WHO WE ARE: A State of quivering expectation

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Who We Are

To learn why Kyle S and Malcolm T are victims of social change, go to The Tribal Mind.

A column about Australia by David Dale, published in The Sun-Herald, 9/8/2009
AWESOME is the only word for the power, reach and influence of this column's readers. A matter of days after they resoundingly endorsed this column's campaign to abolish State governments (which we listed as number 4 priority on The National To-Do List after becoming a republic, amalgamating with New Zealand and fixing the coat of arms), our political leaders start the process of abolition.

The prime minister reveals plans for Canberra to take over most of the States' current responsibilities in health care, while his deputy introduces a national schools curriculum, so Canberra can take control of education.

And Malcolm Turnbull urges the Federal Government to take control of our inland rivers, since the States have messed them up, while his rival Tony Abbott promotes a constitutional amendment to let the Federal Government override State laws. After that, the State governments might as well wither away for lack of anything to do, leaving local councils to take on their few remaining duties.

Of the readers who joined our forum, none expressed any enthusiasm for their State leadership (or their State opposition). The only apparently dissenting voice among the chorus of "Good riddance to bad management" was Andy, who asked: "What happens to the State of Origin?" Answer: It becomes the much more interesting Region of Origin series.

The plan to abolish the States includes the notion of amalgamating Australia's 677 local councils into 100 regional bodies, each serving a population of about 200,000 (go to The next big thing for details). Each region would send three representatives to the Senate in Canberra, so it would continue to be a house of review (but would concern itself only with major national initiatives, rather than all the tiny bills which currently constipate the upper house). There would be no difficulty in organising a series of rugby league matches between players originating in, say, Townsville and North Sydney or Newcastle and East Brisbane.

But before the process of defederalising goes too far, we should take one last look at what we're losing, to see if any of them have a unique quality worth preserving. I've been through all the reports released by the Bureau of Statistics for the past 12 months, noting any significant differences between the six former colonies. These details stood out ...

What's special about the States
Highest population: NSW (7 million). Lowest: Tasmania (500,000).
Highest unemployment: NSW (6.6 per cent). Lowest: Western Australia (5.2).
Most people aged over 65: South Australia. Most people under 15: Queensland.
Highest birth rate: Tasmania. Lowest: Victoria.
Most connected to internet: Qld (68 per cent of homes). Least connected: Tas (56).
Most religious: NSW (76 per cent). Least: SA (64).
Most people moving to: Qld. Most people moving from: Tas.
Lowest rate of personal crime: Vic. Highest: Qld.
Least building approvals: NSW. Most: WA.
Highest sporting attendance: SA. Lowest: NSW.
Highest attendance at live performances (concerts, plays, etc): WA. Lowest: Tas.
Highest marriage rate: Qld. Lowest: SA.
Highest divorce rate: Qld. Lowest: NSW.
Most living in sin before marriage: Tas. Fewest: NSW.
Most people saying they are delighted or pleased with their lives: Brisbane and Perth equal (55.7 per cent). Fewest: Melbourne (47.9).
Cheapest beer in pubs: Sydney. Costliest: Adelaide.
Cheapest chocolate: Brisbane. Costliest: Perth.
Cheapest bread: Hobart. Costliest: Melbourne
Cheapest rump steak: Sydney. Costliest: Brisbane
Cheapest oranges: Brisbane. Costliest: Perth.
Cheapest milk: Brisbane. Costliest: Hobart.
Cheapest potatoes: Sydney. Costliest: Perth.

So you might imagine Tasmanians are lustful, Queenslanders are violent, Victorians are depressed, Western Australians are rich and New South Welshpeople are devout. Are such cultural differences worth preserving or should we just go ahead and axe these historical and geographical anomalies? Join the discussion at Comments

David Dale is the author of The Little Book of Australia -- A snapshot of who we are (Allen and Unwin). For daily updates on Australian attitudes, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

How do you organize the Productivity Commission to look at government in Australia? I am with you David, abolish the states. We have a dud up here is Qld and it sounds the same down there in NSW.
I have heard that it easier to create new States than to abolish the existing State. We just have to create smaller and smaller States, each ceding their power to the Commonwealth.

by Neil on August 08, 2009 at 02:24 PM

Well, A continent the size of the U.S. and has 21 million people-Hmm. You need smaller states, lower ratios of people to their representatives, more reps and more streamlined laws for a start.

by Jerry on August 09, 2009 at 01:11 AM

Not to mention the billions of dollars that would be saved by removing the second tier.
example: issue one Australian drivers licence instead of seven.

by syd on August 09, 2009 at 04:42 AM

How many doctors, nurses, radiologists etc could we employ, how much state of the art medical equipment could we afford, the list goes on - with only one health department. The same with schools. Imagine how much money we could spend fixing up Australia's road system with no state governments to keep in clover. We could even have a fantastic train system - more trains and drivers, maybe clean trains! The list goes on! The sooner we get rid of state governments and governors the better off Australia will be.

