Max posted the following list of problems > Different laws and rules >> There are 1200 border anomalies most of which are state laws, so this >> heading certainly covers a huge range of issues. Disjointed >> occupational health and safety regimes, needs to be in there as it can >> kill people. Simon comments : >> In particular different criminal codes. Some others (such as >> corporations law) are maintained in unison by agreement, but this causes >> delays in getting amendments passed because it has to go through various >> committees before being presented to the state parliaments. In the >> meantime, the shonky company director gets off scott free. >> A related problem is disjointed occupational health and safety regimes, >> many State Occ Health Regulators having only limited expertise in >> specialised areas. Simon also notes that after much negotiation, get uniform laws passed, but error a problem is found and the cycle starts again rather than handing power to feds in first place. Charles comments : >> Several attempts have been made to have only one 'corporations law'. >> Even though it is one of the very few examples of where there is >> agreement between the States and the Federal Gov't, still there are >> problems. One of the recent classic examples is the case of Alan Bond. >> He was convicted under agreed corporations law in the WA Supreme Court >> and sentenced to (I think) 4 years. The Feds appealed the light >> sentence and it was increased to 7 years. However, an appeal to the >> High Court resulted in a decision that the Feds had no right to appeal a >> decision in the WA Supreme court even though he was convicted under Fed >> Law. Result - Bond serves about three years and is now enjoying the >> fruits of his ill-gotten gains. >> Corporations Law is one very important area we must resolve in the >> Constitutional changes that will be necessary when we Abolish State >> Gov'ts. Max's list continues : > Different education standards > > Disjointed health and aged care > > Different Police forces > > Complicated system of government > > Buck passing between governments > > Communities have little control over local issues > > Far too many politicians > > Far too many bureaucrats > > Lack of interest in politics by the people > > Too many people making laws and rule > > The whole system of government is geared to money instead of people > > Very poor constitution > > Lack of accountability in government > > Lack of transparency in government > > Inappropriate representation > > Feeling of powerlessness by the people > > The feeling of remoteness of government from the people > > Inappropriate electoral laws engineered by major political parties > > Rising power of multi national corporations Simon finds the following three difficult to blame on Government, saying they represent trends which take place regardless of government : > > Ever increasing power of international organisations > > Overriding power of the two major political parties > > Rape of the environment > Max elaborates : > Simon, You are right it is the government not the system, and while they > are voted in it will continue to happen, and when someone come along and > says it should not be happening not enough people vote for them so as to > have it changed. > Rape of the environment, has nothing to do with the system or the > government as it is the people who drive this. Charles : >> It is my perception that the People do not want the above. It continues >> (despite several changes of government) because the People have been >> disenfranchised. And it is the system of gov't that has disenfranchised >> the People. We need to change the system to put power back in the hands >> of the People where it belongs. > One big problem with the present system is we have to many houses of > parliament in which I include the house of representatives and the > senate at the federal level, I cannot see the reasoning behind having > these two houses where decisions end up being compromised and good laws > and rules end up being side tracked. In a new system if there is in > place a process where believe this will eliminate the need for this so > call check and balance. > In Jim's model the senators are to be elected from the regions, the > present house of representatives are already elected from the regions, > so what happen with two parliaments coming from regions. What would > their rolls be and how does in solve any of the above problems with the > present system. An extra list, I think Max provided it : > Lack of accountability in gov't. > Lack of transparency in gov't. > Inappropriate representation. > Feeling of powerlessness by the people. > The feeling of remoteness of gov't from the people. > Inappropriate electoral laws engineered by major political parties. > Rising power of multi-national corporations viz-a-viz gov't. > Ever increasing power of (unelected and therefore unaccountable) > international organisations. > Overriding power of the two major political parties in our system. > Rape of the environment. Simon notes the following example of a jurisdiction problem, in the radiation protection and nuclear safety field. His own opinion only, he emphasises : > Three years ago, the commonwealth established a body to regulate > radiation protection and nuclear safety of commonwealth entities. The > body (ARPANSA) is quite a large one (with 80 or more staff) and now has > a great deal of expertise. > Commonwealth entities have to obtain licences from ARPANSA for > radioactive sources, x-ray machines, therapy