2015 NSW State Election (1 Viewer)

[isildurrrr1]

as opposed to the bankrupted state governments we already have?

We dont get any real democracy if the states cant make their own financial choices

State governments never go bankrupt. Feds will always bail them out. We don't need a very strong state centric system, most of our population lives in urban areas and we have a tiny population given our size. Fed funding is the better model since it gives money on a need basis not want basis. If we had states funding themselves purely, WA would've seceded a long time ago and go bankrupt.

NSW isn't going bankrupt, it's actually running a pretty good budget.

 

[asparagus]

Thats completely screwed up. If you wanted a strong central government you would want a unitary not a federal system.

The founding fathers envisioned a limited commonwealth (the cth government only has authority under 'exclusive powers' enumerated in the constitution, and the states have 'residual powers' everything else.

None of the Constitution’s framers would ever have imagined, back in the 1890s or in 1901, that a century or so later the Australian States would be as emasculated as they are today: that they would be so dependent upon the Commonwealth for their governmental finances.

More specifically, none of the framers would have anticipated that the ‘corporations’ power (s 51(xx)) would be held to allow the Commonwealth to take over the field of industrial relations; that the ‘external affairs’ power (s51(xxix)) would be deemed to enable the Commonwealth to enact far-reaching environmental, human rights and industrial relations laws; or that the States could be cajoled into abjuring income tax powers, not least because four federal statutes — passed at the same time (during the Second World War) and consecutively numbered — were assessed or judged individually (and, of course, held to be valid) and not as part of a package.

Put simply Australia doesn't work because it is a federation trying to behave like a unitary system.

And NSW does well because it gets the lions share of GST revenue allocations.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Thats completely screwed up. If you wanted a strong central government you would want a unitary not a federal system.

The founding fathers envisioned a limited commonwealth (the cth government only has authority under 'exclusive powers' enumerated in the constitution, and the states have 'residual powers' everything else.

None of the Constitution’s framers would ever have imagined, back in the 1890s or in 1901, that a century or so later the Australian States would be as emasculated as they are today: that they would be so dependent upon the Commonwealth for their governmental finances.

More specifically, none of the framers would have anticipated that the ‘corporations’ power (s 51(xx)) would be held to allow the Commonwealth to take over the field of industrial relations; that the ‘external affairs’ power (s51(xxix)) would be deemed to enable the Commonwealth to enact far-reaching environmental, human rights and industrial relations laws; or that the States could be cajoled into abjuring income tax powers, not least because four federal statutes — passed at the same time (during the Second World War) and consecutively numbered — were assessed or judged individually (and, of course, held to be valid) and not as part of a package.

Put simply Australia doesn't work because it is a federation trying to behave like a unitary system.

And NSW does well because it gets the lions share of GST revenue allocations.

NSW gets lion share of GST because were the largest population and pay the most in taxes. WA used to get the most out of GST until they got their mining boom.

You do realize the states all go in line for practical reasons right? How would you like it that if youre an aboriginal in NSW its ok to vote, but somehow living in QLD means you lose your right to vote. Or if they place restrictions on people of certain ethnicity eg you can't gather more than 4 at a time.

Federal laws ALWAYS trump state laws, that's the entire basis of a federal system of government.

Australia works perfectly fine. We don't really have a huge difference in culture or people on a state-state basis. You ask any aussie overseas where theyre from they'd say "aussie" instead of queenslander or new south welsh or victorian. The ANZAC experience made Australia as a whole identify more as a nation than mere collection of states.

States already control how they spend on policing, infrastructure, education, health etc.

 

[asparagus]

you appear to have disregarded everything ihave just pointed out to you

 

[asparagus]

NSW gets lion share of GST because were the largest population and pay the most in taxes. WA used to get the most out of GST until they got their mining boom.

as a percentage of each dollar paid in gst WA gets the least back.

Federal laws ALWAYS trump state laws, that's the entire basis of a federal system of government.

Federal Laws are only constitutional if they fall under a head of power.

The point is that the australian constitution was never set up to have a situation where those heads of power have been interpreted so broadly by the High Court that the federal balance in australia has been distorted so much that individual state parliaments have little to no power of their own to raise money and enact meaningful laws in areas like taxation and industrial relations.

The high court has basically under workchoices given the government plenary power under the corporations act

 

[asparagus]

Australia works perfectly fine. We don't really have a huge difference in culture or people on a state-state basis. You ask any aussie overseas where theyre from they'd say "aussie" instead of queenslander or new south welsh or victorian. The ANZAC experience made Australia as a whole identify more as a nation than mere collection of states.

States already control how they spend on policing, infrastructure, education, health etc.

As someone from NSW/Vic I dont think you understand how people from other states view our cth government.

other states have their own distinct identity and politics.

WA didnt even want to join the union at federation and has a big individualist streak, and people here bemoan how eastern centric our leaders are, and how liberal party senators are happy to continue to sell out WA on its GST allocation despite being the fastest growing city and one of the biggest emerging markets in Australia.

NT would be better served with more local government because for decades politicians have been talking about harnessing the untapped economic potential of developing the north of Australia, but so far politicians in canberra dont understand how or why they should do this.

 

[isildurrrr1]

NT isn't even a state asparagus (hint it's in the name), they're a federal territory. Even if we have your utopian state centric system NT still falls under cth control. Australia already has a problem trying to regionalize the entire country, everybody (including migrants) want to live in big cities. There are just not enough incentives for people to move to rural areas.

Federal Laws are only constitutional if they fall under a head of power.

No federal laws are constitutional if the high court rules it so, since you know that's the entire point of the high court.

WA just wants to be it's own thing, but GL with that. As I said, PRE-MINING BOOM WA was receiving more GST than they put into the kitty.

 

[asparagus]

i think my understanding of constitutional law is a bit more comprehensive than yours, champ. You look up what a head of power is you'll find thats the criterion the high court must use to determine that a law is constitutional.

yes thats correct, territories still have senators though (they have fewer than states do though).

In practice there is no real difference between the powers of NT and ACT and the rest of the states. The commonwealth passed an act of parliament so that NT and ACT could have their own parliament and become self-governing. They even have seats in the federal senate (albeit fewer than states get). The Federal parliament rarely if ever passes legislation that overides a decision that a territory govt has made. The last time this happened was under howard when ACT almost got gay marriage.

 

[isildurrrr1]

You may know more than me, but you have the audacity to claim how the High Court is over-extending their power when pretty much every member of the High Court probably knows a lot more about our constitution than you.

But you do realise S51 pretty much covers every single area of public law that allows the commonwealth to take right?

Cth tomorrow can pretty much say "asians can't own land" and it'd be legal. total top lawl.

 

[asparagus]

sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr30_2/Allan.pdf


Have a read of the authors criticism of intentionalist vs literalist approaches to interpretation