by Elizabeth on August 09, 2009 at 05:48 AM

Here, here!
Well put David. As a long suffering resident of NSW, I can see no other solution to the utter garbage we see coming out of those fools in State Politics. The reality is, under a 3 tier model, our country is not large enough to produce enough of the talent required to deliver the kind of quality public servant or politician we need - those we do have are better serving at national or local levels. The result is the type of people we currently see running the state of NSW - dump them all and let them go back to what ever dodgy vocation they came from.

by Murray on August 09, 2009 at 05:55 AM

An excellent idea. An overseas colleague said to me the other day, instead of one country, Australia seems more like 6 countries, all with different laws and each duplicating services that could be provided more efficiently by the national government. Stop the waste of money, and unify Australia now!

by Claude on August 09, 2009 at 06:02 AM

I have an even better idea and that is for Western Australia to secede and become an independent nation. What the rest of you do is your own business. West Australia would be much better off as along with Queensland we have been carrying the rest of you for the past 20 years. WA does not need the rest of Oz and your all too far away anyway!

by Bill on August 09, 2009 at 06:13 AM

I believe we should maintain the states because they are important in reducing power and preventing abuses. By dispersing powers they act like a separation of duties and that reduces excesses.
If anyone thinks letting Commonwealth run things will make it better look at the $60,000 public toilet in SA or the silly hospital takeover in Tas. All the handiwork of the then Federal govt.

by The man eating his breakfast on August 09, 2009 at 06:22 AM

There are massive productivity gains to be had in doing this. Doing work across state boundaries is a joke. By standardising OHS rules, licensing, etc... there is an immense cost saving waiting for the taking.

by Pete on August 09, 2009 at 06:44 AM

Have been advocating for years for Labor to get back to its roots. The earlier platform of the party included the abolition of the states. But this was before the yuppies took control of the party. It looks as if someone is starting to wake up.
Another wake up call should be heeded by the unions where the membership needs to take conrtrol again. The yupies have had a go and allowed the movement to sink into the mire.
The attitudes developed with the accord have been the destruction of the unions
and as Obama seems to be doing in America, there is a need for Australian citizenry to start looking at whats happening here. No money for the promised reforms in health, education etc but lots and lots for war planes ships etc etc.
The destruction of the states has been going on for years and the only thing that kept them afloat was the sale of the countries assetts built up by the old societies.
Now is the time to do away with the source of thinking which allows for the buck to be passed willy nilly and the proposition for the abolition of the states needs to be looked at seriously, even if if it isn;t a new idea.

by old timer on August 09, 2009 at 06:48 AM

Bill from WA. Maybe the last 20 years, but I think you might forget that none of you knew how to dig holes in the ground until the coal miners from the East showed you how. Funnily enough most of your labour that allowed WA to prosper came from the East and OS, but no thanks from you eh Bill, just another ME generation comment I thinks!!

by Pete on August 09, 2009 at 06:50 AM

The 21st century has arrived but in Australia we are anchored to an antiquated, cobbled-together 19th-century-model of Federation. It reflects the reluctance of Australia's 19th century political class to step into the future and to look to the good for its people. Australia's progress in every area of human endeavour: for our social service delivery, our communications, health, transport, education etc...progress is stymied at every turn --- the blame game continues: all-pervasive and too often deadly while the political class barely represents us. Mr Rudd says he'll hold a plebiscite on whether the commonwealth should take over health. How going the whole hog -- how about asking the question on everyone's lips -- ask the Australian people and give, we the people, a chance to say yes or no to getting rid of state governments all together.

by Sfuria on August 09, 2009 at 06:56 AM

I agree with Murray: "our country is not large enough to produce enough of the talent required to deliver the kind of quality public servant or politician we need." So what we see in state government are fools play acting at government. Same in local councils. Let's demote state governments and amalgamate local councils serve logical regional geographies of about 200,000.

by Steve on August 09, 2009 at 07:11 AM

You're all assuming that the one centralised Departments of Health and Education in Canberra will all be more effective than the state run operations. That's the assumption underpinning almost every single argument I've seen here. I think it's all a load of rubbish. Keep the states, keep diversity in government, we should be opposed to the centralisation of government under one single political party. I do not want my entire country run from the Central Policy Unit of the Prime Minister's Office. Has anyone even SEEN "The Hollowmen"??
You're all confusing your frustration with your current state governments with the wider concept of state government. Think of all the good ones - SA would not be the state it is today without the likes of Don Dunstan, love him or loathe him!

by Timmy on August 09, 2009 at 07:17 AM

Isn't the problem the incompetency of the current State government politicians rather than the idea of having a State government itself? At least with the tier system we have at least another level of competition for jobs to keep them trying their best and being "relatively" honest (would Iemma be out of power at present and Rees wetting his pants to get his administration in order if Labor was not worried about being voted out at the next elections?). Then again we have the potential of a check and balance if two opposing parties (eg Labor vs Liberal) are at State vs Federal levels.

by Don on August 09, 2009 at 07:25 AM

Abolishing the State governments is the greatest gift any Federal Parliament could possibly give the people of Australia. Let's do it!!

