Here in Victoria there are only two local governments that seem to do okay, Melbourne and Banyule. If you are not lucky enough to live in either of those two, or perhaps another that actually achieves something, then local government is worse than a waste of time.
It's a waste of time that costs us, the voters, immense amounts of money and works against our wishes. In the past people have spoken about doing away with state government in an effort do reduce the cost of running the "most over governed country in the world". While reducing costs is a great ideas, I don't believe doing away with a form of government we are so familiar with is reasonable.
Given that 25% of the Victorian population didn't bother to vote at a the last set local elections, instead choosing to pay the fine, I very strongly believe it is time we totally did away with local government in this country!
When councils like Casey spend $450,000 for a garden seat in a Chinese sister city it has already gone too far. The seat only cost a few hundred dollars but escorting it to China required the assistance of a councillor, his wife, and his two children. Apparently council funding doesn't cover baby sitters but it does cover two first class airline tickets and 5 star accommodation or children.
Another wonder from the same council made it to national news a few years ago when one of the councillors put her application in for her overseas trip a bit late and it was denied. She complained that that had never happened before and they were only angry at her because she had voted against an item on their agenda. I assume she means the mayor and his lackeys. The reason national media was interested was because she, and all other councillors, were entitled to four overseas trips a year and she only got three that year, the first time such a thing has ever happened in the City Of Casey since its inception.
Other wags would like us to put police into the hands of local government and this is the greatest concern to me. While that may work for Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and all the other major cities think what it would be like with a Dandenong PD, Redfern PD or any other unforgiving suburbs locally controlled police department.
Save yourselves a bucket load of money and your sanity, not to mention your security (Dandenong SWAT Team?!?) and start canvassing your area with the idea that local government should be abolished through out Australia.
One last thing, can you name two mayors in your state? Can you name two Premiers?
Mike, absolutely agree with your comments. What a useless,superfluous,bunch of ninkompoops local council is. Why on earth we require another layer of officials to provide services is completely beyond me. Its a self gratification, self importance thing I guess. Absolutely despise them, the sooner they are all sacked the better.
By the way the Police thing will never happen....could you imagine !!!!
JohnG
(Gosford City Council resident)
Sounds just like Canada. :rofl:
Our locals just frittered away two hundred thousand dollars on a piece of "art" (I use the term loosely) intended to decorate the entrance to a recently constructed bridge and the item looks as though all that was required to create it was a couple of sets of silverware and a half dozen poles. :shock
As one local put it the thing looks like a piece of frayed roller coaster track and most of us can't figure out what it has to do with symbolizing our area.
See for yourself if he doesn't have a point................
(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9436/artw.jpg)
I tried to get a picture of Knox City Council offices, they removed the entire front garden and replaced it with an identical one as far as I could tell. The open difference I noticed was the recorded bird sounds, they used a motion detector to trigger the recording when people entered the building.
Still, that "sculpture" might just pip the Knox garden exchange program. :hbang:
The only thing I like about that picture is .... the "Sheila". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I have a similar "scluptur" in my scrap metal pile. :faint:
Quote from: Dataman on September 08, 2009, 01:46:44 PM
The only thing I like about that picture is .... the "Sheila". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
uh - oh ..... looks like we may have another contender for "country of residence transfer" here.... the language metamorphisisation has commenced.. ! mwaaahahahahaha >:D >:D
Quote from: veebee on September 10, 2009, 07:24:09 AM
Quote from: Dataman on September 08, 2009, 01:46:44 PM
The only thing I like about that picture is .... the "Sheila". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
uh - oh ..... looks like we may have another contender for "country of residence transfer" here.... the language metamorphisisation has commenced.. ! mwaaahahahahaha >:D >:D
Why not there's far worse places a bloke could find himself. biggrin :aus1:
Yep....
just ask Ranger Tim ! ..
he is settling in nicely here...
The sooner we abolish the states and move to a model similar to NZ - that is we cast of our federation past and adopt a UNITARY STATE model the better IMO
Then expand the local councils so that we have LARGER REGIONS with "local" Government to administer things like garbage collection, local planning, parks, shopping centres, car parks et al, leaving the "state" to look after roads, transport, hospitals, police, prisons, business regulation and all the other functions that the current state and federal governments fight about now...
