Three levels of government is far too many.
Australia doesn't need states: Howard
HAH:
Age
Australia doesn't need states: Howard
By Tim Colebatch, Farrah Tomazin
March 25, 2005
![]()
Australia would be better off without state governments, Prime Minister John Howard declared yesterday as he strongly backed Treasurer Peter Costello's demand that the states abolish $2.5 billion in business taxes.
Speaking on radio about the federal-state tax deadlock, Mr Howard said it would be better if Australia had no state governments - adding that it was "unrealistic" to wish for that now.
"If we were starting Australia all over again, I wouldn't support having the existing state structure," he said. "I would actually support having a national government, and perhaps a series of regional governments having the power of, say, the Brisbane City Council (Australia's most powerful local government).
"But we're not starting Australia all over again, and the idea of abolishing state governments is unrealistic."
In response to Mr Howard's comments, Premier Steve Bracks' spokeswoman Jane Wilson said last night: "The Premier has said many times that both levels of Government should co-operate to deliver better outcomes for Victorians."
Mr Howard's open declaration of centralist views lines him up with former Labor prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke. The Liberal Party at the time strongly opposed their views, and has long stood as defender of the federal system.
But with Labor in power in all eight states and territories, Mr Howard is leading an invasion of state powers on an increasingly wide front. His Government's proposed industrial relations changes will take control of industrial relations now in state hands. In education, it is setting up its own technical colleges to compete with state systems, and it has attached increasingly stringent conditions on funding of state schools, including requiring every school to have a flagpole.
Health Minister Tony Abbott has proposed a federal takeover of public hospitals, although Mr Howard has opposed this on the pragmatic ground that running hospitals is a political minefield.
Mr Howard also said he was optimistic that the deadlock over the GST could be broken if the states came back to the negotiating table "with a proposal consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the original agreement".
On Wednesday, Mr Costello hinted that the Federal Government might walk away from its agreement to give the $35 billion a year GST revenue to the states.
Wednesday's meeting of treasurers in Canberra broke up after the states unanimously rejected Mr Costello's demand that they scrap seven little-known taxes on business, which the states in 1999 had promised to "review" in 2005.
Abolishing the first six taxes would cost the states $2.5 billion a year, rising to close to $5 billion a year - roughly 10 per cent of the states' own tax base - when the seventh tax, stamp duty on conveyancing for business properties, is scrapped.
If business uses the proceeds to boost profits, 30 per cent of the states' losses would flow straight to the Federal Government as company tax.
Age
Australia doesn't need states: Howard
By Tim Colebatch, Farrah Tomazin
March 25, 2005
Australia would be better off without state governments, Prime Minister John Howard declared yesterday as he strongly backed Treasurer Peter Costello's demand that the states abolish $2.5 billion in business taxes.
Speaking on radio about the federal-state tax deadlock, Mr Howard said it would be better if Australia had no state governments - adding that it was "unrealistic" to wish for that now.
"If we were starting Australia all over again, I wouldn't support having the existing state structure," he said. "I would actually support having a national government, and perhaps a series of regional governments having the power of, say, the Brisbane City Council (Australia's most powerful local government).
"But we're not starting Australia all over again, and the idea of abolishing state governments is unrealistic."
In response to Mr Howard's comments, Premier Steve Bracks' spokeswoman Jane Wilson said last night: "The Premier has said many times that both levels of Government should co-operate to deliver better outcomes for Victorians."
Mr Howard's open declaration of centralist views lines him up with former Labor prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke. The Liberal Party at the time strongly opposed their views, and has long stood as defender of the federal system.
But with Labor in power in all eight states and territories, Mr Howard is leading an invasion of state powers on an increasingly wide front. His Government's proposed industrial relations changes will take control of industrial relations now in state hands. In education, it is setting up its own technical colleges to compete with state systems, and it has attached increasingly stringent conditions on funding of state schools, including requiring every school to have a flagpole.
Health Minister Tony Abbott has proposed a federal takeover of public hospitals, although Mr Howard has opposed this on the pragmatic ground that running hospitals is a political minefield.
Mr Howard also said he was optimistic that the deadlock over the GST could be broken if the states came back to the negotiating table "with a proposal consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the original agreement".
On Wednesday, Mr Costello hinted that the Federal Government might walk away from its agreement to give the $35 billion a year GST revenue to the states.
Wednesday's meeting of treasurers in Canberra broke up after the states unanimously rejected Mr Costello's demand that they scrap seven little-known taxes on business, which the states in 1999 had promised to "review" in 2005.
Abolishing the first six taxes would cost the states $2.5 billion a year, rising to close to $5 billion a year - roughly 10 per cent of the states' own tax base - when the seventh tax, stamp duty on conveyancing for business properties, is scrapped.
If business uses the proceeds to boost profits, 30 per cent of the states' losses would flow straight to the Federal Government as company tax.
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
State governments are the ones voters have the greatest amount of contact with; health, education, transportation, planning (through local and state) the list of services provided by them (whether indirectly financed by the federal government, ala universities or whatever) is very big, but they 'rack up huge administrative costs and do very little' ?sirhc8 said:
What are you smoking? can I have some?
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
