Whiccle Johnnie

[ozwinner]

Soooo!!
Whiccle Johnnie want to get rid of the State Governments, and have two teirs of government, local and feral.
What do you think??
How will it work??
Will it work better??

I have always thought we were over governed with 3 layers of government.

Al :confused:

[craigb]

In principle I'm all for abolishing state goverments.
Anything that results in fewer politicians aand reduces the size of the beurocracy has got to be a good thing IMO.

I don't reckon it'll happen in my lifetime though. :(

On the other hand, I don't trust The Rodent.

[Dean]

You have to keep the state govt's.
They are a "local" voice for the feds, just as local govts are the people's local links for the state govt's. You cannot centralise a single govt and expect them to be in tune with the needs of the people in every part of a country as big as Australia. The state and local govt's are an important link and voice for people.

Do you think Johnnie or any of his ministers would take your phone call when ringing about a concern you have with a local issue or even regional issue? No chance...

Even if it was local vs feds, that's not going to stop the blame game. And with Johnnie breaking election promises, I'm all for other govt's serving him a blast to keep the pressure on to keep them honest... or is that to make them honest? :D :D :D :rolleyes:

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time, to break a promise, or to tell a lie if it benefits myself in the long run. I promise to deny all previous statements, even if I made them in writing or you recorded my voice, and in such an event, claim that the information given in such statement was not related to any matter currently being argues or debated. I also promise to to tell the truth, the whole truth and everything far from the truth. And I am not ruling out anything at this stage :)

[craigb]

Well I think Al was saying that you would keep the local goverment (ie councils).

How about a compromise; keep the state G's but limit them to one hose only.

Why State G's have to be bi-cameral is beyoind me.

[Dean]

true, but it would not be efficient for the huge number of local govts that are currently in service to be comunicating with the feds direct whenever they have a problem. IMO the state govt acts as a collective for the local govts and puts forward a collective voice to the feds. Well, thats how it is supposed to work, in theory, right? :)

In the end, who really cares. Its not the government that actually runs the country. Its you and I and the businesses and companies we work for. The govt is there just to play russian roulette with our taxes :(

[Robert WA]

Dean, Dean, Dean. You poor innocent fellow. We run the country? In your dreams!

The country is run by Public Servants.

As to getting rid of the State Governments, it'l never happen.

Good Ol' Gough set his sights on establishing Regional Authorities each made up of a group of Local Governments. The residue of that still exists.

The cynics suggested that he was taking step #1 towards eliminating the States and creating a multitude of Regions that would, ultimately, become the second tier of Government in Oz.

Look what happened to Gough! Little Johnny would end up in the same garbage tip were he to try.

People forget that the States created the Commonwealth and, united, they may be able to end it.

[Dean]

Dean, Dean, Dean. You poor innocent fellow. We run the country? In your dreams!

The country is run by Public Servants.



Ok, so when are they going to start doing some work?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Robert WA]

Ok, so when are they going to start doing some work?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I didn't say they worked. I said they run the country.
The two things are not related. :(

[craigb]

People forget that the States created the Commonwealth and, united, they may be able to end it.

Don't think so. It's not in our interest to "Balkanise" .

Besides, the PM of the day might decide to "do a Lincoln" and say once you've joined you can't leave. Which is also how the Mafia operates btw.

Cheers
Craig (the provacative)

[Robert WA]

Don't think so. It's not in our interest to "Balkanise" .

Besides, the PM of the day might decide to "do a Lincoln" and say once you've joined you can't leave. Which is also how the Mafia operates btw.

Cheers
Craig (the provacative)

Craig.

Spoken like a New South Welshman. On this side of the country we don't see that your side spends our money very wisely.

What I said was, "People forget that the States created the Commonwealth and, united, they may be able to end it." The chances of all the States being united is zilch, so don't get excited.

[RETIRED]

Craig.

Spoken like a New South Welshman. On this side of the country we don't see that your side spends our money very wisely.

What I said was, "People forget that the States created the Commonwealth and, united, they may be able to end it." The chances of all the States being united is zilch, so don't get excited.
Too true, can't even get a national road law system.

[craigb]

Craig.

Spoken like a New South Welshman. On this side of the country we don't see that your side spends our money very wisely.

What I said was, "People forget that the States created the Commonwealth and, united, they may be able to end it." The chances of all the States being united is zilch, so don't get excited.

Robert, I'll think you'll find that your side spends OUR (and Vic's) money. As does QLD. :(

We pay 13 billion in GST each year and get 10 billion back from the feds.
Great deal huh?

