Australia, do we need state borders ???

Called "The Lucky Country", with so much internal politics it's a wonder we even have roads

The way the NSW & QLD premier's are carrying on about the border they have clearly forgotten about the common good of all

So do we really need state government ?
Isn't it time "Governing" in Australia became efficient (instead of just increasing taxes)

We already have the Australian Federal government overseeing things, along with the ATO taxing us all, the Australian defence force's, all the way down to local councils.......

Thoughts ?

 

Those states are really scared of a spread of the disease and I dont blame them for being ultra cautious. Have a look at the USA situation, each state does as it likes and they are paying the price for it now. I dont think we would be able to get a capable federal leader to take over full govt of the country, Morrison is very uninspiring. But one of the first things I would do if I was a leader based on your idea is get enough power to be able to remove a state leader in emergency situations. For e.g Andrews and his Victorian cronies, somethings stinks about that lot. Their shocking performance is affecting how the whole country recovers from Covid 19.

 

Genuine question. Wouldnt getting rid of state parliaments, meaning everything is decided at the federal level, either disadvantage smaller states, or give them disproportionate veto power?

It would just make state decisions part of the bargain in federal (all) decisions. Imagine if NSW or VIC wanted to build something, and they need to pork barrel something in TAS or NT to get the numbers.

It's still a parliamentary system, which might not be the most efficient, but at least it tries to be representative. But the further away the representative is from the voters and their interests, the less beneficial it would be to voters. Dictatorship is efficient, but do you want that?

Not saying that too much local power is a good idea either. The US is an example of inefficiencies from too much local power, paralysing decision making.

 

People need to realise that State and Commonwealth governments are (in)effectively equal with powers being allocated in the Constitution and by later agreement. Commonwealth was allocated defense, communications and trade amongst others; the States retained land, water, education, commerce etc. Taxation was slowly transferred to the Commonwealth during the world wars and this lead to the Commonwealth appearing to control areas like health and education due to its distribution of funds to the States with strings attached.

I feel that the current system has its flaws but II would need to see a great deal of detail on how any new distribution of powers would work before considering changing things.

 

Related to Covid handling NSW health. Apparently a decision a long time ago was to make each local area in NSW responsible for managing health at each local area. As a result, the handling of the Corona virus health response has been really good in NSW. Because each local area health service knows its population really well, can contact trace, work out what is happening quickly. It knows that some areas have a high migrant population and can work to tailor messages for the locals and it has been like this for a very long time. And this has been in lacking in Victoria.

 

Living in QLD, I am actually glad that all the states have gone seperate on this. It has allowed us to compartmentalize the problem somewhat.
Its really concerning whats happening in Victoria and parts of nsw and ACT at the moment. I really hope we don't end up with it spreading back up here. I would rather the borders close again (even though it cuts me off from most of my family), and retain the freedoms I currently have; then to have it spread and everytging to go back into lockdown like before, or worse. I don't want to have to be stuck trying to homeschool my children again, because Australia stopped compartmentalising. I also don't want this federal government dictating what my family should be doing, over my own judgement. As I would rather be stuck homeschooling my kids if the risk is greater, then sending them to school because the federal government is more concerned about the economy as a whole, then the health and wellbeing of children and their carers.

Now as a general rule, outside of COVID-19, I agree the power divide between states and federal government can be problematic. But understanding the history behind how it came about the way is did, and knowing the processes by which any change would need to occur, I do not believe there is an easy solution to this. I thoroughly disagree on just a single federal government in charge of all. Australia is too big and diverse a nation (on every level) for such a 'one size fits all' ideal to work in reality.

So the current system, although flawed and definitely in need of improvement in areas such as health and education uniformity between states, is still prefereable then the alternative (and unrealistic) option you are proposing.

 

Good conversation is equal to a good debate.

Otherwise one persons idea might never be adopted.

I am not at odd's with any comments on this subject, purely on the basis that I wish to learn more .

What I am hoping for is debate that may help (those with enough power) to effect change....

I am not saying "let the masses have a free for all", but there has to be a better way !

Look at WA, they have a marketing campaign "buy WA first" and as a state are far more PRO Australian than the rest of us

Freehold business has improved, adopted technologies and adapted to an ever changing world to run at a profit (paying CEO's 50 times Scomo's wage and shareholder distributions) yet Govco continue to NEED more funding via ever increasing taxation and levy's to meet an ever expanding (waistline) operating cost base

One could argue that the Australian economy is only doing as well as it is due to the over 2 million government employee's, near 20% of our working population (up 3% on the previous year!) = turnover and taxpayers (back into the system)...
https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs...FjABegQICxAG&usg=AOvVaw0YO0pnErKeFPLrJPd3MHkh
Being a part of the 10.6 million employed nationally (only 62% being FULL TIME)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIDBAG&usg=AOvVaw1Cmd4hQ3RwPQmmzhvEaTYe

Surely there has to be a better way to run this country ?
I understand that without debate and opposition we could end up in a Trump era
But a system that benefits all here, without the infighting and waste currently clearly evident could benefit all via better support systems and lower taxes
(Better still, lets put some savings into a sovereign wealth fund )

 

But how does getting rid of state level of government improve the system? Just because you remove a layer of cost doesn't mean the other layers dont accumulate more cost as a result.

