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.