State of chaos drags us down

November 14, 2008 12:00am

NICE bridge. Shame about the city. In fact, Sydney is sliding from a joke to a disaster, and it's taking the rest of us with it.

Not since Joan Kirner in Victoria have we seen a state led as catastrophically as is NSW, and Sydney is just the tawdry measure of its astonishing decline.

Correction: NSW Labor makes Kirner's lot look a model of propriety. At least her ministers, numbers men, hacks and faction heavies, were honest - and fully clothed - as they drove Victoria into the ground.

They weren't murdering each other, dancing half-naked in Parliament, molesting boys, sleeping with developers bearing gifts or walking over the bodies of men shot just 90 minutes earlier.

Sure, we in Melbourne may gloat, now that Sydney's refugees will help us to become the country's biggest city by 2054, at least according to the Bureau of Statistics.

But what should wipe the smirk off our faces is the fact that NSW now threatens to drag the whole country into a recession.

So mismanaged has the state been for so long that the new Premier, Nathan Rees, this week confessed his state would run a deficit this financial year of almost $1 billion.

And that's only after his mini-Budget slashed spending by $3.3 billion over the next four years, and hiked taxes by $3.6 billion.

How does this hurt us?

Here's how: our flagging economy so needs extra spending that the Rudd Government has just announced a $10.4 billion cash-for-Christmas stimulus package, hoping to stop us from slumping into recession.

The Federal Government lifts spending to save the country; the NSW Government slashes spending to save itself. And you and I will pay, brother.

Already, federal Treasury Secretary Ken Henry has hinted that the feds may have to spend even more of our money to make up for the cash these NSW clowns have pulled out.

Nor does the damage stop there. NSW, responsible for a third of the national economy, is predicted to grow this financial year by an anaemic 1.25 per cent - well under Treasury's forecast for the national economy of 2 per cent.

NSW is the sick man of Australia, and the only consolation is the rest of us don't have to live there.

We don't have to put up with electricity supplies so precarious that the state is predicted to run out of power in just six years.

We don't (quite) have to live with water supplies so run-down that Rees now admits Sydney last summer came close to "drinking mud".

We don't have to live in a state whose leaders are so frightened of unions that public transport is still run by the Government - at crippling losses.

We don't have to put up with trains so bad that one in four carriages breaks down every month, with the Auditor-General warning that not enough new ones are being bought to meet demand.

We don't have to put up with one public hospital scandal after another, or a Department of Community Services so dysfunctional that 156 children it knew were at risk died last year before its eyes - up from 114 the year before.

We don't have to put up with such clogged roads, such green-inspired land shortages and such expensive housing. We don't have to live in a city of race riots, ethnic enclaves and beaches ruled by surfer gangs.

Oh, excuses are being made, of course. The latest is that the financial crisis came along and suddenly spoiled a perfectly good set of books.

But this is a collapse that was years in the making. Rome wasn't destroyed in a day.

You can trace Sydney's fall back to the decade-long reign of Bob Carr, the Labor premier and media pet who decided the best solution to a city bursting at the seams was simply to shut its doors.

"Sydney is full," this global warming worshipper declared. Heaven forbid it should grow. Just think of all the gases! Those hideous McMansions.

And he went to sleep, along with his ministers. No dams were built. No transport reformed. No electricity system privatised or made efficient.

Indeed, the then minister in charge of the iconic Snowy River scheme even boasted that this great damming of the waters for irrigation and power was exactly the kind of thing the Government would now "not necessarily pursue because we live in a more environmentally conscious age".

Want another symbol of the decline? Not one of the five rail projects Carr promised Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong a decade ago has yet been built. The only one to even be started is already two years behind schedule and millions over budget.

If all this failure had at least been achieved with a Kirner-style ideological purity or a Steve Bracks-style amiability, you might even forgive it. If you were a dope.

But to be delivered such a national tragedy by such a bunch of sleazebags and bunglers is unforgivable. Yes, there are also many decent politicians in this Government, but count the scandals of this past year alone.

