"The reason Australia has a federal Constitution is a negative one. It was due to fear from the colonies of domination by each other or by the new national government.

Taken at its best, the adoption of federalism in preference to a unitary system was the necessary price of creating Australia as a nation. At its worst, it was a base compromise pandering to colonial jealousies, which now saddles Australia with an unnecessarily complex and expensive form of government."

https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2017/01/17/hawke-is-right-its-time-to-abolish-the-states/

For example in my Federal electorate alone, it has about six State members of Parliament in it!

For me, I'll gladly vote on yes to getting rid of the States and Territories. I'll turn out with with pride on this one and vote yes, regardless of any Labor, Liberal and Greens thugs throwing bricks through my windows demanding I vote no!

Dear NathanJ,

My usual response to this suggestion is to point out that every 3-4 years most of us have five opportunities to have a say in who governs us and what checks and balances are put in place.

Two at the Federal level (upper and lower houses), two at a State level (upper and lower houses where applicable), and one at a local level as in Council elections.

Australians have that delightfully perverse tendency to vote for one party federally but another at the state level thus ensuring checks against the total domination by one.

You sir are proposing to strip 2/5ths of my capacity to have a say in who gets to govern my life and to also rob me of the opportunity to place limits on their capacity to engage in ideological forays.

What accompanying changes do you propose to implement to correct this?

Remember democracy doesn't always translate to efficiency and it was never meant to. China is a good example of this. But I'm pretty partial to our system over theirs, aren't you?

Dear Nathan,

You've raised a topic that Peter Costello wrote about in
his Memoirs, "The Costello Memoirs," published by
Melbourne University Press in 2008. Apparently Mr Costello
also saw the problem of federalism and felt it needed to
be fixed.

He wrote:

"In 1900 Federation was a great success, the coming together of
colonies in a customs and economic union within an empire. But
the empire has faded and the nation now has consciousness of
itself. We are no longer dealing with self-governing sovereign
colonies. I believed that by giving the states a revenue base
a financial free kick - we would restore that sense of
sovereignty. It was a failed hope. States are moving towards
the role of service delivery more on the model of divisional
offices than sovereign, independent Governments. Legally,
constitutionally and practically we must fix the problem of
federalism."

cont'd ...

I forgot to add that personally, I like having a say
in who governs me at both the state and federal levels.
I like the feeling that I do have some control.

What alternative do you offer in the replacement of
what we currently have - And how will it be better?

There are good arguments for and against abolishing the states. I have no strong opinion either way.

I don’t think it will ever happen, though. At least not in any of our lifetimes.

The task of abolishing the states would be monumental. It’s not like we’d just dissolve the states, have the state politicians go home and find other jobs, and then turn the state Parliament Houses into museums.

There are all sorts of state-based institutions and services that would have to be merged into big federal institutions. Imagine the nightmare of merging all the state and federal law enforcement agencies into big nationwide agencies! Whose rules and procedures do we use, and how will we ensure that they’re suitable on a national scale? Even when that’s been decided, we would have to then re-train all members of those law enforcement agencies in the new nationwide rules and procedures.

That’s just law enforcement, too. There are many other agencies and institutions that would also need to be merged.

And what about the laws? Whose state-based laws do we use? Whose common law do we use when there are conflicts? Remember, too, that part of the reason common law is different in each state is because different states have slightly different needs and views.

It could take decades of debates and administration. The Constitution alone took the colonies about 10 years to put together, and that’s just one Act. Just imagine what could be accomplished if that time was spent on other priorities. If we were to abolish the states (and assuming that it would indeed be the best course of action), it would be an incredibly selfless thing for us to do, given that only future generations would benefit.

Nup, it’s not gonna happen. The federal system is far too entrenched. We’re probably better off just trying to improve the functioning of our Federation.

One of Australia's problems is that most of our states are too big.

In the US for example, there is a seat of government in 49 states, in a country only 25% bigger than Oz. In the UK most counties, with centres of government are smaller in area than Brisbane, Sydney & Melbourne.

I doubt the people of either of them would accept government from over 2000 kilometres away as the people in Qld & WA have to. This distribution of government leads to close settlement, against our ridiculously large capitals, which suck most of the wealth of each state to themselves.

This is bad enough, but total control from Canberra would be even worse. If you doubt this, try asking bureaucrats in Canberra to place Coen or Cloncurry on a map of Oz. Most would not know they exist, let alone where or in which state they are.

Chopping the country into 20 states would be a much better idea than abolishing states, would lead to enhanced development of most of the country, & reduce the huge drain of wealth to just a few capitals as now.

Sydney drains NSW and an all-powerful Canberra would drain Australia.

