Charles invited comments on the following propositions :
1. Abolition of State Gov'ts and the creation of somewhere between 50 & 100
Local or Regional gov'ts.
2. Regions to have boundaries decided on the basis of logical natural
features or socio-economic grounds.
3. Disparity of population between regions to be accepted on the following
basis;
A. Regional Parliaments to be bigger or smaller according to
the number of similar population electorates.
B. Regional representation in National Parl't to be adjusted to
take into account the population of each region.
C. Distribution of funds to be based on population.
4. Instead of local gov't pollies trying to be in two places at once as
suggested by Jim, have National Reps elected from their members by
local/regional parl'ts and required to report back to regional/local
parl'ts on a regular basis (say 2 days per month).
5. The 50-100 local/regional parl'ts to have responsibility for the
delivery of most gov't services (including health, social welfare,
education and police) with:
I now repeat them with comments included :
1. Abolition of State Gov'ts and the creation of somewhere between 50 & 100
Local or Regional gov'ts.
MB:
> Yes.
> With the setting up of Local or Regional Governments we have
> defected most of what I believe we are about. Why create more states
> and more parliaments after abolishing the ones we have? What powers
> will these new states have that will make them better then what we now
> have?
> If Australia is divided into one hundred regions by population then 20
> of these regions would be in Sydney, and why would anyone divide Sydney
> up into regions when it is one region. In the case of large cities they
> need to have a body to oversee the whole of their city region, not
> divide them up to create boundaries for conflict and competition.
BB:
> Any change such as destroying the constitutions of sovereign states and
> there is a need to rewrite the national constitution is no small
> consideration. To promote such a change it is encumbered on those to
> consider alternatives to present to the electorate for consideration.
> Max your on line ideas is one suggestion, as is mine, and I promote mine
> for consideration involving a respectable time frame for steps to could
> be completed in the path to a change.
2. Regions to have boundaries decided on the basis of logical natural
features or socio-economic grounds.
MB:
> The coast line of Australia is a very definite natural feature for one
> parliament.
BB:
> Our nation is diverse. The strip, 100 kilometres from the coast, has a
> totally different need to the highly populated cities and coastal area.
> A holistic view is needed.
3. Disparity of population between regions to be accepted on the following
basis;
A. Regional Parliaments to be bigger or smaller according to
the number of similar population electorates.
MB:
> Funds should be distributed on a needs basis.
BB:
> This has been a problem ever since federation, the higher populated
> states like NSW and Vic have screamed that they are not getting their
> money back because it is distributed to needy states. Provinces must be
> a self supporting for its own responsibilities with the exception of any
> OUTBACK solution.
SB :
> Perhaps you should see my suggested constitution at
> http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/republic/sbastin/ But I think
> in this version I had the regions being simply two adjacent House of
> Reps electorates. I've changed my views on that since then.
> Not sure. I suggest generally all should be small; certainly no bigger
> than 20 members. I would avoid the term "Parliament" since this
> suggests some sort of sovereignty, which I would not like to see
> (otherwise they are really states, only smaller). I would say Councils
> as is presently the case for Local Govt.
B. Regional representation in National Parl't to be adjusted to
take into account the population of each region.
SB:
> Not sure. It could be like the current Senate, where there is equal
> representation despite the different sizes of the electorates ie the
> states.
C. Distribution of funds to be based on population.
SB:
> I would say largely but unlike the current states, I would suggest the
> councils should have limited taxation powers (say some kind of household
> levy like the current rates system) and therefore, the national govt
> would have to fund mostly on the basis of population but adjusted
> according to need. Poorer regions (perhaps rural areas) might need
> extra assistance because the rates could not be levied very high on a
> low income demographic but the needs could be just as great or greater.
4. Instead of local gov't pollies trying to be in two places at once as
suggested by Jim, have National Reps elected from their members by
local/regional parl'ts and required to report back to regional/local parl'ts
on a regular basis (say 2 days per month).
MB:
> One big problem with the present system is the failure of our elected
> representatives to be held accountable to their electors, both state
> and federal, and a system that will make the elected representatives
> report back to the people who have elected them is needed.
BB:
> That is a failing in any government system, be it democratically elected
> or a dictatorship. If a sub-province, of say 250,000 people, had a
> total representation of 1 Senator, 2 MHR and 4 provincial councillors
> then the above objection may well be eliminated, certainly it would be
> minimised.
5. The 50-100 local/regional parl'ts to have responsibility for the
delivery of most gov't services (including health, social welfare, education
and police) with:
MB:
> I think every state has its own health, police, and school regions and
> these do not have the same boundaries, so why not use them, to continue
> to administer these services? NSW has 14 health regions. 42
> education regions. 5 police regions, it was 11, but that did not work,
> but the 11 had come about from the 30 regions that did not work which
> came from 70 area commands which did work but was not efficient.
