victoria is roughly the size of the UK and Western Australia is 10 times the size of the UK - infrastructure is on a different scale as well as the cost of maintaining it.
      Victoria which is a very progressive state does not have an LPG gas reservation policy nor is melbourne drought proof - WA and perth is quite the contrary - Desalination plants in WA are not political hot potataoes as they are over east.

      • kabammi on 06/01/2019 - 00:00
        -1

        Melbourne is drought proof. It already has a desalination plant. Has been here for almost 6 or 7 years I reckon. That's how progressive we are. Until the libs fiddle with our progressiveness lol. Can't say Victoria is drought proof though, no 2 way pipes up the Goulburn river… Idiots.

        • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 00:50

          https://media.yvw.com.au/inline-files/melbourne-water-outloo…

          Latest Melbourne Water Outlook from 30 Nov 2018 - worse case scenario - Melbourne will have enough water until 2028 comes down to Population growth and climate change
          The Millennium Drought was the shape of things to come

  • Almost Banned on 03/01/2019 - 15:19
    +4

    Having three tiers of government inevitably produces some inefficiencies - but I am curious as to why you think the answer to this is to remove the level in the middle rather than the one most removed from the end users?
    In any event a far bigger issue for our federation is the ability to impose and collect taxes. Since the States surrendered their income tax power to the Commonwealth the states have become increasingly dependent on Federal largesse. The inability to impose excise limits state taxing powers to silly and inefficient measures like 'stamp' duty, payroll tax, and mineral royalties.
    The removal of State governments would be a massive constitutional change, and would have major social impacts as State governments carry primary responsibility for three major areas - health, policing, and education.

    • Yorkshire-Man on 04/01/2019 - 00:03
      +7

      Thanks for the reply.

      For me the waste here in government is massive. Every role is health, policing, education along with simple depts like vechicle licencing is duplicatied. Every IT system, every admin team, every policy and each sets rules that are a whisker apart.

      I get this was needed in 1890, I just see it as massively wasteful in 2019. If this was all consolidated and the duplication removed we could have tens of billions a year, money that could supercharge Australia instead of being wasted.

      I’m absolutely not for ‘cutting services’ it just seems so wasteful to throw so much money away on duplication.

      However, from the comments here I am clearly in the minority…

      • TheCutter on 04/01/2019 - 17:54

        It was tough to see the mining boom here pissed away.
        Just like the Uk's financial boom pissed away on Trident and the NHS.

        Its called politicians getting their head in the trough.

      • MITM on 04/01/2019 - 19:28
        +2

        Please post an example where you have directly experienced duplication in dealing with a government body.
        Ie filled in a form for both your state and fed governments for the same purpose.

        Fed oversees State.
        State oversees local
        Local oversees the community except body corporate/community schemes which are overseen by state

    • lysp on 04/01/2019 - 19:18

      I believe the reason why councils are still important because they are the ones "on the ground" that actually deal with local area.

      They run the roads, waste management, building / planning, health, parks, etc for their surrounding area.

      They are close to the action.

      As an example - having food inspectors for the entire state and having them all go around to different areas of the state would be difficult. Having a small set for each local (council) area makes more sense.

      If state's were removed, the major things would be pushed up to federal (hospitals / schools). The smaller things (main roads) would possibly be pushed to council.

      • diddy50 on 14/01/2019 - 12:50
        -1

        perhaps we need bigger councils, less of them.

        they don't do health, that is State.

        they all get money from the tier above, which is silly. they can't even afford to operate themselves.

  • xiabonan on 03/01/2019 - 15:20
    +9

    It's simple. I'm a foreign student too but it's really not that hard to understand.

    There's the state governments first, and then the Federal government came into existence by the AGREEMENT of the state government.

    The State governments are the "original governments", if you will, of Australia. The Federal government only existed because the States thought it would be a good idea to do so, mainly to eliminate trade barriers within Australia'a borders.

    Section 51 clearly sets out the powers of the Federal government, if interested you could take a look. Federal and State governments play quite different roles and have quite different powers.

    As to why remain this way, it's even simpler, that's because the Constitution said so. Why not change the Constitution you might ask? Coz it's bloody hard to do it. Basically you'll need a majority of yes votes in each state and a yes vote out of the majority of the states. So this means in order to get rid of the States, the States themselves have to vote them out of existence.

    • idonotknowwhy on 05/01/2019 - 08:11

      Great explanation and good on you for researching all of this as a foreign student (I think it's taught in schools here)

      • xiabonan on 05/01/2019 - 09:51
        +2

        I'm a law student at USYD. So, yeah. We learn it at Uni in quite depth when we learn public law and constitutional law.

