Its a nice theory, but in practice we know that this is an incredibly inefficient way of running things. There can hardly be a specifically "Queensland method" of teaching maths and English that simply doesn't work in any of the other states, yet we have six state-level government departments (plus two more for the territories) responsible for managing the nation's schools. How can having six government departments performing exactly the same job possibly be a better and more efficient system than having one department do it all at macro level? The same goes for roads. Is there some reason why roads in South Australia can't be built and maintained to the same standard they are in Victoria that isn't directly related to some mid-level bureaucrats making work for themselves by creating "road maintenance standards" at the state level? And honestly, is there that much we need to "experiment" on anyway? We need kids who can read, write and do sums. We need roads that don't have potholes in them. We need hospitals that make sick people better again. We need cops to arrest people who harm others. We need courts to give justice to people who have been wronged. We need some people with guns to protect our country on rare occasions and we need other people to pick up our garbage on a regular basis. All of those thing are either hyper-localised services or they apply equally to everyone in the whole country. That simply won't work. In any efficient system of government you need people who can deliver services at the street level to communities and people who can co-ordinate things at a higher level. If there is ever any fat that can be trimmed - and this is true in the private sector as well as in government - the fat is in middle management.
Yeah, seriously. In Nick Greiner's case its typical state government "Jobs for the Boys". In Bob Carr's case its state government scum that has managed to float to the top.
Well the premier has spent $45,000 buying airtime on all commercial stations at 7:30 tonite to tell us we need to tighten our belts.
Dear Big AD Lovey80 has already touched on one of the major problems centralised governments across the world create and that is poor representation of local and regional issues. I don't want some member for some rural seat in SA or some inner city seat in Sydney, thousands of kilometres away from where I live having any say at all in what happens on my doorstep. I don't stick my nose in their local issues, don't poke them into ours. For example: I live near the Barrier Reef, if someone wants to have a say in what happens on the reef - then move up here. I'm quite happy for the stakeholders of the Murray-Darling system to sort that mess out for themselves, I don't want to get involved, it's got nothing to do with me. A centralised Federal government wielding the final say ensures that people with no personal interest in local matters can interfere with the lives of others they have never met. That's right and now we've gotten rid of the socialists we may get the opportunity to de-amalgamate. By reducing the Fed's responsiblities we can achieve the same result and end up with a system closer to the people. And here my friend we depart radically on separate paths. Your argument that transport and technology have brought the various geographical outposts in this country closer is accurate and undeniably obvious. But what else has this development brought? It has brought political and economic homogeneity. Political and economic expediency. A disease. A plague from where there is no alternative or escape. Every piece of legislation brought into existence by our Federal governments (and there have been something like over 8000 odd under Gillard - check Senate Hansard from Friday, 22nd June) is designed to remove our individual differences, our individual rights and our unique local characteristics. In so doing, it removes our democratic choices. The role of government first and foremost should be to protect our freedom. A highly centralised political system reduces freedoms. It treats everyone the same and results in decisions being based on formulae. If every State and Territory in Australia is subject to the same legislation then, there doesn't exist any sanctuaries to escape bad government. Currently I can't get away from the burden of government unless I leave the country. Whereas if the Federal government was weaker, if as a business owner or as a citizen, I don't like what the Qld government is doing I could take my business or family to say Tasmania to take advantage of their different government legislation. This can't happen under centralised planning, the one size fits all rule. Centralised Federal governments across the world have caused countless damage to many countries. Where they have benefited the country is when they have united disparate states - then they grow and devour. Yes Big A.D, we were once "a series of isolated penal colonies", now under an ever growing Federal Uberlord, we are now one integrated penal settlement.
That is an over simplified way of looking at it Big A.D. Take the QLD pay debacle that cost QLD massively. Had that same screw up been made at a Federal level the whole country would be paying for the same mistake but multiplied many times over. Again over simplistic. If there wasn't a "QLD" or other method for education etc why are we always comparing the performance of certain states against others? Why is it that some states are doing certain things better than others? How can we have (say 8) state departments doing exactly the same job be better? Firstly, they are not doing the same job. Each state has different needs and challenges and needs to deal with them separately. Also we have 9 in total when you add in the Federal level. Cutting out the Federal level would IMO be far more efficient than having a massive one size fits all Federal government department that undoubtedly would be far bigger and cost ineffective than the sum of the 8 state departments and produce less desirable outcomes. Edit: Also this system negates what has already been touched on with voter preferences with seats. If Most of QLD is considered "safe" Liberal seats, what is the incentive for Labor to allocate funding equitably to QLD areas. We could find ourselves in a situation far worse than right now where prosperous areas of QLD and WA are producing the lions share of Federal Government revenue yet disproportionate amounts of revenue are being funneled to areas of Tasmania to shore up seats to get into power. Ie Gillard buying off the independent for the hospital funding and Tasmania getting the NBN first when the logical business case would have been to get the NBN to the most populated areas first and have it paying for itself sooner than tiny populations in Tasmania.