Quote from: Latoof on September 11, 2009, 07:47:03 PMThen expand the local councils so that we have LARGER REGIONS with "local" Government to administer things like garbage collection, local planning, parks, shopping centres, car parks et al,
Screw that, let's cut out the middle man and just clean out local government. I have never heard of a 25% failure to vote in state or federal government, give the people what they want - NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Oh, and welcome to the team. :wink
You're going to have to make this change from the inside, I think.
The point of local government is to take the blame for all the crap and deflect attention (and work) away from state govt. State govt exists because the Commonwealth didn't want to get its hands dirty with petty state matters.
So to remove local administration, we have to convince and empower state government to deal with local issues and make them more accountable. The funding and direction for that has to come at least partly from the Commonwealth.
So plan A is to elect Mike as our next prime minister. There are a few steps to achieve that:
1) Collect votes
2) ...
3) Profit!!
Oh, wait, that's my other plan! biggrin
1) Elect Mike to local government
2) Mike grits his teeth and bears it, doing a sterling job
< time passes >
3) Get Mike elected as mayor
4) Mike stands for state election
5) ... a lot of money changes hands and a lot of favours are banked
99) Convince the country to elect Mike as prime minister!
:jester:
Quote from: WikiWill on September 11, 2009, 10:40:55 PMState govt exists because the Commonwealth didn't want to get its hands dirty with petty state matters.
Except state governments have existed longer than the federal government. biggrin They are what's left of what we now choose to call colonies, when in fact, they were independent, autonomous nations. They each had their own army and navy as well as their own currency, tax, customs, immigration and all other foreign representation. (Have a look at the
National Gallery of Victoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gallery_of_Victoria), it is not a state office of a federal body).
Prior to federation, when we had no federal government, there may have been a place for local government. Now it is just a huge cost that returns nothing that isn't done better by state governments.
Besides, I wouldn't want to be a polly for any thing.
Mike?
QuoteBesides, I would want to be a polly for any thing.
You jest, surely........
Quote from: Furlozza on September 12, 2009, 12:41:36 AM
Mike?
QuoteBesides, I would want to be a polly for any thing.
You jest, surely........
That was most definitely a typo, now corrected. :thanks1:
Quote from: Mike Mitchell on September 11, 2009, 09:31:38 PM
Quote from: Latoof on September 11, 2009, 07:47:03 PMThen expand the local councils so that we have LARGER REGIONS with "local" Government to administer things like garbage collection, local planning, parks, shopping centres, car parks et al,
Screw that, let's cut out the middle man and just clean out local government. I have never heard of a 25% failure to vote in state or federal government, give the people what they want - NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Oh, and welcome to the team. :wink
Thanks for the welcome... been contributing a while just not posting...
I think you are missing my key point... we only need 2 layers of Government, local and "Federal" The States should go IMO. Let the Feds look after the big issues and the Local the smaller "local" issues.
We don't need 50+ local governments in the Victoria "Region" more like 5 - 10
Quote from: Latoof on September 15, 2009, 11:23:38 AMI think you are missing my key point... we only need 2 layers of Government, local and "Federal" The States should go IMO. Let the Feds look after the big issues and the Local the smaller "local" issues.
That, two layers of government, would be achieved by deposing of local government with the added benefit of having a far more professional group of people running local and state affairs.
At the moment, local governments do not answer to anyone and that type of governance needs to be completely removed from a free democratic society. They must be completely answerable to their electorate.
The best example of the uselessness of local government is the almost without fail, commissioners are more popular than council (and a h3ll of a lot cheaper too).
Quote from: Mike Mitchell on September 15, 2009, 01:39:07 PM
Quote from: Latoof on September 15, 2009, 11:23:38 AMI think you are missing my key point... we only need 2 layers of Government, local and "Federal" The States should go IMO. Let the Feds look after the big issues and the Local the smaller "local" issues.
That, two layers of government, would be achieved by deposing of local government with the added benefit of having a far more professional group of people running local and state affairs.
At the moment, local governments do not answer to anyone and that type of governance needs to be completely removed from a free democratic society. They must be completely answerable to their electorate.
The best example of the uselessness of local government is the almost without fail, commissioners are more popular than council (and a h3ll of a lot cheaper too).
I agree that local councils are useless... my point is that we want to eradicate the STATES and the waste that goes with differing systems, laws etc. in each. Then have larger "local" governments, provincial Governments if you like... as professional as the current state Governments, not junior hacks running the councils we have now.
Quote from: Latoof on September 15, 2009, 05:32:22 PM
I agree that local councils are useless... my point is that we want to eradicate the STATES and the waste that goes with differing systems, laws etc. in each. Then have larger "local" governments, provincial Governments if you like... as professional as the current state Governments, not junior hacks running the councils we have now.
