That we should get rid of state governments in Australia
Debate Rounds (3)
State governments have also becoming increasingly reliant on federal governments for funding, with the proceeds of the GST going entirely to the states despite being a federal tax. By removing State Governments there would be a huge savings for taxpayers with less perks and fewer lifetime pensions; whilst at the same time making those remaining Federal politicians more responsible and accountable for their electorates.
I am going to make this quick. We, the US, do not have the right to intervene with state government in another country. Australia has the right to have state governments if it wants. We, the US, do not have that right so we should not get rid of state governments in Australia.
Here are my arguments:
Each layer of government requires its own resources, the more layers the more resources are needed, abolishment of state governments will lead to less resources needed and instead of trying to get more resources members of government will be doing their jobs, making the government more efficient. Multiple government layers make decision making a more difficult process because both state and federal governments need to agree. This can often lead to arguments between states. The abolition of state governments could lead to many changes, one of these is that Australia will have one health care and hospital system, this would result in better quality health and nursing services; as well as improved training and facilities. The Health portfolio would be better managed by a single Minister responsible for the whole system rather than multiple State Ministers with less responsibility.
We as the affirmative team believe that a National Police Force and a National set of criminal statutes across Australia would simplify policing and crime related issues. Having different laws for different States is expensive, time wasting and inconsistent across Australia. There is a need to remove conflict between State and Federal laws. The abolishment of state governments could lead to a single rail and transport system across Australia, with development of a fast rail network between capital cities, would be a benefit to all Australians. A better managed rail and transport system would deliver a better service to the people in addition to creating jobs and infrastructure.
Businesses would also benefit because state taxes would be removed, reducing the costs to business operators which could then be passed on to consumers. Getting rid of state governments would lead to both a more efficient and united Australia.
You have a problem with this layering government but this is done in order to promote democracy. There need not be one group of people making decisions but rather the layers that you speak of because that will allow a concensus from more represnetatives of the people and will better the entire country as a whole. By you wanting one layer, you are leaving the possiblilty for a type of absolute/oligarchial government that can result in less of a democracy and this will limit the democracy for the people. It may be more difficult to agree but this is good becuase that way people are voicing their opinion to show that the country could be split on an issue, which allows each person to have their own opinion.
You seem to think that the abolition of state government could lead to health care and on what are you basing this on? And how do you know that it will be successful?
And again. You said that it would be better for one Minister to make the decision rather than multiple state Ministers but this is not true. An absolute monarchy only guarantees the satisfaction of one person. Multiple people will lead to greater fairness as most people are allowed to voice their opinion. It is better to allow that more people can voice their opinion and help make decision rather than one. Because even if there is disagreement, it shows that if there are 2 decision being made and the decision to implement the decision is 50/50 both ways, then it would be good to be split on the decision because if one decision was chosen over the other, this would cause the loser (50% of the people) to be unhappy and disappointed on the decision.
The state vs federal law that you are decribing is merely a way of making decision more fair toward everyone rather not just the federalists or the states.
You said that the states being removed would reduce state taxes but that would hurt the government so much. They government's income would shrink and that would not be good. The taxes are unfortunate but they are necissary for the government to maintain that stability.
State governments promote a more democratic and fair society that leave the citizens happier.
The opposition has stated that its better for multiple health ministers to make decision, this is incorrect because your opinion in a large group of ministers may carry so little weight that it has an extremely small effect on the outcome of the election. This is not to say that your opinion will not count, but you must understand that your opinion may not contribute significantly to the outcome. The opposition has tried to tell you that If there is only one health minister, he will not have anyone who will contradict him, this is false because there are another 231 members of parliament who can tell him that he is wrong.
The opposition has said "The state vs federal law that you are describing is merely a way of making decision more fair toward everyone rather not just the federalists or the states." I would like to ask him what he suggests for decision making to be fairer.
The contender has stated that the reduction of state taxes would hurt the government so much. To this I say that it would benefit citizens so much as well as the tax burden on their shoulders will decrease. After all there are 22 million citizens and only 322 members currently in parliament.
The contender has also tried to say that state governments leave the citizens happy. My response to this is I am a citizen, and I am not happy, so this is the first reason as to why this statement is incorrect. The second reason, is that a recent survey has shown that over 70% of the population don"t want state government, obviously if it made citizens happy this would not be the case.
It could save everyone money, as well as create jobs. State governments are costing taxpayers $30 billion dollars a year, that money could be used on something more beneficial like medical research. Abolishment of state governments will mean that all states will be equal. Isn"t equality what we all want? Getting rid of state governments will increase the local government, it is obvious that the local government has a better understanding of what the community actually needs. From the above it is obvious that state governments are inefficient and a waste of money that is why we should get rid of them, they are outdated and unnecessary.
I would like to thank the opposition for an interesting debate.
Debate_King1475 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.