Abolishing States attracts regional Australians as an initial gut reaction to metropolitan malgovernance but once fully informed they invariably favour the modification of our notion of what a State can be and create more of them. This is also Geoffrey Blainey's view.

States don't need to be dominated by an ever bigger, ugglier and less sustainable megopolis but that is what ours do because we inherited an anglo/french notion of dominant London/Paris. The US "Farm States", and Canadian provinces, may still trade their commodities in Chicago but they write their own legislation in Cheyenne.

Wyoming (pop. 495,000) is only slighly larger than our home grown Farm State, Tasmania (pop. 480,000. Wyoming's capital, Cheyenne, (pop.53,000) represents 11% of voters and is entirely in tune with and dependent on it's hinterland. Wyoming ranked 8th best quality of life in 2002.

Abolishing states will deliver a mild increase in local government autonomy while delivering a second rate over-all standard of representation to regions.

It will never get up because it is, a) a radical change, b)it does not allow the cities to continue as they abviously want, and c)Drummond's savings don't stack up.

Local government is not even recognised in the Fed Constitution so change will involve multiple and complex reform with major risk. The existing state capitals are very attached to their state powers as a core element of their self definition. They make up 70% of the vote.

Drummond's calculation of cost savings from centralisation, and the assumed cost of duplication with new states, was based on a misunderstanding of fixed and variable costs. The fixed cost elements of a school or hospital will not be duplicated in a new state, nor eliminated in a unitary government. The schools and Hospitals remain regardless of the location of the seat of government. They are constants. They would only be subject to savings in a unitary state if the reform was also associated with mass depopulation of the area concerned.

New regional states are the only realistic option. "Nothing succeeds like Secession".

Well said Perseus I believe we need more states not less. We also need to find some way to slow the growth of cities like Sydeny and increase growth in country areas.

Yes to an Australian Police Force. An Australian educational system. An Australian drivers license,an Australian hospital service, instead of a WA or NSW or whatever.
Yet if we do away with states, which has many, many attractions, it would mean more power to the various 'Clown Halls' and the resident councillors.This could be a disaster unless these councils were "up-dated" and straightened out.
Maybe State Parliaments could become super statewide councils? only an idea.
Why not o/haul the federal Parliament. Make the speakers of both houses the natural progression of the Clerks of both houses.
Have politicians responsible only for setting policy and not in sole control of either house.Have the "new" speakers in charge of allocation of all monies. That's wages, allowances,travel and conduct of , as some see them - untrusworthy, greedy, sometimes corrupt - politicians in both houses. Let's have an Australian type, unique democracy. numbat

Could we create more states so that they reflected the diversity of Australias geography?

Little states with high population that encompass each capital city and the towns closest- Large states with few people but common problems of water managment and sevice delivery(a centralia?) and the ones in between.

Has anyone done any work in this direction?

Abolishing the states seems like a great idea at the time, but is far more difficult from a constitutional point of veiw than creating new ones. John August more or less acknowledges this in his last few lines, the obvious answer to the very real problems of mega/over/ centralised population is to do what the writers of our constitution envisaged and form more states along the demographic lines that suit particular regions and the populations, this should really be very easy and require little more than a vote at local government level to form the new state. Surely no State government would wish to over-ride the will and the basic human rights of its people in forming there own system of governance, that delivers real democratic rights and ensures economic, social and environmental sustainability, therefore ratification by the State government should be a matter of course. We need only witness the example of East Timor to see how valid is the right to self determination for all people at what ever level they require.

It is good that this arguement is up and running, the abolish the states arguement does very much emphasis the real and growing problems with our current political structures.

Hi Perseus, it's Mark Drummond here.

Just to clarify: I've always classed the costs associated with schools, hospitals, teachers, nurses, doctros etc. as marginal costs.

As at www.asc.org.au/Costing_ Constitutional_Change_21Oct02.pdf, on page 48, I state as follows:

"But, whereas marginal per capita costs – of schools, hospitals, teachers, nurses and so on – could be expected to accrue at more or less equal levels in both larger and smaller federal units ..."

The fixed costs are mainly associated with bureaucracy, central agencies, head office, parliaments etc.

In Defence of the New States position, certainly there'd be some New States configurations that could comfortably pay their own way - obvious examples are rich mining areas. Though if this happened in parts of WA, the remaining areas would be seriously impoverished. The WA economy relies extremely heavily on mining, like the QLD economy relies very heavily on tourism and population growth. In general, New States - if anything like our current States - would almost certainly exacerbate the problems associated with border anomalies, duplication of centralised bureacracy etc.