by petiebank on August 09, 2009 at 07:41 AM

It's the State Governments that are the problem, not the states per se... nothing wrong with keeping QLD or WA, but dump the 50 billion dollar a year chain around this countries neck (state Pollies) and we'll all be the better for it...

by Ray on August 09, 2009 at 07:56 AM

by Ray on August 09, 2009 at 07:56 AM

Give us a New England state, taking up most the north of the state of New South Wales. We get little from Sydney and a lot of us would like to be ruled by our own government. Our catchment area would be around 200 thousand people. We lost the referendum in 1967 to become a new state, but im sure in 2009 onwards it would pass!

by Mathew Harvey on August 09, 2009 at 08:23 AM

No, no, no, no ... and NO. Let's keep the states. The most useless and inept level of government in Australia is without a doubt local government.

by Choirboy on August 09, 2009 at 08:24 AM

Yes state governments are a waste of space. Their only purpose seems to be to facilitate passing the buck. so that local and national governments can say. "Oh that's a state issue so we can't do anything about it"

The sooner we get rid of them the better. We simply do not have the population to warrent three levels of government.

by Konrad on August 09, 2009 at 08:26 AM

Let me have your wretched, your obese, your unemployed, your dopeheads, your drunks, your disfuntional, your homeless, your free-loaders, your corporate crooks, your miserable, your lonely. That will leave a residual population of well-rounded, functioning stock for breeding a better future (a less likely, hair-brained theory than replacing government)

by Democricity on August 09, 2009 at 08:34 AM

We are fed up with Anna Blight selling off all our assets to raise money to pay public servants and the corruption which is endemic in Qld government.
Also, those of us who live near the NSW border are fed up with not being allowed to have daylight saving every summer, while people across the street in NSW enjoy it every year.
It makes sense having one hospital, one legal and education system, but I would worry about all that power going to Julia's and Kevin's heads so we'd have to be careful how they use it.

by louie on August 09, 2009 at 08:38 AM

If we get rid of the States, we would need some decentralised social/financial/communicative structure that would balance the power of the otherwise all-powerful (national) state. As Lord Acton affirmed, all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

by Alan Ecob on August 09, 2009 at 08:47 AM

In principle a great idea, the inter-state hassles and obstacles to business are pathetic - so many little empires. From a functional point of view it should be done and with huge productivity gains. Get the national drivers licence and vehicle rego scheme going tomorrow, we need it. The big problem is the potential centralisation of powers and this is where the Senate is a critical safeguard. Do we really want the latest meglomanic, be it Rudd or even Turnbull, having absolute control, and they are control freaks, remember? The Senate was set up to represent the States and to curb the otherwise unfettered power of the House of Reps. We walk away from that safeguard at our peril. By all means abolish the admin. functions of the States but retain their political role as far as the Senate is concerned.

by bluedog on August 09, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Bill, Bill, Bill... who actually owns WA?

by Tim on August 09, 2009 at 10:25 AM

What we need it good quality people in state government. Abolition of the states will not solve the problem. It would only made Federal government too powerful, and that might cause other more serious issues.

by cynthia on August 09, 2009 at 10:25 AM

To all who may not already be aware of the fact, but Commonwealth legislation has precedence over ANY State legislation of the same type (eg. if the State enacts legislation for, say, the rivers (especially if the river(s) start and end at a coastal region - as from the beach out to sea then becomes Commonwealth territory) and then the Commonwealth legislates for the same thing but with either superior/inferior wording to cover the issue, if the States/Territories object, then it's too bad as, under the Constitution, COMMONWEALTH legislation prevails over State/Territory legislation always.
So, yes.... get rid of the State/Territory governments.

by state of play on August 09, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Am I the only person that actually thinks about the big picture here? Sure there are deficiences in our constitutional arrangements that, as we know have been with us for over a century, and are very difficult to alter, even though change is/may be required. I conceed there are a number of valid criticisms and observations regarding corruption, duplication and inneficiency endemic in CERTAIN state governments, and maybe there is a lack of talent to go around, but. I tend to err on the side of caution in these issues and am particularly cautious about the possibility of excessive centralisation should we move to a 2-tiered federal system. Surely the dispersal of constitutional power is a part of what has produced such extraordinary political stability in Oz, Let us think about a few things (i.e. unintenteded consequences) before we countenance such a radical constituional and structural transformation governance, holus-bolus.

Firstly, before considering the implications, perceived benefits and possible negative unintended future consequenses of such a change, HOW would the abolition of state governments actually be acheived? I am not a constitutional lawyer, but let us remember referendums can only pass when they are approved by a majority of voters AND a majority of states, the last time this occured was in the year of my birth, 1977. I think the constitution has more to say about adding states than removing them. Let us not forget that the states were the pre-cursor to the federation, not the other way around. Surely for ALL states to be abolished, therefore the referendum would have to pass in all states? I am sceptical that it would pass in all states, especially W.A, which still has a strong libertarian and secessionist streak. Then what? Do the other 5 states abolish themselves and W.A. for arguments sake remains a state. This is a potentially very messy outcome.