units, thickness gauges, > radiation facilities, and for the research reactor at Lucas Heights etc. > In contrast, state hospital, universities, and private companies (unless > they are operating on prescribed commonwealth land, or contractors to > the commonwealth) are not subject to this law but must obtain licences > from State departments (typically the department of health, or EPA or > equivalent). > These departments do not seem to have a great deal of expertise > particularly in relation to larger sources, and facilities. > Furthermore, as one might expect, there are numerous overlaps of > jurisdictions occurring such as a commonwealth employee working in a > state hospital with state sources is subject to both laws. A private > company operating on prescribed commonwealth land is also subject to > both laws and needs a licence from the commonwealth and the state in > which that land is contained!!! > If only the states could say, "Right the Commonwealth now has the better > system of laws, the better expertise, we'll hand over the right to make > laws on this to them (providing they keep our staff for some nice period > of time)". > But no! That might seem too logical Speaking of legal problems, here's some details I found on how an article might be defamatory in Victoria and not NSW : > Here's a reference : > www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/11/chap5.pdf > In Victoria, the only defence if you've published something defamatory > is truth. In NSW, there is the defence of truth but also public > interest. > Something which is untrue might be considered defamatory in Victoria, > but not be so in NSW, because it was public in good faith for the > purposes of discussion of something of public interest. > This was the case for Gorton v. Australian Broadcasting Commission in > 1973. > In NSW, the defence of discussion of something in which the public has > an interest holds up even if there was malice. > For this reason, an article questioning the performance of a public > servant in Canberra was considered to be defamatory in Victoria but not > NSW - Renouf v. Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty. Ltd. (1977) Pat notes a problem : > The biggest problem I see in our area (Queanbeyan), that there is no > recognition of cooperation between the Local Council and State Government, > and State Government and Federal Government. They appear to be all their > own little semi-republics. > > I've asked our local reps several times, why can't you work on this > together!!! The answer .... that's a local government issue, that's a > state issue, that's a federal issue. What about the bits that fall > between the gaps??? No decision from anyone. I commented : > If you have local and national government, the roles of the two would be > more readily defined. > Further, if you have representatives from local government represented > on national government, you get a direct "link" between the layers, so > hopefully there's a pressure towards coordination. > Lastly, there's the general principle that the national government would > set policy in many areas, where the policy would be implemented flexibly > at a local level. This notion is not clearly "behind" the current > framework. > In particular answer to your problem, though - I don't know whether the > major problem is attitude or structure. A positive attitude could get > past structural barriers, within reason. Pat replied with : > I'm agreed. > As a case study, you could look at how the Royal Australian Institute of > Architects is getting on. They adopted a similar structure, i.e. local > rep is also on National Council, three years ago. > They may have some interesting feedback on how this works, doesn't work. > We had a similar structure to Local/State/National before this. Pat observed that : > in England, the local Councils are responsible for policing, and roads. Mark commented : > England's county council/local government heritage is WELL worth looking at > for inspiration. But Anthony expressed a contrary opinion : > There was a none-too-inspirational story on England's council system, > describing duplication and cost-shifting being alive and well. This was > in the AFR a couple of weeks back. Mark comments on health : > If state and territory health departments were > amalgamated into a single national system but one which remained in > parallel to the federal system, savings would exceed $1 billion per > annum. This assertion is supported by linear regression analysis. > If these state and federal health departments were coalesced into a > single national system, savings exceeding $2 billion per annum are > feasible. Coordination costs OVER AND ABOVE DUPLICATION COSTS are > clearly immense in health. And this $2 billion figure only considers > the public sector. > There is definite evidence for the decline in health. I'll now go > through a few statistics. > In 1999-2000 there were 748 public hospitals nationally, including 24 > psychiatric hospitals, compared with 756 in 1995-96. There were an > average of 52,947 beds in public hospitals during 1999-2000 (table > 9.30), representing 68% of all beds in the hospital sector (public and > private hospitals combined). Public hospital beds have declined from > 3.3 beds per 1,000 population in 1995-96 to 2.8 beds in 1999-2000. > There were 509 private hospitals in operation in 1999-2000 The number of > acute and psychiatric hospitals has continued to decline since 1995-96 > when 323 of these hospitals were in operation. In contrast, day > hospital