I appreciate constructive criticism and am currently doing my best in my near finished PhD thesis to present costing estaimtes in a competent and even-handed manner as best as possible.
Best wishes.

Regards, Mark

Yes, amalgate the Councils and give them more power over local issues.Make all positions paid ones so we have professionals and not amatuer interests groups grinding their own axes.

We could also get rid of Fed and State duplication and layers of bureauracy and thus taxation.Hey presto,we would then have money for infrastructure,Education and health!The economy would grow more and more tax would be available for the disabled,impoverished and elderly.The hippies could reach an earthly nervana without drugs.Perhaps the revelation of their misguided ideology would be too much to bare and they'd have to go Berko in Bali as do some Aussie models.

Yes, Jellyback, work is being done on this issue for NSW by NSW Farmers New State Assessment Group and the Landholders Institute Inc. Landholders are also working on Qld. AJ BRown (Griffith Uni)is working on a report for NSWF while Mark Drummond, above is doing his PhD on the issue.

Good to see you here, Mark.

I understand, and agree with, the mathematics of how you determined the fixed and variable portions of the cost structure but the assumption that all fixed costs will be saved in a consolidation, or duplicated in a de-merger, is not valid. You are blurring two concepts, they are not synonymous. The only way to determine the extent of the synergies is a line by line examination of the fixed and variable budget items.

You deserve full credit for the work building on the Tasmanian and ACT budgets as they do adjust the fixed cost element for changes in scale but a comparison of per capita and % outlays by purpose of all State budgets reveals greater variation from policy preference than by scale.

This matches similar budget comparisons between four US Farm States and California, done by Landholders. Both here and there, the COAG equalisation payments made to smaller states, and the US equivalent, provide compensation for the unique disadvantages of regional governance. But they also distort the true scale relationships.

Another very important issue is the right of a seceding state to have a working copy of all intellectual property and operating systems that are currently owned by the existing state. These assets are owned equally by all the citizens of the state and that right to benefit will pass to the new state entity. This obviously amounts to a major duplication, with both a fixed and variable element, but it would come at minimal cost and minimal adverse effect.

This, and similar budget items may best be given a separate label, not "duplication" but rather, "replication".

John August is on the money when he advocates abolishing State Governments. And it is not only the huge savings that would accrue with the elimination of duplication and overlap between State and Federal Gov'ts.

The creation of about 100 Regional Governments instead of State and the current Local Gov'ts, would provide a level of representation previously unheard of in this country.

Accountability would be enhanced with a constitutionally guaranteed percentage of national revenue going to each Regional Government.
That revenue could be completely untied. That is, the Regional Gov'ts could be free to use their allocation of funds according to the priorities of their own Region constrained only by broad national policy established by the National Parliament.

The National Government could divest itself of all responsibility for delivery of government services except for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Customs, Immigration, etc. We would have a national health policy but the delivery of health services would be the responsibility of Regional Gov'ts. Similarly, there would be a national education policy and a national teaching service but the delivery of education services would be the responsibility of Regional Gov'ts.

These are only some of the ideas that can be achieved by the abolition of State Gov'ts.

Of course, to achieve the above we would need a substantial rewrite of our Constitution. This is long overdue and the sooner we get started the better. We desperatly need a restructuring of the way we are governed if we are to effectively face the challenges of globalisation in the 21st century.

If you would like to know more about rewriting our Constitution, go to www.national-renewal.org.au

charlsmol

John August is to be congratulated on his excellent response to the article by Greg Craven. In a society that is structurally in deep trouble Craven 's comments, both in relation to the abolition of the states and, elsewhere on the Republic, reflect a deep conservatism and fear of change. For someone with such a mindset to reach the position of Professor of Government and Law is disturbing for our society. It reinforces such attitudes amongst his students at the highest intellectual level.
Australia is in need of radical constitutional change. Craven must be regarded as the minimalist of the minimalists who fail to understand that our Constitution is an archaic document that is hindering the progressive development of Australia.

