Seriously, Hawkey, abolish the states. This is the best you can give us.
Oh, and the line that the state boundaries that were drawn up by our forefathers make no sense. So what does make sense? What would determine the optimal boundaries?
Does he really expect us to believe if everything was decided in and run by Canberra, we would be better off. All power concentrated in the one place?
I guess he hasn’t had time to keep up with the literature that clearly demonstrates that federations have superior economic performances than unitary states.
Just a sad old hackneyed piece of advice that does not progress the debate one jot. And completely impractical too.
And what was all that stuff he was banging on about land rights for Indigenous people? Does he seriously believe that land rights are the main source of progress for them?
We need more states with greater autonomy. With our current population I reckon that Qld could be split into two, maybe three states. WA into two, Vic into three. Give the NT statehood and spilt it into two and just sell SA to whoever would be silly enough to pay for it. Tasmania, just leave it as a tourist attraction. Invite the north and south islands of NZ to become separate states as well. That would give us around 13 or so states, a good number to start with. The key is autonomy. The states need to be as independent of Canberra as possible, ceding only defence and (perhaps) foreign affairs. I’d also incorporate Canberra into one of the new NSW states as a regional city. Whats left of the Federal Government could meet in hotel rooms on an occasional basis.
sfw
1 Jan 13 at 7:29 pm
No, we need to break the states into separate countries.
Signed
A. Sandgroper
Abu Chowdah
1 Jan 13 at 7:29 pm
The best and most scummy stuff about the ACTU’s finest son has to await his passing.
You thought the Pilot’s Dispute was just business?
Bwaaaa….
Alfonso
1 Jan 13 at 7:30 pm
Abu, leaving only defence and DFA would be pretty close to individual countries.
sfw
1 Jan 13 at 7:31 pm
I don’t want my luvverly mining revenue going to you lazy arse Eastern-state beggars.
Get orf moi laaand!
Abu Chowdah
1 Jan 13 at 7:36 pm
Apologies for the Rabsian language brain fart!
Abu Chowdah
1 Jan 13 at 7:36 pm
Here’s the thing. Most of the states have coalition governments now, so it’s easier to find Labor support for the idea. Maybe we should give states more responsibilities and get rid of the ratepayer-funded Labor and Green lefty kindergartens, the local councils.
Then maybe some money could be spent on services for average people rather than cyclists and the arty left.
And Another Thing
1 Jan 13 at 7:38 pm
Maybe his enthusiasm for the states is waning as state ALP govts get kicked out…
ar
1 Jan 13 at 7:47 pm
I think abolishing federation is a good idea. We could do without Canberra bureaucrats, income tax and Julie Gillard. It would make the football more exciting as well.
TerjeP
1 Jan 13 at 7:47 pm
Why does mining revenue from the Kimberley belong to the people of Perth and not the Wanjina Wunggurr, Jabirr Jabirr, Bunuba people et al?
Grey
1 Jan 13 at 7:51 pm
What is it you’re trying to say, Mr.Mugabe?
Abu Chowdah
1 Jan 13 at 7:54 pm
Hawke and Keating should both bury themselves NOW. They were the start of going down deregualtion road when both of them didnt have a clue.
Spare me. The Hawke and Keating show.
Thanks for the super rippoff boys. Thanks for fucking uo the economy long term.
Who was in their ear Id like to know? ie which fucking bank?
Alice
1 Jan 13 at 7:55 pm
I am sorry if I wasn’t clear, what is the legal basis of the people of Perth having a particular claim on the mineral wealth of the Kimberley?
Terra nullius, was it?
Grey
1 Jan 13 at 7:57 pm
Good ideas SFW.
Wish it would happen. I think you’d need to sell Tasmania too. Larry Allison could be interested as he’s always looking to buy land/real estate.
JC
1 Jan 13 at 7:57 pm
Oh dear
Tal
1 Jan 13 at 7:57 pm
Abolishing the states is a good idea, but concentrating power in Canberra is a bad one.
How about this:
Replace the states with regional councils consisting of about 150,000 to 200,000 people. Each council area elects a set number of councillors, say about 15. From this fifteen, each year, the councillors elect a mayor to run the council and a federal member to go into the federal parliament. (giving somewhere between 100 and 150 federal members similar to what we have now.)
If the federal member isn’t up to the task then the councillors can replace him after a year without the cost of a general election and there is a direct link between the provider of funds and the provider of services.