We've seen former Aboriginal affairs minister Milton Orkopoulos jailed for sexually assaulting boys and handing out heroin, and his chief of staff, Sergeant Nathan "I know nnnnnothing" Rees, made premier.

We've seen Education Minister John Della Bosca stood down while police checked what threats he and his wife, federal Labor MP Belinda Neal, might have made to staff at a bar who merely asked them to moved tables.

pt1

We've seen the police minister sacked for dancing in just his underpants at a party in his Parliament House office, and allegedly rubbing himself against a female colleague while telling her daughter: "I'm titty-f...ing your mother."

This week we saw the small business minister sacked after an independent inquiry ruled he'd lied when denying he'd verbally abused a woman on his staff, and grabbed her to make sure she stayed for his spray.

We've had the same minister now accused of threatening to attack a senior policeman in Parliament if he didn't stop investigating a close associate. (The allegation is denied.)

And last month the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended the prosecution of 11 people, four of them former Labor councillors of Wollongong City, after an investigation into a planning officer who had slept with, and taken bribes from, developers needing her help.

You'd think that was enough to fill the slop bucket. Enough already. Tip the stinking lot over the side.

But wait, there's even more.

A judicial inquiry into the murder of Labor MP John Newman this week heard Reba Meagher, another dumped minister, explain how she first became a Labor politician, the NSW way.

She said she was just 26 when she was called into the office of Della Bosca, then the state Labor general secretary, to be offered a seat in the NSW Parliament - as a reward for not standing for the Senate position he wanted for his wife.

Small problem. Both seats were already held by Labor politicians, one of them John Newman.

But, bang. Problem no longer. Not six hours later Newman was shot dead in his driveway, a crime for which a Labor councillor and numbers man, Phuong Ngo has been jailed.

And just 90 minutes later Della Bosca rang Meagher - or so she told the inquiry - again asking if she'd like Newman's Cabramatta seat.

(Della Bosca told the murder trial in 2000 he could not recall meeting Meagher that afternoon and offering her any seat. Nor is anyone suggesting he had any prior knowledge of any threat to Newman's life.)

What is astonishing is that it's only a year since this Government was returned to power. How did the voters come to make such a ghastly mistake?

They are sure repenting it. Labor last month lost a by-election for Ryde after a swing against it of 22.9 per cent. Labor's support in Newspoll has plummeted from 59 per cent at the start of last year to 44 per cent now.

And the media support that propped up Labor for so long has dropped with it. The Sydney Morning Herald this week branded Rees "the demolition man". The rival Daily Telegraph shouted, "Premier, sack yourself . . . and your wretched Government", and was flooded with thousands of emails from readers clamoring for a new election.

But that's the catch . . . and warning. NSW, stupidly, has fixed, four-year terms. This shiftless, shifty gang will be in power for three more years.

This is not just a threat to the economy of NSW. It's a threat to all Australians. And it's a threat to the trust voters put in their democracy to give them a government that truly represents them.

For God's sake, call an election. Even Melbourne cannot afford the rabble that now rules Sydney.

end...  
had to post it...  even interstate journos can see what rubbish we have to put up with in NSW.  Mind you I've been trying to vote 'em out for years.

Hmmmm  OZPOLITICs... might be nice if we had a specific forum for it eh?  ;D

Yes - there's nothing to disagree with you on this one.  Apart from our expressways being car parks and the M5 being the heaviest polluted tunnel in the world - thanks to cost cutting, they are replacing our double decker trains with single deckers.

This is unbelievable.  These trains are already full to the brim and do they really expect people from Newcastle, Wollongong and the Blue Mountains to stand all the way to the city packed like cattle.  Those on some lines will have to change trains again at Central to get to their destination.

The $9.2 billion worth of d.decker trains have already been ordered and are in the process of being made.  How much will NSW lose by cancelling this order.