Hasbeen has the solution, more States, starting with New England!!

It is time to throw out the commonwealth, rather than the states.

While the very concept of "state" is morally wrong, with smaller states, if the laws in one state become too draconic, then one at least can escape to another state. That given, the smaller states must compete for individual/group freedoms, or else they would lose their population.

//Hasbeen has the solution, more States, starting with New England!!//

Can we also secede the Hunter Valley? Those twats in Sydney haven't got a damn clue about anywhere north of Hornsby.

<<One of Australia's problems is that most of our states are too big.>>

Yes, but local communities can easily fill that gap. Local communities can work by themselves and/or alongside local government, taking on roles of State Governments.

This can lead to better outcomes for present and future generations. Yes, some will not like it, it would occur overnight, but one should look at the long term benefits.

One also has consider improvement of relations between individuals. I was discussing a project I was working on recently with a neighbour, stating they'd like involement in the future. The interaction was between two people, with limited government involvement.

<<And what about the laws? Whose state-based laws do we use? Whose common law do we use when there are conflicts? Remember, too, that part of the reason common law is different in each state is because different states have slightly different needs and views.>>

People take that view very selectively. If one considered the postal survey taken on Australian Government endorsed same sex marriage, and I said, it was to be dealt with by states and territories, some would strongly object, arguing (somewhat selectively), the federal government should deal with the matter being of national importance.

Local communities must have more say in the future of their communities. Government imposed lifestyles are not the way forward. These are in fact emotionally draining.

<< It is time to throw out the commonwealth, rather than the states>>

If both were taken into consideration, I would agree! Local communities deciding where they go, is the best way forward, not Labor, Liberal and the Greens deciding what happens to all in Australia, alongside a few others thrown into the mix.

NathanJ,

The point of mine that you quoted was an objective dilemma, not a personal view.

<<People take that view very selectively.>>

So, if some don’t want to acknowledge the dilemma I presented, then that is their problem. The dilemma remains regardless.

<<If ... I said [same-sex marriage] was to be dealt with by states and territories, some would strongly object, arguing (somewhat selectively), the federal government should deal with the matter being of national importance.>>

That’s because the notion of equality was central to the same-sex marriage issue. If you wanted to argue that ALL marriage should be state-based, then fine. The only problem then would be the fact that marriage is an internationally recognised institution, and, therefore, needs to be dealt with by the commonwealth per s 51(xxix) of the Constitution. It had nothing to do with personal opinions regarding the level of importance (national or otherwise). You are making that up.

<<Local communities must have more say in the future of their communities.>>

In the federal and state seat that I live in, this is actually an argument against abolishing the states, not for.

My federal MP is as useless as tits on a bull; probably because he holds the safest federal Liberal seat in Queensland. But he'd never lived here before he won the seat and it shows. He couldn’t give a frog’s fat arse about the electorate and only ever gets things done when my state Labor member shames him on Facebook. The state Labor member, on the other hand, has lived in the area his whole life (I’d know, I went to school with him) and is passionate about it. More has been done around here under him than had ever been done under the previous Liberal state member.

<<Government imposed lifestyles are not the way forward.>>

How is the federal government imposing lifestyles onto us? Are you being forced to marry another man now? Yes, we in the 'Yes' camp knew that was going to happen, and you 'No' mob had us figured right from the start. Too late now, though!

Muhahahahaha!

The last thing we need is enhanced local government. it takes just a quick look at the number of mayors & councillors charged with official corruption to see they don't have the infrastructure to oversee their corruption levels.

While it is also true that as with the revolving door of staff between banks & their overseeing bodies showing plenty of problems there, there is more possibility of catching the crooks at state & federal level.

In fact there is a very good argument in reducing by enforceable law, the number of councillors & more importantly, the number of lay about staff in councils. Less than half would be a good reduction to start with. Then reduce their size. Local government should be just that, local.

In the 50 years I have owned property, I can't remember a single year when council rates have not increased by at least double inflation. Makes me wonder if town clerks are paid on a percentage of the wage bill.

<<That’s because the notion of equality was central to the same-sex marriage issue. If you wanted to argue that ALL marriage should be state-based, then fine. The only problem then would be the fact that marriage is an internationally recognised institution, and, therefore, needs to be dealt with by the commonwealth per s 51(xxix) of the Constitution. It had nothing to do with personal opinions regarding the level of importance (national or otherwise). You are making that up.>>

Firstly, if marriage "needs to be dealt with by the commonwealth per s 51(xxix) of the Constitution" and was (suddenly) so important, I would argue any remaining parts of the constitution must be dealt with now, and any other matters be placed on hold. How many people would like that?