The fedral government is then pretty much only responsible for defence and foreign affairs and the regional councils can spend their allocation in the way that best suits its demographics and goals, with each council competing against the others for jobs, education, trades, services and infrastructure.
Apologies for probably my longest post anywhere on any blog.
grumpy
1 Jan 13 at 7:59 pm
Oops Larry Ellison.
JC
1 Jan 13 at 8:00 pm
If you could trust the Canberra mob, abolishing the states wouldnt be a bad idea – the states cant fight for enough of the income and gst tax rates as it is..
but you cant trust the canberra mod with their perksm cancharges, bneautification of the city of Canberra, post retirement benefits and kow towing to big industry
So fuck Canberra as well. May as well keep the thorns in their side that is the states.
Alice
1 Jan 13 at 8:05 pm
To the victors go the spoils.
Now, how’s that for a “welcome to reality” ceremony?
Abu Chowdah
1 Jan 13 at 8:06 pm
I wonder how Bob Hawke really evaluates JGillard’s performance as PM or perhaps he’s too aged to care anymore.
candy
1 Jan 13 at 8:18 pm
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 when six independent British colonies agreed to join together and become states of a new nation.
When the Constitution of Australia came into force, on 1 January 1901, the colonies collectively became states of the Commonwealth of Australia.
What happened to the common wealth? Canberra took most of it.
stackja
1 Jan 13 at 8:20 pm
Mining royalties in WA go into general revenue to be shared by ALL people in WA, so it also goes to the Aboriginal people as well, though the white trash in the Aboriginal Industry do managed to divert most of it into their personal bank accounts.
Louis Hissink
1 Jan 13 at 8:22 pm
Judith,
Hawkey’s comments make sense when you replace his Fabian Hat – the hypocrite tends not to wear it most of the time – but his comments are quite explicable when his political background is factored in.
Louis Hissink
1 Jan 13 at 8:25 pm
Each Colony was the economic catchment zone of a large deepwater port, based on transport modes of the mid 19th century.
They make no sense now.
Adopt the Swiss government system with weak central government, the canton system based on economic and geographic zones, universal military service on the Swiss model etc. And yes, cantons pay for their own welfare system without external assistance.
We’d need some form of modification for national transport infrastructure development, coordination and managaement due to being a continental nation and not a postage stamp covered in sodding great mountains.
Mk50 of Brisbane
1 Jan 13 at 8:31 pm
This is just the annual distraction to divert the masses from the fact that the ALP is addicted to money and cock. The don’t care where either come from nor where they go so long as they get a crack at both on the way past.
Pickles
1 Jan 13 at 8:41 pm
Does ex-Prime Minister Hawke expect to be taken seriously? This is the same boofhead who sealed Justice (cough cough) Lionel Murphy’s file for a number of years. It’s obvious Hawke has little regard for Australian’s so who cares what he says.
Sid Vicious
1 Jan 13 at 9:01 pm
Look! over there!
A Sheila in a skimpy bikini…!
Unicorns wouldn’t be the first thing Hawke would think of…
Forester
1 Jan 13 at 9:04 pm
Oh he still cares alright, as long he’s up there pawing away at a pretty young thing, doesn’t he look a silly ol’ bugger here?
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 9:22 pm
Yes Tinta. At that point I formed the view that the little yank girl was half decent. A shiver was going up her spine at the thought of that sleazy old prick wanting to kiss her.
Pickles
1 Jan 13 at 9:33 pm
Given all that Hawke did for this country, it is sad to see him losing it in his dotage.
Johno
1 Jan 13 at 9:36 pm
Pickles:
Yup. Same’s true for the greenfilth, really. With just a two-word change…
This is just the annual distraction to divert the masses from the fact that the
ALPGreenfilth is addicted to money andcockfreckle.Mk50 of Brisbane
1 Jan 13 at 9:38 pm
The mining revenue of the Kimberley, or the Pilbara (which is where most of the mining is taking place) doesn’t belong to the people of Perth or the various aboriginal people. It belongs to the shareholders of the mining companies that found the minerals, invested the resources to dig them up and negotiated the contracts with the buyers.
Anyone who claims any mining revenue as their own who, hasn’t personally invested in the mines, is a free loader.
Johno
1 Jan 13 at 9:46 pm
Hawke is a champagne socialist like the rest of the Greens & labour !.
Tom
1 Jan 13 at 9:51 pm
We definitely need some kind of reform. Start with Tasmania. It’s a complete joke that this global byword for pubic hair – the island’s only signature achievement – is represented by no fewer than 17 federal politicians. I mean, WT fucking F?