I just want to highlight one particular view that he has expressed and that is that the abolition of states is merely a desire by the advocates of centralism which for Craven is anathema. Although it is very obvious now that many services could be better organised and, be run more economically as well - a view now widely accepted by the Coalition - a much more superior system of decentralisation could be put in its place than what we have now. Whether this is done by means of strengthening and streamlining local government or by the creation of regions (only) as the second tier is something that can still be argued but the options are there for superior decentralisation whatever the criteria. At present the centralisation problem lies at the state level and we need to get away from that, as soon as possible, and introduce instead City Government, a special form of local government, something quite different from local government away from the major cities. Many country areas are suffering from this kind of decentralisation much more than the centralisation feared by Craven by a national unitary government in Canberra. The idea that a unitary state necessarily a centralised state is demonstrably false just as that a federal state guarantees a measure of appropriate decentralisation for a society. Any student of comparative government and comparative federalism knows this.

Interesting, Klaas, but what is the difference between a small state the size of Tasmania and an enlarged local/regional government?

The short answer is that a small state can be achieved under the existing constitution while the enlarged local/regional government requires substantial change with a set of risks that are equal to any benefits.

Any discussion of the merits of the two must hinge on which powers will be surrendered or retained. Most of the arguments for local/regional government envisage full devolution of the powers held by a state to the new entity. So why not call a spade a spade?

The much quoted $30 Billion savings from abolishing the states, as per Drummond, is based on the assumption that Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne will all sign on to a "reform" where Sydney ends up with eight super councils, Melbourne with six and SEQld with five, all with powers similar to a state.

Not only is there no underlying current for such change, it would be downright Balkanisation. The scenario is an improbable extreme because the existing large cities will continue to see themselves as one entity. Imagine trying to get consensus on a new freeway or rail corridor between eight councils?

Add two more super councils each from Perth and Adelaide and we get a total of 23 of Drummond's 41 new entities that are too unrealistic to consider. And there goes $17 billion of the $30 Billion savings right out the window. The remaining $13 Billion isn't too solid either.

What about the Antarctica?

Great to see so many correspondents acknowledging that the current political system has failed.

Frankly i would not be upset with regional governments that looked and acted and had constitutional validity equivalent to new states, but it does seem rather a convoluted process of reform to rewrite the entire constitution to achieve that. When the current constitution is flexible enough to fix the problems. Political forces have always managed to impede the peoples move toward a fairer and more constructive democracy through the creation of new states, eventually that change must come, political social and economic considerations demand it. The question must be asked, why not just utilise the current constitutional provisions, everything that needs to be done to decentralise our nation and repower democracy can be done very simply that way.

Klaas, your notion of "a superior form of decentralisation" with power ceded to the commonwealth with delivery to a revamped local government flies in the face of economic modelling. Decentralisation only works if a new node is created through which the funds of government then circulate. Yours will do nothing of a sort and may actually speed up the degree of market concentration, not to Sydney or Melbourne, but to Canberra.

Greg Craven made the very telling point that if the Feds can heavy the states at the moment, imagine how ruthless they could be with an enlarged local council and no State powers in between.

And your apparent distaste at the very thought of a "conservative" occupying a post as Professor of Government and Law, and the implication that he might actually influence the opinions of students, will not sell too well in the bush.

My assessment of the abolish the states push is that it is a bright but cheap, and ultimately impractical diversion. It is designed to distract regional voters from the one realistic, available and achievable reform that can do most to deliver the good governance they thought was their right but have now been told is theirs only as a concessionary whim.

The simple test of any reform for the regions would be, would it protect our region from a future Mark Latham/Peter Garrett style Federal government?

So if the cities won't wear it because it diminishes their status and the bush won't wear it out of well founded distrust of left/green "reforms", then it is going no-where fast.

What makes any of us think that the good people of perth WA would for one minuet consider uncoupling themsemselves from the cash cow of the Northern mining wealth. On the otherhand why should all the wealth go south when the north of the state is in need of infrastructure and development.

Are the states the core of the problem with duplication and waste. The USA has states but doesnt suffer from these problems to the extent that we do.

Interesting point, Jellyback. The US has "farm states" that are not dominated by a metropolis and it is no coincidence that development is more evenly distributed.

While the respective state constitutions have provisions that appear to give the urban population a veto over the right to self determination, through the referendum provision, they would shred all moral standing if they were to do so.

Both the international and national political elite have, over the past half century, actively encouraged the self determination of over 100 small states with populations as low as 12,000 (Nauru). Half of these small states have full voting rights in the UN while the rest have powers equal to, if not greater than, an Australian State. And we just spent $3 or $4 Billion to gain independence for E.Timor.