I don't want state governments eradicated, just local. If we remove states we remove our best protection from the federal government. The states created the federal government and their ability to remove it is still ensconced in the constitution. As are a large number of other protections. If Adolph Hitler had been a Bruce he would never have been able to do any of the power grabs that he did in Germany, they were already banned and protected in 1901. As we are from supremacy groups. When Parks and co. were writing the constitution they specification mention the USoA's first amendment and it being the sole reason the Ku Klux Klan could be formed and they changed the whole document to give tacit free speech instead of actual free speech.
If we lose the states, we lose the ability to drop the federal government and reform a fully operational nation, perhaps a union. The United States of Australia, er that may already be taken. :wink
Quote from: Mike Mitchell on September 16, 2009, 01:06:30 AM
I don't want state governments eradicated, just local. If we remove states we remove our best protection from the federal government. The states created the federal government and their ability to remove it is still ensconced in the constitution. As are a large number of other protections. If Adolph Hitler had been a Bruce he would never have been able to do any of the power grabs that he did in Germany, they were already banned and protected in 1901. As we are from supremacy groups. When Parks and co. were writing the constitution they specification mention the USoA's first amendment and it being the sole reason the Ku Klux Klan could be formed and they changed the whole document to give tacit free speech instead of actual free speech.
If we lose the states, we lose the ability to drop the federal government and reform a fully operational nation, perhaps a union. The United States of Australia, er that may already be taken. :wink
I personally WANT the eraddication of the States... I want all the BS waste that comes with it gone! And I dont subscribe to any fear that somehow our Government could in any way go the way of the Third Reich. The reality is that we will never separate the States so lets just accept that we are a single nation.
The constitution was formulated by a bunch of paranoid men who were worried that a Federal Government might become a monster and wanted a way out. For as long as we have 1 person, 1 vote that could never happen, unlike the US where the whole Electoral College system can effectively circumvent this key democratic principal.
I certainly DON'T want a US model of Government here! If we think the States Vs the Feds is bad here... the US is WORSE. The US constitution is a Joke in so many ways, Free speech - Abused by the White supremacists et al, Right to bear arms.. more sensible to arm bears IMO. I like the tight control of weapons here. Separation of church and state... yeah right unless you are a "God fearing Christian" you will never be President!
One national Government and provincial Governments is the way forward.... I know I'm dreaming but hey...
Quote from: Mike Mitchell on September 16, 2009, 01:06:30 AM
... The states created the federal government and their ability to remove it is still ensconced in the constitution. As are a large number of other protections...
If we lose the states, we lose the ability to drop the federal government and reform a fully operational nation, perhaps a union. The United States of Australia, er that may already be taken. :wink
Well, i haven't been around for a while, trying to build gardens, do extensions, keep wives happy and so and so forth but this topic really is dear to my heart as i have spent many days, nay, weeks, months, years arguing its effects as i have, hidden in the deep dark recesses of my cupboard, a degree in political science and a very hard fought for one at that.
This topic is just such a doozy that i can't resist replying and really it requires from me my very considered, erudite, uninterrupted, authoritative and well formulated and very hard-fought-for opinion that i just cannot resist a go :choke: :jester: :rofl: :panic:
Please, pleasel, my dear good Mr Mike, where in it is said in our (still British held original) constitution that the States have the power to {paraphrasing you} "remove the federal government"?
If you are referring to a specific chapter or clause within our constitution, then it is Chapter 5, 'The States', that should be the one you be quote.
Specifically, Ch 5 refers to the states powers, and removing the feds is absolutely and positively NOT one of those clauses!! There is not a single clause there referring to your assertion. Sorry. :blush1:
In fact, the opposite actually applies [and this is as it should be because it's the "Australian Constitution" and not a "State constitution"]
vis-à-vis: Ch 6. New States. cl. 121 "New States may be admitted or established" - this obviously means the feds have the power to create states but the previous CH 5 specifically says it is NOT the other way round, thank goodness, otherwise WA and Qld would have led the charge for that to occur years ago :dance2:
my 2 cents
Mike I don't mean this unkindly, but there are some very broad statements in your last post. Are you able to give some authority for them?
Quote from: Vajras on September 16, 2009, 06:43:42 PMPlease, pleasel, my dear good Mr Mike, where in it is said in our (still British held original) constitution that the States have the power to {paraphrasing you} "remove the federal government"?