[Gingermick]

Too true, can't even get a national road law system.
Or any national definition of child abuse.

(I only metioned that as I heard that after the tsunami a bunch of convicted peadophiles tried to get into Indonesia and Thailand. These people need to be cured of their afliction, ..... a 45 calibre bullet should do the trick)
mick

[Sturdee]

People forget that the States created the Commonwealth and, united, they may be able to end it.


Sorry, but the Commonwealth was created by a British :eek: act of parliament, not by the states. It can only be changed, or abolished, by way of referendum.

Although created out of the individual colonies, since called states, state governments have nothing to do with it and abolishing states again can also be done by referendum. Thus the eastern states can kick out WA if they carry on too much. :D :D :D


Peter.

[jow104]

As a neutral (well nearly)

Sounds like House of Parliment and local government (council).

It also has its problems.

[beejay1]

Sorry, but the Commonwealth was created by a British :eek: act of parliament, not by the states. It can only be changed, or abolished, by way of referendum.Peter.
And what a nice little Act it was too Peter, dont you agree?http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon14.gif

beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9

[Christopha]

Get rid of the whole "State" thing and the hangover from british colonialism. We are all Australians, one country, one state.... except of course for those bloody separatist flamin' Tasmaniacs!

[Sturdee]

And what a nice little Act it was too Peter, dont you agree.

Seeing it was drafted at an Australian Constitution convenvention, yes it is a lovely piece of legislation. :D :D :D

If it was left to the Brits who knows what it would be like. Probably with a hereditary house of lords. :eek: Bloodsuckers that whole alledged British upper class. :D


Peter.

[jow104]

Peter

Many of our hereditary peers have now been taken out of our House of Lords, and if Tony Blair gets in again there is to be another big shake up on who will be allowed to vote and sit in the next House.

[craigb]

Peter

Many of our hereditary peers have now been taken out of our House of Lords, and if Tony Blair gets in again there is to be another big shake up on who will be allowed to vote and sit in the next House.

Here's a novel idea. Why not elect the members of your house of review? :rolleyes: :D

Or would that be too democratic? ;)

[jow104]

Beejay,

How are you getting on up there its 9.45 am the temperature is only 5 C and there is a b......dy strong cold wind blowing.

[jow104]

Here's a novel idea. Why not elect the members of your house of review? :rolleyes: :D

Or would that be too democratic? ;)


Could be coming?????

[beejay1]

Seeing it was drafted at an Australian Constitution convenvention, yes it is a lovely piece of legislation. :D :D :D
Peter.
Even the head of state part Peter,,, Youre not mellowing on me I hopehttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon7.gif
beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9

[Sturdee]

Even the head of state part Peter,,, Youre not mellowing on me I hope

Well not everything was perfect, but don't forget at that stage the British army was still enforcing your colonial rule amongst us.

As to the foreign head of state I thought I was clear enough when I said


Bloodsuckers that whole alledged British upper class. :D

bring on the guilotene for the lot of the upper class. :D :D


Peter.

[jow104]

Peter,

When you read my signature we have common feelings, but the guilotene only makes an awful mess.

[silentC]

I reckon it's a bloody excellent idea. But what's going to happen to State of Origin footy and the Pura Cup?

This is a an idea that comes up from time to time, usually when the States are being naughty and arguing with the treasurer. We actually have local representation at both federal and state level, so the arguments there don't carry. People here didn't vote for John Howard, they voted for Gary Nairn MP. We didn't vote Bob Carr in, we voted in Andrew Constance - and he is a Liberal.

Having them both is counter-productive. Having a local State member who is Liberal with a State government that is Labor is just plain stupid.

Prime example, we have a bridge that gets washed out every other year. It's 'a road of national importance' so the State govt says it's a Federal responsibility. The Federal govt says it's a state highway and so it's a State responsibility. Just before the last election, promises were made about it and money was 'allocated'. Oddly enough, it's all gone quiet again.

Having the two levels just gives each of them a scapegoat.

[bitingmidge]

WELL!!!

If you can get rid of State Government, don't stop there.

There is absolutely no logical reason for local government at all.

Councils made up of farmers, lifeguards and retired kindy teachers who have absolutely no administrative abilities, make decisions on Planning, Roads, Infrastructure, Public Transport. Most of them couldn't run a chook raffle, yet (in some shires) draw salaries that are significantly more than they could ever have hoped to earn in real life.

