Wol

I thought it would be interesting to know how many people are wedded to the federal system, given the multiple inefficiencies involved. on the other hand does the size of the country make it inevitable?

sme

After listening and reading about the problems in WA Government I would agree that getting rid seems a good option.
But aren't all governing systems rotten and corrupt to the core ?

Wol

The cynic in me agrees with your last sentence but the sheer level of corruption, inefficiency, total lack of planning, fraud and the like at state level gives me serious doubts as to whether there are enough competent, honest people in the country to man all those governments.

The Bloke

And what makes you think things are any better in either federal pollies or public servents?

Gibbo

Don't think we need or can afford, State Governments in their present form. However, because of the size of the country and diversity, maybe not the correct word, there needs to be a single elected body in each State which has a permanent representative/s in Federal parliament. My tuppenceworth.

MartinLuther

I went no on this one. All governance systems have inefficiencies, duplication and in-fighting and there's nothing to say that this would be improved under a single national government (the only possible exceptions to this would be the tiny countries like The Vatican and Monaco).

The Australian system of governance has been relatively successful. The system has been running, with little modification, since it was set up just over a 100 years ago (by the British). The structure is also almost entirely uniform being fairly much the same wherever you are in Australia (unicameral and bicameral governance accepted). Compare this to the UK system of governance which is a mishmash of different systems depending on where you live (2, 3 and sometimes 4 levels of government) and has been changed at least twice in my lifetime.

It appears that some of the longest running governance systems in the western world (Aus, US and Switzerland) are based on the subsidiary governments taking on most of the responsibility (of governance) with the federal government taking a small (but important) set of unifying responsibilities (e.g. defence and immigration).

NKSK version 2

Get rid of the WA state govt?


Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. YES

The Bloke

I always thought the Australian version was adopted by Henry Parkes and other Australians, for Australians, when the British allowed us to gain Federation in 1901?

The Bloke

Err, isn't Monaco a Principality run by one family and The Vatican run exclusively by the Catholic Church, so how can they be classed as having a national government? Although the have some diplomatic recognition, why can they be classed as countries?

MartinLuther

They were British then

What I meant was that it came about by an Act of the British Parliament.

MartinLuther

Err...to you too.

I think you missed my point which was that an efficient single national government would only be possible in a very small place. I only mentioned them because I thought some smart ass would come along and quote them as an exception to the point I was making (i.e. that single national governments are no more efficient than federal governments - in countries of a reasonable size).

Both Monaco and The Vatican are sovereign countries. The fact that Monaco is a Principality is irrelevant to this point. Luxembourg is a Duchy (which is lower on the royal titles scale) and is also a sovereign country. Monaco is a member of the UN as much as Australia or the UK - less influential admittedly but still a member. The Vatican is a bizarre one admittedly. It is actually run by the Holy See rather than the Catholic Church but that is a fine (hair splitting) point. Although it is not a proper member of the UN it is treated internationally as a separate country.

YoSemite

ah but essentially the UK still had (some degree of) control over australia until the passing of the 1986 Australia Act.

MartinLuther

Technically it removed the power of the British Parliament to advise the Monarch on matters to do with the individual states (but not the federal government). Practically it didn't change anything. (That's one of the reasons why I said little modification in my original post.)

NKSK version 2

I've seen more corruption, nepotism and incompetence in the last 12 months in WA at state level than I've seen in the UK or at federal level in Australia in an equivalent period.

John D'Orazio (Police Minister?) - not paying superann. to his employees plus a multitude of other sins.
Michelle Roberts (Police Minister(I think)) employing her family (5 members) in her office.
Norm Malborough (Small Business Minister)- accepting bribes and taking direction from Brian Burke.
Liliana Ravlich (Education Minister)- "not being aware" of a sexual abuse investigation in her department. Meeting Brian Burke for PR advice.
5(?) other ministers "taking advice" from convicted criminal Brian Burke
Allanah Mctiernan (Planning Minister)- seems unable to get a cost projection right.
Sheila McHale (ex-Child Welfare (equiv.) Minister)- A multitude of disgraceful incidences in relation to child protection.

Special naiveté prize to Premier Alan Carpenter for lifting the ban on ministers contacting Brian Burke at the start of his premiership.

I don't quite understand what it is. Perhaps a smaller labour pool from which to draw prospective politicians? Weak education systems (i.e. thick politicians?) Less monitoring? It just seems that federal ministers are more eloquent, seem to have less sleaze attached to them and certainly - with exceptions - seem more intelligent.

MartinLuther

It's funny that you should say that considering you tried to lampoon my suggestion that my state's MPs were of a lower quality than those found at the federal level.