14 February 2010

Statehood for ACT

| Frug
Join the conversation
42

Is there a good reason we haven’t become a State of Australia?

If we did we’d get equal representation in the HoR and Senate and also prevent the Federal Government from flipping our laws as they see fit.

The NT have already taken (apart from the failed referendum) big steps down this path. Why can’t we?

I’ve set up a facebook group (“Statehood for Canberra”) with the idea that with enough discussion, pushing, nagging we might see it happen by 2020.

Join the conversation

42
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

cleo said :

I think that it should be one state joined with NSW as it was in the begining!

Won’t that get certain Canberran’s panties in a knot! Bring it on I say!

It’s nearly as good as when they tried to stop any media reference to Canberra and the ACT being referred to as “The Bush Capital”.

Why change something that really isn’t broken? How will changing the name of Australia’s Capital Territory benefit anything in the future if it is known, for example, the State of Canberra with the capital city known as Civic? The same could be said for the Northern Territory. Are we to call it the Northern State?

All I can say is, let’s not forget our roots and how we came to be here and the values and quality of life that have been made available to everyone with the State and Territories in a structure that is both recognisable and iconic.

I think that it should be one state joined with NSW as it was in the begining!

Looks like you started something – Cris Uhlman has jumped on the bandwagon …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/19/2824510.htm

… and tried to justify some pretty poor ACT government decisions while he was at it.

James-T-Kirk9:09 am 17 Feb 10

imhotep said :

James-T-Kirk said :

…..Bring back the customs booths.

Yes, I can see it now. The ACT’s export tariff list:

(1) Porn-100% duty
(2) Hot air and other bumpf-100% duty
(3) Todd Carney- duty free!

And that would be about it. Imagine the deficit!

You forgot the HOT AIR!

Gold!

James-T-Kirk said :

…..Bring back the customs booths.

Yes, I can see it now. The ACT’s export tariff list:

(1) Porn-100% duty
(2) Hot air and other bumpf-100% duty
(3) Todd Carney- duty free!

And that would be about it. Imagine the deficit!

Management issues aside…polly competency issues aside….wastage aside. Non of those are ‘fixable’ through system change or realistic.

What about ACT Citizens right to an equal say in Parliament? We already are a State in all but name – in fact we’re better. We are a State and a Council combined. It ain’t perfect, sure – hell, its shambolic a lot of the time! We could wait until the Senate is fixed, we could wait until States are abolished we could even wait until our population overtakes TAS but none of us, I’m guessing, is young enough to see any of those things happen.

Why shouldn’t we have an equal say at the big table? Why shouldn’t it happen soon?

James-T-Kirk1:48 pm 16 Feb 10

#housebound

The reason why the ACT is piss porly run, is that the SUN RIPENED WARM TOMATO PARTY didn’t get in.

Sadly, the “Abolish Self Government” party made it, and then entrenched themselves milking the public teat for all it was worth.

Individual states are an excellent ides, Lets have Multiple standards…. Multiple rail gauges, different drinking ages, different driving ages, diferent fees for various driving offences..

Hey – while were at it, lets even drive on the opposite side of the road…..

I am related to an ACT Government teacher, and lets see how education policy is handled:

1. A poly has a brain murmur, and issues a press release
2. The federal education department has to actually write up the idea.
3. That is then passed to the state education departments where they place their spin on it.
4. The idea is then given to the schools, where they put their spin on it as well, till
5. The teacher then has to implement the heavily modified thought.

At least if we pissed off the states, then they wouldn’t screw things up.

While we are at it, lets get rid of the Senate. It NO LONGER does the job it was implemented to do – which was a house of STATE review. It is now a party political thing, where Liberal policy and Labor policy collide….. In my experience they simply do not represent the states at all…

But, if you WANT states, then do it properly – Bring back the customs booths. Seriously!

Jim Jones said :

The problem isn’t that ‘the people’ don’t want it to happen …

Actually, the other problem is that people quickly realise they could end up with a Kennet, a Joh, an Iemma or a WA-Inc or a Stanhope running the entire country. At least under the current system, you can run away to Tasmania or SA or even FNQ if it all gets too much.

Those state abolitionists seem to always think that the federal government is always good and wise, and neglect the value of the states in standing up for their parachial interests. And the ACT is a great example of how expanded regional governments (ie big councils) aren’t sustainable.

James-T-Kirk10:42 am 16 Feb 10

I am all for the creation of a new state.

And – While we are at it – BRING BACK THE CUSTOMS BOOTHS on the borders.

If we want states – lets do it PROPERLY!

Rawhide Kid No 28:28 am 16 Feb 10

Power Protect said :

deye said :

meh, abolish all states and make it two levels, fed and super councils 😀

+1

The last thing we need is someone pushing for another level of governance.

Can someone please tell me what really needs to be managed on a state by state level.