I'm not sure political science is the required background. :wink Perhaps constitutional law would be more appropriate. All states have the right to succeed and if they do, they also have the right to reform a new "union" or federation of states. That would be a new national (not necessarily federal), government).
Quote from: Drudge on September 16, 2009, 07:35:00 PMMike I don't mean this unkindly, but there are some very broad statements in your last post. Are you able to give some authority for them?
The record of the constitutional convention (is that also the Hansard?) as I tried to once in the past. It is a very large and mostly boring document but some parts are extremely enlightening.
For example, during the convention the pollies discussed free religion. Not, as most Australians suspect, for Catholics but for Muslims. In particular Afghan Muslims.
Free speech is discussed at some length and is well worth the read. It is a very enlightened discussion and quite smart conclusion. It's just a shame they didn't do exactly the same thing for religion even though they discussed doing so.
Quote from: miw on September 16, 2009, 08:47:05 PMTo my mind, the powers of the states have been eroded to the point that they actually contribute less to governance than local governments. They also don't realy represent any particular community of interest in the way they once might have.
I'm not sure that the idea of doing away with the states has popular support. I can't remember a state election anywhere in this country only having a 75% turnout but the last set of local government elections here did. Even though the VEC changed the rules so there would be a common local government election day.
Quote from: miw on September 16, 2009, 08:47:05 PMSo, to my mind, the blame for local government being so bad lies fairly and squarely with State Governments. To me, the solution is not to abolish local governments, but to cause them to become better and more professional. I am not and never have been a big fan of Peter Beattie, but I do believe he made a correct and brave move in making all the forced amalgamations in Queensland. (The number of local councils was reduced by a factor of 3 or 4 I think.) The result has definitely been better and more professional local government in most cases, because there are fewer councillor jobs going and in general it takes higher calibre people to get them. I say it is a brave move, because it has also certainly increased the power of local councils in Queensland, and that power has come from the State Government. I'm sure most state governments would prefer an unruly, incompetent and disunited rabble they can ride roughshod over, and it seems that this is what we have mostly.
Jeff Kennett did the same to Victorian councils that's how Casey came into being. It is the amalgamation of several large outer south-eastern suburbs but still manages to spend $450,000 on a garden chair. Brimbank councillors have all been dismissed and replaced with a three person committee. (Not sure why they didn't appoint a commissioner there. Something very strange is going on).
Quote from: miw on September 16, 2009, 08:47:05 PMBUT...... if you live in Kempsey, do you really want to have to apply for planning permission to some guy in Sydney when you want to change the roofline of your house?
I'm not sure that that will be all that much of a problem. I would imagine that there would considerable call for some local services and they can be dispensed by a commissioner and a few staff. Part of the amalgamation here was to tear out the corruption among building inspectors. The state government opened building inspections to some competition and allowed building inspectors from neighbouring suburbs to cross boarders and do inspections. After all, if a house can be inspected by a person in Sydney, then why can't that person inspect one in North Sydney?
It sounded like a great idea but not that much latter some of the inspection services were privatised along with suggestions that the local government building inspectors weren't doing the right thing.
Quote from: Mike Mitchell on September 17, 2009, 12:48:21 AM
Quote from: Vajras on September 16, 2009, 06:43:42 PMPlease, pleasel, my dear good Mr Mike, where in it is said in our (still British held original) constitution that the States have the power to {paraphrasing you} "remove the federal government"?
I'm not sure political science is the required background. :wink Perhaps constitutional law would be more appropriate. All states have the right to succeed and if they do, they also have the right to reform a new "union" or federation of states. That would be a new national (not necessarily federal), government).
Pol sci requires the study of constitutional law but not the other way round! But you're essentially right here - States do have the right to secede from the federation but it would require an individual state referendum. No other state can do it for them and neither can the feds. Neither can they do this collectively. The point you make about having the right to secede (or create any law) is not quite the same as having a power to remove any other government be it federal or state.
Local goverenment is another matter. Councils are both the responsibility and function of individual state gov'ts. That being said, each state gov't does have the power to change any of their laws regarding local councils, but the feds do not have that power and vice versa the states cannot change any fed law!
Moving back to your argument - i do agree with you that local councils can at times be a bloody pain, but it must be their "parent" (the State) that punishes them and not the federal gov't. Either abolish them or enhance them but the current system is not the best, that's true. However, to make a blanket change to them that would need to be decided by that states population as a whole by referendum.
