Was complaining about car-crushing legitimacy here>Checkout UK
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: Barrel roll
Next: Hey Noddy
From: John_H on 18 Jun 2010 06:43 PhilD wrote: >"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message >news:4q2m16ta43g1p9jvudjikrka4v20iqmd10(a)4ax.com... >> >> Might be worth looking at what Charles Mollison (Foundation for >> National Renewal) has to say before he drops off his perch. Eliminate >> party politics and get rid of the state GovCo's just for starters. :) >> >Get rid of State Gov's? > >I only arrived in the NT at the tail end of Canberra rule but from that I'd >never get rid of what we now have for all it's failings. As Councils up this >way have far more limited roles that those elsewhere I'd rather get rid of >them. Maybe it's just because of our small population but pollies up this >way seem far more active publicly and on a few occasions they have responded >to what we want. That would be unlikely with someone a few thousand Km's >away. For all the complaints about the 130kph limit imposed on the NT's >highways, Canberra would have just legislated southern limits. You could read it all for yourself (which I haven't yet done), but he's not advocating the transfer of state powers to Canberra... more like the complete opposite. As I understand what he's suggesting is the formation of locally elected groups based on river catchments. Each group selects a federal candidate from its own ranks. Taxation receipts are split 75% among the local groups, 25% federal, which is clearly intended to give the locals control of their own destinies. The feds would only control those areas which are in the common national interest. As an alternative model to what we've got now it's probably well worth a look. One less tier of government, far less control from Canberra, and an end to party politics. -- John H
From: Mr.T on 20 Jun 2010 00:43 "John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:jfhm161jurptprj4q6o77o2kjg9eln224r(a)4ax.com... > As I understand what he's suggesting is the formation of locally > elected groups based on river catchments. Each group selects a > federal candidate from its own ranks. Taxation receipts are split 75% > among the local groups, 25% federal, which is clearly intended to give > the locals control of their own destinies. The feds would only > control those areas which are in the common national interest. Great for the mining communities I guess. Not so great for many others. MrT.
From: John_H on 20 Jun 2010 03:05 Mr.T wrote: >"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message >news:jfhm161jurptprj4q6o77o2kjg9eln224r(a)4ax.com... >> As I understand what he's suggesting is the formation of locally >> elected groups based on river catchments. Each group selects a >> federal candidate from its own ranks. Taxation receipts are split 75% >> among the local groups, 25% federal, which is clearly intended to give >> the locals control of their own destinies. The feds would only >> control those areas which are in the common national interest. > >Great for the mining communities I guess. Not so great for many others. Mollison proposes one central taxing authority. Mining communities would get the same share as any other.... 75% per capita of the national tax take.... http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ModelCon/synopsis.shtml The idea of basing it on water catchment areas would produce 96 regions responsible for the local decisions now in the hands of the states and terroritories. None of these regions is likely to be sufficiently small as to comprise a single mining community. I'm guessing he's been influenced by the Swiss Cantonal system, which is arguably the best example there is as to how a democracy should work in the best interests of its constituents. -- John H
From: Mr.T on 20 Jun 2010 03:59
"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:0ndr16pj751t3es5licsm9kqktaa6uumpn(a)4ax.com... > Mr.T wrote: > >"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message > >news:jfhm161jurptprj4q6o77o2kjg9eln224r(a)4ax.com... > >> As I understand what he's suggesting is the formation of locally > >> elected groups based on river catchments. Each group selects a > >> federal candidate from its own ranks. Taxation receipts are split 75% > >> among the local groups, 25% federal, which is clearly intended to give > >> the locals control of their own destinies. The feds would only > >> control those areas which are in the common national interest. > > > >Great for the mining communities I guess. Not so great for many others. > > Mollison proposes one central taxing authority. Mining communities > would get the same share as any other.... 75% per capita of the > national tax take.... But with 75% local tax Vs 25% federal tax, big deal what the split on the 25% is! Frankly I'd rather see one federal government, NO state or local government, and all income divided on a per capita basis, with a small (say 25%) amount set aside for special needs. At the moment how much tax you pay, and what government services you get in return, depends totally on where you live, with some people being FAR more equal than others. MrT. |