Hospitals – every state has hospitals…manage it nationally
Schools – every state has schools…manage it nationally
Transport – better dealt with on a local level, with collaboration between regions

Police
Emergency Services

Rawhide Kid No 28:26 am 16 Feb 10

deye said :

meh, abolish all states and make it two levels, fed and super councils 😀

+ 1

How about a referendum to reduce the number of state Senators by at least half – they are a waste of space. All referendums that have not been about more power for the Federal government have been successful.

Frug said :

How does that happen in other similar western democracies? I know that Washington DC citizens have a similar problem as ACT citizen – but what about UK? Canada? New Zealand?

It’s not an issue in the UK or NZ because they have no state or equivalent, but in Canada, both Ottawa and Gatineu (Ottawa’s neighbour twin city across the border in Quebec) are part of a National Capital Region, controlled by a National Capital Commission, which is probably as annoying as the NCA… Maybe that’s a better arrangement than ours, but it doesn’t seem to be all that different…

New Zealand is one country no states, and canada is a mess half french and the other english. The ACT is for all people of Australia not just for the people who live in the ACT. The ACT has fallen apart since self government. Its about time it went back the way its was.

How does that happen in other similar western democracies? I know that Washington DC citizens have a similar problem as ACT citizen – but what about UK? Canada? New Zealand?

Are we unable to ask Stanhope, Zed or any other local State polly to make sure our bins are collected, run a school BUT not turn the Parliament into a megamall?

I reckon we could manage.

The home of reliable information, Wikipedia, gives us this (followed by a ‘citation needed’)

“The wording of s.125 of the Australian Constitution suggests that the ACT must remain a territory and cannot become a state”

Aurelius said :

Just to correct Trevar on a minor point: there are no provisions in the Aust Constitution to allow secession of a state.

The ACT was not a colony at the time of Federation, and thus was not included in the document as a state. Amendment could be made to the constitution, but of course that rarely happens.

As the NT demonstrated…

But to clarify my intention, I didn’t meant to suggest that the constitution makes provision for a state’s secession, only that it would be wrong (from an ethical standpoint) for the rest of the Commonwealth or any state to interfere if a state decided to secede. The role of the state governments is to look after their own interests, not the interests of the Commonwealth, and that’s why I don’t think the national capital should be in a state.

Feathergirl said :

The ACS doesn’t sound as snappy as the ACT. Or would our new state have a new name? Suggestion – New Reptoidland???

How about The Capital Wasteland?

The ACT was originally known as FCT (Federal Capital Territory). It was changed when the politicians realised how FCT the original name was!

Why not call it the Australian Supreme State? It kinda has a ring to it, you know ASS.

Trunking symbols5:01 pm 15 Feb 10

Feathergirl said :

The ACS doesn’t sound as snappy as the ACT. Or would our new state have a new name? Suggestion – New Reptoidland???

The ACT was originally known as FCT (Federal Capital Territory). It was changed when the politicians realised how FCT the original name was!

Jim Jones said :

Frug said :

The problem isn’t that ‘the people’ don’t want it to happen, but rather that moving the Federalism debate in this direction involves upsetting entrenched power and vested interests (all the State governments, for a start) as well as revisiting the Australian Constitution (and probably rewriting big slabs of it).

No re-write necessary:

Chapter VI. New States.

121. The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

122. The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

123. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.

124. A new State may be formed by separation of territory from a State, but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.

Power Protect12:53 pm 15 Feb 10

Feathergirl said :

The ACS doesn’t sound as snappy as the ACT. Or would our new state have a new name? Suggestion – New Reptoidland???

(stan)Hopetopia

Frug said :

If you reckon creating a State out of the ACT is hard, imagine trying to convince the people of any State that they should give up their govs. Aint gonna happen.

The figures I’ve seen generally have the bulk of people in favour of abolishing State governments in one way or another (3 tiers of government seems excessive given the relatively small population of Australia).

The problem isn’t that ‘the people’ don’t want it to happen, but rather that moving the Federalism debate in this direction involves upsetting entrenched power and vested interests (all the State governments, for a start) as well as revisiting the Australian Constitution (and probably rewriting big slabs of it).

Well, our current ‘territory’ gov acts as a council might anyway so we in the ACT don’t need to worry about an additional layer of pollies/public servants. We’d get the best of both worlds – appropriate representation, and our garbage collected.

The argument that other State govs are so crap as to make any argument for ACT not to be a State has some weight – they are, indeed, crap. But on the flip side, those State govs are the product of a process – the people who put them there have a degree of responsibility for voting for them. So, are you arguing that NSW, WA, SA and QLD are populated by halfwitted loons? Maybe you’re right. Maybe there are no people worthy of running anything in Australia. And those that are are smart enough to stay away from politics altogether.

As for the disolution of the original States as a plan – If you reckon creating a State out of the ACT is hard, imagine trying to convince the people of any State that they should give up their govs. Aint gonna happen.

