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?