Better is a very subjective thing. Fact is, inefficiency does protect a lot of mediocre people. Sure, Australia would have lower taxes if you managed to get rid of government inefficiencies (imho by making state governments better, instead of getting rid of it). But you would send a lot of 'protected' people out into the private sector where they dont have a lot of value. Added to lower unemployment benefits etc that would be really bad for a lot of people.

 

True @Trainee
I know that the stepdaughter employed by Aus Post couldn't do any better than a hotel toilet cleaner in "the real world".....
This kinda highlights my point, I have seen incompetence regularly promoted (because demotion due to being useless isn't a thing) while I wasn't promoted because I was "too good in my role", this is the government way (resulting in a management heavy structure).

 

And their standard of life would be lower.

Just an observation that a true meritocracy (itself subjective), where everyone is evaluated on their economic output, where there is no waste, would mean a lot of people dont survive.

that might be great (might even be ‘fair’) for a small section of people, but........

Obvious slippery slope towards decisions about the value of social services, art, uni grants to write books about history of tractors, etc

 

Agree, the step daughter would be worse off, but it might give her tbe incentive to "try" finally.....
There is a lot of (well overpaid) dead wood in management is what I am trying to say.
Why is it that a labourer os evaluated on how much he can shovel in a day, yet management shuffle paper at far less education and risk (yet are paid many times more) for their true output ?

Why should Packer or Reinhart (or most CEO) get paid gazillions to decide between option A or B as presented by various layers of management below them ?
V's some poor bugger on a shovel every week whose actual physical working life is a mere 25 years compared to 40 years sitting behind a desk ?
Education goes a long way to improving one's income, but it isn't the only factor
I've walked both sides (due to failing spine) and there isn't enough remuneration for wearing out onesbody.....

 

Leverage. Inheritance. Bargaining power.

Do you see the irony that this started for calls to cut government and lower taxes.

but the solution to the problems you point out might be more government, higher taxes and unions?

 

Honestly, I don't see the point of even discussing extreme ideologies, when they have a zero percent chance of ever becoming a reality. And because of the way the system is set up and the mechanisms of change that were built within the system, radical overhaul like you are talking about is simply never going to happen. Regardless of your opinion or anyone elses, about whether it should be or not. It's a pipe dream.
May as well fantasize about being a long lost royal with a massive inheritance.

If you want to affect actual and genuine change, you are better off acknowledging the constraints of the system that exists, and look at what simple but effective changes can be implemented within that system, and then opening up discussion about that.

The only way you are going to get a complete overhaul of the government system currently in place, is by actually overthrowing the goverment and establishing a new one in it's place. And the world and history are full of examples of why that most often doesn't even work, and when it does its only after many years of pain, death, and social and economic devastation. And I hardly think our system is bad enough to warrant such extreme methods.

 

Most Western Australians have wanted borders for years, as they feel most of there mining royalties goes to the east coast

 

I was more referring to the current stalemate regarding temporarily moving the current Qld-NSW border (north or south) to help many people with their day to day lives all while keeping them safe.
How it is often state against state when it should be "pro Australia", our national pride only seems to exist one day a year
Everyone knows that government isn't as efficient as a business, and are constantly looking to change or introduce methods to increase their revenue (it wasn't about tax cuts).
Personally I don't like many of the current systems, it is true that it could take a revolution to make change (no one want's a war) the only way things will change is from the top, and that won't ever occur with generations of political comforts unless the change stands to benefit those at the top.
I was bored and thought it'd be fun to see where this discussion went also
Thanks ro all game enough to reply

 

Wonder if its a historical quirk. Did the border towns spring up originally precisely because of the border?

allowing federal to change state borders opens up a gerrymandering nightmare.

 

There was a time at Tweed heads at the bridge many years ago where you stop at the entry gates and the official's would check your car for fruit ECT ,but that was a 2 lane entry highway it would be very in different with the flow rates traffic wise that pass both ways now.

 

Usually they were aligned along physical barriers - usually a river system - where a toll could be set up to charge "import" taxes as goods were bought from one side to the other. So a town sprung up on either side to cater for the movement of goods and those who bought them by horse and cart