In every case the principles established by the UN Declaration of Human Rights have applied. That is, the decision on self determination is the exclusive prerogative of the community concerned. The pre-existing dominant (colonial) community has had no veto over the aspirations of the minority.

The only exceptions to this rule have been by governments exercising dictatorial powers, ie, Indonesia in West Papua, China in Tibet etc. And the urban community in Australia would need to think very long and hard before they embarked on that road. For it would mark the formal, and unambiguous end of any moral standing or legitimate authority. It is a road that can only lead to Bosnia.

The New Farm States users group has a list of all the small self governing entities by population along with existing and projected new states. http://au.msnusers.com/NewFarmStates It shows the number of UN nations that are smaller than each state option, a real eye opener

John August stated;

In 2001, A.J. Brown surveyed Queenslanders and found about 60 per cent of the respondents expected and looked forward to basic changes. About 40 per cent were interested in more than minor change, including state abolition.

Well, is it really relevant how many people state their uninformed choice?

Perhaps had John August first appropriately explained what is appropriate constitutionally and how the governments are acting outside their powers, many may think twice before giving an answer!

His reference on 28 occasions to “CRAVEN” is itself underlining his inability to present a good argument. Not having read the original CRAVEN document I can hardly accept his references are not taken out of context.

But, as for abolishing the States, would be to abolish parents and children out of the family unit!

As I did set out in one of my books, published on 30 September 2003;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

The Commonwealth of Australia is not a dominion, monarchy, or republic as it is a POLITICAL UNION between the States!

The Commonwealth of Australia is as like the European Union. Would anyone dare to argue that the European Union should result to the abolition of France, the UK, Germany, and other member countries?

What was overlooked is, that the Commonwealth of Australia is having only limited legislative powers, to act on behalf of the States. Without the States there is no commonwealth of Australia!
The Commonwealth of Australia basically is an Agent acting with limited authority for all States!

Perhaps, he ought to have spent less time devoting to CRAVEN and more time to research his subject as to what the Commonwealth of Australia is about.

We all are part of our own local councils, as ratepayers/residents, would this mean we abolish home ownership, and leave ownership to your local council? After all, this is how silly this abolition of State argument really is!
If we do not like how State operate then fix the darn problem within the respective States, but do not compound upon them

John August here, commenting on postings. Perseus has posted a lot of material. Perseus, while you do make some arguments, you mix them with assurances, trying to make things true by using adjectives like "invariably" and "only realistic". Then there's slanted half-derogatory terms like "bright but cheap" which presume the truth. Merely stating something as though it were true does not make it true; stating it strongly does not make this any more likely.

"Abolishing States attracts regional Australians as an initial gut reaction to metropolitan malgovernance but once fully informed they invariably favour the modification of our notion of what a State can be"

The most that could be said is that when exposed to to a set of arguments people favour them. But why does this exposure means that people become "fully informed". A monopoly on wisdom ?

We've held numerous conventions over the years, our last in rural Victoria - in Sale and Mirboo North. We had a dialogue with locals including farmers. Tim Hughes, a farmer and journalist, spoke at our 3rd congress in 2002. I happy for them to figure out for themselves what they think of your ideas.

What about New States ? If they are different enough from our current states that problems are reduced, all well and good. But, they need to:

- Minimise parliament and bureaucracy
- Not destructively compete
- Not contribute to idiosyncratic laws over Australia

I wonder what Perseus has to say about the frustrations of Boilermakers, Teachers, Nurses and so forth with the current system ?

Importantly, our models have variable power passed to the regions. Power does go to the National Government, but regions can also have more automony than current councils.

Mark comments :

"New States - if anything like our current States - would almost certainly exacerbate the problems associated with border anomalies, duplication of centralised bureacracy etc."

To do a job worth doing, we have to go way past the simplistic "Add more states" idea. Yes, its easier constitutionally. Indeed.

I'd like to say more, but I'll stop here.

I think the division of powers between the states and the Federal government should be more clearly defined, with more power going to the states. If there is a desire in definable regions of Australia to form new states, I would support that. Being a Sydneysider, it is not something I have ever been tempted by.

My real hope, however, is to expand our federation.

I want to see stronger state governments and a single federal government that includes all of what is currently Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ).