I suppose it comes down to whether you want a strong federal gov or not – and if so, how are all Australians to be represented fairly in that system. Right now we have the worst of both worlds – strong states v strong fed = inaction – eg water rights. So could could wait until that battle is resolved (none of us is going to live to see that) or begin to take our democratic seats at the big kids table.

Clown Killer12:09 pm 15 Feb 10

The only downside I see to removing Australia’s middle level of government is a steep jump in unemployment, but with sufficient planning and a little compensation this can be dealt with and ultimately the nation will save a fortune.

There’s another massive downside – more centralised and bigger government – and that is never (ever) a good thing.

if we make act a state, let’s make noo zulland a state, too (apparently still on the constituional cards as a possibility)

luther_bendross11:53 am 15 Feb 10

+1 for New Reptiodland. Not necessarily for the name though, more for the introduction of half man-half lizard super-beings to impose a reign of terror over us all. I for one welcome our new overlords… so long as the Valorians keep their goody two shoes noses out of this.

old canberran11:10 am 15 Feb 10

I doubt whether statehood for the ACT could ever happen while the Crown owns all the land and controls the National aspects of the Territory such as the Parliamentary triangle etc.

Power Protect10:37 am 15 Feb 10

deye said :

meh, abolish all states and make it two levels, fed and super councils 😀

+1

The last thing we need is someone pushing for another level of governance.

Can someone please tell me what really needs to be managed on a state by state level.

Hospitals – every state has hospitals…manage it nationally
Schools – every state has schools…manage it nationally
Transport – better dealt with on a local level, with collaboration between regions

The only downside I see to removing Australia’s middle level of government is a steep jump in unemployment, but with sufficient planning and a little compensation this can be dealt with and ultimately the nation will save a fortune.

The ACS doesn’t sound as snappy as the ACT. Or would our new state have a new name? Suggestion – New Reptoidland???

Holden Caulfield10:15 am 15 Feb 10

+1 to deye

yah I’m not real keen on statehood especially after seeing how all the other states are going!

deye said :

meh, abolish all states and make it two levels, fed and super councils 😀

Yep, and use the besquillion dollars that would be saved to improve core service delivery.

meh, abolish all states and make it two levels, fed and super councils 😀

Section 121 of the Constitution allows for the creation of new states but Parliament can decide what representation the new state gets. It would be difficult for a polly to argue that there is something about the folk of ACT that they deserved any less representation than other states as population is supposed to be an issue in the upper house.

WHy bother? Well, right now ACT people are under-represented in Parliament. Many, probably couldn’t give a damn because they have little/no faith in what happens in APH anyway. I reckon, however, that the concept of ‘territory’ as applies to NT and ACT is an anachronism that we could fix without much trouble. We deserve the same voting, legislative, democratic voice as the Tasmanians, South Australians, Victorians etc.

As for Commonwealth control over the ACT – we have had self gov for long enough to prove that we can run our own affairs with at least some sanity some of the time….. If the Commonwealth was petrified that we were going to vote for APH to be a 9 hole golf course (you can’t tell me that wouldn’t be great) then we could, in our own ACT constitutional document exclude the Parliamentary triangle.

Just to correct Trevar on a minor point: there are no provisions in the Aust Constitution to allow secession of a state.

The ACT was not a colony at the time of Federation, and thus was not included in the document as a state. Amendment could be made to the constitution, but of course that rarely happens.

I can’t see what is to be gained by Statehood for the ACT. If it is simply to prevent the Federal Government “flipping our laws as they see fit” I’m not concerned.

In my view the current ACT Assembly is already far too interested in dancing on the national stage, and not interested enough in simply managing our city efficiently.

The ACT, like the District of Columbia in the US, was set up to serve the interests of the nation, which is why the Constitution provides for the establishment of a separate territory that is controlled by the Commonwealth. There is a problem with this arrangement insofar as the supreme power over the people of the capital territory (who are theoretically a sovereign people) is vested in the sovereign people of the states, but this is mostly addressed by self-government.

A state should be able to secede from the Commonwealth, and to establish laws exclusively in their own interest; but there is a threat to the integrity and usefulness of the capital of the nation if it is also a state, which can engage in self-interested changes with no concern for the interests of the Commonwealth.

New South Wales’ current political instability is a prime example of a state failing to act in the best interests of the nation. I’d be more inclined to support the abolition of the other six states than the introduction of another.

I suspect that even if a push gained support, that we wouldn’t get the full complement of (currently 12) senators. Those only go to original states.

umm… what for?

Not necessarily. Only the original states have those rights, I think any new states would have their rights dictated by the Parliament.

By the way, do you want statehood for the ACT or just Canberra?

sexynotsmart9:49 pm 14 Feb 10

Huzzah! A political chestnut I have a position on. (Insert air guitar hotlick here.)

ACT should become a state when the population exceeds that of Tasmania.

There will be pressure to make ACT part of NSW. This should be resisted at all costs. If forced to join another state, ACT should become part of WA. Can you imagine a state with two non-contiguous timezones? Awesome!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.