C.L.
1 Jan 13 at 9:52 pm
— John Winston Howard, quoted in the Weekend Australian, 9 Nov. 1991, p.9.
To which I would add: With a two-tier system, you can have as much decentralization of power as you like by vesting enough powers in the lower tier. I said “vesting”, not “delegating”: a two-tier system is genuinely federal if the subnational units are protected against amalgamation and dissolution and have powers that can’t be taken from them by the central government.
Gavin R Putland
1 Jan 13 at 10:01 pm
The Feds collect most of the taxes and the states provide most of the services. The Commonwealth is a parasite.
sdfc
1 Jan 13 at 10:04 pm
Hawker would go down a hoot at the new improved Grosvenor in George street, Brissy, where he could paw as many women as he wanted and be treated like a king by the girls and the punters
Tiny Dancer
1 Jan 13 at 10:04 pm
The Grovellor is a disgrace. Was better when it was Maccas. Who goes to those tittie bars anyway.
Pickles
1 Jan 13 at 10:11 pm
Hohohohhoho.
Ever heard of the constitution and the concept of company shareholders?
Oh noes, that’s not “fair share”.
More low rent troll infestation again. Bolta must be on holidays.
Pedro the Ignorant
1 Jan 13 at 10:29 pm
Another thing going for her is that she’s not an Emily’s Lister, either.
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 10:37 pm
What needs to be abolished is not the state governments but rather local/council government. It is totally unnecessary and it’s ‘services’ could be run through the state governments.
Andrew
1 Jan 13 at 10:38 pm
You bet sdfc and the fatted leech is gorged and plump, pity it just doesn’t drop off into the abyss.
I used to believe that the States should be abolished only because I was young and naive and because the states, especially NSW, were really pathetic in service delivery. But that’s when there were wall-to-wall Labor states and a competent, professional, adult Federal government so the squandocracy and incompetence bordering on the criminal (read SA child rapist scandal and NSW ICAC circus-come-to-town, and of course a desal plant in every Labor state) masked the real picture at state level. Now we are seeing the big picture with the feds diabolic and Labor states falling, the ineptitude and irresponsible government by Labor is there for all to see.
We have to have strong states to look after their constituents because the Feds are screwing everyone.
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 10:47 pm
The local councils don’t exist in the Constitution yet they weild so much power. Maybe if there is Constitutional change it could be to create regions within state boundaries so that we could have a system of regions similar to the Counties system in the UK.
Not sure how that could be made work with a federation of states but it could regionalise Australia with maybe a couple of Councils in Sydney instead of the plethora that now exists — it would have to be put to a vote though.
I must say I was against the forced amalgamation of two councils where I live but only because the people voted 78% against it, but persuasion rather than compulsion is the only way to bring people around.
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 10:54 pm
Tintarella
I don’t care what parties are in power, it seems to me a rather inefficient way of doing things regardless.
sdfc
1 Jan 13 at 11:00 pm
Errm, has anyone read Battlelines, Tony Abbott’s book?
He also expresses a bit of sentiment to remove the states.
Steve X
1 Jan 13 at 11:01 pm
Running state services from the Commonwealth because the needs of the different states and the areas within those states is too vast that it would be not practical nor effective to run it from that level. As well as this, you could not run the State Govt services through councils because many of the services cross over multiple municipalities and would simply be an administrative nightmare, with different by-laws everywhere.
Andrew
1 Jan 13 at 11:02 pm
Aren’t we just getting caught up in semnatic bullshit? So according to John Howard, if starting anew today we wouldn’t have 8 ‘state’ and territory governments but, rather, TWENTY ‘regional’ governments. Yeah, right. That sounds like a recipe for rational economies. Not.
C.L.
1 Jan 13 at 11:02 pm
semantic, dammit.
C.L.
1 Jan 13 at 11:03 pm
He says that schools and hospitals should be more run at a local level and not by bureaucrats but that does not advocate abolishing state governments.
Andrew
1 Jan 13 at 11:04 pm
Labor factions run like fiefdoms now. Central control is what Fabians do best.
BTW Bob how are ya going with your dream of no child living in poverty? You SOC.
Splatacrobat
1 Jan 13 at 11:13 pm
Yes, sdfc you’re right and recognising Commonwealth interference as not a good thing means that it’s the states responsibility to properly administer the funds that are generated by the states and to get a fair share of the funds due from the Commonwealth and to tell the feds to rack off when they try to play the blame game.