BB:
> Again government services are duplicated, financed federally
> administered by states and the proposal I put forward has all services
> considered of national importance under the command and administration
> of the national government. To continue with a system suggested does
> not remove the problem that is existing today and alternatives need to
> be found. When considering a province of 500,000 people it would be
> expected that a national government administration centre would be
> needed, that centre could also house the provincial administration. For
> example take an area like the Riverina that may encompass a land mass
> from Hay to Junee and Gundagai, with a population of that specific size
> the provincial seat of government could be positioned in Wagga Wagga.
> Tasmania would be a province with two sub-provinces administered from
> Hobart. An OUTBACK province could have two or three administrative
> centres, Alice Springs, Darwin and Kalgoorlie.
SB:
> Disagree. Perhaps delivery of some services or input into regional
> administration of the delivery so that local issues can be addressed.
A. Nation-wide Laws and Nation-wide policies on each of these.
B. One, Nation-wide police force, teaching body etc.
C. Only about 20% of taxation revenue going to National gov't
and the other 80% going to local/regional gov't.
> SB: Disagree (by virtue of my view on 5.) Charles
Further to the issue of funds being allocated "on a needs basis",
Anthony David makes some observations on the Grants Commission :
> The question I have is "Given that the Commission's formula takes into
> account regional factors, do the States issue monies to local government
> on the same terms on which they received the money?"
> Is the temptation to spend the money where the votes are more of a
> temptation than spending it where the Grants Commission formulae
> indicated where the funds were required?
Bob Buick writes :
Here's an alternative between Max Bradley's
[retain local government as it now is] and the other end of the scale
Bob Buick's [regions of a suggested population up to 500,000].
This site http://www.ace.gov.au/electorates/index.htm shows the
Australian electoral map for Members of Representatives, each has a
population of about 80,000. Electorates have followed state boundaries
again demonstrating the division between colonial states and why Albury
- Wodonga will never link and neither will Tweed and Gold Coast. If
these state boundaries are abolished then electorate division boundaries
would be redrawn to balance divisions and local interests.
1. Except for those electorates that encompass "The Outback", or
similar to "PARKES NSW", that local government be areas of 150,000 to
175,000 pop in size.
2. There be about 125 - 130 local governments. Boundaries should not
change due to population expansion once accepted.
a. Responsibilities and service would be clearly defines as local,
similar to the responsibilities already accepted.
b. Each local government could have between 5 and 10 sub-divisions for
electoral purposes according to their needs, especially in the non-urban
area, that is those rural areas outside what is generally accepted as
the fringe of capital cities city.
4. Federal representation could be two MHR and one Senator, resulting
in little change to the present national government.
a. The Fed would be responsible for all other portfolios.
Further,
If there is no states then all political parties will be national with
state bodies and absorbed into local government regions. For me this
spin-off will be massively beneficial because the national body will
have delegates from the grass roots [local government area] and that
must be advantageous to better national and local government.
It will also save millions, if not billions, of dollars in the long term.
[Bob notes that he has now included the council alternative on his web
site :
http://www.bobbuick.com/2020_gov/how_wa_federal_mhr_electorates_c.htm]
Max writes :
I originally thought federal electorates would be a easy way of making
up an area for each regional government, as they had the same number of
people in them, but large number in Sydney and Melbourne compared
to the country made me abandon the idea.
Since then I have made electorates and regions separate issues, as there
seems little connection between what the federal government does i.e..
defence, collects taxes and distributes it, and what local government
does, i.e. looks after the barking dog, fixes pot holes and looks after
the local community. Some local government areas have several federal
electorates with in them, and some federal electorates have 13 local
governments in them, as is the case with mine.
Bob writes about a National system with strong reinforcement to
administrative decentralisation :
You would agree that with the demise of the state governments all that
is "state" will also go, ie boundaries, legislation and regulations,
local governments links etc etc. So, local governments would not have
any direct links to government, which would be detrimental to
government, be it local and national.
Federal government already has a Minister For Local Government (Tuckey),
another duplication, and for government to supply the best service there
is a need for good direct communication between them, another failing in
the present system.
I'd suggest creating local governments that would have
.. local interests like commercial, tourism, geographical and
other joint advantages/disadvantages
.. ease of creation
.. minimally disrupt the national government's administration and services
.. create simplicity in electoral rolls and continuity between
residents and national government
Equality of federal representation would be obtained by :
.. creating local government regions based on MHR (Member House of
Representatives) electorates, and by combining two (urban) there would
be about 200,000 residents with two MHRs. Additionally, there could be
a Senator per region.
.. providing additional administrative localities at towns and centres
of population with the same federal representation, with one local
government per electorate. The outback regions, like the
rural areas, could have any number of local governments administrative
areas that would best suit local government services and also have the
same national government representation.
This would therefore link local government with federal government.
