The dominance of Canberra’s executive over Parliament gives Australians a taste of the arrogance and abuses of power they can expect from a centralised unitary government loosed from constitutional checks and balances. For example, regardless of their merits, the IR laws cut across the States’ responsibilities and the wishes of most of the population.

With unitary government, we could expect much more of the same, with only the ideological fruit loops in the minor parties exercising occasional restraint, when our bizarre electoral preference system delivers them the balance of power in the Senate even though hardly anyone votes for them.

No “mezzanine” supersized local governments will be able to present serious alternative views on policy issues beyond the petty and parochial.

Australia’s states have different economic, demographic social and environmental problems and priorities, and they need governments that reflect those differences. In a Federation, the right-wing rednecks of Queensland or latte lefties of Melbourne don’t tell Western Australia what to about mining policy or Tasmania how to manage its schools.

The States may not be models of good government, but why think the Commonwealth could do better?

Look at the areas where it has primary responsibility - defence, social security and welfare, income and expenditure taxes, border control, national security.

And look at its interventions in traditional areas of state responsibility, for example infrastructure. The politicking and pork-barrelling that determines where the Commonwealth directs its spending on defence contracts and industry assistance hardly gives confidence it would do a better job than the states at directing social and economic infrastructure spending to where it’s most needed.

We need to redraw the boundaries of what is sensibly a national responsibility and what should be left to the States to reflect 21st century needs and priorities, and that means passing some activities to the Commonwealth. But having redrawn the boundaries we should make them work, giving states the legal autonomy to act in their areas of responsibility and the financial autonomy to fund those services they deem appropriate.

Federation can be complicated, messy and inefficient, but the alternative is far worse.

I have challenged Woldrings misled dream before.

Woldring, when I become the second head of state, you will be the first person purged from your Post. You will be branded, and no longer be allowed to be a member of the peoples action party of Labor.

I do not support your insubordinate thoughts, your wrongfull thoughts, and your pseudo-academic notions that you can tell us, the proletariat, what we want or need. What we have is quite reasonable by my reckoning; all we need is to be rid of recalcitrant’s who are hijacking and blackmailing everything Australia once was. In order to create, yes a two tiered system, but not the model you seem to be familiar with. I reserve for you special consideration, in light of the fact you have not called for a peoples referendum. You assume this immense national change to be a fait accompli, even though it has been a Labor dream for more than 120 years.

It is a shame that most do not know the true historical nature of the Eureka Stockade; and it is well and good that Labors iconic, wistful tree of wisdom is gone, because nothing can save us from the Labor party. And well may we say God save the Queen.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5062#61582
Nov' 06.

Well some of us already know that answer of getting rid of the states it has been a long dream for the labor party as well as liberal party so would he do it

the answer to that is yes.

But then again labor does require policy's to get them there.
When they turn up we do not know so for those labor people hold you breath.

State governments are facing extinction. Australian government must be steamlined to meet the millenium challenges of pressing global trade, environmental and security issues. States do not have the constitutional power to win any fight with any National Australian government over turf.

Over time, the muddling, bickering, middle level of government will be obsolete. In Australian's era of railways they could not agree on a standard guage rail line. Today, they cannot manage Australia's scare water resources fairly or efficiently.

Structural reform of government is imperative for Australia. It can be addressed in a planned strategic way or in a piece meal fashion. Either way, it will happen.

Over the next decade, states, in their current form, face a steady and terminal decline in their relevance as national legislation and regulation replaces the plethora of conflicting state laws with their bloated civil services. The task ahead for bold future federal governments is to set uniform Australian standards for formerly state controlled education, water, greenhouse emissions, power generation, health care, policing, registration of names and vehicles, liquor and gaming, bushfire control, criminal and commercial law, planning and local government.

What justification or reason will states have for their existance? We are Australians. 20 Million Australians share this vast island continent and only one law maker is required. Federalism does not work well anywhere.

I agree with Woldring's vision of a two-tier gogernment.

Eliminating state governments, will free up billions of dollars each year that can be productively applied into areas where we are falling behind; research and development, education and regional services all need massive investment right now. Reallocating states functions is the best way to achieve public utility infrastructure renewal without higher taxation.

