I agree with much of what you are saying, but maybe if we debate this enough in public people will come to understand some different options.

California is one state of 36 million people. NZ is doesn’t have any states and is 4.2 million people with one parliament and no upper house. (Unicameralism again).

I don’t like unicameral parliaments (and I would think most of Australia when they think about it would agree).  As evidence it is perhaps worth remembering all the fuss about Senate Majorities held from 1 July 2005?

Unicameral systems would broadly (without removing the accountability that comes from single member electoral systems) remove the checks and balances on an elected government.

I can see merit in making smaller states, so that (for example) economically underdeveloped regions of the bigger states can compete for business and people.

But there is no reason why some smaller decisions can’t be made by local bodies like councils in a city like Sydney.

I don’t like unicameral parliaments (and I would think most of Australia when they think about it would agree).  As evidence it is perhaps worth remembering all the fuss about Senate Majorities held from 1 July 2005?

Some would argue that is good evidence for a Unicameral system. A new government comes in with an ‘election mandate’ and finds they can’t do anything because the opposition is too cranky.

I’m finding the whole adversarial opposition system too annoying these days anyway. I’d love to see an alternate timeline where we disbanded the States, disbanded the parties, and ran a Federal system and chunkier local council system under Demarchy! Now that would be an experiment!

I feel the states do provide a theoretically good system (based on the figures mentioned earlier), but it’s somewhat difficult to discuss new and old democracies when the modern democracy is an extremely recent invention, and when the issues of communication and standardisation were dramatically different.

Case in point. I don’t think we should have different tax rates in Queensland vs NSW. I don’t feel that WA has some kind of “ownership” of the resources it has been able to exploit - especially when those resources are playing absolute havoc with the economy right now. Interest rates in Victoria and NSW are hurting a lot more people than little old WA, yet it is the money in WA that keeps the economy pushing forward so hard. And then we have the madness of unequal GST distribution on top of that.

I don’t think we should have different laws in this country. I REALLY don’t approve of euthanasia laws in the NT or gay marriage in the ACT - these territories are purely testing grounds for highly progressive lawmakers, who wouldn’t keep their elected job except for the fact that their laws are meaningless compared to a sovereign State (since they can be easily overruled).

What’s with criminal laws and traffic laws (speed cameras!) being dramatically different state to state? Sydneysiders, drive around Victoria for a couple days. It’s a different WORLD.

There were valid reasons for the independent governance in the past. The purpose of bureaucracy is to improve administration. We can afford to move forward these days.

We don’t need so many duplications of public service. We REALLY don’t.

I don’t feel that WA has some kind of “ownership” of the resources it has been able to exploit - especially when those resources are playing absolute havoc with the economy right now.

Them’s fighting words, Leigh.

Seriously, if WA doesn’t have ownership of them , who does?  NSW?  Indonesia and East Timor are closer - why not them instead

West Australians have been forced to buy high-priced protected Eastern States manufactured goods for decades because we are “one economy” but now when the boot’s on the other foot....

As for different traffic laws in different states, do you object to neighbouring shires setting different rates and providing different services?  Where does it all end - some one in Canberra, or heck why not the UN in New York, being responsible for collecting the rubbish and deciding where the new roundabout will go?

At least if you’re unhappy with your State’s laws, you’ve got a meaningful say in trying to change them, and if all else fails you can move interstate.

Centralisation - in exchange for the dubious benefits of uniformity - kyboshes both of those options.

At least if you’re unhappy with your State’s laws, you’ve got a meaningful say in trying to change them, and if all else fails you can move interstate.

Hi Alan,

Another alternative is to cecede from the commonwealth. Isn’t that what Prince Leonard of Upper Hutt or whatever did ? ( Certainly gets tourists still trundling in to buy souvenirs etc, I believe. ) Has anyone here actually visited this far flung empire of radical ?

At least if you’re unhappy with your State’s laws, you’ve got a meaningful say in trying to change them, and if all else fails you can move interstate.

Hi Alan,

Another alternative is to cecede from the commonwealth. Isn’t that what Prince Leonard of Upper Hutt or whatever did ? ( Certainly gets tourists still trundling in to buy souvenirs etc, I believe. ) Has anyone here actually visited this far flung empire of radical total anti-unicamelarism ?

I forgot about the little Kingdom of Hutt — that’s a classic! Thanks for reminding me of that.

I prefer Sealand. What a horrible place! Imagine living there and calling it your own kingdom! They’re welcome to it! My favourite shot — the empire’s toilet. Eeeewww.

They’ve actually had their own ‘war’! Ha ha ha! Madness, they drank too much tea.

When we were kids, my folks holidayed every few years at Kalbarri about 600km north of Perth.  It was de rigeur to drop in at the Hutt River Province on the way.  Possibly the only place outside the UK where the Anglican Church is the State Religion - there is an Anglican Chapel there which was blessed by the Bishop of North West Australia.

Prince Leonard actually seceded over a serious political issue - the then quotas imposed by the State Government on his wheat harvest - part of the now unimaginable socialist bureaucracy which restricted food production in Australia in the 1970s.

I think the tourists may be a little thinner on the ground these days, but Hutt River Province has not abandoned his claim to sovereignty, and I met a bloke once who had managed to have his Hutt River passport stamped in quite a few respectable parts of the globe.

Prince Len and Princess Shirl (now you can’t get any more Australian than those names) have never challenged the monarchy hence, Dave, it is NOT a kingdom, merely a principality.