Now there is talk of using our rates as a benchmark - and doubling the figure to pay state taxes in lieu of stamp duty and land tax to encourage property investment.  As some councils are broke (gambling) and the cap has been taken off for rate rises and they are set to go higher - this means people, regardless of the stamp duty already paid will have to pay another $2-3000 plus to the state government annually on top of their rates.

But you can't sack a government for being incompetent or slack - they have to be corrupt as a whole and do any of those from NSW really believe O'Farrell will be any better?  He's about as motivated as a snail.

Isn't it about time NSW got their $3-4 billion GST back that they've had forfeited to prop up other states.  NSW needs it now and desperately.  Their actions are sending people insane.

It is about time for states to be abolished. Too many politicians cost too much.

mantra...  yes we should have more GST,,,  thankyou Bob Carr.  You think Kevvie will give it back to us?

Oh and just like Debnam, O'Farrell can't be any worse so yes a change is better.  (Your personality politics really irks me)

Tallow, used to think that but I now think going back to State Governors and a system similar to the US in that regards might be better.

tallowood wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 6:37am:

It is about time for states to be abolished. Too many politicians cost too much.

States have too much individual identity, although theoretically we can do without them. Sweden, with about 10 million people can do without state parliaments. Australia with 20 million could possibly do the same.

Perhaps we can retain the states, but just have a small council for each.

Bit of a difference in size...   ::)

Grendel wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:17pm:

Bit of a difference in size...   ::)

Sweden has quite a large geographical range. If you could pivot it on its southern edge, the northern border would swing as far South as North Africa

Well in terms of size and population, we ca take Canada as another example. They have 33 million people, and they have a similar government system to ours.

We need to have some kind of localised checks and balances, because Tasmania would have different issues to the NT for example. I like the idea of a federation of councils for each State.

Why not to have a federation of local councils then?

IMO
Too unwieldy
I think the 3 levels are necessary but i think we need to change how they work and interact.  Hence my suggestion

That would be like COAG. Simply getting a bunch of people together won't necessarily achieve anything. They need to have a mandate, otherwise it can only work on consensus, but even that would be hamstrung by lack of resources.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 2:57pm:

That would be like COAG. Simply getting a bunch of people together won't necessarily achieve anything. They need to have a mandate, otherwise it can only work on consensus, but even that would be hamstrung by lack of resources.

Why? It can be just like it is now but without state govs in between.

I suspect what it really comes down to is economies of scale. For example, you would not want to have to ring canberra to get a pothole fixed. There are some things that no doubt work better if administered from a state level. Of course, this will change with technology etc, which I suspect is the real problem.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 3:16pm:

I suspect what it really comes down to is economies of scale. For example, you would not want to have to ring canberra to get a pothole fixed. There are some things that no doubt work better if administered from a state level. Of course, this will change with technology etc, which I suspect is the real problem.

Cost me the same to call Canberra or Sydney beside most of local potholes is responsibility of local councils while highways are canberrian even now.

It's not the cost of the call that matters, it's having someone local in charge of minor local issues.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 3:25pm:

It's not the cost of the call that matters, it's having someone local in charge of minor local issues.

Our local state reps are as local as our federal reps.

No they aren't. There are fewer fed reps for starters and they can't be local to everyone.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 3:33pm:

No they aren't. There are fewer fed reps for starters and they can't be local to everyone.

Abandoning states will release resources so number of reps can be increased but it will reduce number of governments so additional resources can be allocated to to something useful instead of self-serving cheating politicians.

You are suggesting the same number of politicians. As far as I know federal ones cost more, so it would hardly save money. Furthermore state vs federal representation is a form of specialisation. Simply having a massive number of fed reps instead destroys that automatic specialisation and there is no reason to think it will result in better service. I want my fed rep to think about the interest of the nation as a whole, not about my potholes.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 4:02pm:

You are suggesting the same number of politicians. As far as I know federal ones cost more, so it would hardly save money. Furthermore state vs federal representation is a form of specialisation. Simply having a massive number of fed reps instead destroys that automatic specialisation and there is no reason to think it will result in better service. I want my fed rep to think about the interest of the nation as a whole, not about my potholes.

No, I am not suggesting the same number of politicians as sum of current fed and states polies. Thought the number of s reps are different from the number f reps some of them if not the most do overlap geographically.

Let the feds do the nation and local and I mean LOCAL councils do the potholes.

There is plenty of management that is better suited to a scale between local and federal.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 4:22pm:

There is plenty of management that is better suited to a scale between local and federal.

I don't see why bureaucracy can't be organise to fill the scale.

You want to replace democracy with bureacracy?

Not that this is the actual topic, but it seems to me I'm the only one to come up with a suggestion which maintains democracy, maintains 3 levels of government and reduces the number of politicians.

Can you explain it again, without the partisan jibes?

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 4:37pm:

You want to replace democracy with bureacracy?

This above is a fine example of pintrahism but don't we have bureaucracy and democracy at present and didn't we had them in the not so long ago past?
So the answer is no I don't. In addition I want to say that I don't believe that bureaucracy and democracy are incompatible.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 8:01pm:

Can you explain it again, without the partisan jibes?

Yea, I want to read it too.

tallowood wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 8:03pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 18th, 2008 at 8:01pm: Can you explain it again, without the partisan jibes? Yea, I want to read it too.

Me too. I definitely want to read something constructive from Grendel for a change. Count me in.

Quote:

Can you explain it again, without the partisan jibes? Yea, I want to read it too. Me too. I definitely want to read something constructive from Grendel for a change. Count me in.

Those comments are so familiar - where have I heard them before?  Do you remember Grendel?   ::)

partisan jibes?

Sorry  care to provide a quote, I don't seem to recall any.

Did you guys miss my suggestion already...  too short?  too concise perhaps?

All I've provided so far are statements of fact.

Tallow, what is pintrahism?

Yes, Grendel, it seems we did miss your suggestion. Would you mind reposting it?

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 11:13am:

Tallow, what is pintrahism? Yes, Grendel, it seems we did miss your suggestion. Would you mind reposting it?

Actually I had misspelled the term, it is rintrahism.
Rintrahism is the collection of teachings by Rintrah(cabuh) about conflicting of a system with its own components. In original manuscript it was conflict of Democracy with liberalism and not socialism instead of liberalism and socialism conflicting with each other. There also was a teaching about putting a cart in front of a horse, which is the same as learning to run before learning to walk, I was referring to the first teaching though. Unfortunately Rintrah(cabuh) had departed before we got full benefits of the sagacity
and formally recorded it in internet media.

BTW, I've missed Grendel's great idea too, perhaps he used nanotechnology for which we are not technologically ready yet.

Did you delete it fd?
If not it's probably still there.

I'm so disappointed in you tallow, it seems you ignore everything I say to you as well as PMs.  ;D

Let's guess!

Maybe this was Grendel's suggestion!


Quote:

Tallow said It is about time for states to be abolished. Too many politicians cost too much. Grendel replied Tallow, used to think that but I now think going back to State Governors and a system similar to the US in that regards might be better.

No I haven't deleted anything. It's probably just that no-one can be bothered finding it amongst everything else you posted. Either that or you are confused about where (or if) you posted it. But don't worry, I'm sure if you thought it was of any value you would re-post it. If not, I'm happy to move on.

;D ;D ;D

So blinded you even missed mantra's post above yours?

is there any wonder I can't be bothered with you people sometimes?

No Grendel. It just wasn't there when I posted.

Is that all your suggestion was? 'Be more like America'?

You mean this little gem? -


Grendel wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 10:20am:

Tallow, used to think that but I now think going back to State Governors and a system similar to the US in that regards might be better.

Wow...  you repeated mantra Muso...  you guys are soooo clever.
Now if only fd could find it.

Be sure to let us know next time you have an idea Grendel, otherwise we might miss it.

In your stupidity...  are you flaming me fd?

Why do you dolts waste my time so often?
Why is it always personal with you goobers?

Why cant you just stick to the topic?

Oh and where are those jibes fd...  hmmm?

Unlike yourself I have no problem in reading posts.  Even those that aren't mine  ::)

Is that all your suggestion was? 'Be more like America'?

ah no...  did I mention system of state govenors?
No ?

how remiss of me.

Oh and that would entail a large reduction in the legislature...  remember i mentioned that too.

Almost forgot...  if it wasn't for men like Franklin and Jefferson fd the world would be a poorer place...  great Americans.  maybe you should do some reading.

Would you mind reposting your idea then? If you want people to comment on it for you of course. If you've changed your mind and want to let it go, that's OK.

Does the word thick mean anything to you...  or is one sentence perhaps too difficult for you to understand.

oh and if you'd like to discuss a reorganisation of state or Australian governence perhaps you should start a topic on it.

Or even start a forum on state politics as i asked already.

I'm not really that interested in discussing the topic if no-one is prepared to put forward ideas. I just thought you wanted people to comment on your alleged idea, that's all. If so, you should repost it, or flesh it out to more than half a sentence. Or follow your own advice and start a new thread. If not, I'm happy to let it go. It's up to you.

I am interested to discuss remaking of Australian political system on both state and federal levels. I have already put forward the idea (not mine) of state abolishment but ready to reconsider if there are reasonable alternatives because after all I don't see existence of states as evil in itself but rather as unreasonable financial overhead.

Of course to see reasonable alternatives requires inputs from other members and that in turn requires a full on discussion.

I will post the details of my proposition how to do it shortly.


appended:
The details are here

tallow... start another topic New South Wales was started to discuss the problems of NSW not the Australian electoral system or system of governance.

i mean that was what the opening post was about   right?

Not sure "Fringe' is exactly the right place for it.

Grendel wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 6:48pm:

tallow... start another topic New South Wales was started to discuss the problems of NSW not the Australian electoral system or system of governance. i mean that was what the opening post was about   right? Not sure "Fringe' is exactly the right place for it.

I started another topic in another forum but if nobody interested I will delete it by noon tomorrow.

As for NSW .... last time we had Nick G. it had finished off not better then it is now because it does not matter which hand left or right does the wank.

Grendel why would we want to be like the USA? The country that refused to help us in East Timor unless we handed over complete control of the mission to them, to which we told them to piss off.

They aren't there to help us. They are there to try and dominate the world and screw the world over.

Considering the situation NSW is in RECALL might be nice just for starters.

This isn't the topic BTW.

Want to discuss the opening post feel free to continue.

tallow and if people keep voting for the major parties things will never change.

Grendel wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 11:01pm:

This isn't the topic BTW. Want to discuss the opening post feel free to continue.

The good thing about the forum software is that you can change the topic ... bwahahahaha

(sound effect - noise of cornered cat)

Small things amuse small minds eh muso  ;D

ohhhhh...  and I was just getting used to the new title..

Do you think now we can get back on track and discuss the basket case that is NSW?

i suggest we abolish states and councils and introduces 20 super councils or ministates...

as for NSW if we dont vote in the liberals all it will prove is that people are morons who follow stereotype veiws of party's over reality

every person who voted for labor in the last election should be ashamed of themselves. the problems of the state were obvious and yet labor was still voted in with all their corruption.

and yet i dont blame corrupt labor government for our state problems i blame stupid selfish labor voters, they have destroyed our state, as they voted them in.

Isn't that what happened last time?

Memo, Liberals: Labor's incompetence alone won't carry Barry
Michael Duffy
November 22, 2008

Today's subject is that sorry bunch, the state Coalition. Barry O'Farrell and colleagues plumbed new depths this week, with their decision to campaign against what was almost the only good idea in the recent mini-budget: the decision to make parents pay a small proportion of their children's free school travel.