Surely it’s time to end the high level waste in the unproductive antiquated machinery of state civil service and political administration. Who’s signed up for reform? I understand that the Greens and Democrats are on-board. Perhaps the new federal Labor Party team led by Kevin Rudd can deliver the biggest structural shake up in Australian history? Two-tier government has my vote, if it's put on the reform agenda.

It suprises me that people talk as these leaders are god like but it comes down to their federal executive and policy makers then they vote and we are given whatever whether good or bad.

So it seems that policy will be the issue, Like myself with the Australian Peoples Party policy for the people by the people solves solutions not in a back room.

Just like Industrial Relations which is an issue i have solved this problem.

I am not labor too many lost many with labor
not liberal too many lost jobs.
no point with the others.

So the real issue is policy and will this create the system, or will the states jump up and down or bow to the party dictator.

None of the arguments presented convinces me that we should do away with state governments. In fact, I have never seen or heard a good argument for abolishing them. Democracy requires a system of checks and balances which prevents the concentration of power, even if there is some inefficiency. Federation (even weakened as it has been by the High Court), the separation of powers and the bicameral legislature with a usually effective and representative Senate are all means of protection for the individual against the centralisation of power.

Every country of our size has at least three levels of government. Some have four levels. Smaller countries such as France and Germany have at least three levels of government. Even countries with both smaller populations and smaller areas, such as Switzerland, have three levels. They could all be wrong, but I don't think so.

It would be a serious mistake to centralise power in one national government. We should be building up the states as protectors of our freedom.

It is sad that it is no longer necessary to have a referendum to change the constitution. Australia was the first nation on Earth to be formed by a vote of the people. Now, the federal government can just sign a treaty with another country to abolish the states under the external affairs power or use the corporations power to completely emasculate them.

Of course, the states, which actually control incorporation, could fight back by abolishing corporations. There's a high stakes strategy for you.

Or the people could drag themselves away from Paris Hilton for a moment.

What needs to be remembered is that none of the increase in Commonwealth power has been with the consent of the people. Time after time the people have crushed referendums that would have increased Commonwealth power, and I would certainly vote against any increase in Commonwealth power under any terms whatsoever. What many people want is for the Commonwealth to be a second-rate, second grade sovereignty with limited and strictly enumerated powers. Any High Court verdict should be with the narrowest possible interpretation of Commonwealth power, because if the people wanted them to have more power they would have approved it. Of course I am dreaming, as the Judges are appointed by the Commonwealth, so they will pick those who favour more power. ALL politicians want more power; the people want a system where laws are different between States, with people fleeing to the Queensland frontier, which they are entitled to cross, and with no extradition.

What I am interested in is how the states are to be abolished. Perhaps the High Court should be encouraged to rule that the provisions relating to the States are temporary, and that there are implied provisions providing for unitary government.

Give me a break plerdsus. None of this has been with the consent of the people - its driven by the people. The whole current "blame game" debate is about people not caring which level of government delivers just that somebody should. Increasingly people let State Governments off the hook because they have less faith in their capacity and ability and ask the Commonwealth (which is often said to have the bucket of gold)to do the job. The whole COAG and cooperative federalism push is characterised by States asking the Commonwealth to step in pay for what were their functions.

Tragically the whole debate is a bit meaningless in my view - I don't reckon the States would support a yes vote for a referendum to abolish them and the history of opposed referenda is that they are defeated. As for what Kevin Rudd would do - who knows, we still don't know what he stands for and he grapples with whether he is a socialist or a social democrat - or whatever that means. A true diplomat...

I used to be a federalist and believed the whole checks and balances thing. But that assumes the checks are based on rational policy considerations rather than political expedience and parochialism by the respective governments of the day. The fact is our nation of 2006 is so far removed from the colonial environment of 1898 that we should question whether a structure forged then is still valid. If curretn health, education and regulatory duplication is the test then the balances are questionable. People want delivery and get frustrated by resort to constitional strictures. The document our "fathers" gave us served us well for one hundred years but I am increasingly of the view that representative central government setting the policy lead, running the economy and the funding and defending the nation in conjunction with regional service delivery is probably a better model. Australians are increasingly mobile and really question different standards in different states - just that the fathers locked us into a pretty tight contract!

