An excellent article, John and Klaas. It's amazing to see that the writing has been on the wall for 65 years! I loved your quote from Gordon Greenwood (1942) who wrote:

“Despite its achievements, the evidence points decisively to the conclusion that the federal system has outlived its usefulness, that the conditions which made federation a necessary stage in the evolution of Australian nationhood have largely passed away, and that the retention of the system now operates only as an obstacle to effective government and to a further advance.”

Greenwood's words ring as true today. You show that his views have been echoed by eminent civic leaders throughout Australian history.

Would it not be wise to engage the Productivity Commission to impartially examine the alternative models proposed for the future of Australian government?

Shoudn't policy on such a crucial decision be best informed by the Productivity Commission's definative report on the net benefits of unitary government versus the Premiers' 'new federalism'?

The wake-up call to Australia is sure to be the massive cost of maintaining the status quo of our hopelessly, dysfunctional federalism.

I have been postulating for some time that the establishment within Labor have been secretly 'building' a two-tiered socialist system. It is also quite apparent to me, that Labors 120yr beleif that Australia should be a Republic modelled in their image, is near to completion.
I have a discussion piece on it here: http://polanimal.it.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=6620

I disagree that the Federalist system is more broke than what common wisdom would have it. Considering that Labor has a vast state bureaucracy at its command, it is easily assumed that they are using this systemic problem as a weapon against their political enemy, the Liberal party. The public is to be ignored in this battle.

A Stealth Republic is imminent, in my view, as Labor has been working pretty hard behind the scenes to prepare for the upcoming elections, by dismantling the old regional government system and replacing it with Laborised mass-government structure.

What ROT, If the Libs where in power in all the states and not in the Fed government then federalism would be the greatest idea man has ever had. It's really sad to see Sydney siders believing that a government dominated by Sydney siders would do the right thing for a country town like Broome. No I say we need more states not less we need less centralise power.

A federalism with a number of new states, as already provided for in the Federal Constitution, would be far more practical and achievable than a complete rewrite of the the entire system, which has buckleys chance.

Those who would abolish the states have not considered what to do with the existing metropolitan centres. The costings of new states have applied the economics of Tasmania's half million population to an assumed replication into 40 such entities covering our 20 million population and concluded that there would be major duplication costs amounting to 40 times the Tasmanian budget variances (without adjusting for the impact of Bass Straight or purchasing power)

But there is neither need nor desire for dividing the four million residents of Sydney into 8 regional governments. There is just as little need for 7 regional governments in Melbourne, 5 in SEQld or 2 each in Perth and Adelaide. This majority (60%) of the population is best served by the existing defacto city states that continue to represent their own distinct community of interest.

The abolishion of states would impose major inefficiencies on the existing metropolises, on top of their existing diseconomies of scale.

The other 40% of the population is disadvantaged most by the current duplication of unitary, urban dominated, governments at state and federal level. The regions primary lack is a government engine of growth. Unless the full suite of state powers are transferred to regional governments those regions will merely replace one distant bureaucracy with another distant federal one.

Regional voters deserve the same state powers that urban voters already enjoy. And it would then be up to each new state to decide whether to absorb local government, as ACT has done, or modify it to suit their own circumstances.

Frankly, it is the height of metrocentric arrogance for the authors or any other parties to be proposing a single "one size fits all" solution on the diverse communities of this country. It is their choice to make, not the prerogative of the majority to impose its will on everyone else. That is the problem to date.

quite right, perseus- that's why i push democracy as a cure-all, decentralization on the swiss model would fix many problems, if australia had citizens.

alas, we are mere subjects, people to whom things are done. ozzies are chock full of ideas about the current failings of society, but it never crosses their mind that the problems are the natural result of centralized power.

pollie rule is what we have had since federation. they have had ample time to fix any problems, if they were going to. every problem of internal cause is all their own work. if you want better performance, you need a better system.

Perseus, could we recommend that you read the article carefully? We do believe that metropolitan/large city governments should be part of the second tier. We aim at a better system of decentralisation. The current federal system has clearly failed in that respect.

Some other commentators also tend to see federation as a kind of insurance against centralism. They approach the subject from an (old) anti-labour perspective thinking somehow that the current APL Premiers are forging a dangerous plot that'll surprise us all. The reality looks very different to us! The parties are look-alikes more than ever!

We also say look at other unitary states. Most of them are not highly centralised as claimed or feared. Why would that be?

Klaas