Federal parliamentarians would be located within one complex
housing all government departments including local government close by
maybe in the same complex. MHRs would still retain the electorate
office within his electorate. This must create harmony and solutions
for all involved
Federal government services and departments need to be based in the
region enabling maximum coordination between local government and
resident's needs. The mix would be be different in each local
government region because of services needed. Those with ports of entry
would have Customs and Quarantine etc, while rural would have their
specific departments.
All elected representatives would be directly link to the people in
their region and should create the camaraderie and close links needed
between government and the people.
Those who consider political parties as we have with the state system
would be out in cold because most local governments do not have a strong
political oriented base, well those away from the the industrial cities
like Wollongong and Broken Hill don't.
My original 40 region model presented the need for complete and complex
change to Australian government, from the very top (GG) to the
councillor. This alternative presents the model of preparing changes
should we be successful in removing the states.
Mark writes :
Max, if the states had to go and the local/regional governments formed
had to host at least, say, 25,000 people, would 25,000 would be much
more acceptable to people in rural/remote areas than 100,000 or more ?
Large regions such as a large Riverina region would retain problems of
outlying areas being too far from the regional capital, left out, on the
outer, with sponge city problems etc. (in other words capital versus
hinterland "us and them" type problems, or "core-periphery" or
"centre-periphery" type problems/divisions). But obviously such
problems would diminish as the region size reduces.
Max, could you come up with a region of 25,000 population, containing
Berrigan, that would satisfy the people of Berrigan, Finley and other
townships within such a region ?
Our group contains people supporting a lesser number of regional
governments and those who'd prefer larger numbers. There's been some
compromise, and perhaps Max could compromise a bit also.
There are only 50 or so urban centres in Australia with populations
exceeding 25,000, and the total population of these 50 or so cities/towns is
some 13 million. So if these 50 cities/towns each became regions in a new
system, and the remaining 7 million population was divided into regions of
25,000 each, this would amount to 50 plus (7 million divided by 25,000)
equals 50 + 280 = 330 regions.
Such a number should be more palatable than would the present 700+ local
councils (including Aboriginal Community Councils - though I'd still
wish to have Aboriginal Community councils retained in any new system)
If the minimum cut-off for region size was increased from 25,000 to
50,000, there are some 24 cities/towns with populations exceeding 50,000
which make up around 12.5 million in population, so if the remaining 7.5
million or so were split into regions each of 50,000 this would give a
total of 24 + (7.5 million divided by 50,000) equals 24 + 150 = 174
regions.
Would this mean we could have regions that do justice to remote and
rural areas of different shape and size (especially those of large land
area and sparse populations, containing small townships) ?
I suspect the regional level would be better dealt with through
governance arrangements other than regional governments as such, and
that the locality/township and national levels have the more fundamental
entitlements to "governments they can call their own" than do regions,
but I remain open to a regional government model that addresses the
core-periphery problems/divisions described above - so long as
rural/remote areas were not cobbled together into vast regions ...
Max replies :
Mark has solved some problems - he has left the urban
centres with populations of more then 25000 as a region in themselves. So
Sydney would be one region Ballarat would be one region, and every
centre with a population of 25000 or more will be one region. Mark's
other comment, that the regional level is best dealt with through
governance arrangements rather then regional government, is also positive.
Charles wrote in reply :
Assuming a total Australian pop of 19,000,000 and regions of 25,000,
there would be 760 Regions (unless there is something I am missing in
Mark's proposal).
The sums are as follows;
Regions of 25,000= 760 Regions
" 50,000= 380 "
" 75,000= 253 "
" 100,000= 190 "
" 150,000= 126 "
" 200,000= 95 "
" 250,000= 76 "
" 300,000= 63 "
If we are talking about 380 Regions of 50,000 people.
That could be sold as just amalgamating every second
council or every pair of councils.
What powers do we envisage these amalgamated councils having?
How do we envisage these councils would be financed?
How many politicians/councillors do we envisage in each?
How do we see councillors being elected?
- One electorate using Proportional Representation?
- Single member electorates of 5000 using Voluntary Preferential?
50,000 is a lot less pop than many councils now have. Do we envisage
splitting those into councils of 50,000?
I would further elaborate on Mark's proposition, in that :
1. State Gov'ts are abolished.
2. A National Gov't takes on full responsibility for Defence, Foreign
Affairs, Quarantine, Trade, Immigration, etc and POLICY responsibility for
'everything else'.
3. Regional Gov'ts are established and they have responsibility for the
implementation of 'everything else'.
4. The Constitution guarantees the Regions a % of gross revenue.
5. There be 100 Regions.
6. The regions have an AVERAGE population of 190,000.
7. The Regions be guaranteed 80% of gross revenue.
8. Regional Gov'ts be largely autonomous. That is, the revenue they get is
not tied. They can use it as they see the needs of their particular
Region.
9. Regional MPs are elected from 'single member' electorates of approx 5000
voters giving an AVERAGE of 25 MPs in each regional parl't.
10. Constituents would have the power to recall their representative in the
Regional Parl't and to hold a new election.