CascadeGovernment
m (minor spelling fixes) |
(expand a bit) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Some representatives of each level should be appointed to the senate (or upper house) in the next level up. They can't introduce bills, but they can vote to block and help modify them. |
Some representatives of each level should be appointed to the senate (or upper house) in the next level up. They can't introduce bills, but they can vote to block and help modify them. |
||
| − | For eg: NSW has 152 local govt areas. It has 42 members in it's legislative council (upper house). The problem is how to allow 152 local govts to have a say against the 42 existing members in a fair manner. |
+ | For eg: NSW has 152 local govt areas. It has 42 members in it's legislative council (upper house). A problem then is how to allow 152 local govts to have a say in the upper house - to replace entirely or in-part the 42 existing members in a fair manner. (and without overloading the council in size and thus potential bureaucracy! |
| − | At the next level up, there are currently 6 states, and 2 major territories within Australia. There are 76 senators - 12 from each state, and 2 from each territory - these 76 are currently elected directly by the public to represent the states. Instead, they should be entirely, or in-part delegated from state governments. |
+ | At the next level up, there are currently 6 states, and 2 major territories within Australia, whilst there are 76 senators - 12 from each state, and 2 from each territory - these 76 are currently elected directly by the public to represent the states. Instead, I am proposing that should be entirely, or in-part delegated from state governments. Should they then come from the State lower or upper house? (and if from the upper house, would they then be in fact *local* govt people who have escalated all the way up? |
=== Pros === |
=== Pros === |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=== Cons === |
=== Cons === |
||
* Increased complexity and bureaucracy |
* Increased complexity and bureaucracy |
||
| + | |||
| + | === Other considerations == |
||
| + | * This could be cooped as a method for politicians to move from local to state to federal governments in a smoother manner than currently happens. It's unclear if this would be a net positive or negative. |
||
| + | * How to determine who gets level-upped? I propose appointment. (eg: let's say every state govt appointed 2 people to the federal senate... they would basically hold a position of "minister for the federal senate", and presumably their duties would be split between state govt and federal senate, with an office in both! |
||
| + | |||
| + | ---- |
||
| + | |||
| + | Clearly there are alot of ways this could be implemented, with pros and cons all the way through with every option. But my feeling is that the increased integration is a good thing, and would provide a more holistic government where each level of government is more aware of the concerns of the others. |
||
Revision as of 12:41, 22 April 2010
This is nemo's idea to increase integration between levels of government. This is based on the current Australian separation of Governments into Local (city/shire), State and Federal levels.
Some representatives of each level should be appointed to the senate (or upper house) in the next level up. They can't introduce bills, but they can vote to block and help modify them.
For eg: NSW has 152 local govt areas. It has 42 members in it's legislative council (upper house). A problem then is how to allow 152 local govts to have a say in the upper house - to replace entirely or in-part the 42 existing members in a fair manner. (and without overloading the council in size and thus potential bureaucracy!
At the next level up, there are currently 6 states, and 2 major territories within Australia, whilst there are 76 senators - 12 from each state, and 2 from each territory - these 76 are currently elected directly by the public to represent the states. Instead, I am proposing that should be entirely, or in-part delegated from state governments. Should they then come from the State lower or upper house? (and if from the upper house, would they then be in fact *local* govt people who have escalated all the way up?
Pros
- Increased integration between levels of government - Local concerns can be heard at a state level, and state concerns at a federal level, in a direct manner where differences might be actually made.
Cons
- Increased complexity and bureaucracy
= Other considerations
- This could be cooped as a method for politicians to move from local to state to federal governments in a smoother manner than currently happens. It's unclear if this would be a net positive or negative.
- How to determine who gets level-upped? I propose appointment. (eg: let's say every state govt appointed 2 people to the federal senate... they would basically hold a position of "minister for the federal senate", and presumably their duties would be split between state govt and federal senate, with an office in both!
Clearly there are alot of ways this could be implemented, with pros and cons all the way through with every option. But my feeling is that the increased integration is a good thing, and would provide a more holistic government where each level of government is more aware of the concerns of the others.