Secondly, what happens to the senate? I must express profound disagreement and concern with the idea that the senate in a 2-tiered federation be comprised of 2 or 3 senators per region as suggested by buffoons such as Senator Barnaby Joyce. This would entrench the 2-party system people despise even more and reduce the deomcratic benefits of a proportionally represented senate (and 3rd parties) to a mere echo of the House of Reps and incumbent government. Is that the legacy we really want to leave future generations?

Thirdly and finally like them or loathe them, the states are an emeshed and intrinsic part of our national identity and our social fabric. Local Government exists only under acts of state-parliament and in my opinion are fare more problematic than state governments, certainly they easier to remove. It is perfectly acceptable to examine and debate the pros and cons of the current system and propose alternatives, but this is a far bigger deal than saving money on a few politicians Australia. Whatever changes are implemented will last a century or more at least, we need to consider the consequences, intended or otherwise. Thanks for letting me get these toughts off my chest!...:)

by Ian/Melbourne/Australia on August 09, 2009 at 10:35 AM

CONSIDER THIS - Why do countries like Britain and Germany who have 3 times the population, have 1 transport system, 1 health system, 1 education system, 1 police system, 1 fire system etc.... Why?....because it makes PERFECT SENSE.

by MR on August 09, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Let us not forget most state pollies serve a time in local govt. before graduating to the state.
And think of the influence the god botherers would be able to exert on a small unit of govt.

by Red Baron on August 09, 2009 at 10:59 AM

I think the states should be disposed of, the sooner the better.
It is quite stupid, that we have six states, and two territories, having powers for particular aspects, AND having the respective portfolios in federal government.
I say abolish the states, and only have 2 levels of government, federal, and local. Everything except local planning and development issues should be managed federally, thus everything would be common right across Australia, Laws, Health Policies, etc.

by Andrew on August 09, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Why on earth is this debate taking place only now. The recommendation, or at least suggestion, to abolish the states is not rocket science but quite simply based on logic that quite frankly needs serious contemplation. Duplication of services, large scale inefficiencies, multiple laws, regulations and on it goes of a process that could so easliy be streamlined under a national title. But already I can hear the screams of the numerous hand wringing bureaucrats crying foul that we need them plonked on our doorsteps in every state. Get real, if the state was for example, privatised, it would be structured and managed like clockwork without the over burden of these paper shuffling burdens trying to justify their appointments. Time for change & progress!

by Jimmee on August 09, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Sfuria on August 09, 2009 at 06:56 AM

To answer your question about why shouldn't all Australians be asked to vote on abolishing the States....

Because KRudd, Turnbull and other "egomaniacal" politicians are only interested in the Constitution being changed for one purpose, and one purpose only... to abolish the Constitutional Monarchy which Australia has the luxury of.

Before the republicans amongst you start beating your chests loud and hard, ask yourselves this.... what happens if this country does end up as a republic and we vote in some aggressive egomaniacal Prime Minister/President who has so-called 'veto-ing' and pardoning powers above and beyond which even Her Majesty has?

And for those of you who shout loudly over the constitutional crisis of 1975, well, just one thing... read the constitution, it's very clear and precise about the powers of any duly elected government insofaras the passage of budgetary (and other) bills through both houses. The then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, tried to circumvent the Constitution - irrespective of whether the Opposition was right or wrong in preventing the passage of the budgetary bill, the Constitution of this country MUST ALWAYS be respected, after all, it was AUSTRALIANS who wrote our Constitution, not the British (as some would like to believe).

Also people, take a very good look at the world's most "democratic" country. The very political party who calls itself the "Democratic" party had all their members vote, then, when it was especially close between Hillary and Obama, the so-called Super Delegates of the party (basically) over-rode the members of their own party and decided which of the two should run for President!! Then, even though Americans went to the polls and voted for Obama, the final say on whether or not he should become President was up to the Senate!! It seems that in the USA, a persons vote (at the end of the day) doesn't really count, when push comes to shove!

Also, when Bill Clinton was President there was an episode where the Senate would not agree on the passage of a particular bill. I think it was a budgetary bill. As a result, without the passage of the bill, there was no money forthcoming, which meant that NO public servants, or contractors/suppliers etc etc of government services could be paid. This is an unacceptable situation - especially from such a 'democratically driven' country!

Such a scenario would not happen here in Australia, because the Governor-General is able to 'sign-off' on behalf of the Monarch to enable important governmental business to continue until such time as both houses agree on the passage of the bill, or the public goes to the polls to elect a new government.

Do we really want Australia to be the same as the USA?

The 'luxury' of a Constitutional Monarchy affords us an extra level of political stability which "republics" around the world don't have.

