Do we need the states?

Yes.

They are the final backstop which will prevent this country ever becoming a dictatorship.

If you think that's a problem try getting your mum's body back to NZ when she passed away while on holiday in Aus.
But we did.

My 2c ...
NO, we don't need the states!
They are anachronistic, have too many arcane rules preventing sensible action. And, of course, duplicate heaps of bureacratic activity that chews up funds and produces no beneficial activity

IMHO, we'd be far far better off if the states disappeared up their own fundamental orifices, and the Feds had dealings with local government direct.
Yep, would cause some angst, the local government people would have to get more realistic, and the feds would have to actually do stuff for the populace in the local areas.
Perhaps, have a local government regime where the boundaries are the same as the federal electorate. That way the federal member would have to be in touch with their constituents (that'd be a change!).

BTW, I regularly argue against the formation of ANOTHER state in the Northern part of NSW. For exactly the reasons given above!

I was under the impression that the federal Senate was supposed to be there to ensure that our elected representatives were kept in check not the state governments. I don't really have a problem with the 3 tiers of government i.e. local, state and federal what I have a problem with is understanding why we continue wasting money paying for an upper house in NSW and a federal Senate where any nutter can get in and block legislation even if they have only received a very small % of the vote. 

Cheers

BB

Woody n Sue wrote:

---

Its the preferential voting system that gets up my nose.
I have only one vote, as Im only one bloke, I only want to vote for one person, not five others by default, that I wouldnt pee on if they were on fire.

If you get the most votes you get the job, simples .

Woody

---

Yep...

Aussie Paul. 

Desert Dweller wrote:

---

We're one of the few places in the world with three levels of government, federal, state & local. One needs to disappear, preferably state.

Travelling interstate is like visiting a foreign country in some instances. Look at things like the Murray-Darling debacle. The states will never agree on anything much.

That's the way it's been since federation.

---

 Yes...

JA2340 wrote:

---

My 2c ...
NO, we don't need the states!
They are anachronistic, have too many arcane rules preventing sensible action. And, of course, duplicate heaps of bureacratic activity that chews up funds and produces no beneficial activity

IMHO, we'd be far far better off if the states disappeared up their own fundamental orifices, and the Feds had dealings with local government direct.
Yep, would cause some angst, the local government people would have to get more realistic, and the feds would have to actually do stuff for the populace in the local areas.
Perhaps, have a local government regime where the boundaries are the same as the federal electorate. That way the federal member would have to be in touch with their constituents (that'd be a change!).

BTW, I regularly argue against the formation of ANOTHER state in the Northern part of NSW. For exactly the reasons given above!

---

 Yes...

Yes!!! I concur that we only need 2 levels of government in a country of around 23 million.

Federal and Local are my preferences.

Just image how much infrastructure we could build, from the dollar savings.

But the States will buck and cry like crazy, and then perhaps the other two levels could be come constructive and put this place back on the map.

As the saying goes.....

Two is good company.

Three is a crowd, and not needed.

Jay&Dee