I know this is a bit off topic but it has to do with governments - did anyone see these results regarding democracy in Australia and Gen y's? It really is scary when you read these results. I know the democratic system we have isn't great but surely it beats anything else out there at the moment. http://ipa.org.au/news/2676/democracy-in-doubt A poll for the Lowy Institute found that 23 per cent of respondents between the age of 18 and 29 said: "For someone like me, it doesn't matter what kind of government we have." 29 per cent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 said government should regulate the opinions published in newspapers. Thirty-eight per cent said: "In some circumstances a non-democratic government can be preferable." Just 39 per cent said: "Democracy is preferable to any other kind of government."
Yeah the Courier Mail's been using that graph on every story about cut-backs. Only problem is the Qld population grew at a significant rate over the same time! Although a little high, Qld public service numbers have remained pretty static http://www.psc.qld.gov.au/library/document/catalogue/workforce-statistics/sosr-4-qps-context.pdf The big problem they're going to have is when all the experienced govt workers who have been through the political cycle go (we've been stuck with 1 govt for 20years in Qld) there'll be a big learning curve for the young ones that replace them, they won't have the experience to guide/advise the politicians that breeze through with a new portfolio every 18months! ...the politicians are going to make a complete pigs breakfast of things...more-so.
Government jobs and prison are the two ways to reduce the number of unemployed. Reduce the Oz public service and you have a spike in unemployment. Trouble is the high wages and fat cat mentality.
Let's be thankful that you're NOT the NSW government. Unlike most politicians, firefighters are trained and do a great job. Personally I'd sack most of the pencil-pushers, and half the armed forces before sacking any firefighters.
Now back to Qld.. What will can do Campbell do with current super contributions from the police, fire, Ambulance, teachers, health and public service workers? Will he put into the QIC like previous ALP and National/Lib governments or will he use it and leave all these workers with unfunded super just like the other states? Going by the graph above the states public servants number total 206,000..Thus there would be a nice tidy sum every year. I had a friend who was a school teacher and he had one of the best super funds I have ever heard of. For every dollar he put in, the state government put in $3. I wonder if this scheme is still in operation today. Currently the QIC has $50 billion in investments and they certainly are diversified. Even with a 5% return, it would mean $2.5 billion earnings. No one has commented yet on whether their state has a funded super scheme or are they all unfunded? Regards Errol 43
I am fairly sure that it is only the "dead wood" (teachers soon approaching long overdue retirement) that had these generous super schemes you are talking about Errol. In NSW, defined benefit schemes for teachers stopped back in 1992. So only teachers that had started before that date and stayed in the system, might still be on such a scheme. QLD would almost certainly be the same. There is no way, the pre-boomer generation of teachers (those under 40) would have such generous schemes to boost their super accounts. All we get is that meager 9%.
Sorry guys I just had to revive this thread particularly to show you non-banana benders what was actually happening during the last Govt. Every day in the news, the new govt has been uncovering shocking levels of waste and incompetence. I can't wait to see what Federal Labor had been wasting money on.... actually scratch that... I'm going to wince $1000 to replace a toilet seat (including the purchase of a spare) http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...cky-darlings-loo/story-e6freoof-1226419443516 Govt Salary packaging fraudster (not caught until the new govt came in) http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...er-investigation/story-e6freon6-1226418780653 An overpass and road that doesn't connect with any other road!! http://www.couriermail.com.au/quest...-road-to-nowhere/story-fn8m0yo2-1226418558289
Ha ha!!! That might not be so stupid Claw. I remember there was an overpass on the Bruce Hwy north of the Pine Rivers area that was built by Joh that for years didn't connect any roads. It was built to cater for a future road construction and put in at the same time as a number of other overpasses when they were upgrading the Bruce Hwy about 30 years ago.
That's amazing, although there may be a longer term plan, I couldn't help thinking that if it was in Victoria they would also install speed cameras, a toll collection system, a level crossing for trains and possibly a couple of sets of traffic lights with red-light cameras ... Then sold the piece of green space to a crony developer to build some much needed high-density shoe-box accommodation. Obviously lacking in imagination in QLD.