Perhaps the UK could eventually be persuaded to leave the EU and join us too.

Thanks JohnA. When I mentioned people being fully informed on the issue of new states or abolishing states I was referring to people being fully informed on the practicalities of the two options. The abolish the states option required a majority of states and a majority of voters which is highly unlikely.

More importantly, it is an option that seeks to impose a solution on a minority of states and voters who would see neither need nor benefit in such a change. Indeed, at present it seeks to convince a large majority that would see no benefit.

The regional voters who support the new states option don't seek to impose their solution on any community that doesn't want it. If the majority of a particular shire did not support the concept then it would opt out and remain with the existing entity, in much the same way that Jervis Bay remains part of the ACT.

The new state proponents see no merit in shutting down the existing state, we merely seek to modify the borders of it. Sydney has designed an impressive state infrastructure that suit it's own needs. It is already a successful city state but it has an attached remnant regional hinterland that it is unable to deliver appropriate standards of governance to. Ditto Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

We have no wish to save the world nor reinvent the wheel. We simply seek to improve the delivery of governance to our own community. And as for the blatant scaremongering about multiple licenses and state duplication etc, this sounds plausible but for the reality. Regional areas experience greater skills shortages than metropolitan areas so any impediment to attracting skills from other states would be most detrimental to the interests of the new state. And anyway, the existing standards and license conditions would be inherited by the new state in much the same way that Australia inherited british law.

And having a much smaller bureaucracy and streamlined chain of command would provide a much better capacity to eliminate such impediments.

The thought of giving more power to a federal government is the stuff of nightmares. The concentration of power in a place far away from most of us is just not a good idea. The further away political representatives are from their electorate the less accountable they become (remember power corrupts etc.)

What about a model that reduces the power of the federal government to the absolute basics (defence and foreign affairs) and allows the states to handle the rest?

Hi Peace
your proposal to limit the pwer of federal government is in line with modern thinking and has been since the times of Freidman, Hayek, Thatcher and Regan.

It has appeal when one associates excwssive central control with such despots as Stalin, Mao, Czarist Russia and tyranny in general.

Nonetheless a weak federal government would become the tool of financiers and powerful vested interests. Government must be able to take action to promote the common good of the people as a whole.

Your senario would return us to a time when Europe was ruled by magnates, nobles- the common people at the mercy of robber barons.

On ecould argue that we already have such a set up in Australia today where Howard uses security issues to purse his own facsist police state agenda whilst totally ignoring the needs of future generations for a vision of advancing humanity through science, education and infrastructure investment.

What Peace proposes is not that bad intention, even so we do not need to go that drastic to restore what is constitutionally appropriate.
If just we ensured that the Federal government conducted itself with the provisions of the constitution and other relevant legislation then issues such as Vivian solon would never have occurred!

It is the power hunger that causes which ever party that is in government to abuse the powers they have.
The solution therefore is to go after those abusing their powers, and hold them accountable before the Courts (not a minor feat I must admit) and then we can be all the better for it.

One can agree with Peace up to a point but it doesn't solve the issue of how remote SydMelBrirth are from their regional communities.
The new states proponents simply aspire to the same thing that Victorians, Queenslanders, South Australians, Tasmanians and Western Australians all achieved in the 1800's. That is, they all recognised they could manage their own affairs better than Sydney bureaucrats.

And has anyone seriously suggested that the original separation into self governing colonies was a mistake? Is anyone suggesting that we would all be much better off if we just kicked back and let this month's Sydney spiv tell us how it should be done?

It wouldn't go down too well in any other state. So why should we have to accept it in Tamworth, Wagga Wagga or Grafton?

Perseus, OK, you've replied to my last post, and maybe I will eventually.But, I'd better work through your original material.

Max Bradley, a former councilor in Berrigan Shire wants pretty much_all_ state powers to go to the National Government. This is a countryresident who does not notice the dominance of Canberra compared toSydney, but observes the cost of the tension between the differentlevels of government. Yes, local councils are an object of concern.But, raise their profile and scrutiny, take more of an interest in them,give democracy a change to work - this will rectify these problems.

Still, BF does include the option of New States in its portfolio. Seeour web site - it links to the New States group. Its just that weconsider a number of viewpoints.