facilities have shown strong growth for several years, with > only 140 in operation in 1995-96. > So at this time in 1999-2000 there were 1257 hospitals Australia-wide, > and, hence, if these were subject to a $2 billion boost, they could each > receive over $1.5 million per annum on average. > If $15 billion were saved by abolishing state govts altogether on the > public sector side of things, and if all of this went to hospitals (just > to illustrate what could be done) then that would provide over $11.9 > million per annum to each hospital on average. With regard to Health, Arthur's viewpoint has a different emphasis : > Health should not be considered as 'paying for illness treatment'. It > is really a state of wellness, so can be fostered by exercise, > nutrition, housing etc, helped by not damaging it by tobacco, alcohol, > gambling, or poor chemical and safety practices etc. > Duplicate bureaucracies are a problem, but not as much as decisions > which are mainly made to shift costs. Mark continues his comments on education : > Similar savings are revealed for education - in the order of $2 billion > per annum. > At present we, broadly, have 24 primary-secondary level education > systems in Australia - 8 public systems (one in each state and > territory), 8 catholic systems (perhaps 16 noting that these are divided > into systemic and non-systemic as I'm advised) and 8 independent systems > (again these could be further divided into Anglican, non-religious etc.) > If education were made a national responsibility that would in effect > elevate the autonomy of the various sectors. Substantive sectoral > differences would come to the fore once arbitrary geographical/state > differences are eliminated. > Having 24 or more different systems is divisive on just too many > grounds. > The government and non-government school sectors alike would be happy to > see a system in which all sectors were better funded at the respective > "coalfaces". Mark also commented on poverty, the rich poor gap and the secure-insecure gap and the nature of government : > What follows is from an email I sent Professor Fiona Stanley, Interim > Chairperson of the recently established National Partnership initiative. > I'm thinking about a link between our system of government and the > rich-poor gap and what might be termed the secure-insecure gap, as > follows: > There is a definite link between the form and wastefulness of our > present system of government and existing poverty. > Poverty (including the increasing impoverishment of parts of rural > Australia) - whether considered relative or absolute - suggests that our > present system is less than affordable and sustainable, and far from > optimal. We know that $billions remain stuck in duplicated bureaucracy > and that too little gets to the "coalfaces" where it is needed to > address poverty - in the form of education, health, welfare and other > provisions. > Within ASC/Beyond Federation, we can see that to achieve a socially, > environmentally and economically sustainable Australia, we need > a more effective and affordable system of government - one which > facilitates resourcing of the community coalfaces far better than our > present system with all its tangled webs of red tape, bureaucratic and > regulatory duplication and coordination overloading. We believe an > improved system, absent of state governments in their present form, can > shift some $30 billion from wasted duplication in public and private > bureaucracy, regulation and coordination into productive use in health, > education, the environment, community development etc. > To be sure, a new system along the lines envisaged will require far > fewer present system. But a departmental head's salary can employ > around 10 people on average salaries, so for most jobs lost, many more > could be created at government service "coalfaces" at more or less > average salary levels. In this way, the move has the unique power to > provide sustainable, structurally reinforced reductions in unemployment > and the rich-poor gap, as well as improved outcomes at the "coalfaces" > in areas of life and death gravity such as health, safety and the > environment, as well as education, justice, national security and so on. Mark writes on insecurity and taxation : > It is apparent that Australians feel insecure : about our > future prosperity, our country towns, our water systems, stability, > sustainability etc. Our present system sucks up $billions per annum in > MANY plum jobs - great work if you can get it - in our duplicated public > services. Consultants have a feeding frenzy etc. etc. due to all the > duplicated activity. > All the while, the majority of us suffer and all too often wilt under > the weight of $7 billion in payroll tax etc. So we have the problem of > not just a rich-poor gap but an exacerbating secure-insecure gap. The > nine state and territory governments are like 9 extravagant kingdoms > which provide 9 sets of plum jobs with all the security and relative > affluence that goes with it. Meanwhile, the majority of the population > - the "subjects" of the "kings" and their inner circles are > ever-increasingly exposed to the risks and consequences of > globalisation, markets (some fair some not, some which work some which > fail) etc. > There clearly appears to be a link between the over-secure plum > job holders among our nine big state, territory and federal governments, > and the lack of security left over to the rest of us, and hence the > poverty of the most disadvantaged among us.