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?