Labelling State Abolition as something to " distract regional votersfrom the one realistic, available and achievable reform that can do mostto deliver ... good governance". Seems to us presumptive. What's tostop us from declaring the New States push to be a distraction from theonly changes which are worthwhile ? But rather we'd want to participatein a discussion. We've hosted many congresses, and developed the ideasover many years, and have interest over the whole nation. The idea ofAbolishing the States also has a long history - we're only trying to getthat interest into something tangible.

OK, maybe I've got the formatting this time ... Perseus, OK, I know you'rethere, even if I'm talking about you in the third person.

Perseus criticises the change for being to "radical". But does radicalmean that something is not worthwhile ? We need to define what"radical" means. He uses slanted terms like "major risk", vaguelypointing a stick and saying "beware". Cripes. You could say that aboutanything. I start to sympathise with Woldring's points aboutAustralians being "fearful of change". We focus on a _worthwhile_change, and draw on its long history.

Certainly, some people rail against "radical change" for no reason apartfrom the fact it is radical. And if they want to feel that way, fine.Its an area where I have some differences with Klass Woldring, though Icertainly respect his overall position. We need to separate the warfrom the Geneva Convention. I do not like Craven's arguments. I alsodisagree with Geoffrey de Q Walker's ideas, but he does articulates amuch more coherent position. But I do not challenge the perogative to articulate a "conservative" viewpoint, nor Craven's University post. I have an issue when they special plead, haveresources disproportionate to their idea, or presume that they are abovethe debate. But I grant them their piece; I acknowledge fellowtravellers.

Perseus talk about "not letting cities continue as they obviously want".However, we examine of what Australia means, and hopes that we can movebeyond narrow self interest - be we in the city or bush. City peopleinvolved in Beyond Federation have been willing to examine thoughtfullypossibilities for government which do involve a lessening of theinfluence of the cities. Sure, Perseus if you want to say we won'tsuceed because people cannot get past their own selfishness, fair enough- but I'd rather take a more positive view.

We all reside in local councils, who for example regulate building codes suitable for the area. We need this as a centralized State government could hardly manage this for what is most suitable for some region within a State.

Likewise, States manage local issues better then a centralized government.

A confederation was rejected for the Commonwealth of Australia, as the desire to retain the States was very much at the front of the intentions of the Delegates of the constitution convention Debates.

What we must realize is that the manner the Federal government is abusing its powers is more the problem and no solution to then give it all the power.

Look at the Consolidated Revenue, where the government is handing out not millions but billions, and have slash funds, regardless it being unconstitutional. We then have that the States must try to recoup the monies, that the Federal government fails to hand over but waste.

In my view, we need to reorganize the Federal government so that we have a Commonwealth of Australia as is required by the Constitution. It would free billions to the States, and would mean the States could then drop charges on a number of items also.

There is ample of scope of reform, within the constitutional provisions, without being side tracked to argue about State abolition.

Worse is that with the new so called terrorist legislation, the Federal government can imprison any person innocent of any crime, for 14 days!

Now, if it was not for the Constitution we would be stuck with it, but reality is that the Commonwealth legislation will be ULTRA VIRES, as the States cannot give the power to the commonwealth either, and any sunset clause is unconstitutional!

It will require a referendum! And this, I think would not pass!

Don’t blame the States, rather look at the real culprit, the commonwealth of Australia!

Some thoughts,

There is bad commonwealth power that finds expression in legislation and actions that increase police state powers, and waste money by pork barrelling.

But then it is possible, with the right government, for a central authority to accomplish wonderful things, like a commonrail guage, national water and power projects.

States can create some waste by competing against each other to attract foreign investment. They may also reinvent the wheel regards to the development of standards.

Nurses have to register each time they move state, ditto car license, there is different legislation in each state on a variety of matters making it necessary to have an increased number of lawyers and complexity.

To Mr Gerrit and all the other invertabrates,stop looking for excuses to maintain the present inefficient stupidity.We don't have to look and any further than the present Labor NSW debacle or the Victoria Labor debacle of the of the early 90's,both with different Commonwealth Govts ,and the results were the same.An absolute shamozzle!NSW has never had so much much tax and they wasted it on growing the public service."Where's all the money gone?" we all ask.

Just get rid of the states and amalgate the Councils,we have more bureaucrats and pollies per heard of population than any other country.We need lean and mean Govt,not fat, wasteful and self indulgent! [ie say what you mean,and mean what you say!]

