This essay is a welcome change to all the ‘ditch the states’ rhetoric we’ve been getting lately. The campaign to prove the States redundant seems to have burst on the scene with suspiciously synchronised firepower – just at the same time that Canberra has launched several heavy-handed grabs at areas that traditionally belong to the State and Local arenas.

By all means, have a debate about what aspects of Federalism are in need an overhaul, but let’s have a little transparency about who and what are driving the agenda.

yes

yes, asap. Federalism seemed a good idea in the 19th century, it is a colossal waste of money in the 21st. What state functions can't be performed by either local or central government? Abolish the states and provide constitutional protection for local government.

how are you going to provide constitutional protection for local government? the people who will write the new constitution are the people who most threaten local (and state) government.

when you say: "do we need...", you should first ask if you have the power to do something. the answer will always be "no", unless you're in cabinet. then you should ask: "who does have power.." and the answer will always be 'cabinet'.

ozzies like to pretend they are citizens, dunno why.

Good piece
I think the creeping centralism of the current government is driven by many things – ideological differences, plain thirst for power, frustration at states’ perceived incompetence (though I agree with the author that the evidence suggests Canberra is worse) and straight political opportunism – it’s easier to attack Labor’s record as state managers than lay a glove on Rudd.

As the discussions in these forums suggest, there is a lively diversity of views on this in Australia. Personally I’m a federalist and want to keep the States, but I respect that there’s validity in the counter position. By all means let’s have the argument and then decide democratically through a referendum or similar. We should not, however, sit by and watch the destruction of the constitution and 100+ years of Federation by white-anting the of States’ finances and political autonomy.

In the West we had 3 referendums on the daylight saving issue. Each time the people voted against having it. Our democratically elected Labour party ignored the wishes of the people and introduced it anyway. All Governments pick and choose what they allow the people to have a say on. The State Governments have proven to be totally inadequate when dealing with child abuse in the Aboriginal communities. Space would not allow the names of State Labour ministers under Mr Carr, Mr Beattie, Mr Bracks and Mr Carpenter who have been done for drink driving, charged with corruption and even been charged with child sex offenses.

I think we should have the referendum

This way something can be sent to the people.

Rudd already has got the ok from state with the power transfer to federal.

The question is will he have a referendum for it.

Thus what have the states got to do then.

Demos instead of wingeing why not add this could be done.

We keep saying that we do not get enough money for education and other facilities, after what i was told I see why.
If the federal government gives 100 grand for one school once this goes through state the school ends up with 60 grand.

Hello.
So one has to ask with the states
The amount of corruption
the amount of sexual and physical abuse that is ignored
what do they do for us really besides looking after themselves.

So if we can better ourselves then why not.
If the local councils who are in the know but still beating the states doors for money for which they will only be given 60%, the states then winge.Its federals fault they should give us more to spend on ourselves and waste.

Things need to be really looked at but since the pollies are their for their own parties we are only collateral damage.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Fred,

With all due respect, I think you've completely missed the point of this discussion at the macro level, and instead have written with a rather backwards looking perspective in this post. The best part is the final question - and yes, I think a plebiscite.

Take a look at it from another perspective:

If humanity found a new chunk of land which was roughly the size of the USA, decided that we would populate it with 20-odd million people sourced from 160 odd countries from around the world and establish a new country and government, what sort of government would you create? That decision would need to take into account logistics, technology (particularly communication and IT) and all manner of other topics.

Would you create a 3 tiered system with horrendous overlaps between the two "highest" levels? I bet you wouldn't.

This should be the basis of the discussion - what is the appropriate method for governing the country from this point on.