All my adult life (over 40 years) I believed that the states and the senate should be done away with, since the advent of the Howard Governmebt I have changed my mind and now believe we should keep both.
There is not a shred of evidence that the feds could do a better job than the states, the bigger is better theory is rubbish it encourages conformity, stifles innovation and leads to bureaucratic waste.
As for council amalgamation I live in what used to be probably the smallest council in NSW, our rates were low, services were ok,infracstructure was excellant and we were debt free, we were merged with two neighboring councils, now the council is broke and our rates will have to rise to cover the debt, so as far as I can see we hve been sold down the drain and amalgamation has been a total failure.
We hear a lot about skills shortage, and I will tell you why, prior to the advent of econmic rationalism ( which is niether) govt and semi govt bodies i.e. railways electricity etc used to train thousand of apprentices a year, far more than they needed, now they have been privatised, our services are still crap and we have a skills shortage because industry never saw the need to replace this great resource.
This thread is same sort of nonsense theory, that usually has the opposite to desired effect, an even worst result or some completly unexpected disaster.
The stupid thing is these clowns are never held to account they just go there merry way leaving a trail of disasters behind them, completely oblivous to the damage they cause.

Frankly, we should be looking at this the other way round.

The States are fine. What’s more they are steeped in a shared history, culture and way of life. It’s the Federal government that’s the floating basket case – and answers more to Sydney-Melbourne CBDs than the rest of the country.

Federation was a mistake. I say ditch the redundant Federal government and make the states into independent nations. (And while we’re at it, give the NT and ACT back to the Aboriginal people, who will probably do a much better job of running them than any Federal Government has.)

We are brainwashed from the cradle to believe that merging little entities into big ones will increase their strength and efficiency. Yet history has repeatedly shown the opposite to be the case. Indeed, the bigger entities become, the more greedy and insecure they get, and the more they end up behaving like pains in the proverbial. Australia is already showing signs of this.

If NZ can stay small, honest and independent, why can’t we – at least seven times over

Australia has a population of 21 million. There are 52 countries in the world which have populations of more than 20 million people. Every one of these 52 countries has at least three levels of government. The four countries just below 20 million in population – Syria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and the Ivory Coast – have at least three levels of government. To find a country that does not have at least three levels of government, you have to find those which are smaller in both area and population than Australia.

Even New Zealand, which is often quoted because it abolished its provinces, has regions between the national government and the local government. The UK, which is also often quoted, has citizens who live under four levels of government (e.g., the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the Greater London Assembly and their borough council) or even five levels of government (e.g., the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the unelected regional assembly, the county council and the district council).

There are many responsibilities that fall somewhere between raising an army for defence and getting the streets swept. Such responsibilities include water management, education and health. That is why we have states and why we will keep them.

Removing the states will not save a cent. The bureaucratic processes and divisions of responsibility will simply go behind the scenes, and democracy will be rduced.

There is an argument for more states, as the constitution has provided for, but it is up to the people who want one to argue for it in their own region.

Australian's are a conservtive bunch and much would need to be done to convince them to change, despite regular complaining. But what has not been taken into account so far in this debate is the emotive factor. LOTS of people still see part of their identidy as being linked to a particular state (try going to a state of origin match for a taste of it if you dont believe me, or be a victorian living in northern NSW "mexican"). Perhaps this is why there has been a nationalistic push by the Feds - develop Australian identities rather than state identities, then they can do away with the states.

A complete overhaul is imminent in the way Australia is governed at local and national levels. It's clear that there is no place for unproductive state middle-men for the reasons that Patrick narrated so well.

Whether re-structuring comes through a national convention or by stealth, time will tell.

Ideally agreement about the best allocation of responsibilities between national and local levels will be determined at a convention. Root and branch reform is required.

Our aim should be to strive for a modern streamlined decision-making process - right for this millenium. Government must be tuned into the networks of stakeholders and empowering communities to deliver public services right for our needs and priorities. Too hard? Not really - it just takes leadership. Local government is ready to perform its role.

How Australia is governed from November this year will be a good litmus test for Rudd. It seems that public hospitals will be the first to major transformation - and the change cannot come soon enough. Mercifilly no Abbott 'trials' to delay us.

Can national funding of local social and physical infrastructure be planned to raise local empowerment? Sure thing. How? By allowing resident paticipation and recognising and rewarding innovation and encouraging inspired outstanding results.

The national government can simply delegate the local delivery of so many former state services to councils where there is a good governance mix of efficiency, transparency and equity. To do this, councils operate need to operate under the one body of national law. This is all eminently achievable now.

Practically, it's the best way forward with over $30 billion annual efficiency gains being our dividend when all state functions are transferred. Recent High Court cases have made it clear that there is lattitude under the corporations power for state hospitals to be taken over without consent if voluntary referral is not achievable or if a referendum lacks a majority of states.

Seeing value for money and accountability for tax revenue will be a fresh change to the tired old blame game for awful service standards.

I think you will find that the vast majority of OLO punters who want to do away with the States are either

A. Non labour voters or
B. From Victoria or New South Wales.

The very idea of the states was to ensure that those who lived far from the centre of Federal power received adequate representation. Living in North Queensland I find far more support for the idea of more states (ie New NorthQueensland State) rather than less. Not that I am a supporter of such an idea.

It seems people are happy to gloss over the massive fiscal imbalance that previous posters have pointed out. If you have 50% of spending responsibilities but only 30% of the available funding is it any wonder that problems are going to arise. It has certainly suited the Federal Gov’t to maintain this state of affairs and this has directly led to their attempts to take over, in an AD- HOC manner, state responsibilities.

Everyone should know that representative liberal democracy with the rule of law and separation of church and state is the WORST form of gov’t going around, except for ALL the alternatives.

Checks and balances( including having more than one tier of gov’t) which are our protection from tyrants, are also the leading cause of inaction and/or friction in gov’t.

Loosening up these checks and balances will allow a much more streamlined approach to implementing gov’t. Unfortunately it also means that we have less opportunity to ensure our elected officials are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing. It’s an unfortunate trade-off, but that’s life.

As Margaret Thatcher (I think) said, the best form of gov’t is a benevolent dictatorship, the only problem is deciding who should be dictator. I think it should be me. Anyone agree??