I urge you all to think about this, as KRudd has a very clear agenda about creating a 'republican Australia' - and sooner rather than later!

by state of play on August 09, 2009 at 11:17 AM

Here here, I'm all for it. Get rid of this ridiculously expensive and time consuming management model. We need a system that is much more efficient and pro-active.
Look at the "Solar Panels on Schools" disaster as one of many, many examples. Here we have a great idea that was designed to add economic stimulus and reduce greenhouse gases. It was funded by the Federal Government yet months later it's still not implemented in NSW due to only one thing - the present State system. How can this be effective management if the recession is long gone or if we are all dead due to Global Warming before the initiative is implemented.
How for example can we have an efficient, green National Transport System when even the State rail gauges are different under the present arrangement.
The balance of power could be achieved by increasing the power to local councils who are infinitely more in touch with their constituents.
We simply don't have the population to support this much governance which begs the question: What will all those Public Servants do for a job?

by Steve on August 09, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Why not set up SUPER local councils in line with the federal seats boundaries so that there is a better flow and focus on services and issues to those electorates, by its elected representatives. Senators could be responsible for say two electorates. This would keep the same number of senators in the upper house as present. It would least would prevent the current craziness whereby Tas has 12 senators for 500 000 people, whilst making the senate more representative of the will of the people. In theory you would also get a more coordinated flow of services in the electorates/councils and stronger targeting of the issues which effect various electorates/councils.

by Tim on August 09, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Initially, it may be necessary for all State Governments to be retained, but structured as Head Office complements of Local Government. Local Governments may be devised as agents of each Head Office, within the restructured State Legislature. In New South Wales, Local Government entities ought to be formulated to represent large geophysical zones. Sydney, Niorther New South Wales (Gosford to Taree), Wollongong to Victorian border, Northern New South Wales, (Taree to Border, including western zones, out from Taree. The final Entiry ought to be of the western cities and towns of central New South Wales. Each Local Government Entiry, ought to be responsible for its own security and fiscal management and social amity. The State Government would act as a Centre for overall assistance, iin property, staff management and responsiblity to the Central Government. This concept may not require amendments to the Nationasl Constitution and may involve, minimal change to State Legislation. Essentially, within a short time, from now, State Governments may cease to be responsible, as their current powers shall be assumed within the Federal System.

by Robert on August 09, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Get rid of the State Governments and whilst about it get rid of inequality in costs between the States, eg electricity prices. Vanquish the taxes on employment known as Payroll Tax (which is outright theft by State Governments). We would then have equality throughout Australia

by Another Old Timer on August 09, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Get rid of the useless pricks. We've had like, 4 premiers and 3 opp. leaders in 6 years. I can barely keep up. Kevin Rudd is taking over the world anyway, we might as well assist him in making it a more efficient take over. Go Krudd

by the bloke who said this ages ago on August 09, 2009 at 12:20 PM

You will no doubt notice that the USA has not abolished its states for the reasons of decentralisation of power. The US is perhaps the most democratic of the world's countires.
Does anyone seriously believe that passing huge power to Canberra would be more efficient? Most accept the joke that Australia is going one way and Canberra the other. The people need to regain control of the public sector - period. The public sector is too large with too much power. Centralisation is a Socialist concept. Abolishing of the States will not prevent the abuse of power.

by Frederick Van Dorestien on August 09, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Get ride of the States.
OOH yes please, try moving interstate a few time and see just how services are duplicated and the associated costs

by Bob Petty on August 09, 2009 at 01:27 PM

Get rid of the states. They are an anachronism from the past. With the internet and modern communication mechanisms we can be far more democratic and efficient. Look at how much companies have changed their structures over the last 20 years with flat organisations, pervasive communication, transparency and accountability.

by Gavin on August 09, 2009 at 01:48 PM

Who hasn't been downsized/retrenched/out the door due to economic and/or management changes in their career? In our economic lives we accept things change. Why not in the area of government systems?
I have seen the rampant corruption in QLD through property development, read political mates get together with land development mates, and it is pathetic.
Time to retrench state governments, and really focus on high level federal and local effective governance.

by Ian on August 09, 2009 at 02:55 PM

Has any boy thought that if the states are incompetent how much worse would it be with 100 councils? Jobs for your mates and family ,financial dimwits, widely varied policies,duplication of services. What about the cost of all this?Is such a huge change worth it to the poor bloody tax payer?

by Wayne on August 09, 2009 at 03:32 PM

Section 6 of the Commonwealth Constitution says that the Commonwealth can establish new States. As a person from NSW I would like them to set up a new state in NSW to look after the people who do not live within the Greater Sydney region. Our hospitals, roads, rail and schools need urgent attendence and we have a State government compulsory acquiring land to build an underground train system in the centre of Sydney. Everytime you turn the TV on or read a newspaper this Government is spending money in the Sydney area...what about the rest of the state...are we not worthy of good services. If we cannot have a new State, then the NSW government should be stripped of their responsibilities and the Commonewalth should take them over. Then the whole state would be looked after equally.

by Julia on August 09, 2009 at 03:39 PM

Totally agree with you with respect to abolishing state government. State government also comes at the expense of local government responsibilities. We need more regional pride/ local people governing their peers. And the state governments are a waste of money.

by timeout on August 09, 2009 at 04:26 PM

Ho Hum, the chances of the states being wiped out are only slightly better than zero. A change to the constitution requires a majority of people and a majority of states. WA are very parochial and will never vote to give up statehood. SA and Tas get greatly benefits from the Federal system so they will never go for it. It won't happen.

by Krusty on August 09, 2009 at 04:37 PM

I have a modest book by Rodney Hall in front of me that is called "Abolish the States". Worth a read.

