Lexi,

You are right, there are many deficiencies and inefficiencies in our Federation system, however $20 Billion (3% of GDP) is not really such an 'astonishing' sum - given that Kevin & Co could probably get rid of that in one day (if he hasn't already) (counting chickens before they hatch, etc) (NBN fibre to the home anyone, at a massive cost coming to a home near you, possibly by 2020 if you're lucky, with all the bells and whistles, but at a cost no ordinary household can really afford or justify).

'Streamlining' to make Oz' governance operate more like a lean and highly efficient multinational sounds like a great idea, but how to achieve this, and what form might this take?
1. Getting rid of State governments (so there are only two layers, National and Local government) would be extremely difficult, and, given the performance of our Federal government over the last 6 years, who would be willing to trust any Federal/National government to wield such power?
2. Could 'efficiency' be as simple as a PACT between the Federal government and all the States and Territories - embodied in the Constitution if necessary - to conform fastidiously with an agreed National Plan and Vision? Thereby cutting red and green tape through an agreed power-sharing arrangement, such as one could expect to find in the operation of the divisions in an efficient multinational?
A form of limited autonomy?
TBC>

Cont'd>
We have seen major problems with money being allocated for one thing (healthcare, hospitals, education) and then being diverted by the States to 'other' projects, almost at whim.

We have also seen Federal governments running off the rails pursuing 'heritage' and headline interests (either just after coming in to power, and claiming some fictitious 'mandate', or else to impress a gullible electorate around election time).

We have seen Local government (Councils) going off the rails pursuing a hitherto unrevealed 'green' or 'social interest' or anti-industrial agenda - even contrary to the foundational 'vision' of the major party to which the Council belongs. Or making a mess of their financial planning and running into massive debt, and having to seek leave to hike up rates.

Inefficiency and vested-interest is rife, but, short of a dictatorship, no easy answers.

We are fortunate in having only two major Parties. Imagine how we would fare if there were none, just a hotchpotch of diverse movements.

A Republic is one thing; 'repairing' our tacky Federation system will require more 'good faith' between the players, rather than turfing out the lot and starting over again.

Lexi,

What could be more relevant than to recognise that so many of the crew who are rooting for freedom to dabble with the Constitution, Flag and democratic structure are the same mob of trendy academics and self-titled 'Progressives' who also advised Rudd and Julia Whatshername? Shouldn't they be held accountable for their poor advice that has so often resulted in unintended negative consequences?

Or that they are criticising the parts that are robust, enduring and have shored up political stability?

Or that it isn't the federal structure that is wrong it is the Party politics, so often driven by blind ideology (eg the shelving of the Traverston Dam) and ridiculous media-led populism?

Or that the very centralist and arrogant Gillard/Greens government was outed for slyly trying to make local government directly responsible to the feds? That is the referendum that Rudd has forgotten (for the present). Because there was opposition because there had been no public consultation. No surprise there,the 'Progressives' always presume to know what is best for others and they prefer to make changes behind closed doors.

Big issues demand time and information and discussion,
things the mainstream media and most politicians
don't seem to value.

Framing a new national discussion on the republic
will take time.
But most of us know that it is of real interest to
Australians, and of real importance for Australia.

There are enough Australians who care, and when there
is bipartisan leadership and political will, then and
only then, we will be ready for an important
national discussion.

I wish to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion.
For me it has now run its course.

You patronise the public who as you would have it, don't know what is good for them and require re-education.

Fortunately the self-styled 'Progressives' always know what is best for the public and don't always seek public comment before conducting their social experiments. When they do propose 'discussion', it is just a sham, eh what?

The past six years is littered with the trail of 'Progressive' policies gone horribly wrong and abolishing Howard's successful policy to deter people smugglers was one.

Let the 'Progressives' loose with the Constitution, the Flag and structure of government? The answer already given in a recent expensive referendum, millions that could have been better spent on hospitals, is a flat NO!

Australians have a practical nature, getting on
with building a good life rather than being
constrained by the past or afraid of the future.
That aspect of our national character is perhaps
not surprising, since most of us, or our antecedents,
have come across vast oceans to make a new life here.
It also means we reject radical change or ruptures.

A key to putting the republic on the agenda is
therefore reassuring that the change required to become
a republic is evolutionary and not revolutionary.

With each generation, we have peacefully and
gradually adapted to change and often led the
way. Through conversation and consensus, we have
taken each step towards our nationhood. Never in anger,
but through discussion and debate.

We innovated and built national institutions that better
suited the new world, with votes for women, elected
upper houses, a federation that promised equity across
a vast continent, and a culture that spurned the class
system, elites and privileges of the old world.

Gone is the security guarantee that
Australians sought from Britain and gone are the old trade
preferences that used to underwrite our prosperity.
Today we seek our security from the United States and our
trade in Asia.

The discrete steps of ratifying the Statute of Westminster,
legislating for Australian citizenship, ending legal appeals
to the Privy Council and ending the power of Westminster to
legislate for Australia in 1986 were each achieved through
mature debate and not a radical break from the past.

Equally, the adoption of our own national anthem in 1984
was the result of polls, a plebiscite and a national
conversation about, on the one hand, retaining another
country's anthem or, on the other, investing in one of our
own. It was not a rejection of "God Save the Queen" so
much as an acknowledgement that the song just wouldn't do
when Australians stood at the podium at the Olympics in
the modern era.

The republic will, in order to succeed need
to be an evolutionary step that simply reflects modern
reality.
It will come, through evolutionary steps, from a
national conversation.