The blame game is a championship sport for the Commonwealth because of the confusing shifts and overlaps in power with the Feds always seeking to encroach upon State power and in this regard strong state Premiers are the guardians of state power and it should not be ceded without compelling reasons which benefit the State and its people>
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 11:25 pm
Hawke and Fraser pissed in each others pocket.
Federation, the Commonwealth, whatever should be eliminated.
Get rid of our the scum association with the UN.
Bring on more States.
NoFixedAddress
1 Jan 13 at 11:32 pm
The Commonwealth has just put its grubby digits in too may parts of our lives. It should just but out, administer it’s areas of responsibility and let the states get on with governing and delivering services in the bulk of what we need to run our lives.
It particularly galls me when the Commonwealth is now trying to regulate what we can think by regulating what we can say and what we can read and what can and can’t be printed.
Just look after the lighthouses, the military, don’t insult the neighbours and look after foreigh affairs, make sure Australia post delivers on time, the national mint, trade and commerce, pensions, air travel, immigration and international travel, marriages and the High Court. That’s more than enough to be done properly and as for the rest, just butt out, give the states the money to look after the rest and but out of our lives.
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 11:46 pm
Good night.
Tintarella di Luna
1 Jan 13 at 11:46 pm
bonna naughtie, as they say in the Italian classics, Tintarella
Gab
1 Jan 13 at 11:50 pm
Hand on heart, Bob Hawke knows that the greatest impediment to reform and effective government today is his beloved Labor Party who have trashed his economic and industrial relations legacy. Rather than abolish the states, he should instead call for the abolition of the Labor Party in its current feral form and mentor its transformation. If that cannot be achieved, he should give his unconditional support to the only political group who are committed to maintaining the Hawke-Keating legacy, the Coalition.
GerardB
2 Jan 13 at 12:17 am
I agree.
The Great Man, Comrade Gough, came up with something similar back in ’73 and set up the Dept of Urban & Regional Development so Comrade Minister Uren could shovel money at his favourite mates, favourite councils and marginal electorates.
This was supposed to be a pre-cursor to obliterating the states. Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange got to build roads and subdivisions and industrial estates for a swag of decentralising industries and that was about it.
I agree with that too Johno.
He needs to be told “Pull ya head in ya drongo! Go away.”
When he was done the champagne socialist flew directly from The Lodge to the Asian race tracks with a mountain of loot from … well, he ended up there for a good while and I believed then he would be smart enough to keep his trap shut forevermore. I was wrong.
I hear now he believes Labor’s Greatest Hit, Platinum Grade, was giving back land to a lazy lot of primitive nomads who were too stupid to defend what they had (which is wholly unremarkable because that’s how things were done in those days) so they can sit on it and look all about the joint and do nothing with it? Spare me!
Mick Gold Coast QLD
2 Jan 13 at 12:49 am
“schools and hospitals should be more run at a local level .”
Give me strength, if that means run by the local Councils around here, be assured they can barely run a chook raffle. The real estate agent Liberal faction vs the retired teacher far left faction let loose with tens of mill and some ideology would be a disaster.
Alfonso
2 Jan 13 at 6:07 am
Does he seriously believe that land rights are the main source of progress for them?
No, but they’ve been banging that drum for so long that it’s become an article of faith. The subtext is “Let’s hand it back to the Aborigines, but we’ll repossess it on Green grounds if they try even a trace of economic or technological development.”
perturbed
2 Jan 13 at 7:42 am
It’s a pity but poor old Hawke must be loosing his marbles by associating with Australia’s worst PM ever, and by contemplating handing more power to our wannabe, Marxist dictator and her hopeless Government.
Yes it’s certainly time for the Feds to do their job properly like manage Australia’s defence, security, foreign affairs and commerce and leave the rest to the States in accordance with our Constitution.
Local Government powers should be cut back from the illegal, bloated, politically correct, Labor/Green bureaucracies they have become.
Some possible State changes could include:
- Help Tasmania grow up by combining it with Victoria,
- combine South Australia with Northern Territory by
adding some 200,000 Territorians to SA.
- cede Christmas/Cocos Islands to their closest neighbour, Indonesia to make illegal immigration far more difficult and to save Australia’s worn out Navy from extinction.
- accept that Canberra is just a simple regional city somewhere in NSW where a significantly reduced number of Feds go, and save a bloated, unnecessary Territorial overhead.