    • donamique on 06/01/2019 - 07:36

      Thanks, that’s a good explanation. Just one question, if you had a majority of yes votes in each state don’t you also already have a yes vote out of all the states?

  • Diji1 on 03/01/2019 - 15:27
    +9

    Australia is all about waste.

    For example we moved to a privatised electricity system. That involves paying for an additional CEO for every competing business. Then there's the additional waste of the boards and every other additional other part of the businesses that must be in place for multiple businesses to operate.

    Each business has a smaller pool of customers paying these people compared to a state monopoly leading to more waste as economies of scale are lost.

    A state monopoly has no marketing costs or Government lobbying costs - which are all waste.

    A state monopoly is always less wasteful and cheaper.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2019 - 15:41
      +2

      That involves paying for an additional CEO for every competing business. Then there's the additional waste of the boards and every other additional other part of the businesses that must be in place for multiple businesses to operate

      It's called job creation, and all those extra people with jobs will buy stuff from other people, stimulating the economy. also lets get some more immigrants in just to make sure it looks like we aren't in a recession.

    • MITM on 04/01/2019 - 19:33

      Government/s are not in the business of being in business. Eg Telstra.

    • diddy50 on 14/01/2019 - 12:53
      -1

      there is a reason we have privatised a lot of utilities, because the State, the Feds and bureaucrats couldn't run a chook raffle if they tried!
      Plus why did Kennett (Vic) do it last century? because the State was going bankrupt!

      Edit: Plus businesses usually run operations far better than governments can

  • Baysew on 03/01/2019 - 15:30
    +2

    John Hewson posed the same question yesterday Australia, as designed in the 1890s, is past its use-by date

    Jeff Kennett in the 1990's floated the idea of a "Superstate" of Victoria, South Australia & Tasmania.

    Bob Katter is proposing a new state of Far North Queensland.

    WA regularly proposes secession from Australia.

    Australia could be the 51st state of the USA.

    Even amalgamation of councils did not necessarily achieve the efficiency they promised.

    As John Hewson said -

    The need is urgent, and clearly beyond the capabilities of any of our current, or prospective, short-term-focused, politically driven, governments.

    Which really means all of us.

    • shaybisc on 03/01/2019 - 15:56
      +3

      From the Hewson article.

      "It boggles my mind that we happily persist with a multiplicity of time zones, while China, with a bigger land mass than Australia, has just one time zone."

      What? That can't be right. That sounds as idiotic as the non-sequential house numbering system I discovered yesterday the Japanese use. That means it will be daylight at midnight and sunrise at 11am at certain times of the year if you're on the wrong side. The side where the Communist Party big wigs do not live I'll bet. Big fail there Professor Hewson. Put thinking cap on.

      I reckon if you look closely you will find the entire world is mad and by comparison Australian madness is fairly sane.

      • Ozpit on 04/01/2019 - 09:59
        +1

        John, don’t stop there. A single time zone for the whole world sure would make international commerce a lot easier and more efficient, not to mention my phone calls, emails and texts to overseas friends and family when I want an immediate response.

      • xiabonan on 05/01/2019 - 09:57

        China once had different time zones. Then the leadership thought it's too cumbersome plus kinda difficult to manage, as time-keeping devices were scarce during the early days of the PRC, so they got rid of it. In other words, China once had time zones and daylight saving time but due to its vast population and the difficulty of managing such a system in the early days, it got scrapped. Nowadays everything is computerized so there's really no need to change.

        • khomeini on 05/01/2019 - 14:05

          At a tangent but… China also had lots of different ethnicities previously but the ethnic Han hegemony (I believe it was the Qing Dynasty) put an end to that and by either force or generally favouring the Han, mitigated or eradicated those other ethnicities. We see it today with what is happening to the Uyghur.

          Again to tie it off to the comment above, I bet those same Uyghur (Western ethnic populations) would be the ones most impacted by a singular time zone and are not ethnic Han (those who are in power culturally/militarily currently in China).

  • TheBilly on 03/01/2019 - 15:41

    Some things cannot be legislated efficiently at a state level. For example, Migration. If there were not two tiers of government, you wouldve been applying to multiple different governments as opposed to one body when you came here.

    • MITM on 04/01/2019 - 19:19

      Not necessarily. You would apply to the state you wished to emigrate to. NSW would probably get the most requests. But you would require a visa to visit Victoria or elsewhere.
      Presumably you applied to multiple countries once you decided to emigrate, in the hope one would accept you or if you’re lucky ( or highly skilled) would receive many offers of citizenship.
      Logically one need only apply to the United Nations for placement internationally. Oh wait, that’s for refugees.

