SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Яandwicked
Joined
·
691 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Reformers push for tiny states in two-tiered nation

By Daniel Lewis Regional Reporter
May 13, 2006

THE philosophy is older than the nation, and after several dormant decades the new states movement has new life.

People who live in Armidale and Tamworth would one day live in the state of New England rather than NSW, it was confidently predicted this week at the National Symposium on Federalism and Regionalism at Parliament House in Macquarie Street.

Speakers said the nation's overly centralised three-tiered system of governance needed radical change. A survey suggests plenty of people in NSW agree.

The new states movement has often been seen as a rural whinge. But a recent survey by Griffith and Charles Sturt universities, with help from the NSW Farmers Association, found strong support for change in urban areas too.

Three-quarters of those surveyed thought Australia's system should change, with older people more passionate than the young.

Nearly half of the 502 people surveyed preferred the most radical option - a two-tiered system with federal and regional governments. Few support the creation of new states under the existing system. The "most striking" result was from 75 state public servants in the survey - 90 per cent wanted change while two-thirds advocated the two-tier system that would abolish their employer.

Dr A. J. Brown, a senior lecturer at Griffith University law school, said it was clear political reform was no longer a case of "rural fascists versus urban communists". And Associate Professor Ian Gray, the head of Charles Sturt University's school of sociology, said the public mood suggested "fairly drastic change just might be politically viable". Kenneth Wiltshire, the professor of public administration at the University of Queensland, said Australia could be divided into 40 to 65 regions. New states were constitutionally much easier than abolishing existing states.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...wotiered-nation/2006/05/12/1146940739492.html

----------------

I rate this idea!
 

·
skyscraper connoisseur
Joined
·
6,206 Posts
To me, a two tier system would cost more to run than 3 tier system. The amount of beaurocracy would need to be increased by many folds in regional areas.

I don't think the Federal government is well equiped to micro-manage every aspects of what is important from on side of this island to the other. Then again, the beaurocracy of the Federal government would need to grow.

So what's the deal? Reducing puplic service and red-tape? Don't forget the constitutional side of things.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
25,837 Posts
I think it is a great idea. The local issues can be dealt with by the smaller areas, and things like the health and schooling systems and emergancy services need to go to the federal system where they belong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
I am in full agreement with a two-tiered system. Overall the size of the bureaucracy would be reduced surely? The existing system is cumbersome and prone to duplication of roles, associated waste and parochial self-interest ..take infrastructure development for example. The existing system is reduced to a squabbling circus when it comes time to build a new railway (Everard Compton's proposal for example.) A Federal-regional system would've facilitated something this significant a long time ago.

Blue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
More states/regions = More bureaucracy

And rewriting large chunks of our almost impossible to change constitution?
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top