In it he shows how we would save over $30billion a year on the cost alone. ie by just having them there.

West Australia's Charles Court and Queensland Joh Bjelke-Peterson tried to do that when Malcolm Fraser was the PM.
Fraser outsmarted them with the armed forces.

Just think how much less corruption there would be if we had no States.

by benito on August 09, 2009 at 04:39 PM

Julia, you need to re-read section 6. It requires the state parliament to approve any 'new state'. The feds can't just do it !!

by Krusty on August 09, 2009 at 04:42 PM

When will Rudd call a referendum on this?
And on Australia being free of England !!! ???

When ???

by Sunny on August 09, 2009 at 04:49 PM

This is being pushed by the South African government too. Only here it is clearly a cynical way of dealing with the ruling party's loss of control of one of our provinces. I agree with saving costs and central control of NB national assets, but it shouldn't be at the cost of good democracy...some sort of middle way?

by Hilton on August 09, 2009 at 04:52 PM

6 states for a nation of 21 million is ridiculous. 3 layers of government is completely unnecessary.

I do understand that we don't want our Federal government to be bogged down with many local issues.

Another option is to reduce the number of states to 3. Combine WA, NT and SA, combine NSW and QLD, and combine VIC and TAS.

by sfx on August 09, 2009 at 04:59 PM

20 Million people and 7 state and territory governments?....It is time for change.

by Simon on August 09, 2009 at 05:10 PM

20 Million people and 7 state and territory governments?....It is time for change.

by Simon on August 09, 2009 at 05:10 PM

" by state of play on August 09, 2009 at 11:17 AM"

WRONG! Not all republics are based on US model with a veto-powered President.

I know India and Italy have Parliamentary democracy with a ceremonial President.

Australia's success has nothing to do with monarchy. It is endurance of Australian people and its elective officials have it a success.

Having a head of state who lives on the other side of the planet is a sad representation of the immaturity of Australia. Always a 2nd fiddle to a big power.

Most of our regional neighbours see us as a unique nation and not an extension of the extinct British Empire. We are the only ones who sadly don't.

by sfx on August 09, 2009 at 05:11 PM

Yes please - abolish the states. for 22 million people we certainly do not need 3 tiered bureaucracy! Life will be much simpler. For efficiency and services should be delivered through local governments (e.g. shires/councils). However I dont see Australians agreeing to this for the next 100 years! We may be lucky if we get our won head of state!

by Kimbuktu on August 09, 2009 at 05:21 PM

No need to abolish the states. Reduce state power by giving education, health, fire, police, transport to the Federal Govt. Amalgamate councils to achieve population of approx 200,000 per council. Then make the upper House of State Govt is comprised of reps from the amalgamated councils. State Government power is therefore reduced gradually over time.

by Jamie on August 09, 2009 at 05:28 PM

yes the state govts should go yesterday but please don't turn the show over to private enterprise that will put us back in the ice age

by fergus on August 09, 2009 at 06:14 PM

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This should have been done years ago -- around the same time that cheap air travel made the (east coast) capitals an hour apart for just about any purpose.

The nay-sayers (and there are powerful groups wanting to keep the status quo) should remember that, with 200,000-person local "councils" many important local initiatives will get *more* focus, not less.

The only large potential fly in the balm, however, IMO, will be the potential proliferation of upper-middle-management "co-ordination" roles in the various federal bureaucracies. This extra layer could easily eat up much of the gains from streamlining. This must be strongly resisted for the idea to be a success.

by Shannon Roy on August 09, 2009 at 06:34 PM

How do State Governments help anyone?
Most of them are failed business people or "if you can't get a job, go into state politics".
The important stuff the Federal Government can do and the local stuff the councils can do. Then, larger councils report to a federal body and dela with local issues. Health, education, water, etc should be standardised into federal Politics.
State politicians all seem to be in the game to sort out their mates or gain some advantage.
Just abolish them all. Its that easy!

by Stateless on August 09, 2009 at 06:40 PM

You must be joking. Ever since I can remember Local Councils have been a hot bed of corruption, incompetence,red tape and stupidity. It currently takes up to six months for a building approval and forever to get a pothole fixed. Can you imagine the disaster of handing over the RTA, police and health to these dopes. When I fiirst bought a house the Local Council was composed of eleven pharmacists and and three Estate Agents. In the ensuing years only the ratio has varied. Please do not sentence us to a lifetime of this crap.

by Graham Hawkins on August 09, 2009 at 06:49 PM

Ah this age old argument rears it's head once more. It reminds of a circle, it just keeps going round and round! PLEASE can be just get rid of the them, the extra layer of politics is something we do not need, a country that has the same laws, educational policy and syllabus, one drivers licence as a previous writer points out, and hopefully more efficient use of resources. Get rid of State Govt, and lets have a country with priorities rather than a country that is so bogged down in paperwork it takes so long for it to achieve anything.

by Jenny on August 09, 2009 at 07:45 PM

Gee David you really let the genie out of the bottle with this topic. This discussion will probably out rate your TV column, which says a lot for the pent up anger that people have with their (state) pollies at this stage.

