The problem of thinking within a limited circle of ideas Ross, is the questions are limited, and so also are the answers!
And even less productive than wishing and hoping?

With one single exception, we are the most over-governed people on the planet; and if we the people had the power to do so, we the people should just dissolve state parliaments!
Rather than worry how to fund and or prop up, what has patently become a crisis riddled nest of endless corruption, or kindergarten for scoundrels, simply incapable of putting the people and their real needs first?

If that's difficult to come to grips with, just look at the Fitzgerald/Slipper inquiry, or the passing parade perambulating through ICAC!
There's nothing these people do, that couldn't be done more efficiently and effectively, by local government.
And just that much change would put an additional 70 billions into coal face public service.
And total service/coal face funding in, i.e., health and education could be improved by a further 30%, just by handing over local autonomy, and direct federal funding!
Ross, you may well wish to argue for the retention of the states, and their double handling, paper shuffling, exponentially expanding army of extraordinarily expensive bureaucrats; and or, how to better fund them!
When in fact our very future and prosperity depends almost exclusively on being first with lower taxes and lower energy costs! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Just concentrate on how to achieve that much in real terms Ross, and you will be protecting all our futures, rather than ivory tower academic argument; designed to only ever protect woolly headed bureaucrats, I believe, who've likely never done a real, dirt on the hands job, or had to compete for custom!
Rhrosty.

From what I understood, the authors of our Constitution always envisaged that we would create more states as the nation grew. We had around 4 million people in 1900. Now 24 million. But the same states and same boundaries. We could have created more states and not bothered with local government, or perhaps should have abolished the states and gone with local, but I don't think anyone ever envisaged both to the extent we have them now. Still, it's an entirely academic debate: in most states we struggle with abolition of an upper house, let alone getting rid of the whole thing.

Mr Elliott wants the many to have to pay more so that the few can pay less.