All the work of the local authority could be done by a beaurocrat.

Actually come to think of it, why not get rid of Federal Government as well.

What if we just have a KING to rule us?????

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

[AlexS]

Beejay,

How are you getting on up there its 9.45 am the temperature is only 5 C and there is a b......dy strong cold wind blowing.

9.15 a.m. her John, and a beautiful sunny day, heading for 31 deg here. ;)

[Barry_White]

What if we just have a KING to rule us?????

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D
Yes we could have Charlie and his new bride. Woo Hoo.

[Sturdee]

Just before the last election, promises were made about it and money was 'allocated'. Oddly enough, it's all gone quiet again.


The only way to get things done in your area by the government is to become a swinging electorate. Change the political colour of your electorate et least every two terms and they'll fund every little project just to buy votes. :eek: :eek: :eek:

And they'll call that good government as well. :mad:


Peter.

[silentC]

Councils made up of farmers, lifeguards and retired kindy teachers who have absolutely no administrative abilities, make decisions on Planning, Roads, Infrastructure, Public Transport. Most of them couldn't run a chook raffle, yet (in some shires) draw salaries that are significantly more than they could ever have hoped to earn in real life.
That may be the way it is up there in Banana land, Mr Midge, but down here the retired dairy farmers are elected as councillors and then they just run around getting interviewed in the paper and generally making themselves a nusiance. Meanwhile the real work is done by those employed by the shire to do it - and I can assure you that they all have the appropriate level of tertiary education, supplemented with the requisite amount of experience in the field, and topped off with attendance at all the right courses and seminars.

It's a shame that our council is just about broke, because they would have done some great things otherwise :(

[craigb]

It's a shame that our council is just about broke, because they would have done some great things otherwise :(

No problem, they can just increase the rates :rolleyes: ;)

[silentC]

They are currently putting a case to the State government for a 'one-off' increase of 14% :eek:

[echnidna]

The only way to get things done in your area by the government is to become a swinging electorate. Change the political colour of your electorate et least every two terms and they'll fund every little project just to buy votes. :eek: :eek: :eek:

And they'll call that good government as well. :mad:


Peter.

Like in the case of the Mildura electorate in Vic.
Neither Labor or Liberal.
Mildura - Future home for hazardous waste disposal.

It seems good government from the pollies might be about doing something necessary so it dont hurt either major party. :eek:

[simon c]

Sounds like House of Parliment and local government (council).
It's more complicated than that, there is the Federal (national) government, the state government and local councils too.

[simon c]

Here's a novel idea. Why not elect the members of your house of review? :rolleyes: :D

Or would that be too democratic? ;)
I think an unelected (ie appointed) second house is a good idea. Politics (translated as popularity of the people) get removed and people get appointed based on their contribution and role in society.

You could extend it to include people who are good representatives of society. eg retired heads of police, religious figures, charity workers, judges, ex politicians, etc

[silentC]

people who are good representatives of society
Do you mean representatives of good society, or good people who represent society? Wouldn't you want butchers and bakers and candlestick makers too? How would they get nominated and appointed? I think you'd end up with a bunch of people from a certain 'class' and representing a particular point of view. I'd also be unhappy having religious figureheads with any overt role in running the country.

[echnidna]

I think an unelected (ie appointed) second house is a good idea. Politics (translated as popularity of the people) get removed and people get appointed based on their contribution and role in society.

You could extend it to include people who are good representatives of society. eg retired heads of police, religious figures, charity workers, judges, ex politicians, etc

But WHO selects them??
we should give them respectful titles like the pollies have e.g "The Hon"
To distinguish second house members from pollies they need to be differentiated by their title.
How about "Lords and Ladies"

[bitingmidge]

It's a shame that our council is just about broke, because they would have done some great things otherwise :(

Hmmm so they really DO have management skills down there!!

P

:D :D :D

[silentC]

Yes, a shining example to the rest of the country....

[LineLefty]

Ahh yes,

Government bashing again are we? I leave you all alone for two days and look happens.

Could you imagine for asecond if the government and it's public servants had the same customer service and attitude as you local "hardworking" tradesman?

Geez! :mad:

[echnidna]

How else do we get even with those that breaks their promises

[simon c]

Do you mean representatives of good society, or good people who represent society?
Either would be nice, but I meant a range of people who gave a reasonable representation of society.


To distinguish second house members from pollies they need to be differentiated by their title. How about "Lords and Ladies"
I agree that what I propose is similar to the current House of Lords in the UK. I have some major problems with the old House of Lords system (ie hereditary peerage). But I also have problems with an elected second house, ie what's the difference between each house.