      • SlartiBartFozz on 05/01/2019 - 00:14

        It could be run like a union of states, where you only need to get visas to enter the whole, but not to cross state borders.

  • leiiv on 03/01/2019 - 16:13
    +1

    I think the duplicated departments that need to be removed is the Federal ones. They already have too much power.

    • diddy50 on 14/01/2019 - 12:58

      Exactly, trim down that fat - why have a full blown Fed Health dept when all they are doing is funding the states to do their job?

  • iforgotmysocks on 03/01/2019 - 16:23

    Agree but we're in too deep, man.

  • outlander on 03/01/2019 - 16:26
    +2

    I'm not sure I see a case for duplicate departments. I mean there may be a state health department and a federal health department, but they shouldn't be doing the same job. It should be the state manages the day to day, and sends a copy of all records to the federal, which look at the bigger picture. It will cause some redunancy and waste, but it shouldn't be 200% of a federal only system, more like 120%. But I haven't looked at the figures

  • jamesblake2908 on 03/01/2019 - 17:55
    +2

    I don't agree. Others have explained the constitutional history of our system. The point I think is most important is that decentralisation of power is a key element of our democratic system. In the way that the division between judicial, legislative and executive power is a check and balance, so is the division of state and federal power.

    While some things are duplicated, the state and federal governments largely have different powers. The states are empowered to do whatever is not explicitly outlined in the Commonwealth Constitution, while the Federal Parliament has a specific, explicit role.

    The UK is a geographically smaller country, and even then there are often complaints about the government being London-centric. I think that if we were to remove state governments then Tas, SA, NT and WA would suffer the same fate as rural areas of the UK

    • Wallyt99 on 07/01/2019 - 08:29

      This. Additionally, people have a greater feeling of, and greater actual power when they are closer to decision makers - as they are in State Government. People also have the ability to 'talk with their feet' and leave a state of they don't agree with their laws (e.g Qld abortion laws).

  • mskeggs on 03/01/2019 - 19:07
    +1

    While there is some duplication in the parliament, it isn’t like dissolving state government would mean schools, hospitals, police etc would no longer be required. The federal government would need to grow comensuarably to compensate.
    Would it really be that different if instead of reporting to the state health minister the state branch of the health system reported to a federal minister?
    Our local politicians all seem pretty busy looking after our electorate, so I’m not sure we would have better outcomes with one fewer member.

  • papachris on 03/01/2019 - 21:19

    Interestingly, a friend of mine ran as a 'party-named independent' (IIRC, Australian Progress Party) for a NSW senate seat in a federal election a few years back. His main platform was to abolish the states (well, mainly the governments) for exactly this reason.

    IIRC, he received something like 12 votes. At least he wasn't the first to be re-distributed…

    • Ozpit on 04/01/2019 - 10:09

      Ten siblings plus mum and dad?

  • Bystander on 04/01/2019 - 08:05
    +1

    Agree with the OP 100%.

    9 separate legal systems that businesses and others have to deal with is ridiculous. Especially when you consider our combined small population. The massive financial waste with all the other duplication is ridiculous. State govt is an anachronism and needs to be done away with.

    Frequently I've seen both federal and state governments claim that a particular issue is the responsibility of the other.

    State govt provides no benefit whatsoever but costs billions. I'm all for getting rid of it and finishing the job of federation.

    • MITM on 04/01/2019 - 19:44
      +1

      State government provides you with your local hospital including staff and supplies (via GST on your purchases) whilst the federal government (via your Medicare levy) fund your local hospital - just in case you need it.

      If you want to eliminate the state government, stop spending or if you want to eliminate the federal government, stop working.

      • Bystander on 06/01/2019 - 19:39

        That doesn't make any sense at all.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 07/01/2019 - 09:37

          No Bystander - your post made no sense.

          Please feel free to cite any of your claims

          "Frequently I've seen both federal and state governments claim that a particular issue is the responsibility of the other."

          "State govt provides no benefit whatsoever but costs billions"

          I feel you don't have an understanding of the Constitution and the construction of our seperate tiers of government.

  • dazzledayz on 04/01/2019 - 11:13
    +5

    Australia, given its vast distances, diverse regional cultures and local economies, would not be well served by a fully centralized govt with states eliminated.
    This is in large part the reason WA is always talking secession; they see Canberra as too remote and disinterested in their specific local issues and I think that this sentiment would only become more widespread if local functions were left to the Feds alone.