Hi all,

Just a few comments on your comments - for which I thank you.
Some express great fear about centralisation at the national level if the states were to be abolished. I have heard this often but let's look at what the situation is elsewhere. The federal structure of state is quite exceptional to begin with. In Europe only Germany and Switzerland are true federations. Even Weimar had a federal structure but it didn't prevent the Nazi dictatorship. Austria is a quasi-federation. Russia is perhaps a federation. All the rest are unitary states: four Scandinavian countries, the Benelux countries, the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy, the former Russian dominated states like Hungary, Rumania and the Czech countries, the Baltic states. Elsewhere add Japan, NZ, South Africa.
Many unitary states have an effective decentralised system of governance.
The problem in Australia is centralisation at the state level due to a very high concentration of people in capital cities. We need to get away from that surely to achieve effective decentralisation.
Why should anyone think of this as a dream? Sure, the major parties are not very reformist but the people are sovereign and could exercise that sovereignty in many ways. This medium, the web magazine, opens the opportunity for debate and information as never before. And as to using your vote for this kind of change use the Senate or engage the major party politicians.

Klaas Woldring

We seem to keep forgetting ............... Australia is a nation with a population and economy similar in size to that of California ! What we need in the next period of international relationship development is a nationhood that does not have to cringe in front of its constitution. States are already positioned (practically and pragmatically) as instruments of service delivery, and we are constantly confronted by the farce of the maintenance of the rights of States to have separate education and health systems, independent civil, criminal and commercial jurisdictions in the respective legal systems, when the community is screaming for commonality and uniformity ! Two tier government ??
IT'S TIME !! But I don't want to have to telephone a federal government office when my rubbish is not collected, or my street light bulb goes out .......... nor do I want Peter Beattie pretending to need to go overseas to get doctors (he actually got one, didn;t he?).

I agree with Rhian: “Australia’s states have different economic, demographic, social and environmental problems and priorities, and they need governments that reflect those differences.”

If anything, we need smaller states, so that regional differences can be better represented. The federal government should only have responsibility for things that cannot reasonably be done by the states.

In comment 11 "Ian" airs the view that we need smaller states. I have rejected this in my article as a non-solution as follows:

"In addition there are some who argue, most unconvincingly I would suggest, that the existing Constitution could be used to create more states. Apart from the fact that this has proved to be highly impractical, and for over 100 years impossible, if successful it would greatly compound and multiply the serious problems that the existing system is saddled with already."

This "solution" is the complete opposite of those who want to abolish the states. It extends the old way of thinking which is no longer appropriate for the conditions of the 21st century. Just tonight I heard on the car radio an authority on law discussing the urgent need for a uniform national criminal law code instead of continuing the current different state law codes. The list of such most undesirable cumbersome, costly differences is already long which somehow, in this context of "more smaller states" thinking, presumably would reflect desirable differences in state values. I have produced a little booklet which discusses 19 areas of federal-state conflict areas which have cropped up in the last two years. I sell them for the cost price of $3 + postage. If you wat one <woldring@zipworld.com.au>. Decentralisation yes, but not along traditional state autonomy. I thought like that 20 years ago, even wrote a conference paper about it, but I am now convinced this is not the way to go.

Klaas Woldring

Comments about the benefits of power distributed amongst the states being worth the inefficiency caused are like saying that if you tie down your feet you'll never run fast enough to trip.

The States cause us very real problems in health and law and order, not to mention lots of wasted money through duplication and inefficiency. We'd get definite improvements in the quality of health and other services if we abolished the states.

Which is not to say the Federal Government is without problems. It sure has its problems. And I'd never want to give the Federal Government power to do what it damn well likes. We can increase the checks on Federal Government power. Sure, we have checks on its power through the states. But its a damn stupid way to do it - there are much better ways.

I suppose its a long debate over who has the largest problems, and whether the demons of the Federal or State Government are worse. I see the problems with the states as more prominent. But, along with getting rid of the states, there's a lot of other desirable changes. But that doesn't make getting rid of the states any less worthwhile.

John August

John,
you say "We'd get definite improvements in the quality of health and other services if we abolished the states." I'm not so sure. The Commonwealth does not have a good record in the few areas where it has responsibility for actual service delivery (e.g. defence, social security), and looking at unitary governments around the world, their record on these areas is often even worse than here - the incompetence and delays in Britain's NHS system, for example.

