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