Alan Dungey - 14 June 2008 06:21 PM

Prince Len and Princess Shirl (now you can’t get any more Australian than those names) have never challenged the monarchy hence, Dave, it is NOT a kingdom, merely a principality.

Alan
According to the Principality of Hutt website (see Dave L’s link above) it “was never, ever British Proclaimed Territory” which means, I take it, that Prince Leonard doesn’t need to challenge the monarchy as he doesn’t strictly see himself as a subject of the Crown.
Also, noting the name of his town, I wonder if Prince Leonard pre-deceases his wife, will she become known as the Widow of Nain? -:)
Bob

Alan Dungey - 13 June 2008 11:23 PM

I don’t feel that WA has some kind of “ownership” of the resources it has been able to exploit - especially when those resources are playing absolute havoc with the economy right now.

Them’s fighting words, Leigh.

Seriously, if WA doesn’t have ownership of them , who does?  NSW?  Indonesia and East Timor are closer - why not them instead

West Australians have been forced to buy high-priced protected Eastern States manufactured goods for decades because we are “one economy” but now when the boot’s on the other foot....

As for different traffic laws in different states, do you object to neighbouring shires setting different rates and providing different services?  Where does it all end - some one in Canberra, or heck why not the UN in New York, being responsible for collecting the rubbish and deciding where the new roundabout will go?

At least if you’re unhappy with your State’s laws, you’ve got a meaningful say in trying to change them, and if all else fails you can move interstate.

Centralisation - in exchange for the dubious benefits of uniformity - kyboshes both of those options.

This is the irony here… I don’t really disagree with you. I think its foolish to be desperately trying to “rule yourself” at the expense of logic and efficiency. You can’t even get past the second part of Two Ways To Live without touching on the dangers of trying to rule yourself.

I don’t want to move from my home to the next suburb, let alone the next shire or state. Differing rates? Differing services? None of these need to be an issue for an Australian. If I need to utilise a service that I can’t go next door for, its probably a local government thing. Otherwise, give it to Canberra. Surely it’s better to have the best minds of the 7 States centralised to organise health, economics, education, rather than spread them out so thinly?

As far as ownership of resources… well, they don’t really belong to anyone. Quite frankly, the old national system of commerce and ownership is running out of legs really fast. We have a situation where countries like India and China are producing the bulk of the world’s manufactured goods, and with debt markets and international trade etc etc… well that’s another thread, isn’t it?

Well it seems that the issue of the abolition of the states has surfaced in public debate.  In his delivery of the annual Edmund Barton lecture at Newcastle Uni last night the federal Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, argued that not only should Australia become a republic, but also that we should get rid of state government.  You can read a report here.  He raised a few other interesting issues as well.

Bob Cameron - 04 July 2008 02:46 PM

last night the federal Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, argued that not only should Australia become a republic, but also that we should get rid of state government.  You can read a report here.  He raised a few other interesting issues as well.

Well this is certainly a novel way to discharge the duties of the minister in charge of our armed forces, to declare his embarrassment at acknowledging the Sovereign to whom they have sworn allegience, and to propose the dismantling of the federal system which has served us so well.

If Labor carries on like this, the Coalition’s return to the treasury benches is likely to be sooner than previously anticipated.

Alan Dungey - 04 July 2008 03:39 PM

Bob Cameron - 04 July 2008 02:46 PM

last night the federal Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, argued that not only should Australia become a republic, but also that we should get rid of state government.  You can read a report here.  He raised a few other interesting issues as well.

Well this is certainly a novel way to discharge the duties of the minister in charge of our armed forces, to declare his embarrassment at acknowledging the Sovereign to whom they have sworn allegience, and to propose the dismantling of the federal system which has served us so well.

Alan
I don’t think he was embarrassed by the Sovereign herself, but rather by the maintainence of an institution which he believes to be anachronistic.  I think one can remain loyal while the institution remains, and at the same time declare that one believes the institution has outlived its usefulness.  (I am a republican by conviction, but I still pray for the Queen.) But even if not, on the logic of your argument Thomas Cranmer should have remained loyal to the Pope and not expressed his views about the Bible, the Lord’s Supper, the Church, etc.
Regards,
Bob

I wasn’t making an argument, Bob, so much as an observation about how appropriate it was for this particular minister to opine on this parrticular subject in this way.

Defence really doesn’t strike me as a best portfolio to be taken by a would-be constitutional vandal.  I can understand that Joel FitzGibbon may have private convictions of a republican and centralist disposition, but given his job, might it have been more prudent for him to have declined to express them at a public lecture?  And given that he appears to concede that the voting public are unlikely to vote to bestow more political power on Canberra any time soon, what on earth did he hope or expect to achieve?  The speech seems to me an exercise in vanity at the expense of both his party’s electoral interest and his responsibilities to the nation.

As for Thomas Cranmer, well I always though that “the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England)” - except perhaps in the State of New South Wales around the time of World Youth Day, in which case the Archbishop of Canterbury’s loyalty was to the Sovereign, and not the Pope.

If that relationship with the Sovereign soured, then I suppose Cranmer considered he owed a higher loyalty to God - an authority to whom I trust Joel FitzGibbon isn’t appealing for his opinions.

Since it is almost impossible to abolish the federal system, I do wish Australians and their leaders would express more pride in it, instead of continually running it down.  I’ve never meet an American who hankered to abolish the states; or a Swiss who wanted to see the back of the cantons - rubbishing our Constitution - by any measure one of the world’s most successful - seems to be uniquely Australian.