In interesting thread... though before I could support any notion of reducing the role of State Governments, I would need some explanations as to why all State and Territory governments are labor, while the Federal juggernaut is Liberal.

This can only be explained by a significant number of voters who vote one way on federal lines and another on state lines.

Clearly, there is still an important demarcation here.

Good point, TurnRightThenLeft. Many voters evidently feel there is an important distinction between the two tiers, which may simply involve not wanting to concentrate too much power with one party.

I saw a video about the European Union yesterday, and it featured an interview with a Member of the European Parliament who pointed out that he has to vote on so many pieces of legislation and so many amendments that there is simply no possibility of reading it all, let alone debating it. The European Parliament has become a machine where the elected representatives are reduced to voting according to lists produced by their staff. Amendment 68: vote Yes; Amendment 69: vote No. Etc.

The point is that power always tends to flow to the centre, rather than respecting the principle that decisions should be made at the closest possible level to where they will be implemented. The Brussels machine has clearly over-centralised to the point where it is impossible for the European Parliament to function, and impossible for its members to genuinely represent their constituents.

The scale of the Australian situation is different, of course, but abolishing the states would very likely produce the same kind of problem. Federal Parliament would have to deal with so many bills that there would simply be no time for adequate debate, leaving the decisions increasingly to be made by backroom people who are not elected and not accountable.

For government to represent society efficiently, decisions must be made at the most appropriate level, which means as close as possible to the voters who will be affected by them. Abolishing the states would inevitably involve many decisions being made further from the people who will be affected, and would therefore make our system of government less responsive and less effective.

Other reforms are relevant as well.

The latest contributions by "Rhian" and and "Ian" are relevant in that they assume a continuation of the present dominant electoral system at the federal level and its consequences. That system, the single-member electoal system (with the preferential voting variant) produces two major parties, often referred to as representing "the two sides of politics" in Australia. Thus a sitation can and does occcur that voters, say, vote Coalition at the federal level but ALP at the other level thinking that they produce some some kind of balance. In another article in Online Opinion I have strongly recommended that Australia changes its electoral system to proportional representation for reasons that I won't repeat here but can be traced by those interested. What I didn't list there as an additional advantage is precisely what Rhian and Ian highlighted: the myths (1) that the two-party system presents real, meaningful alternatives (2) that there are only two sides two politics in Australia somehow reflected in the two-party establishment. Neither holds true but it is sad that this situation leads people to argue these are reasons in themselves to maintain federation even if it is conceded that that there are serious problems that warrant its abolition.
This discussion provides just a glimpse of the interconnectedness of elements of the entire archaic Australian political system and the shallowness of the Minimalist advocacy of an Australian Republic which concentrates on the Head of State issue rather than on the massive shortcomings of the Constitution and the electoral system.

Klaas Woldring

Where does proportional representation result in stable, effective government, as distinct from endless bickering and coalition-forming and the need for absurdly frequent elections?
In Brazil (the only country with PR where I have lived for any length of time), the lack of local representation means an absolute absence of accountability.

Ian, you really should do some research on electoral system.

The great majority of European countries - over 25 - practice proportional representation, often enshrined in their constitutions. These are stable democracies for whom the PR system causes no problems, to the contrary. Most have had this electoral system in place ever since they adopted national constitutions. New Zealand, more recently, benefited greatly from its introduction. The New South Africa adopted it. Most countries that became independent after the USSR broke up adopted it.

It makes for greater diversity and is, quite obviously, more democratic in that seats are won proportionally to the votes cast for a party. This red herring of "instability" that some journalists, who don't really know always bring up in Australia, simply doesn't hold true.

Klaa

Klaas, you state your opinions as if they were facts, which suggests a belief that any viewpoint that differs from your own can only be the result of ignorance. How can there be any debate if you pretend that there is only one possible position?

Ian,

I simply answered YOUR question. You wondered about stability, implying the opposite. The opposite is in fact the exception. These are facts, not opinion. Anyone can check that out.

Instability has been observed in Italy and Israel since WWII. The instability there has many causes and it is not even clear that PR is the major one, if it was one at all. Italy discontinued with PR but instability has continued.

Klaas