Government should not be about doing anything, it should be about protecting Australian’s (negative) rights while they get on with their own business.

Jacques, while I agree with your comments regarding federal bureaucracy and local government, I think it is worth adding that the amount of attention given to our politicians is in proportion to their importance in setting policy. The greater the centralisation, the less scrutiny we’ve had of state government, and the worse the quality of its parliamentarians. Devolving power to local/regional government would, to some degree, improve its standing and the type of people who run. Having said that, there is a risk of domination by powerful personalities and/or one party. Some of our regions aren’t very diverse.

Regionalism would probably exacerbate, rather than reduce, federal intervention. If NSW and Victoria can’t stand up to Federal busy-bodies what hope would Western District or Gippsland have? “Idle Hands Are The Devils Tools” and all, our parliamentarians in Canberra aren’t prone to sitting on their hands.

… a not-too-serious bout of government-bashing.

Well speaking for myself Paul the ‘not-too-serious’ bit is correct. But seriously, if you read my comment I wasn’t having a go at the number of people employed in local government but at their archaic management practices, which ultimately reflect upon the elected councillors. They could and should be a lot more effective and efficient … which is not the same thing as saying they should sack staff.

A Commonwealth Minister is always going to have more of an eye on their own constituency, party or a national agenda than on the needs of the territory they govern. At least that was the case with the ACT and the NT when they were formally under Commonwealth direct control.

In the NT we are seeing an example of a sloppy and expensive intervention by the Commonwealth aimed more at winning votes in other places than meeting real needs in the NT. This doesn’t provide much hope that there would better accountability or better services if the Commonwealth formally took back control.

Gough Whitlam put forward a proposition for 18 regional councils to replace the States in a paper in 1966 as I recall. Although my memory of the actual boundaries is hazy I think they were much more justifiable in terms of the achievement of some reasonable community of interest than the current State boundaries.

Perhaps a revised Constitution could be developed, argued and agreed in time for the bi-centenary of the Federation?

No, we wanted the same representation every Australian living in a state enjoys: 12 senators.

That would be relevent if the Senate operated as intended, to represent state rights, but it doesn’t. The Senate is in desperate need for reform. Giving the NT equal representation in the Senate would have exacerbated the flaws in the current system and made it that much harder to acheive reform.

As for the million or so public servants, I dont think the point is that the job could be done without them. I think point is, why does their job exist at all?

Exactly.

Im sure the million of or so civil servants trying to do their jobs in this country dont mind being told their job could be done with only 10% of them (Jcs contention, allowing for a typo).

Paul;

Go back to my core point: local government is not very good, the Commonwealth isn’t much better. Abolishing the states will not improve service because there will be less interest in scrutinising many smaller governments than 7 bigger ones.

As for the million or so public servants, I don’t think the point is that the job could be done without them. I think point is, why does their job exist at all?

They wanted to have 12 Senators, giving a Territorian 30 times more representation in the Senate than a New South Welshman, rather than the 3 offered up by Canberra.

No, we wanted the same representation every Australian living in a state enjoys: 12 senators.

“tell me how one would over-read the blanket criticism in your statement wasteful, stupid, vacuous inanity which takes place in every single council in Australia ?

You cant over-read it. Its true. Find me a local council that isnt a basket case and I might add it as a footnote.

:-) and I though it was up to the person making outrageous statemebnts to prove them, not up to the onlookers to disprove them.
I can see from the further reactions by Jc and Ken that I’m disrupting a not-too-serious bout of government-bashing. Sorry, do keep on. I’m sure the million of or so civil servants trying to do their jobs in this country dont mind being told their job could be done with only 10% of them (Jc’s contention, allowing for a typo). I suppose its healthy for a country to countain a group that is skeptical of the government and every group has its outliers.

If Monarchists can say Australians don’t want to be a Republic, then I can say Territorians rejected statehood ;)

I was there. It was more complicated than that. Most Territorians supported statehood, but did not support the proposed constitution or the terms set by Canberra. There is an important difference.

I’d advocate giving the federal government no taxing power whatsoever, with each local government responsible for contributing a stipend to pay for Commonwealth services. Take away their financial clout and the move to centralization of power would end.

JC, I wholeheartedly disagree with the federal government receiving the mining royalties that now go to the states. If anything these should be integrated into the property rights of the landholders. Improved property rights will lead to more efficient markets.

I can’t really see the point in trying to make state and federal governments more efficient. More efficient at what? The most efficient states are authoritarian ones, and although I don’t fear Australia going all Venezuelan, I do see increasing levels of paternalism at a federal level. Tasmania can’t administer hospitals, Canberra will take that, Darwin can’t manage the escalating breakdown of law and order in remote Aboriginal settlements, Canberra will have that too, the list is expansive and depressing.

The latter approach allows states to be subsumed one at a time. Queensland here, Tassie there. Give it 50 years and you could pull it off.

However I don’t see it happening. The NT has been desperately trying to turn itself into a state for decades. Why would you want to give up even that limited legislative independence?

Youd never get a majority of people voting by state though.

And since you’d technically be reducing the representation of each State within federal parliament, you’d also need to get a majority in every State, or at least each State as you abolish it.

You’d never get a majority of people voting by state though.

Though Id be interested in any opinions from constitutional lawyers as to whether the states could be abolished by referendum (not that I think such a proposal would have a snow flakes of passing).

The short answer is “yes, certainly”. The Constitution is utterly capable of self-modification.

Longer version is: how? The brute way to do it is to simply write them out. This is, putting it mildly, dangerous. The more likely approach is to continue revolution within the form. Get the states to dissolve themselves into Commonwealth Territories, for example.

Anyone who’s had anything to with Centrelink will know the Federal government hardly exudes administrative competence.

They’re going to get badly bitten by some of this stuff – let’s see them try to deal with staffing issues for the Mersey hospital for a start.

And if people don’t like the states, well, we have a constitution and it provides for amendments – through referendum not through “aspirational nationalism”.

Though I’d be interested in any opinions from constitutional lawyers as to whether the states could be abolished by referendum (not that I think such a proposal would have a snow flakes’ of passing).

If I were you ken, i would ask Jacques to kindly erase the two names. Or you may want to explain why you think they have performed so poorly. Alomst every analyst have a buy/hold rec on these two.

governments are an integral part of our societies and our sociaties would descend into chaos without government

If you’re talking about the core functions, namely hunting down and killing or incarcerating the predators within and without (i.e. defence and policing) then of course. These plus a few other things (arranging for roads to be built, insuring uninsurable events through things like disability support) are its core strengths. Once it strays beyond these things it generally stray beyond its competence.

I think my local council has more layers of management than Qantas or BHP-Billiton.