by Neil on August 09, 2009 at 08:07 PM

One argument against abolishing the states: at least now if one of them is completely ballsed up by an incompetent state govt, you can move to another one. If they were all being screwed by a central bureaucracy you'd be stuffed no matter where you lived.

by Sh on August 09, 2009 at 08:14 PM

Why would anyone want more centralised power? The problem is too much government, not too many levels.

by Geoff on August 09, 2009 at 08:54 PM

The idea is very rational and logical, of course. Unfortunately, on these matters, people usually decide on instinct. The residents of Perth, Brisbane and Hobart would never feel comfortable ceding power to Canberra. They would foresee a constant battle against the Sydney-Melbourne axis, for funding and recognition. But I have an irrational solution for this (perhaps) irrational fear - make Alice Springs the nation's capital!

by Cliff on August 09, 2009 at 08:56 PM

"CONSIDER THIS - Why do countries like Britain and Germany who have 3 times the population, have 1 transport system, 1 health system, 1 education system, 1 police system, 1 fire system etc.... Why?....because it makes PERFECT SENSE."

* by MR on August 09, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Um, what planet are you living on? As an Australian who has lived in both the UK and Germany I can say that this is categorically NOT the case for either of those two countries.

by Choirboy on August 09, 2009 at 08:58 PM

David, anyone who suggests that the state governments should be abolished simply does not understand Australia's constitutional system. It might sound good and draw up populist support but it simply would not work. You will have to rewrite 100 odd years of Australian history and law for it to work. There's no wonder the Labor Party got rid of it from their policy platform.

To simply think that abolishing states would solve all problems relating to bad spending on health, education and the like, is non-sensical. It wouldn't, and it would remove many protections that you currently have from federal governments. The demise of Work Choices is a case in point - all those people who are employed by non-constitutional corporations have been protected from WorkChoices simply because there are states in Australia. Think how many more people would have been affected by shoddy unfair dismissal laws, etc. if there were no state governments. And the overturning of territory laws by Federal Govts in the past should have been enough for David to see the value of statehood.

Add to that the fact that most stable democracies in the world are federations, and not unitary states - American, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. all are federal systems. The UK is leaning towards a federal system with devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the setting up of the EU itself has federal ramifications. People aren't looking to abolish states in the world - they're wanting to spread power, not concentrate it.

Then there's the cost - do we really want to waste billions on rewriting our constitution, a decade spent debating what to put in it, and something which would fail anyway? No thanks.

The thing I'm glad about is that such a referendum in Australia would never pass. People in Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia - our smaller states and more distant states from the east coast - like their autonomy and separateness from the east coast states and I can guarantee would never agree to relinquishing the bit of autonomy that they do have. Although I'm a Sydneysider I would be prepared to support them.

Instead of abolishing the states, what we should do is redraw their boundaries. North Eastern NSW and north Queensland should be their own states to devolve power from their respective capitals and give people who don't live in Brisbane and Sydney a say.

by James on August 09, 2009 at 09:05 PM

"Am I the only person that actually thinks about the big picture here?"
* by Ian/Melbourne/Australia on August 09, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Not quite. I'd like to think I do as well.

Not only are most of the people calling for the abolition of the states fundamentally wrong as a matter of basic democratic principle, they haven't given a second's thought about how you could achieve that ridiculous end.

A common refrain here has been about the states "passing the buck". In reality most of these calls to abolish the states are about individuals passing the buck. In a democracy it is OUR responsibility to make sure government works and is accountable to us, the people. But instead of holding your elected representatives to account you would rather pass the buck to some anonymous and unaccountable bureaucrats in Canberra. Shame on you people. True democrats should reject these plans.

by Choirboy on August 09, 2009 at 09:11 PM

state of play on August 09, 2009 at 10:29 AM

That is a complete misunderstanding of Australian constitutional law. Where a federal government law and a state government law conflict the Federal law has precedence, but that does not mean that the Federal Government can take over everything - it can't. The Constitution sets out a list of enumerated powers in section 51 which it can legislate in as well as states, and some further ones which only it can legislate in. Although it can fund some things through grants (under section 96) this does not mean that what gets funded automatically becomes Commonwealth territory. Rivers and sea which are funded by Commonwealth money are not "Commonwealth territory" - they are state territory and remain state territory. The only "Commonwealth territory" are those bits of land which are not under the control of a State Government (e.g. NT, ACT, Jervis Bay Territory, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, etc.) or some land used for specific Commonwealth purposes (e.g. airports and military bases). Nothing else.