In NSW when a local council became untenable (there have been quite a few!!) and the elected council memebers were sacked, it was done by the State and administators were appointed but only until all the kerfuffle of money and debt and so had been sorted. Then it was back to the same old, same old and fresh elections would occur and it's then up to the newly elected council to run things. The people still spoke but only the local ones, not the whole state population.
Methinks you need to agitate for a referendum to abolish.
Quote from: Vajras on September 17, 2009, 06:53:42 AMThat being said, each state gov't does have the power to change any of their laws regarding local councils, but the feds do not have that power and vice versa the states cannot change any fed law!
Moving back to your argument - i do agree with you that local councils can at times be a bloody pain, but it must be their "parent" (the State) that punishes them and not the federal gov't. Either abolish them or enhance them but the current system is not the best, that's true. However, to make a blanket change to them that would need to be decided by that states population as a whole by referendum.
I'm confused by the concern over the power of the federal government to dispose of local government. It was not my intent that that should be done. It would always have been the states responsibility because,as far as I am aware, they already have that power.
Also I should have mentioned that when commissioners are appointed here it is for a limited period, sometimes that can be several years. I just wish they could be implemented permanently but as you say, it will require a referendum.
Perhaps we can start in Victoria but they'd have to bring Jeff Kennett back to do that. :rofl:
Quote from: Mike Mitchell on September 18, 2009, 12:27:14 AM
I'm confused by the concern over the power of the federal government to dispose of local government. It was not my intent that that should be done. It would always have been the states responsibility because,as far as I am aware, they already have that power.
Rest easy, the constitution never once mentions councils so the feds can't do a thing about them - they are purely a figment of the states imagination.
So perhaps if they wake up you could find them poooof gone :boom:
biggrin
Quote from: LoneWolf_53 on September 08, 2009, 08:56:25 AM
Sounds just like Canada. :rofl:
Our locals just frittered away two hundred thousand dollars on a piece of "art" (I use the term loosely) intended to decorate the entrance to a recently constructed bridge and the item looks as though all that was required to create it was a couple of sets of silverware and a half dozen poles. :shock
As one local put it the thing looks like a piece of frayed roller coaster track and most of us can't figure out what it has to do with symbolizing our area.
See for yourself if he doesn't have a point................
(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9436/artw.jpg)
Almost as useless as the "sculpture" we have here in melbourne for CityLink.
(http://www.artreview.com.au/art/artandabout/Melbournecbd.jpg)
Apparently it's supposed to represent a toll barrier opening up to allow you into the city, but everyone just describes it as a giant cheese cutter...
Quote from: miw on September 16, 2009, 08:47:05 PMI think the "New States" clause in Ch. 6 was put there so that (a) places like the Northern Territory could become states in the future, and that (b) New Zealand could join later if they so desired (and we wanted them.) NZ actually did come to the federation conferences, I am told. I don't think Ch.6 was intended to say that the Federal govt could, say, abolish Queensland and give it to South Australia. Anyhow, it's not something any politician in her right mind would even canvass unless they had a craving for sudden infamy followed by extended obscurity.
Technically, according to Point 6. of the preamble to the Australian Consititution, New Zealand already IS part of the Commonwealth of Australia...
Quote6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".
taken from http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm (http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm) (See the Preamble)
Quote from: AusCavalier on September 19, 2009, 07:31:25 PM
Technically, according to Point 6. of the preamble to the Australian Consititution, New Zealand already IS part of the Commonwealth of Australia...
Quote6. "The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State".
taken from http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm (http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm) (See the Preamble)
However, according to the NZ's Political and constitutional timeline, in...
1901
The Commonwealth of Australia is established. New Zealand has declined several opportunities to become a member...
and in
1907
New Zealand becomes a dominion. Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward reads a proclamation announcing that New Zealand has ceased to be colony [of the UK, showing that is never was a colony nor state of Australia] and is now a dominion of the British Empire. But it was not until 80 yrs later in
1986
[that] The [NZ] Constitution Act finally removed the last faint provision for the British Parliament to make laws for New Zealand.
and, not coincidentally, this was also the same year that
The Australia Act, which is an Act to bring constitutional arrangements affecting the Commonwealth and the States into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation.
And this Act became the final of the 7 acts which once and for all severed all legislative ties for both countries to the British Houses of Parliament. :dance2:
Not that long ago, eh?
source: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/milestones
and http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=103
and http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/index.htm