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Is it any wonder that the constitution is out of date !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.

Oh Klaas, really - "If the ALP is elected federally there is an exceptional opportunity to restructure Australia. One would think that is where the ALP wants to move the public debate, soon. Thus far there is no sign of it."

That would have been to let the cat out of the bag, wouldn't it?

You don't seriously think, that as a believably prospective alternative government ten points ahead in just about all the polls, the ALP would want any dialogue with, let alone input from, the general public on such a subject at this juncture, do you? Be serious. They wouldn't want that any more than the present encumbrances!

You describe the present situation as ".... the federal-state crisis Australia had to have." You then ask " What are the underlying causes of the situation and what is the ALP planning to do about it, if anything?"

I would say the ALP plan is foreshadowed in the (failed) Commonwealth Powers proposal of 1942. (See this link for a reference to location of the content of that proposal: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=950#16904 ) Prospectively the currently anticipated landslide win (on the basis of the polls) for Labor at the upcoming Federal elections will result in a situation where wall-to-wall Labor governments in all States and Territories will, with 'Federal' Labor, do 'whatever it takes' to completely restructure the polity of Australia.

All of this, of course, without the inconvenience of any referendum process. As a guide to a likely referendum outcome, in the undesired circumstance of one being held, the 1944 Constitution Alteration (Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights) referendum is as good as any. It, too, failed.

The cat is, of course, now out of the bag. It will now be doubly interesting to see the present Prime Minister, committed centralist that he is, pull a rabbit out of the hat and make political capital out of this feline escape.

You're right Klaas, it is a crisis. Let us all hope the Governor-General is getting ready to act. Decisively.

In this "federal - state crisis Australia had to have." the " What are the underlying causes of the situation ...." part of the question was not addressed in my post above. I shall now attempt to remedy that deficiency.

Dr Livingstone makes the observation, in the third post on this thread, that "Australia has more politicians per person than any other country in the world."and seeks to explain it by the tyranny of distance. Assuming that to be true, perhaps a better explanation for it is that the whole concept of Federation has been used as a means of substituting an entirely different system and philosophy of government throughout Australia, for the native British governmental heritage of the several States. Hardly surprising, then, that we appear to be overloaded with politicians.

Federation always was a covert plan to rob Australians of their British constitutional heritage and get us out from under the protection of the Crown. The major obstacle to this covert plan's success always was going to be the Constitution, an obstacle that was emplaced by far-sighted people, many of whom, although not recognising the covert objective of Federation, could not fathom the need for this extra layer of government over an already well-nigh perfect functioning system.

I put it to you, Klaas, that this (covert) intention of substitution has been accompanied over nigh on a century by deliberate and sustained attempts at electoral tampering and manipulation in order to bring it about. I contend that this tampering has been accompanied by misrepresentation of a number of the Constitution's provisions, and perhaps in some cases of the outright ignoring of them, as they may relate to matters electoral. One such instance, that of the misrepresentation and misapplication of the provisions of Section 128 relating to determining referendum results, is highlighted on the current OLO topic "The last refuge of the intellectual weakling", see:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=950#16604 , which is to the post where it came up, but a reading of the thread from the start puts it in better context.