I am pleased to note, JohnA, that you have one former country local councillor who supports your position. For the record, the NSW Farmers AGM has passed motions to investigate forming a non-metropolitan state for the past 3 years. That "forum" was over 450 elected delegates from branches all over the state.

It is also worth noting that one of the most unpopular policies pursued by Carr in recent years has been the forced amalgamations of country councils. This was justified in the name of efficiency etc but what it actually did was subordinate the community of interest as defined by those communities themselves. It also eliminated a lot of part-time, voluntary roles done by community leaders in small shires to consolidate them as full-time, full-cost roles done by bureaucrats in the larger councils. Exit the so-called efficiencies.

Your model will never get up because you are seeking to impose your solution on communities that don't want it. Most country communities like their local government the way it is. They like the fact that they can catch up with the Shire President after the cattle sale, outside the school yard or at the kids sports. It is, in fact, the essence of, and key to the survival of, these communities.

And one must ask, why would one replace it with a particularly virulent form of economic rationalism dressed in a thin veil of democratic cliche

PART 1

Arjay
Somehow you do not seem to realize that Telstra is a clear example that having transferred it (at Federation) from the colonies (mow States) more then 100 years ago didn’t solve the problem.

There are numerous other issues where the Commonwealth of Australia has sole power and “stuff it up”!

Look at the many millions we spend on “INTELLIGENT SERVICES” and then end up in a war for non existing ‘WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION”.

How on earth could anyone argue about giving more centralized power to the Commonwealth of Australia where they cannot even manage what they are sole responsible for now.


While, some may argue that the registration of lawyers, doctors, etc is a problem. Well, the same applies with the European Union where a lawyer travels from one State to another to practice.

Somehow people seems to have the notion that the commonwealth of Australia is one country, rather then that it consist of sovereign states that have agreed to have some limited matters combined through a Commonwealth of Australia.

As residents we give the local council power to make certain decisions about our neighbourhood, such as building codes, advertising, etc. But surely you are not going to suggest that the council now can abolish our individual ownership of our properties and it now regulates how we dress, what we eat, etc?

Likewise, the Commonwealth of Australia is a limited POLITICAL UNION that cannot destroy the federation pillars, the States.

Look at the 2 week detention the Commonwealth of Australia now pursues to implement, for which it has no constitution power to do so. Just consider the loss of freedoms and rights if we didn’t have the States protection!

As for mismanagement within any particular State, that is part of life. That is why we have elections, to get other idiots doing worse when they in turn are elected. Having a centralized government would only mean that instead of just one or some States then the entire nation suffers!

I for one, regardless of problems, prefer to keep the States sovereignties.

PART 2

It is as with the REPUBLIC push by many, they do not know what they are talking about, and the same for the MONARCHIST.
The Commonwealth of Australia is a limited POLITICAL UNION of the States and so you can forget about it being a REPUBLIC or a MONARCHY as it is neither.
Why change when the changes sought are so for the real reasons?

When the Delegates of the Constitution Convention Debates discussed who ought to be candidates in elections, they made clear that even the “poor” should be able to stand as a candidate, as their financial status in life does not mean they were not competent. As they pointed out any one could have a misfortune by some scrupulous company to loose all their possessions.
The problem we have however is that to get into parliament theses days you need to be member of a political party as the way elections are conducted you have little chance otherwise to get elected. Meaning, that perhaps very bright and competent citizens but lacking the financial resources of an expensive lection campaign are left out in the cold, so to say. No good then complaining about bad State government! Get your act together to ensure we get rid of this kind of discrimination in elections and that we can get the best in Parliament. Then we might resolve State problems better then we otherwise possibly could do. The same with the Commonwealth of Australia

Just letting you know that replacing state government is impossible.

There are three tiers of government. Abolish the 2nd tier and you are left with a new 2nd tier. Call it regional government, but it's state government by another name. By this measure, the abolition of the states is nothing more than the creation of new states.

If you think this a joke, read section 51 of the constitution. The federal government is given a list of functions for which it can legislate. Changing that requires a referendum, otherwise the new 2nd tier remains incharge of police, roads, education ect... The constitution is not really about geography. It's about power.

What Mark is actually attacking is the compact between the 1st and 2nd tier as provided by section 51. They want the federal government to control the 2nd tier in the same way state governments control local government.

So by that reasoning, they want to combine the existing states into the one state. That is to remove the 1st tier. They propose replacing the federal government with a state government.

Hence, replacing state government is impossible.