The Sun-Herald

Good luck! Its all easier said than done. Your vision would be the product of a generation. Republic first yes most definitely, but restructuring the tiers of government...A hard task indeed. Many debates linger on this one and assuredly there are greater battles we face in the future other than the structure of our governance. But its a decent picture put forward.

• by Brettski_Sydney on February 17, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Anything that encouraged the growth of regional towns and cities, by shifting government departments that are currently centralised in the State capitals, would have my support.
Instead of endless, sprawling growth in the western suburbs, with all the infrastructure costs and problems that entails, government (and appropriate business) should be shifted to Grafton, Wagga Wagga and the like. Regions of the state far flung from Sydney would doubtless benefit from local administration, and from a stronger, growing population.
Sydney, too, would be better off without ever increasing transport problems.

• by Ad on February 17, 2008 at 07:56 AM

Australia needs a new flag and a republic if it wants to move forward and be seen as a mature and independent nation. It's just plain weird (and getting weirder)that we have a Union Jack on our flag and pictures of an irrelevant and far away monarch on our coins and walls. The states are a joke in a country with a population (and sometimes, I believe, even an economy) smaller than California's. It's all the old colonial baggage (mentality) that keeps us from growing up and becoming (and be seen by the rest of the world as) a truly independent nation. Geez, we can't even agree on a national footy code ... should be AFL btw :-)

• by Jack Deripper on February 17, 2008 at 08:32 AM

Can't see it happening. Australia is a conservative nation and there are too many interest groups which depend on state governments - can you imagine every public school, hospital, police force launching media campaigns about how the decision will mean the closure of this, that and the other. Illogical but powerful stuff.
How about a modification. Keep the states but let's amalgamate them. The four smallest jurisdictions should go. There is no need for the ACT and Canberra has never worked - believe me I lived there for 35 years and its still just an excuse in monumentalism. So here's the plan.
Divide SA into twowith a line from port augusta north. Give the eastern bit to Victoria, and the western bit to WA. That way Victoria gets a decent mine (Olympic Dam) and WA gets more of nothing, plus some fishing in Port Lincoln.
Queensland would get the Northern Territory. Victoria would aborb Tasmania and NSW would get the ACT. Canberra would be abandoned and the national parliament moved to Adelaide to use the splendid old parliament house. As there would no longer be any need to subsidise car making, and ship building in Adelaide, all the public servants and their hanger's on could move to Adelaide and revitalise the city.

• by the watcher on February 17, 2008 at 09:12 AM

DD - really liked your article. Is it a ground swell of people movement you're after or a brains trust inspired movement. The latter might have better legs. You should be in Rudd's group! Keep me posted. hk

• by Howard Kemball on February 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Having read your article I can only say I am in total agreement and have thought this for some time. For the size of our country to have as many governments that we have is an outrageous waste of money. I agree with other writers in that how many more Schools, Hospitals etc could be supported by the savings. As a recent arrival in Queanbeyan, for those of you who are not aware it is just on the border of the ACT, I am just flabbergasted by the existence of a government for the ACT. The ACT is not much more than a big country town and it has its own Government. It is just ridiculous. If there is some organisation/Community group out there that is actively trying to achieve what is proposed in the article I would be happy for my name to be passed on so that I could get involved in attempting to bring this proposal to the Australian people.

• by David Ryland on February 17, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Bravo David, i have been banging on about this very thing for years now. We dont need the states and we would be a much more efficient nation if they were abolished and regional governments put in their place with a central federal government as the next tier. this may even come about by stealth as local councils continue to amalgamate and establish large regional spheres of influence. Who needs the states?

• by Peter Porteous on February 17, 2008 at 02:03 PM

Finally, someone brave enough to say it.
Yes, Yes, Yes, abolish State Governments!! Time to start talking about it and the idea may grow fruits eventually. Naturally Politicians will not vote themselves out of the job, so the initiative has to come from Citizens, as every revolution does !!

• by Karina Nieduziak on February 17, 2008 at 04:35 PM

David, I agree with "the watcher". By merging some states under S130 of the constitution so that with only five states left a double majority would be a shoo-in in a referendum. Goodonya!

• by john tagliabue on February 17, 2008 at 08:16 PM

Of course - its been obvious for at least 30 years. There will be some areas to think hard about but the benefits are there to be seen. Does anyone in Government have the courage to see this through - then again what is that saying about turkeys not voting for Christmas?

• by Greg MacLeod on February 18, 2008 at 03:01 AM

Very interesting idea in theory, but I can think of a number of practical issues that would arise:

1) As well as getting rid of State Government's you'd also have to alter the way the Federal Parliament is elected - House of Reps electorates are within State Boundaries and determined by the State population; the Senate is a fixed number elected from each State (or Territory). While you can set up new roles for the Feds (and a good thing too) you've also got to think about how you're going to elect the people making the decisions about more things - and if you give power to the feds on health and education, that means they'll be running hospitals and schools...

2) Funding - Regional Governments will still have to pay for the services they provide. If it's all done on rates then heaven help us! Yes there will be savings from not having a second tier of government, but the savings aren't necessarily going to be evenly distributed across the regions. Looks like the Feds will have to provide support through things like the GST.

3) Will the regions also be branch officers of the Fed Government in terms of running the hospitals and schools? If they are you mightn't save as much because you'll be amalgamating the state and local bureacracies in terms of service delivery.

If anyone wants to see a regional government in action, they should look at the ACT where there is no local council tier. That's probably the starting point for seeing what a regional government should look like (there's more than 200,000 people in its area though). My concern is that you'll have a concentration of regional governments in Sydney and Melbourne (Blacktown Council serves more than 200,000 now) compared with huge governments in the NT/WA/Northern SA and Western NSW and Qld.

The other thing is will people really want to amalagamate their councils to form the new regions? Qld were having terrible trouble with forced amalgamations of rural shires and provincial centres. Yes, the loss of a state government might be a carrot but for someone who lives out in a rural shire, moving the Regional Government Office several hundred kms (rather than having a council close by) is not necessarily going to be welcomed.

PS - 999999

• by Kath on February 18, 2008 at 09:11 AM

Great piece re abolish the states. Far too much time and wasted money for too few people. Get rid of the poiticians, bureaucracies, 2/3 of the councils and while we're at abolish Upper Houses. Who knows who their MLC is?

• by Richard Mason on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM

I loved this article DD. I am all for a reduction in government. The states seem next to useless. I really do think Health & Education should be controlled by the Feds but maybe have some imput from local people. Regional areas have been badly neglected by the states.
But we need to start with a Republic, get rid of the GG and the Queen is the first priority. I dont understand why we still cling to this outdated notion of a Monarcy, it is no longer required. We are a nation in our own right and are no longer an extension of England.
Still it is all daydreaming really isnt it? No politican is ever going to turn on his own and put his cronies out to pasture. It would never happen.
Nice dream, though.

• by em on February 19, 2008 at 08:37 AM

we had to read this for school. i didnt really listen. but jack stole my last line. i was angry. but i agree with this state thing. lets abolish the states :)

DD remarks: I thought this must have been set as a school assignment. You may like to tell your teacher that not all comments get published.

• by mde connor & clive 8D+-[ on February 19, 2008 at 01:47 PM

As it says in the article, "we're the most over-governed nation on the planet" why do we need any more states, or any more politicians?
If we do re-arrange the states as we know them, what will happen to the N.S.W vs. Q.L.D sporting events? I think that people have come to appreciate the individuality, slight sepparation and compition that come with having separate states.
-On the otherhand this could just be a repeat of Hitler's ruling tactis; if Kevin Rudd attempts to grow a weird little moustache, be warned!
(P.s. Yes....eat the parliment! -too bad they ALL taste like fish, because they get up to fishy buisness!)

• by I love on February 19, 2008 at 01:58 PM

good idea not altogeather a new one people have proposed it before not to much sucess. It doesnt seem that the same government is to eager to hand over power to the top. we also have to be careful that it doesnt turn into another hitler and his gaus handing alotof power to one person could be dangerous. True about the amount of politicians. 677 is way to many for a country of our size. mabye we should think about changing the current way Australia is run instead of abolishing states for it seems to be a case of people afraid of seperating us from England.mabyre they think that will make us stranded from others in a war situation.

• by Nik Johnston on February 19, 2008 at 02:01 PM

If you want to star an action group with this as it's main (only) agenda count me in, where do I sign up?

• by John Hyde on February 20, 2008 at 01:01 PM

The Iemma government gets a D minus for its contemptuous planning controls over local government. All states do badly when it comes to transport planning. Iemma and his government deserves to be booted from office for its planned theft of developer contributions that should be going into essential social infrastructure needed by our residents - not the NSW Treasury coffer. States have been in the plunder game for so long - their abolishion not only makes sense but is justice.
Why should we waste our effort complaining to state premiers when they show little to no concern about the decay in public infrastructure and our desperate shortage of capital funds for providing new social infrastructure?
Doesn't it make more sense for a campaign seeking a D-I-V-O-R-C-E from state governments, directing our best efforts into lobbying the Rudd government to urgently introduce national planning laws? Of course we also need national law in all areas of the law, but planning is as good a place to start clipping back the states as hospitals, education, water, ports, consumer law, energy and the environment.
Local Government, home buyers and communities will be the big winners if national planning laws are introduced into Federal Parliament since their federal law over-rides all inconsistent state planning laws and processes under section 109 of the constitution.
The corporations power is massive and so to is the treaties power. No referendum is needed to get started - it can come after the fact.
What are the benefits of taking a national approach to planning law?
Cut out the complexity of 8 different planning laws with their own processes with just one. Billions will be saved in red tape just for starters. That's got to translate into more affordable homes.
This reform will ensure Rudd has a better chance of making cities greener, approvals faster, consistency across states, empower communities under the law where councils are legislated as the final decision maker and developer contributions stay with local government.
We should be trying our utmost in dealing Iemma and Sartor out of Planning Law all together. Let's start talking to the Feds who have the capacity to deliver enhanced powers and resources to local government, not just in NSW, but all across Australia. It's time for a revolution in Local Government's Federal relations. Let's fly this at Rudd's 2020 Summit? What have we got to lose in having a go?

• by Michael Cranny on February 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Be thankful that we don't elect our public officials (eg. public prosecutors).

• by canoli on February 21, 2008 at 05:10 PM

The idea of having just one government located in Canberra with bureaucrats who have never been away from a city making decisions for Bourke of for Broome gives me nightmares. Even Sydney is too far away from most of the State Ministers, let alone their minions.

DD replies: But under my system there'd be a local government too. How far is Brisbane from Cooktown? How far is Perth from Broome?

• by Don Richardson on March 02, 2008 at 08:15 AM

Bravo! Less government less taxes happier people. We can do without infighting and paralysis between state and federal governments. We have the population of Texas - one government will do thank you. Focus on 100 regional councils is an excellent idea, too.

• by Ben on March 02, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Derrrr. Of course they should go. They are one of the biggest reasons why this country may be seen as rediculous.

• by Mr obvious on March 02, 2008 at 03:49 PM

Demolish the states and create regional governments to make regional decisions however, the final seal of approval for their decisions should be made by the Senate (what we have always known as the States' house but has never really taken up that role).
I agree with your position on the House of Representatives.
But no republic please. Import a Harry, Edward or Andrew to start our own Australian monarchy.
A republic would just see our culture become a flimsy, droning clone of US culture - where movie stars are like 'monarchs' and actors are Presidents.

• by not Paul Keating. on March 02, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Enjoyed the article.
If a business was run with too many Sales and Admin costs and continually passed increased selling prices (taxes) it onto the customers , it would go bankrupt.
We need to cut the ineffective middleman (State Governments) and reallocate resources to where they are needed with a think Global (national) and act Local mentality.
As you have stated Central Government should handle national and Global issues ie Environment, Law & Order, Health , Education ,Roads & Transport, Infrastructure , Water management.
We have the technology to do this eg the ATO has every Business in Australia on a string with GST and BAS's, lets use technology to our advantage.
There is plenty of competent Public Servants that could be redirected in a more effective regional structure.
Outsourcing of Government services that are paid on results ie , quality and turnover.
A Classic example Council inspectors and certifiers . One makes it frustrating hard (Public Servant)to get things done the other works with you(Certifier) to process DA Applications while complying with National Regulations.
I would Rather give the Country back to the Aborigines and start again than have the current Federation set up. It may get up the way it is going with the Apology going through.

• by Michael Martin on March 03, 2008 at 07:06 AM

As a taxpayer, all this government overlap and inefficiency is an insult - if Canberra has to exist we may as well get some value from it. Big question is - how to move this beyond all talk and get this moving?

• by MH on March 03, 2008 at 09:03 AM

Hear Hear, couldn't agree more. The implications of this are that we need a national conversation that will result in a complete re-write of the Constitution. Get it right and we just need one referendum to change the who broken system. Let's start again from scratch and renew our Federation for the 21st Century.

