Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

4 (44.4%)

No

5 (55.6%)

We should officially become the 51st state of America.

0 (0%)

Other.  Please explain in a witty fashion.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[Nev Bartos]

Federalism is over 100 years old.  Time for the next step, please.

Back in the early 19th century, it made sense to have separate states.
Perth or Port Arthur couldn't rely on a homing pigeon every time they needed a decision to be made.
But now with teh internets & jetstar, I don't think that it matters so much. 

And if we abolished the states it would get rid of a lot of government crap.
You know the old federal v state arguments...
We don't have enough funding for hospitals/schools/infrastructure
Yes you do, you're just not being efficient
Oh no we don't
Oh yes you do
etc  etc

Nobody likes paying taxes but I don't mind it if the money is being used properly & efficiently.
Politicians are a necessary evil but wouldn't it be great if there was less of them & they were more accountable for their decisions?

[Lord Biscuit©]

Putin would be proud of you. Maybe Hitler too! Are you sure you're not a communist?

I was hoping you were wanting abolish the United States. There is a topic worth voting on!

[Adi]

As a matter of interest, are there any countries of significant population that do not have a state/province/county/etc system? I.e. is there a precedent for such a move?

Sure, abolishing states would mean fewer politicians and, ideally, less bureaucratic wrangling. But then each individual politician would have that much more power (something we definitely don't want).

The benefit of having smaller constituencies is that the specific issues of each local area are dealt with. If there was one federal parliament, how much time would be spent on issues that only concern one area, especially those with small populations?

Politicians would have less time to be in their local area, thus further extending the gap between the plebs and those in power (unless you propose holding parliament by video link-up. It would certainly make kicking someone out easier - just flick a switch.)

The argument generally seems to be for more states, not fewer. But hey, I'm ready to be convinced, if someone's got a good argument for it.

[Mr. Blonde]

Australia's too big to be governed by only one body.

I think it's more about having the right government rather than only one government.

[Wolfe Tone]

We need the states to keep the Feds in check. Having Feds with power of everything in society and govermnent would be disastorous.

Mind you abolishing Queensland and Western Australia could be benificial.

[Quicky Koala]

Mind you abolishing Queensland and Western Australia could be benificial.

I'd rather WA became a separate country altogether, given the huge benefits we give to the rest of the country from our resources boom and yet nothing ever comes back our way..... 

[Truckarella]

You weren't originally invited to join us anyway.

NZ was supposed to come to the party.  Imagine that, maybe we could breed hobbits in captivity, and have them on the coat of arms. 

[Kelchables]

... we could breed hobbits in captivity, and have them on the coat of arms. 

I'm all for it.

[Nev Bartos]

As a matter of interest, are there any countries of significant population that do not have a state/province/county/etc system? I.e. is there a precedent for such a move?

No idea to be honest, but our government was set up a lot later than most.
I assume the state boundaries were only ever there because of the distances involved.
But i can't believe that we've ended up with a system that stifles change so much.

The main problem is that the feds & the states don't co-operate effectively.  The feds collect the majority of taxes but the states have to provide the majority of services. The feds have a massive budget surplus   yayyyy!  Meanwhile, the states have to run deficits to build infrastructure & provide services. Although it's been particularly bad lately with all labor states vs liberal feds, I doubt that it'll change that much if KRudd wins power. Look at the Murray Darling thing.  NSW & SA were happy but VIC vetoed it because they were going to be the biggest loser. And you can hardly blame Bracks if he was premier of VIC.

If the feds are gonna fund something like health then fine.  Makes sense seeing as they run medicare.  But at least make them accountable for it.
Don't even start me on the Mersey Hospital debacle ...

And of course Australia is too big for one government but there'd still be local govenment. Don't think they're even in the constitution, but seeing as i'm re-writing it anyway    let's give them a lot more autonomy. And maybe a guarantee that they'd all be funded roughly on a per capita basis.  They could look after their own local infrastructure/services & the feds could take care of anything that links LGAs together.

Let's get rid of some red tape while we're at it.  Different laws, health regulations, business rules....  We extradite crims from one city to another for fuck's sake

[Phenolphthalein]

I vote for uniform laws and education courses across the country.

[bollocks]

Mind you abolishing Queensland and Western Australia could be benificial.

as long as by beneficial you mean run out of money because the two states actually making money in this country are gone?

You weren't originally invited to join us anyway.

we were of upmost importance to the cause.

you lot even got the queen to threaten to partition the state and hand the goldfields to the federation if the whole state didn't join in.


i don't think its a viable idea because it works against the areas with smaller populations.
can you imagine how screwed over the NT would be if the feds were allocating money?

it would be about buying votes, from places with higher concentrations of people, and taking money from low population areas like WA to buy these votes.

no thanks.

[Lord Biscuit©]

What drugs are you on bollocks? You must think us eastern staters are real super powerful people (ok, that may be somewhat true), but I'll let you in on something. Abolishing a political system does not destroy mineral resources. We Sydney-siders will quite happily take control of mining resouces in the area currently knows as "W.A.".

[bollocks]

What drugs are you on bollocks? You must think us eastern staters are real super powerful people (ok, that may be somewhat true), but I'll let you in on something. Abolishing a political system does not destroy mineral resources. We Sydney-siders will quite happily take control of mining resouces in the area currently knows as "W.A.".

if abolish means they are no longer part of the country.

which wouldn't be an unreasonable interpretation.

then yes, you lot would be in trouble.

[Lord Biscuit©]

Not part of the country? Crazy idea! What better place is there to bury used plutonium rods than extinct mine shafts & pits?

[Frazzy?]

The NT gets ignored until someone wants somewhere to dump nuclear waste or look like they give a damn about black kiddies, I reckon we'd be fucked up here without
local government, we get fairly well screwed as it is also, I live near Claire Martin, so its a lot easier for me to put rotten fish in her letterbox than having it shipped to Canberra...