<<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.