• by Richard on March 03, 2008 at 10:49 AM

I absolutely agree with the concept of abolishing the states. A country with our population cannot afford three levels of corruption. While we are at it, apart from becoming a republic and finding a new national anthem that doesn't embarrass everybody that is forced to sing it, let's get rid of our totally compromised political parties and see if we can't get some truly regional representation. Let every member of parliament be directly accountable to their electors. Our States are vast, with little geographical or social similarities, so that one end of a State has little in common with the other end. The mainland U.S. with a similar area has 48 States while Britain has over 30 counties in a country the size of Victoria. Smaller regions would increase the sense of community in those areas. And think of the obsolete names we could get rid of: Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Where? It's a great shame that there is a world-wide shotage of benevolent dictators, because that's what we'll need to make this utopia happen.

• by Lee Pearce on March 03, 2008 at 01:25 PM

Abolishing the states would require a completely new constitution - this won't happen. Better to use to many sections of the existing constitution to create new states from existing states (which is the power used to form the ACT) or add new states (like NZ or Northern Territory if it wants statehood). An update to s51 clarifying responsibility for the pretty sorry situation with health and education wouldn't go amiss either.

Finally, forming new states / regions would have to be more organic and identity based than just forming neat population blocks of around 200,000 people. Regions like the Hunter (inc Newcastle), the Kimberley, Gippsland and City (state) of Brisbane might make more sense. Maybe Sydney could even try to turn itself into a real world City for once - with a proper City government to run things and a single Lord Mayor.

• by Alex S on March 05, 2008 at 06:14 AM

"But no republic please. Import a Harry, Edward or Andrew to start our own Australian monarchy.
A republic would just see our culture become a flimsy, droning clone of US culture - where movie stars are like 'monarchs' and actors are Presidents"

One in the same aren't they? They're the royal family of the United Kingdom, not Australia in my eyes and judging by the other responses, alot of other people as well

• by sf on April 06, 2008 at 10:05 PM

It is a very good concept - but who could we engage to model a n effective two tier system - there are so many vested interests held by powerful and in the case of NSW - incompetent, disruptive and egocentric, self important pollies?

• by Costa lot on April 13, 2008 at 08:43 AM

As much as I agree with you and would love to stop paying taxes to keep an excessively large army of useless politicians and public servants, I'm afraid that there would be an undesired side effect in getting them out of their cushy, useless and over duplicated jobs. Let say for the sake of argument, that we can actually get 100.000 public servants and politicians out of their ridiculous, inefficient, bureaucratic, meaningless and over duplicated “jobs”. Let us also assume that the average salary of each of them is $50000 a year. that means $50000 times 100000 useless jobs. In theory, that equals a cost reduction of $50000000000. I have never seen such a high number! Looks good, doesn't it?
Well, now that we have saved that money, we will have to pay them unemployment benefit or whatever they will get. Assuming that they will get $20000 a year, out savings have all of the sudden been reduced to only $30000000000. Still not bad, however, these people (Yes, public servants and politicians do share the same basic DNA setup and do therefore qualify as people, saddens me to confess that) will have $30000 less a year to spend, that means that thousands of retailers will sell less, producing them to order less products (Of whatever they sell, coffee, toilet paper, clothing, radios, etc) and since they have less activity, perhaps reduce staff (Again reducing salaries paid and increasing social benefits). But wait!!! There is more!!!! No, you don't get a set of steak knives. Do you remember those reduced sales? That means that retailers will have to order less. That means that manufacturing will also slow down. That means that unless we find markets overseas, our manufacturing will have to go through the same than retailing went through four or five lines ago (Lines of text up there you public servant!). That means again less money being paid in salaries and more money being paid in benefits.
That will certainly hurt the economy, less production, higher unemployment, more social benefits AND less taxes being paid, just when the government needs to spend more money!
I can hear you asking, are we done yet?
Well, no. With less money in the government coffers, taxes will have to go up and the few poor workers that still have jobs will have to pay for them. Either that or cut down in government expenditure. Wait, after we saved $50000000000 by letting go 100000 people, we have not really saved?
I could go on for days about this. One of the things we need to remember is that every single action we take today will have consequences tomorrow. Perhaps there is a chance of using all those public servants and politicians as a tourist attraction, or get them all to break wind in the same direction and use that energy to propel a turbine to generate electricity. Then they will do something productive!
But please, think about the consequences....

• by Inspector Gadget on April 13, 2008 at 10:29 AM

I think Australia, with its large area and widely flung metropoles, should continue to have a federal system, with regional-level government beneath that in most areas. The configuration of states needs an overhaul. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane should be separated from their surrounding states and become city states. Southern NSW, Canberra and regional Victoria should be merged into a single state. A state-level government is inappropriate for little Tasmania. It should be merged with South Australia.

• by Des on April 13, 2008 at 04:24 PM