Please, please, please go and read a constitutional law book before making outlanding statements that are not even correct.

by James on August 09, 2009 at 09:14 PM

MR on August 09, 2009 at 10:42 AM

Both of the examples you cited are countries which have subnational divisions - Germany has 16 states (called Länder) and Britain has England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - each with its own laws and differences. Sure, some of those things may be different - but the systems between states (and countries in England) are very different. Europe is embracing federalism - we should not get rid of it.

by James on August 09, 2009 at 09:21 PM

Step 1 - get rid of states;
Step 2 - get rid of ALP government;
Step 3 - find Mal's replacement.
S
Looks promising, isn't it?

by nailer on August 09, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Those who want to abolish states do so among other reasons, on the basis of current incompetence, duplication of services and cost saving. None have countered the advantages of having a two tiered system, which is, namely, to keep the politicians on their toes:
a) State politicians have to work hard to get their act together or they will be booted out by their own party officials if they at any stage smell of being a liability for their own party at the next State elections. Their work would be not so much under the microscope if their portfolios were subsumed under the Federal parliament.
b) State politicians of a party would be more likely to question the policies of Federal politicians and vice versa,!
In other words, the presence of a State government may serve as an invaluable extra level of checks and balances against incompetent or corrupt use of power!

by Don on August 09, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Agree, but if they did abolish the states...
1) Reading the paper would be far less entertaining - actually the local news section would be empty with no "circus' to report on.
2) The Federal government would have to emabark on a another massive stimulus to waste the equivalent amount of money... It would take some doing to be that wasteful.
3) Things might actually get done, which would mean that most of the fedaral government's ill conceived ideas may actually happen and thanks to the law of unintended concequences that would probably be a bad thing.

by Mark on August 09, 2009 at 11:34 PM

Nice work David .

I enjoyed your article plus the contributions attached.

The trickle of support Abolishing the middle layer of government is gaining momentum to a flow.

I urge all supporters to spread the word in private and business circles as well as online comment.

Lets cut off the ugly fat in running this country and bring on the new republic.

PS Keep an eye out for the Abolish State Government ticket in the senate ,at next federal election.

by Michael Martin on August 10, 2009 at 08:00 AM

Like many others, here, I voice my opposition to the notion of getting rid of the states. If people are so keen on replacing a tier of government, they must consider de-federating and seceding as a logical option.
However, I see that some people have put forward the old chestnut about the great economies that would produce more services.
We have real and recent proof that this does not work in NSW. Local hospital boards were abolished in NSW and amalgamated in larger regions. The tremendous savings would give us more clinical resources.
Real result has been a disaster. Local area boards that were doing well have had their surpluses snatched by the hospitals that were in debt. A new tier of incompetent managers has been introduced to "coordinate" regional hospital care -- at a tremendous cost.
Clinical and administrative staff are now being paid lots of money to sit in cars and drive between hospitals.
No one has mentioned any savings that have been achieved, nor any benefits to patients.
Now these are people who have many years experience at running hospitals. The federal government has no experience in the area at all.

by Professor Rosseforp on August 10, 2009 at 08:30 AM

by James on August 09, 2009 at 09:14 PM

I am very well aware of s.51 of the Constituton - and I was not suggesting that whatever the Commonwealth funds then becomes 'Commonwealth territory'!

There is enough case law which recognises that from the end of the 'sand line' on a beach, the whole of the Australian coastline then becomes a Commonwealth issue (albeit the coastline of each State/Territory is maintained by the respective State/Territory govt). Point in case, the Great Barrier Reef, although off the coast of Queensland is, in effect, controlled by Commonwealth legislation, because the Commonwealth granted it world heritage status and established the marine park.

You appear to be well versed in the Constitution, but why is it that you didn't mention that the Constitution also states that the Commonwealth has the right to stipulate how the money it grants to States/Territories is spent?! "s.96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit." Which is the point I was trying to get across (my apologies, I should have outlined it with more clarity).

To give absolute clarity on my point, the example of the river(s) is (for just one example), the Murray-Darling. The States are unwilling/unable to come to an agreement on how to manage/maintain/restore the Murray-Darling with any degree of mature responsibility.

The Commonwealth, utilising the wording of s.100 of the Constitution:

"100. The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation." ...

argue that the States have failed to uphold their responsibilities under the Constitution.

As I mentioned, this is only one example of the Commonwealth's powers which it can utilise under various sections of the Constitution.

You are also slightly off the mark with your interpretation of s.96. Section 96 of the Constitution is somewhat ambiguous in its wording of what can be funded by the Commonwealth, even though s.51 is more specific. So, if these two acts are read in conjunction (or separately, as the Acts Interpretation Act outlines), then the Commonwealth can fund whatever it wants to!

But there are numerous other cases which can shine a light on the Commonwealth's powers, such as the Mabo; Engineer's; Franklin River (external powers provisions) cases which you can refer to.

Which brings me to the ultimate point I (and perhaps countless others) am trying to make, and that is, that if the Commonwealth has such powers to legislate beyond the States, then it's simply just another level of beaurocratic folly!

by state of play on August 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Fine, you live in NSW and you can't see the need for state governments. Could that be because you're 10 seconds away from the Federal Government and half of those pollies live in Sydney most of the time anyway. The fact is, states aren't there for you. They're for us poor bastards 3000 kilometres away who are painfully aware that there's about 3 politicians on the eastern seaboard who even knows what a remote community looks like, let alone how it should be managed. In a country this large, states are simply necessary for local administration.

by genfie on August 10, 2009 at 03:02 PM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

WHO WE ARE: A State of quivering expectation

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES