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.