"The Liberal Party's organisation is dominated by the six state divisions, reflecting the party's original commitment to a federalised system of government (a commitment which was strongly maintained by all Liberal governments until 1983, but has been to a large extent abandoned by the Howard government, which has shown strong centralising tendencies)."

I guess the centralisation of government is a bit of a double edged sword depending on what stance you have on politics. The higher education system of Australia is funded by the Federal Government and in recent years that has meant in a number of instances, according to a source from the University of Western Australia, that universities are only afforded about half of the budget they need to operate adequately. They have been forced to seek funding from other areas so that at UWA there was a 25%percent increase in HECS fes as well as an increase of full fee paying places up to 25% of total places. It seems only the rich can get an education these days.

Another instance of the Federal Government centralising previously state matters is obviously the new IR system, a national system. This was opposed in my home state, WA, by the local Liberal Party branch because they feared that if the ALP took power they would have to live with a set of rules they didn't like.

We have also seen another attempt of this nature with regards to the Murray-Darling Basin, with Victoria refusing to relinquish control of its water resources.

It now appears unlikely that, if elected, a Labour Govt. would work to change this, having pledged to increase funding to the higher education sector as well as the health sector, both of which require centralised control. In the case of the health sector this would mean a takeover form the states.

Is the continuity accross the nation of standards and funding in a public service controled by the Federal Govt. more important than the local knowledge a state government can provide?

What are you thoughts on centralised government, do you support or oppose it and why?

D.Funkt I fully support centralization.

The reason we need more centralization is because otherwise it becomes very difficult to get any thing done on a national level such as the things you stated like the Murray-Darling Basin plan and the health system.

Its all to easy for the states to blame the commonwealth and the commonwealth to blame the states. It quickly turns into a United Nations like scenario in which there is a lot of finger point but not much is ever done.

Centralization will make a governments task more clear cut and make it more difficult for them to deflect criticism onto the states.

Centralization would also reduce the number of bureaucrats and with less interference from the states the federal government would find it easier to get things done!

D funkt

all systems are prone to good use and mis-use. The key is 'the people' running them.

Sadly, politics being what it is... the expression of greed and lust for power to protect and extend everyones empire... I don't expect much "across the board" good to come out of any change for either centralization or diversification.

To even discuss such a matter apart from 'human nature' seems to be a bit futile to me. I never forget Bob Collins remark once on 3AW (years back now) "Politics is not about being fair..its about power"

Well.. as long as such a mentality prevails.. how can we expect anything other than looking after ones own rear end in our political sphere ?

I can't see any party which is not based somehow on the above. Even 'my mob' CDP and FF... well if you scratch a bit I'm sure one could find more than just 'values' politics.

I understand that, yes it is the people running the government more that the level of government involved, hence why I said that it is a bit of a double edged sword. I am just asking if there are any particular advantages to each, because as I see it and as was mentioned before, all the states tend to do is blame the federal government and all the federal government does is blame the states, especially given the ALP/Liberal divide in between these levels of government.

One solution is to centralise the government, but my question is are there any other advantages to doing this? And what are the advatages of retaining a majority of control at the state level (as this is what the political system was like at the time of federation)?

Police is another example. The power of the Australian Federal Police has grown manifestly in the time since 9/11 whereas traditionally police work was a state domain. Cooperation by the various state branches of police is vital in apprehending criminals, including terrorists. But now whe have a federal police system which is taking over that responsibility.

To rephrase my question, is the nature of our federalised political system changing for good due to these reforms? Are the state levels of government becoming irrelevant? Finally, why is this happening?

I am just asking because I see a significant change happening and I am genuinely interested in the arguments for and against it. Yes our system changes all the time, but I believe this is something that is more than just cosmetic. How healthy can concentrating that much power in the hands of just a few people be? Then again, the way state government is performing at the moment some would argue that this level of government should be removed all together and I have heard others state this point of view, but mind you they are usually Liberal Party supporters who would change their tune if the Liberals were in power at the state level.

More power to the feds? what for another Iraq? Invade Iran?
Australia's infrastructure, transport and water is what we should be discussing, what about a warming climate and health? The antiquated electoral system! no ones got the balls to write of anything except Tax?
Centralize govt? what we have is not bad enough? invade Iran or China
maybe.
Vic holding out on water is s disgrace to their labor govt. open irrigation channels that leak enough water to supply a city of Melbourne's size, leaving aside the evaporation rate of six feet a year.
All drive gas guzzling cars, manufactured in a country whose fuel supplies rely on conquering and sequestering other countries supplies?
Why? because public transport can't even be equated to the third world. All the posts are about tax cuts! get a hold people, lets discuss ways of encouraging a greener, more caring Australia and make the feds to do the same.
fluff4

so are you suggesting that public transport become a federal commitment?

why talk about such things? your opinion doesn't really matter.

you can't partipate in the management of the nation, as we are not a democracy. you have to take what politicians are willing to offer you. they will tell you what is best, and you will tug your forelock and say, "thankee, sor" like the quasi-serf you are.

as it happens, the federal government is beginning to follow the logical path of taking over state functions by starvation: states are unable to provide services required of them because they gave up taxing power. the feds say, "since they won't do it, we will". in this way, the federal government doesn't have to rely on the electorate to support a power transfer referendum.

so centralization is coming, in the worst possible way: by stealth, and without paring back state bureaucracy. the states will wither, but slowly and expensively.