Woldring's pretty much on the money.

It's been interesting watching the amalgamation debate play out in Queensland. I'm of the view that the whole process isn't really justified, and the reasons being put forward are pretty spurious. The claim that local government boundaries need to be looked at because they've been there for a long time applies to a much greater extent when applied to State boundaries.

It would be interesting to see how a Labor government would interact with their State counterparts.

Typical to the attitudes to Federal State reform were those opinions
expressed on the recent ABC Difference of Opinion.

The panel in arguing that the states were there as some sort of
control over the Federal government were lost in history.

To understand why we have states you have to wind your mind back to
the 19th Century and to the people who were born in the 1840s.
There was no interstate rail network, although it was on the way.
There was a just established telegraph system, but not everywhere.
The aircraft had not been invented.
For a minister or government official to go to a meeting in another
state could take weeks, especially WA.
There was still, especially in WA a prarochial self centred feeling.

In that sort of enviroment, and the example of the US it was thought
best to have separate states with certain powers.
It made sense if it would remain like that and the politicians had
the forsight of the Marconis of that world.
The world and its communications changed in half a lifetime.
Forty years later there was radio & television, airlines, telephone
networks all around the country and then computers.

The country changed so rapidly that my parents were dazzled by it.
My mother used when a child go out with her father on his horse and
cart delivering goods to the backblocks in Burwood (Sydney).
We literally changed from the horse and buggy era to the electronicd era.
Is it any wonder that the constitution is out of date !

We no longer need the states. Divide the responsibilities between the
Canberra government and local government.

Thankyou, Mr. Woldring for an excellent article. I look forward to reading the others that you have written previously.

The posts above are also good.

I hope that other readers will offer their thoughts regarding the essential changes that are necessary to bring Australia into the 21st century.

I have read somewhere that Australia has more politicians per person than any other country in the world. Probably partly, as Bazz pointed out, due to the large distances in Australia that inhibited movement in the early days.

Some states (for example WA) would be very fearful of giving up their state government. They tend to think of themselves first as Western Australians, and secondly as Australians.

Russia is a federation of separate republics, which provide an intermediate tier of government between the national one and local ones. Canada is a confederation with provinces between the national government and local government. The USA is a federation with states between the national government and local government. Brazil has states between the national government and local government. China has provinces, then prefectures, between the national government and local government (which has both counties and villages). India has states between the national government and local government.

South Africa has states and then local government. Nigeria has states and then local government.

Germany has states between the national government and local government. France has regions and departments between the national government and local government. Italy has regions and provinces between the national government and local government. Switzerland has cantons between the national government and local government.

The United Kingdom had counties between the national government and more local government in districts. Some parts of the UK still have both counties and districts, but in most places, there is a regional system of government in place, with elected assemblies for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London and unelected assemblies in the rest of England and then local government of various sorts.

Above the national governments of EU members is the European Parliament. In short, at least three tiers of government is the norm for any nation of any size. Four levels are not unusual. Five levels are not unheard of.

Then there is geography. In each Australian state, there is a major population centre, remote from the other major population centres on the continent and in Tasmania. If Australia were create today, there may be more states, but they would exist because it just makes sense to spread power.

Perhaps a solution that would be more constitutionally palatable would be to abolish local government, and replace it with more states, although ideally not as many as there are existing local councils.
It seems easier to have more states than it would be to abolish them. As the federal government takes over more former state responsibilities the outcome would be not dissimilar.

Mickey K., you are correct that constitutionally it would be easier to create states than to abolish them.

Here is the section pertaining to the creation of new states in Chapter 6 of the Australian Constitution:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter6.htm

I really wonder what is best for Australia. To my mind, it is entirely irrelevant (although interesting) what system some other country has. Except perhaps Britain, the monarch of which remains our monarch, to whom Australians remain subjects.