There now fixed a lot of problems that Hawke’s cringing proposal certainly won’t.
terrarious
2 Jan 13 at 9:44 am
Do you blokes thinks this would be a good template for removing the States?
Winston SMITH
2 Jan 13 at 10:36 am
I’ve long advocated giving Tasmania to New Zealand to become the West Island.
We would need to guarantee the subsidies at the current value for a century to get them to take it, but think what long-term value we would be producing for Australia.
gnome
2 Jan 13 at 10:40 am
Grey, nothing to do with Terria Nullius. WA was an independent constitutional entity before Federation and joined on certain conditions, one of which was that the minerals within the State belonged to the State. This is the same as for other states. So when Swan, for example, bangs on about the minerals belonging to the people, he’s only right in broad principle. Legally, the minerals of the State of WA belong to the people of WA. That includes the TOs by the way.
os
2 Jan 13 at 11:27 am
Grey, nothing to do with Terra nullius. WA was an independent constitutional entity before Federation and joined on certain conditions, one of which was that the minerals within the State belonged to the State. This is the same as for other states. So when Swan, for example, bangs on about the minerals belonging to the people, he’s only right in broad principle. Legally, the minerals of the State of WA belong to the people of WA. That includes the TOs by the way.
os
2 Jan 13 at 11:34 am
Strictly speaking they belonged to the crown. Actually I think your history may be suspect – since you were a colony, not an independent constitutional entity and whether or not WA laid down specific conditions as you outline I don’t know. But I doubt that you have any idea either.
The crown originally laid claim to the mineral wealth under the principle of terra nullius. Basically they just plopped down the flag and said everything above and below belongs to the King.
Grey
2 Jan 13 at 11:49 am
<blockquote
I’ve long advocated giving Tasmania to New Zealand to become the West Island.
I have long advocated Australia joining New Zealand as their 13th province. We would be able to distribute a surplus of vowels to the indigent population and we would finally acquire an independent foreign policy.
Grey
2 Jan 13 at 11:52 am
As far as I am concerned you can have as much Government as you want…. Just make it non compulsorily funded. Make many taxes voluntary.
Apparently at the moment the Government take is about 26 percent of GDP?… Reduce that to 10 percent compulsorily extorted and they can get the rest voluntarily. Now there’s real participatory Government for the people.
They can run raffles, lotteries, cake stands for all I care… That way Government is only the size it can afford to be and that society deems as appropriate or can be bothered with.
I’m sick of this “Slush fund” called Taxation. The political classes are robbing Australia and Australians blind…. It has become nothing but an election slush fund and personal stash for the political class.
Christ…. The Labor Party barely even bothers to lie convincingly anymore…. The Union skill base of that now sadly dysfunctional party seems to think using pooled money as a personal slush fund, is a normal political practice…. That it’s their money and their right.
It might sound facetious, but I’d rather waste my own money than watch these arseholes waste it for me.
….Sigh.
J.H.
2 Jan 13 at 12:53 pm
We should break up the functions of government and provide them distinctly according to their diversity. Each type of government activity has slightly different externalities/economies of scale/community of interest from the others and therefore requires a different size (i.e., in terms of a territorial jurisdiction or membership base). This is expressed in Mancur Olson’s notion of ‘fiscal equivalence’: for every collective good, there is a unique ‘boundary’ for which a separate government is needed, so that ‘there can be a match between those who receive the benefits of a collective good and those who pay for it’. So we should observe a complex of overlapping jurisdictions with unique boundaries relating to the provision of specific collective goods. Olson again: ‘There is a case for every type of institution from the international organization to the smallest local government’; a case for ‘both centralized and decentralized units of government in the same context’.
For some, the ‘optimal’ size is the entire country, for others it is a narrower jurisdiction, perhaps local or state (but the states as we know them really are arbitrarily defined). So if the optimal club size depends on the specific collective good, then everyone should belong to a multiple overlapping jurisdictions: one for each function of government (or multiple). Public or club goods that happen to have coterminous jurisdictional boundaries or membership bases could be bundled, but it seems more likely that some amount of unbundling would be called for: a different group each for cultural affairs, transportation, schooling, social security, health care, telecommunications, and so on. This is often called ‘polycentric governance’ or ‘functional federalism’.
Look up Olson, but also Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, Gordon Tullock, Bruno Frey, and Peter Boettke on this. Bundling all the functions of government at a lower level is essentially making the same mistakes of bundling at the higher level if economic logic doesn’t support it. I would say that most functions of government should be performed at the lowest possible level though (if at all).