I didn't want to argue marriage should be state-based at all, nor did I. I take the view government should have no involvement in relationships between individuals and I question the value of marriage. That being if two people are connected, their relationship does not need such a practice.

Secondly,

There is no such thing as "an internationally recognised institution". People cannot be forced to recognise anything. I've also never read such a term and if anything, would simply be used by some to put forward a case for something they personally want and have it forced onto others.

Finally,

Local communities must have a more active say in the future of their local community, like a town or suburb. This is something I feel very strongly about. This involves individuals and community groups working together, leading to healthier, inclusive, sustainable and more enterprising communities to live in.

Surely this is better than living in federal/state seats, involving a so called useless federal MP who only ever gets things done when a state Labor/Liberal member shames him/her on Facebook? That's overly political and time consuming isn't it?

Not just s 51(xxix), NathanJ.

<<Firstly, if marriage "needs to be dealt with by the commonwealth per s 51(xxix) of the Constitution" …>>

I forgot to mention s 51(xxi), which places marriage squarely in the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth:

“The Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: - Marriage.”

<<... and was (suddenly) so important …>>

It appears to have been important since at least the 1890s, as that was when it was decided by the colonies that the Commonwealth would have the powers to legislate with respect to it. There's nothing sudden about that.

<<... I would argue any remaining parts of the constitution must be dealt with now, and any other matters be placed on hold.>>

Why? In what way?

<<How many people would like that?>>

I don't know. What's it matter? Are you now pissy at our Constitution because it doesn't allow states to legislate with respect to marriage? That would be rather odd, given that you've argued for the abolition of the states.

<<I take the view government should have no involvement in relationships between individuals and I question the value of marriage.>>

Well that wouldn't produce very equitable legal outcomes for poorer couples who separate, but, okay.

<<There is no such thing as "an internationally recognised institution".>>

Okay, so there might be some jurisdiction out there somewhere in the world that doesn't recognise any marriage performed in a different country. You are splitting hairs now.

<<People cannot be forced to recognise anything.>>

At no point have I suggested otherwise.

<<… such a term and if anything, would simply be used by some to put forward a case for something they personally want and have it forced onto others.>>

Just because all countries legally recognise an institution, that does not necessarily mean that everyone in each of those countries acknowledges the legitimacy of that institution. You're getting your knickers in a knot over nothing.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Local communities must have a more active say in the future of their local community, like a town or suburb.>>

Again, in my electorate, this is not an argument for abolishing state government, and I explained why.

<<That's overly political and time consuming isn't it?>>

Perhaps, but I see no other realistic option at the moment. If you ever figure out how your suggestion would work exactly, and how we would transition to it, I'm all ears.

Better still, contact your local MP. Probably not your state MP, though.

At one time I favoured the abolition of State governments, but having been involved in state issues for years, I have come to the belief that State governments do perform a necessary function. On the bread and butter issues of education, health services, transport etc they are best served at a state level, but they do require a degree of federal involvement.
The problem with individual state control is the lack of uniformity across state boarders, something that has been a bugbear since before federation. The reliance on federal funding also presents cash allocation difficulties, but none of these problems are insurmountable.

Caveat: we aren't going to be getting rid of state governments any time soon. There's no appetite for such radical change while circumstances remain reasonably stable. We will get there in a decade or three but not yet.

But, to fantasise:

The problem we have is that state governments are too big to be really responsive to those they rule and local government is too small to be efficient while attracting non-entities who nonetheless feel the pull of power.
The better solution would be to do away with both and replace them with regional districts of around 500000 people (so about 50 such districts). These would perform the current combined functions of state and local governments.
Each district would have significant levels of autonomy in regards to things like education and health policies, roads etc. State-wide functions like public transport would become federal responsibilities.

Part of the problem with state/local government is that they spend but have no responsibility for raising revenue. This would be changed such that the districts would be able to levy income tax at whatever level it chose. The actual collection would remain with the ATO. But because of differing rates, districts would compete on efficiency and service.

Because the states would be dissolved so would the Senate.

Sorry mhaze, you have that a bit wrong. There is no one size fits all in number of people in a local government area. The areas should be by community of interest. Having 8 to a dozen councils in larger cities makes no sense. Neither does some country people having a 2 day drive to get to their "local" council office.

The Gold Coast had a great system years ago. One council only a couple to half a dozen streets wide along the beaches, with most of the tourist industry, & another council covering the dormitory & industrial suburbs further inland.

Combining the 2 meant the people of Nerang were paying for tourist promotion & infrastructure development they never used, & the dormitory suburbs were badly neglected.