Wouldn't you want butchers and bakers and candlestick makers too? ... I'd also be unhappy having religious figureheads with any overt role in running the country.
An interesting couple of options:
1. I think "trades" could have representation too - maybe through trade associations. As should industry and unions.
2. I understand your feelings about religion. I am not religious, but a very large proportion of people are, and that should be represented.

In regard to nominatiosn and appointment, I keep mentioning "retired" people, but what I really mean is that they no longer take the role they used to, in order to avoid conflict of interest.

My main goal behind this is to remove the "elected and popular" part of this to allow people to make decisions on what they think is in the best interests of the country rather than whta will get votes.

[silentC]

a very large proportion of people are
However, which religions do you represent? If you put one in there, you'd have to put them all or there'd be an outcry. Then imagine the bedlam that would follow. They'd all be pushing their own barrows. If anything, I reckon the people in there should be areligious. Seperation of powers. It's there for a reason.

[craigb]

ie what's the difference between each house.




Same as it is between the Reps and the Senate. The reps make the laws and provide the PM, the senate reviews the legislation and accepts or rejects it.

And as has been mentioned, who is going to appoint the members in your model?

Presumably, it'd be the party that has the majority in the lower house.
How would those appointments NOT be political?

[echnidna]

Maybe the second house needs to be appointed by a simple lottery.
We could call it Auslotto.
Second terms possible but unlikely because all apppointments are via Auslotto
That way the system can corrupt people from all walks of life instead of from the ranks of the priveldged few.

[silentC]

You could just use the jury system that's there now. Whenever there's some legislation to be introduced, you call up a jury. The minister and shadow minister involved gets to ask questions and eliminate jury members like they do now and then the jury has to discuss it and make a decision. Then they p!ss off back to normal life with a handshake and a pat on the back.

[simon c]

However, which religions do you represent? If you put one in there, you'd have to put them all or there'd be an outcry. Then imagine the bedlam that would follow. They'd all be pushing their own barrows. If anything, I reckon the people in there should be areligious. Seperation of powers. It's there for a reason.
I can certainly see your argument, but from on the basis of what I'm suggesting there would be no option but to include religious people as they have a significant representation of society.

[simon c]

Same as it is between the Reps and the Senate. The reps make the laws and provide the PM, the senate reviews the legislation and accepts or rejects it. Sorry, bad terminology on my part. I understand the roles are different but the people are the same - politicians who represent political parties.


And as has been mentioned, who is going to appoint the members in your model?

Presumably, it'd be the party that has the majority in the lower house.
How would those appointments NOT be political? Yes, it would have to be done differently and if possible be made separate from the current majority party. The sort of idea I had was to agree the roles rather than the people. Ie we agree up front what would get you qualified and then once you qualify you automatically become a member of that house.
eg 10 years as leader/significant role of a specific group (could be police, defence, law, industry, unions, religious groups, charities, federal/state government).

This is something that has been at the back of my mind for a few years and this is the first time I've tried to verbalise it. It is based on having an arm of government that:
a) is not elected
b) is not based on politcal parties
c) is representative of society
d) is made up of people who have experience in the area that they represent
e) allows the members to make decisions based on what they think is in the best for the country and the groups/experience they represent rather than what will win votes

[silentC]

there would be no option but to include religious people
As long as they were there on the basis of something other than their religion. I've got nothing against an ex-cop who happens to be a Bhuddist but I would object to a Mufti or a Cardinal. It's bad enough that they have as much say as they do, I would not want them actually having any kind of administrative power. I just don't think it's approriate to have decisions made by people who think they know what some unknown creator may or may not want, and having them arguing amongst themselves about which form of this delusional state of mind is right or wrong.

Yes a large proportion of our society is religious and yes a lot of them are guided by religion in their daily lives. That's one reason why the world is such a mess. We don't need it being legitimised by making it a part of the makeup of the government. We left that behind a long time ago.

Hey look, religion AND politics in one thread. I'd better stop now.

[Iain]

The Peoples Front of Judea :rolleyes:

[jshaw]

The Peoples Front of Judea :rolleyes:

Splitters! :D

[Sturdee]

It is based on having an arm of government that:
a) is not elected
b) is not based on politcal parties
c) is representative of society
d) is made up of people who have experience in the area that they represent
e) allows the members to make decisions based on what they think is in the best for the country and the groups/experience they represent rather than what will win votes


I thought that was already there. Known as the Public Service. :D :D :D


Peter.