Trent
2 Jan 13 at 1:06 pm
Disappointing from the old fella…. he’s more centralist than I gave him credit for. WA was very borderline on joining the Federation, its time they re-considered the prospect of secession, leaving the eastern states to their collectivist, socialist,rent-seeking devices.
Fire and Ice
2 Jan 13 at 1:07 pm
Good point J.H. One thing about the current taxation system is that there simply isn’t any choice or options for taxpayers to conscientiously object, or to opt out of certain taxes if they don’t use the equivalent services (education, health care and pensions being three obvious and easily implementable examples). At least if there were an option for conscientious objectors, the usurious rates of taxation would be less onerous – a bill I would fully support.
Fire and Ice
2 Jan 13 at 1:12 pm
Judith,
It is “Hawkie” not “Hawkey”.
FWIW if WA seceded I would move over there …
Robert Blair
2 Jan 13 at 1:14 pm
I recon pretty much what Grumpy @ 7:59 pm yesterday but call them states with the same constitutional powers they should get now.
And divided along diocese lines offered by Winston @10:36.
That’s like 23 states giving one Fed representative.
A majority of 12 should be enough to handle Defence, foreign affairs , immigration and quarantine.
jumpnmcar
2 Jan 13 at 1:40 pm
Beattie got in a practice run by amalgamating shires in Qld then decreeing that no one could be declared redundant for three years. Then Bligh made it impossible to talk to local member of the council – only the CEO. So now we have muzzled councillors who are not local and each area has to fight all the others to get anything instead of local people being able to talk to local members and address local problems.
Imagine what it would be like without states – more of the same and with less response.
Old woman of the north
2 Jan 13 at 1:46 pm
Jump, I only took Diocesian boundaries because they work to an extent in real life, within the context of the needs of the Church.
However many others would do: Police Commands, Court jurisdictions, etc.
Winston SMITH
2 Jan 13 at 4:55 pm
Commonwealth Department of Rubbish Collection?
Econocrat
2 Jan 13 at 8:31 pm
Old woman of the north.
Beattie amalgamated the councils and within 12 months my rates doubled!
kae
2 Jan 13 at 8:43 pm
Local Govt has managed and been supported for over 20 years to socialise much of the ‘health services and delivery’ through regulatory powers. Eg Banning smoking in public places and in private commercial establishments, special liquor licence precincts, social housing, needle exchanges, youth
services, subsidised transport inc bike lanes etc.
Education, such as kindergartens were I think removed from their wide ambit. But they ensured to have their finger in the pie with ‘local environmental groups, kids playgrounds etc.
There has been little mention of the IR and award schemes that have burgeoned under this third tier which acts as a Constitutional entity.
In the centre and far north a parallel IR scheme operates in Aboriginal and regional communities.
There has, to my knowledge, been no rigorous evaluation of local govts (Councils) actual asset base. As such it would be difficult to ascertain whether the direct federal $ (and state) achieved what they purport to achieve eg roads and major infrastructure. Or simply a patch job.
Recognition of local govt in the Constitution is a means to recognise Aboriginal councils and associated wish of Aborigines to be recognised as the first people (who was first argument etc).
The latter argued in the weekend blog at length.
Jessie
2 Jan 13 at 10:16 pm
“What would determine the optimal boundaries?”
Watersheds.
If we went full an-cap, very few services that used to be provided through government would need to be geographically based. Think of the distributed petty kingdoms of Iceland’s goðorð as an approximation.
Since we have a federation of states instead, a liberal democratic ideal is that those who are affected get a say, and everyone else can rack off. Water’s unique properties (and its importance in this very dry land) mean that practical management happens over extended land areas that will almost always exceed property boundaries. That implies a role for government. If we’re going to have government involvement in water, its reach should extend over the whole of what it needs to consider – watersheds – and no more.
Rivers are often the edges of jurisdictions because of historical reasons – the movement of people and goods was impeded by a natural barrier. Instead they, and the urban areas that often grew on them, should be the centres of our political divisions.
Jarrah
2 Jan 13 at 11:00 pm
“Bundling all the functions of government at a lower level is essentially making the same mistakes of bundling at the higher level if economic logic doesn’t support it. I would say that most functions of government should be performed at the lowest possible level though (if at all).”
A superb end to a great comment, Trent.
Jarrah
2 Jan 13 at 11:03 pm
Judith,
Can you point me to some of the literature you mention?
Justin
Justin
3 Jan 13 at 8:33 am