Thread: Council Amalgamation

Federal Govt never had involvement in running health care over than ACT and NT.

Federal Govt funded health in States under medicare agreement and entered into funding guidelines as to quality and quanitity of services to be provided by States by public system.

States always ran Health,

Ambulances for instance varies between states - most people think its an emergency service like police or fire but in Victoria fee for service subscriber serivce and split between metro and country services not a single unified like Police

WA Qld SA runs through st johns ambulance service - paid for under contract by state and funded by fee for service subscribers.

If you get injured and not a fee paying member expect some big bills for ambulance transport.

Australia should

Nationalise and have not in any particualr order
single police force
single driving license and road code
single fire service
single ambulance service
single education system
single fire service
single rail system
single building code

i have not read the whole thread....i don't reckon we need the state level, federal and local

the state borders need to stay, maybe a 12ft fence to stop you mexicans from crossing over the queensland

Small correction re ambulance in Qld - it's a State Emergency service (alongside Police, Fire and SES) paid for by a levy attached to electricity bills. St John's do operate, but as a training and volunteer first aid organisation.

On the larger issue of hom many tiers of Government - most people don't realise that "State" is really the term for a country. Australia, constitutionally, is more like the European Union than it is like the UK. The primary power rests with the States and limited powers only in the Commonwealth. Yes it's outdated to have such small States, which after all is why the EU formed out of much larger countries than Australia, but it's what we have to live with until/unless the majority are prepared to abolish the entire constitution and start again.

For a start, the Senate would need to be reorganised since it's supposed to represent the State's interests (yeah, yeah, but it still has an equal number of senators from each State.)

IMHO larger councils is a good thing - will end up with more clout for each council when negotiating with the States, and if the councils work it right, may well spell the end of the States. Again, modern transportation and communication means small council areas are not required.

Originally Posted by Grizzly_Adams

Not to mention the small guy tends to get absorbed into the bigger with little or no say on how things are run - even if the small guy was running them better than the big guy!

I know what you mean. I worked for the small guy (Overseas Telecommunications Commission) and we were merged with Telecom Australia........

Ron

well pre federation each colony (state) were seperate and even had own customs, quaratine, army and navy units.

interesting we could have had one single country with NZ and Aussie, but NZ decided to go own way

also interesting from time point of view that the States thought they would continue to run their own race with the Federal Government running the role of the former Colonial Office function of the UK at the time.

The constitution reflects the seperation of powers between States and Federal Govts as seen by the then colonial politicians as being important.

Also interesting that UK defacto controlled Australian military units well into the 1930's and our foreign policies and English Navy Captained our naval vessels.

Wonder if things would have been different if they were about forming one nation, wiht self rule as opposed to joining 6 colonies into geographical business unit still supervised by UK

Originally Posted by cartm58

..........
Australia should

Nationalise and have not in any particualr order
single police force
single driving license and road code
single fire service
single ambulance service
single education system
single fire service
single rail system
single building code

While some of this is certainly a good idea, there are also arguments against it - for example, even in this one state there seems to be a very good argument against one fire service - fighting mainly bush fires with almost 100% volunteers is a very different job to fighting mainly structural fires including high rise with 100% professionals - and needs very different styles of management.

And as someone living in WA, how would you feel about all decisions about how you live being made in Canberra by people who were elected by the majority of Australians - who live in Sydney and Melbourne? (This is the position of those affected by council amalgamatioons, only on a smaller scale)
But state governments are very unlikely to disappear - to change the constitution requires a majority of votes and a majority of states, and it is impossible to see this ever happening for such a change. on the other hand, local government has no status in either the state of federal constitutions, but is subject to change at any time at the whim of the state governments. The situation for example is different in the USA, where in at least some states, local government is even more fundamental than the state.

John

Hi guys,
Been away for a while and thought I might add to the fire with this reply.

Perhaps a heavy handed response but I feel warranted. .
My old man is an elected councillor in Livingstone Shire a progressive, financially secure, largely independant shire soon to be amalgamated with Rockhampton City, a debt ridden, inefficient, politically aligned council with lashings of nepotism. As he is from a rural constituency, he will probably not be re-elected.
Anyway, I feel justified in saying that the good folk of QLD, will get what they voted for last state election. . You will now be able to reap the rewards of the fields you sowed!
I am a proud QLD'er and hate to see this happen to my state but I must accept that the majority wanted this to happen - or they would have voted differently.
Some would say it was not known during the election campaign, but I say fiddle-sticks, I knew it was coming and I live in VIC, (the land of the super, maxi, corrupt, inefficient and still debt ridden mega council).
Anyway, thats my time on the soap box and expect some of you to really stick it to me......
BTW,
I hope no-one loses their job as a result of these amalgamations.

Ralph1Malph

Originally Posted by Ralph1Malph

Some would say it was not known during the election campaign

Yup, that's definately what I would say. It's not what I voted for, it's not something that was advertised or known about (at least by me) - and I find it offensive when people say "it's our own fault because we voted them in" because that's nothing but a cheap shot.

Fine. In that case lets just throw the entire system out the window and fall back into anarchy, that way nobody would get voted in and we can all live for ourselves.

Up until these last few years I quite liked Beatie but he lost the plot with the drought - starting with going to a referendum on drinking recycled water and now this amalgamation with no referendum or public consultation. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the need for states anymore as all they seem to do is complicate matters. Most of the decisions - even in states - are being made without public consultation anyway or certainly by a handful of people so far removed from the common and rural folk that it wouldn't really matter if they were 10km's or 10'000km's away so why not at least simplify matters by taking the states out of the equation?