[Christopha]

I thought that was already there. Known as the Public Service. :D :D :D


Peter.

Now thereis an oxymoron for you!

[jow104]

How about?


The computer age means every one could vote on a particular motion put up in a house of representatives, senate , parliment or what have you.

[ozwinner]

How about we put a computer in charge??


Al ;)

[Daddles]

How about we put a computer in charge??


Al ;)

They tried that but haven't been able to program it for the lack of logic in either the legal or the political systems. And that's before they even considered foilies

Richard

[beejay1]

I think between you all so far youve sorta defined the perfect solution to be a pseudo communist proletariat dictatorshiphttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gif

Revolution next!! Sturdee get that blade sharpened,,, heads to be chopped!!http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gif

beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9

[jow104]

Bejay

Still bl.....dy cold down here, needed a shovel to clear after a snow storm when the car stuck on hill and bend.

At least politics warms things up.

[beejay1]

Bejay

Still bl.....dy cold down here, needed a shovel to clear after a snow storm when the car stuck on hill and bend.

At least politics warms things up.
Weve got cold and very wet weather here today JJ same yesterday. Dont care though as im off to portugal tomorrow to play golf for the rest of the week. Sunshine at lasthttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon7.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon7.gif
beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9

[AlexS]

Weve got cold and very wet weather here today JJ same yesterday. Dont care though as im off to portugal tomorrow to play golf for the rest of the week. Sunshine at lasthttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon7.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon7.gif
beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9
Reached 32 here, beautiful sunny autumn day. Sat outside and did some sanding & oiling.

What are the poor people doing? :D

[jow104]

One whole week, you're a slow player for a round of golf, have a good time but I shall be left on my own with the aussie pollies.

[ozwinner]

Reached 32 here, beautiful sunny autumn day. Sat outside and did some sanding & oiling.

What are the poor people doing? :D
Still polishing the wood stove and you boots m'asser.

Al :o

[DanP]

Too true, can't even get a national road law system.

There is. It's called the Australian Road Rules. All of the state Road Rules are based on it. But of course there's then all the State Acts and Regulations that are different. In Victoria, there is The Road Safety Act, The Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations, The Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations, The Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations and The Road Safety (General) Regulations. The only one that falls into line with the rest of the country is the Road Rules - Victoria, which is contained in the (Road Rules) Regs. The RR's contain most of the offences.

Dan (who has to learn all of them in the next three weeks)

[beejay1]

There is. It's called the Australian Road Rules. All of the state Road Rules are based on it. But of course there's then all the State Acts and Regulations that are different. In Victoria, there is The Road Safety Act, The Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations, The Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations, The Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations and The Road Safety (General) Regulations. The only one that falls into line with the rest of the country is the Road Rules - Victoria, which is contained in the (Road Rules) Regs. The RR's contain most of the offences.
Dan (who has to learn all of them in the next three weeks)
So dan, basically, what says is correcthttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gif
beejay1

http://community.webshots.com/user/eunos9

[DanP]

So dan, basically, what says is correcthttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gif
beejay1


Dunno, tell you in three weeks. :rolleyes:

[Sturdee]

Dan (who has to learn all of them in the next three weeks)

I thought you guys knew the road rules before you went out on patrol. :D


Peter.

[Daddles]

I thought you guys knew the road rules before you went out on patrol. :D


Peter.

Nah. The fact that he's learning them suggests he's being promoted OUT of the field. Headed for some cushy office job probably where all he has to do is tell the secretary about his new kid and talk to us on this here forum.

Go for it mate.

Cheers
Richard

[jow104]

Reached 32 here, beautiful sunny autumn day. Sat outside and did some sanding & oiling.

What are the poor people doing? :D

Another day in Paradise here in Paignton, too wet even to make the workshop
and its not over 30c either :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/devonwoody/2005_0419raining0001.jpg

[echnidna]

Looks like a bit of dew settling in John :D :D :D :D :D

[jow104]

Looks like a bit of dew settling in John :D :D :D :D :D

Yes but even wetter than dew. Actually I fancy Perth, does it ever rain there?

[craigb]

Yes but even wetter than dew. Actually I fancy Perth, does it ever rain there?

Perth? Gets wet as buggery in Scotland doesn't it? ;) :D

[jow104]

Perth? Gets wet as buggery in Scotland doesn't it? ;) :D

Yeah never had a dry day in scotland. :eek: