Federalism
A much more general topic than my usual property law issues this week.
There’s talk again of constitutional reform. Some want another turn at becoming a republic, some want to abolish the states. Our federation has existed now for over 100 years. This is a relatively long period for a federation to subsist. History tends to show that federations either split apart or else absorb the constituent parts in fairly quick time. So for example Norway and Denmark were a federation for much of the 19th Century, then split apart in 1905, Czechoslovakia was another federation and has split into two countries.
But will the federation survive? Canberra controls the money for two reasons First the Commonwealth has priority in collecting taxes. This happened in World War Two and was originally supposed to be a wartime emergency measure. IT just became accepted. Second the Commonwealth uses the money to make grants to states so it can call the shots even in areas where a stranger reading the Constitution might consider the Commonwealth has no place and probably where the founding fathers thought the Commonwealth had no place.
.
The problem is that the original State boundaries which were mainly an historical accident- its hard to explain all the straight lines on the map by any geographical reason may have had relevance in the 19th century are no longer necessarily the best arrangement for regional administration in the 21st century. So for example it might be best that the Murray Darling basin would be run by one authority.
One solution is just to abolish the States, but regional and climatic differences mean that it is very difficult to administer the country from one national centre. And the Murray River is just one example of a special area that needs special control.
But there is another reason altogether. And that is summed up in the saying "Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely"(You might be interested to know that phrase was originally used by Lord Acton an English Catholic in response to the Pope declaring himself infalliable on matters of faith and morals). IF there is one big government then it has more power, we can see how the state government controls local government – again theres an example just the other day with Huntlee. Is it better to divide power between federal and state- and perhaps give local government more power?
Local papers 16.2.09
Monday, March 2, 2009
Vendor disclosure 1
For over twenty years sellers of real estate have had to give a lot of information. If you want to sell your house you need to have a complete (if draft) contract ready so purchasers can look at it. If you want to sell industrial or commercial property you need to give the purchaser the information before the contract is exchanged (which is when the contract becomes binding).
Probably the most important information the vendor has to give is what most people know as the zoning certificate – but it really gives a lot more information than just the zoning. For example it tells you if the council wants to widen the road next to the property , whether the land is affected by mine subsidence, by bush fires (which as you may have seen on the news doesn’t just affect houses in forested areas) or by land slip.
One of the locally important pieces of information it gives is if the land is flood affected and if so to what extent. So for example in the northern part Branxton and in Central Maitland the certificate will tell you that the land was within the 100 year flood area (which is generally thought of as being the area inundated in the 1956 flood). In parts of Central Maitland the certificate goes further and tells you that you can’t build a new house on the land –that zoning is because the land is believed is even more likely to be flooded or a house on it is more likely to be damaged in a major flood The difference in Maitland can be seen between the railway end of Church St (which was within the 100 year flood and was affected by the 1955 flood but where you can build a house) and Horseshoe Bend where you cant build a house (much of that area was also affected by other floods).
One problem is that the certificate can only tell you what the council knows. So again for example the certificates didn’t tell you that much of newcastle was subject to earthquakes before 1989. Now they do.
Another problem is that the certificates don’t tell you about adjoining land. So –to take an example from a recent court case- the purchasers wanted to buy a house in Pymble in Sydney. The certificate disclosed that the state government had a Planning Policy which over rode local council powers (we have them in the area too- so for example the Bengalla mine near Muswellbrook and the Sweetwater development near Branxton was approved by the State government over the council’s objections). It didn’t say that the adjoining block was affected by this state policy and that that adjoining block had been selected for medium density housing.
Often – perhaps usually –what is going to happen next door may not matter but sometimes it does. And so the state government should change the zoning certificates (it determines the information that is to be provided in them) so that first it notifies council of its decisions in advance (according to the Mercury Cessnock Council wasn’t notified of the Sweetwater approval) and second those decisions are included in zoning certificates.
Probably the most important information the vendor has to give is what most people know as the zoning certificate – but it really gives a lot more information than just the zoning. For example it tells you if the council wants to widen the road next to the property , whether the land is affected by mine subsidence, by bush fires (which as you may have seen on the news doesn’t just affect houses in forested areas) or by land slip.
One of the locally important pieces of information it gives is if the land is flood affected and if so to what extent. So for example in the northern part Branxton and in Central Maitland the certificate will tell you that the land was within the 100 year flood area (which is generally thought of as being the area inundated in the 1956 flood). In parts of Central Maitland the certificate goes further and tells you that you can’t build a new house on the land –that zoning is because the land is believed is even more likely to be flooded or a house on it is more likely to be damaged in a major flood The difference in Maitland can be seen between the railway end of Church St (which was within the 100 year flood and was affected by the 1955 flood but where you can build a house) and Horseshoe Bend where you cant build a house (much of that area was also affected by other floods).
One problem is that the certificate can only tell you what the council knows. So again for example the certificates didn’t tell you that much of newcastle was subject to earthquakes before 1989. Now they do.
Another problem is that the certificates don’t tell you about adjoining land. So –to take an example from a recent court case- the purchasers wanted to buy a house in Pymble in Sydney. The certificate disclosed that the state government had a Planning Policy which over rode local council powers (we have them in the area too- so for example the Bengalla mine near Muswellbrook and the Sweetwater development near Branxton was approved by the State government over the council’s objections). It didn’t say that the adjoining block was affected by this state policy and that that adjoining block had been selected for medium density housing.
Often – perhaps usually –what is going to happen next door may not matter but sometimes it does. And so the state government should change the zoning certificates (it determines the information that is to be provided in them) so that first it notifies council of its decisions in advance (according to the Mercury Cessnock Council wasn’t notified of the Sweetwater approval) and second those decisions are included in zoning certificates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)