    State governments frequently act as a foil to Federal overarching ambitions and no Prime Minister is ever pleased to see a Premiers Conference creeping up on their agenda as this is the main arena that decides how the pie is sliced; the recent WA ruckus over GST share being a case in point.
    Individual states will push their own barrows at these meetings and what may be vital to Qld may not be as important to Tassie.
    Similarly, state judiciaries provide a local flavour to the law but still remain subservient to Federal jurisprudence in the shape of the Federal and High Courts.

    I also think the OP rather overstates the case for $ savings.
    Federal and state depts may have the same names but that's about where the duplication ends.
    With exceptions where federal depts have sole national responsibility (Defense, Immigration, Human Services etc), the other bodies mainly work in a coordination and oversight role so are not as bloated as their state counterparts.
    Their main role is in overseeing how the federal monetary disbursement to state bodies is administered and to ensure all these adhere to any overarching federal legislation.
    Oversight of govt activity at any level is to be welcomed and, in my opinion, actively encouraged.
    About the only glaring omission at present being the lack of a Federal ICAC (with teeth and vigour rather than the watchpuppy ScoMo and his mates prefer)

    Actually, the current arrangements do go some way to seeing us score high on the democracy scale:
    Democracy Index

    If any changes were to be made, I'd rather see it at a local level with State govt assuming the duties of local councils through a state wide, fully state funded and massively decentralised Public Works Dept come Planning Authority.
    Local councils are by and large the most inept arm of govt and frequently prone to inefficiency, cronyism, favouritism and corruption.
    Even so, in Sth East Qld recently, centralized state govt control of water supply was successfully challenged by a majority of local councils.
    This saw a reduction in water supply charges so I grudgingly concede that even local govt has its uses.

    • papachris on 05/01/2019 - 21:00

      There's a great episode of Yes Minister (or Yes Prime Minister?) that covers the power battle between local government and national government. Reforming local government by making it truly democratic ends up in reforming at the highest level, and ending the power of party politics. Unsurprisingly, party politicians are unwilling to do anything that will rebound on them…

    • [Deactivated] on 06/01/2019 - 01:12

      best comment i have read so far on this - Australia has a surprisingly good score ion the Democracy Index despite there being
      "no Commonwealth legislation enshrining a general right to freedom of expression"
      https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human…

  • cashless on 04/01/2019 - 14:32
    +1

    Agree wholeheartedly with OP, multiple layers of government means multiple layers of waste and expense met by all citizens.
    The sort of waste that could not be tolerated in any money-making business.
    As an immigrant from the UK, I grew up experiencing at least 4 tiers of bureaucratic control.
    1) Local Parish/Village Council
    2) Borough/Town/City Council
    3) County Council
    4) UK Govt.

    The 3-tier system in Aussie is terribly inefficient, but maybe not as bad as it could have been.

  • nikey2k27 on 04/01/2019 - 16:38

    the government should be run by administrators like a company is and then we should also have to vote on the big things once a year. The state gov are waste of money i we could give local gov a lots more power remove all state gov and their law give police to federal and road and rail and school local Gov Deal with STD sewerage Trash and debris other local services.

  • khell on 04/01/2019 - 16:51
    +1

    Start with getting rid of the useless councils that suck blood (money) at every opportunity so they can throw tea parties and waste it doing absolutely nothing.

  • cybapete on 04/01/2019 - 17:35
    +1

    before federation there were three different rail gauges

    • dazzledayz on 04/01/2019 - 18:43
      +1

      And there still are.
      We have quite a few unified lines now but there are still many non-standard lines and transfer depots.
      The first suggestion for standardisation came from Billy Hughes and was rejected.
      After the war Menzies did a bit as did the Whitlam and Hawke-Keating govts via major projects.
      There have been smaller local initiatives in between and after.
      Still, many of the "standardisation" projects are in fact dual gauge rather than standard gauge.
      No one wants to throw away or convert existing rolling stock so 2 different gauge trains simply use a common right of way.
      It's still a mess and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
      Give us another 100 or so years and we may get closer to true standardisation.
      Australian Rail Gauges

  • chumlee on 04/01/2019 - 18:30

    States will need to have a referendum to abolish themselves. Can't see politicians agreeing to this

    • dazzledayz on 04/01/2019 - 19:13
      +1

      You'd never get it across the line in WA for certain and it's unlikely in Qld, SA, Tas and NT

      None of these are overly fond of Canberra and in the case of WA the fear and loathing is intense.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join