Then Peter Beatie, in a vindictive exercise of showing the councils who was boss, amalgamated many councils. Now the people of Beenleigh a lower socioeconomic suburb is part of the Gold Coast, & helps fund the tourist industry 45 kilometres & a whole world away. At the same time, Tamborine mountain folk closer to & with much in common with the Gold Coast are controlled by a council based in Boonah, a small country town 50 kilometres away.

In my opinion, I believe we're over governed - Federal; State; & Local Governments. Surely there must arise some expensive duplicity.

Undoubtedly we can dispense with one layer of government. Or am I being too simplistic about the whole issue. The only real impediment to reducing the size of government is the enormous size of our great Continent? Lets be realistic, I can't begin to count how many times I've seen Western Europe being superimposed on a map of our Nation, giving one the real sense of how massive our land mass really is.

I realise our Constitution has drawn up the precise manner, we should endeavour to govern the place. Surely though there's no reason why we can't amend our Constitution for the overall good of the Country? It's been done on several occasions in the past.

It's not as though there's an attempt to overthrow the Nation; though with a change of government structure, some displaced politicians might not take things too lightly though? My answer to them is simply 'tough titties', politicians have had it all their own way for far too long in my opinion!

<<It appears to have been important since at least the 1890s, as that was when it was decided by the colonies that the Commonwealth would have the powers to legislate with respect to it (marriage). There's nothing sudden about that.>>

Sudden, yes. If the matter (like recent marriage reform) needed to be dealt earlier (and was important) it would have been dealt with a lot earlier.

So decision making was sudden in that context. Now regarding decision making, if the Constitution becomes the main focus of Government, other focuses are limited, due to the written limitations in a constitution.

<<Why? In what way?>>

To cherry pick out of a Constitution in areas one wants dealt with, and leaves out others is problematic. See this page regarding those who get questioned, for selectively quoting out of the Bible.

<<Are you now pissy at our Constitution because it doesn't allow states to legislate with respect to marriage? That would be rather odd, given that you've argued for the abolition of the states.>>

No.

<<Okay, so there might be some jurisdiction out there somewhere in the world that doesn't recognise any marriage performed in a different country. You are splitting hairs now. (in terms of "an internationally recognised institution").>>

No, the term is simply false. Google the term. Nothing can be found, so it's not hair splitting.

<<Just because all countries legally recognise an institution, that does not necessarily mean that everyone in each of those countries acknowledges the legitimacy of that institution. You're getting your knickers in a knot over nothing.>>

No. For people who disagree with a position, stance or institution imposed by a State or Federal Government, it can be difficult to live. Look internationally. Respectful, local communities are a better way forward, not impositions from State or Federal Governments.

<<Perhaps, but I see no other realistic option at the moment. If you ever figure out how your suggestion would work exactly, and how we would transition to it, I'm all ears.>>

As a person for community development, less petty politics and for less government try: https://bankofideas.com.au/

That is some incredibly fallacious thinking there, NathanJ.

<<If the matter (like recent marriage reform) needed to be dealt earlier (and was important) it would have been dealt with a lot earlier.>>

The speed with which an issue is addressed is not necessarily indicative of its level of importance, nor the extent to which it needs to be resolved. Your logic assumes that our ability to prioritise issues, or gauge the importance of any given issue, is perfect. It also fails to account for the fact that there were other factors influencing when same-sex marriage was introduced, apart from its need or importance.

According to your logic, slavery in the US didn’t need to be abolished until 1865 because it wasn’t, and was unimportant because it took them 245 years to abolish it.

<<Now regarding decision making, if the Constitution becomes the main focus of Government, other focuses are limited, due to the written limitations in a constitution.>>

Yeah, well, that’s kind of the whole idea. The federal government may only legislate within the confines of the powers granted to it by the Constitution. The states can do whatever they want, so long as they don't impinge on the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Constitution. If you have a problem with this, then I would recommend that you contact your local federal MP about abolishing the Constitution.

<<To cherry pick out of a Constitution in areas one wants dealt with, and leaves out others is problematic. See this page regarding those who get questioned, for selectively quoting out of the Bible.>>

Please, by all means, tell me which section of the Constitution, or High Court case, cast doubt on a literal interpretation of s 51(xxi). You can accuse me of cherry-picking all you like then.

<<No, the term is simply false. Google the term.>>

I did. There were no webpages stating that the term "internationally recognised institution" was "false". Many seemed to acknowledge the validity of the concept, though:

http://imgur.com/a/quSvZDs
http://imgur.com/a/K3dCgHs

I think you are confusing “internationally” with “universally”.

Here's a more relevant Google search for you, NathanJ, in case you had a problem with the results in my last one referring to universities:

http://imgur.com/a/XJbg5Su

http://www.google.com.au/search?q="internationally+recognised+institution"+"marriage"

yes, it was interesting enough and important