It's a good idea because cuts need to be made somewhere, thanks to economic circumstances, and this scheme is worth cutting because it is inefficient and inequitable. A lot of the scheme's cost of $470 million a year is for pupils who do not use public transport and a lot of those who do use it are the children of wealthy parents who do not need a subsidy.

This has not stopped the Coalition launching a new website, www .savestudenttravel.com.au. Parents are urged to protest against the Government's decision to make them pay $45 ($90 for high school pupils) of the $700 a year the scheme costs for each child. The Liberals got a good response to this from some voters, and why not? You can always find people to complain about having to pay more for anything. But in terms of good policy, the campaign might have been an own goal.

Liberals I have talked to have assured me the campaign "feeds into a growing narrative of discontent with the Labor Government". Maybe, but it also feeds into a similar narrative regarding the Coalition.

The Liberals obviously believe victory at the next election is inevitable. But, as Peter Debnam demonstrated, it is possible to be such a bad Opposition that voters will re-elect a poor government. Despite growing Coalition complacency, this could happen again.

In the past two weeks, the performance of the Opposition indicates it cannot yet be taken seriously. Its arguments about school travel were largely rhetoric, ranging in tone from the vacuous to the nasty. "Many families are breaking point," Barry O'Farrell announced in a press release. His facts were as off as his grammar. Some families are at breaking point and eligible to receive all sorts of assistance from government agencies and charities. But most are not. It is bad policy to argue for change for everyone based on the problems of a small minority.

O'Farrell says those pupils whose parents are too poor to pay the enormous contribution to the scheme will have to walk to school, which "puts them at greater risk because they often need to cross busy major roads".

But there is no escape for all those others who (somewhat mysteriously) will now be driven to school every day by parents anxious to save their $45. According to the Opposition transport spokeswoman, Gladys Berejiklian: "More cars on the road around schools increases the possibility of children being hit and injured or even killed."

Is this the best they can do?

This campaign reminds us of O'Farrell's poor policy record, his opposition to electricity privatisation and, more recently, his sad response to last week's mini-budget. That, too, was idea-free and high on rhetoric, as though the leader had swallowed a thesaurus.

Labor, he said, stole the hope that every man, woman and child is entitled to; NSW had become self-doubting and introspective; the Government had demonstrated deceit, arrogance, mismanagement, lack of vision, spin, failure to plan, mistakes, lies, savagery, sheer negligence, incompetence and bungling; Nathan Rees is lashing, slugging, cutting, attacking, kicking, and putting families on the hotplate. The state's services are appalling, diabolical, poorly managed, struggling, failed. Yes, Barry, but would you be any better?

The Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, issued a press release in response, saying O'Farrell "has failed to put forward one single idea or policy for the people of NSW … [He and his colleagues] have publicly stated their opposition to tough measures."

The Treasurer is not right about much but he was right about this. He also said that on the same day O'Farrell was promising Parliament a Coalition government would live within its means, he had told Mike Carlton's listeners on 2UE that if necessary such a government would borrow billions of dollars.

This inconsistent, heavily negative, policy-free approach is not good enough. It is not good for the state (good government is often inspired by good opposition) and it might not be good enough to get the Coalition over the line at the next election.

When I have put this to Liberals, they have responded with two arguments. The first is that if they put up any good ideas, the Government would just steal them. But that would seem to attribute too much good sense and decisiveness to the present cabinet. And even if they did steal a few good ideas, so what? The Opposition could take the credit and come up with some more.

The other argument is that the Opposition ought to remain a "small target" and not take any risk of making itself "the story". Well, this is OK if the voters already have some idea of what you stand for (see John Howard, 1996). But for most voters, the state Coalition is nothing but a hot air balloon stuffed with sound bites. It needs to be more than that.

pt1

pt2

Maybe it has recognised the problem, for last month it did something very odd: it launched a public appeal for policies. It is called Planning for Prosperity, a "consultation process" that will run until next March.

You can send your policy donations to: Office of the Leader of the Opposition, Level 10, Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000. Please give generously.