Abolishing the states - the benefits ignored

Craven acknowledges our claim of waste but says we refuse to acknowledge the benefits of representation (which is incorrect). We have waste through the collision of services - apart from duplication and inconsistent regulation, government departments spend money shifting the cost to other levels of government rather than spending it on services. There are also people moving between states. Mark Drummond, a Canberra researcher, has calculated the cost to be about $30 billion-a-year, but recent calculations posit an even higher figure.

While Craven claims federation has benefits, he makes no effort to measure their worth so they can be compared to its costs. The best Craven can do is put the word "savings" in quotation marks to discredit it without looking further.

BF agrees with Craven that national powers have increased over time, and historically, the states surrendered their taxation powers and did not try to regain them. Yes, if the Commonwealth did not have taxation, you'd have fewer problems with the distribution of responsibility, power and resources. But the cure would be worse than the disease.  We prefer to think of Australia as a community, willing to share both benefits and costs. Unless we take care, the different participants will squabble over resources. We need to agree on principles and common minimum standards so that the sharing is not continuously contested; but we want to give different regions autonomy as well. It's a challenge, sure – but it's better than Australia being a collection of self-serving principalities.

Craven tries to use international comparisons to shore up his case in favour of federalism. He notes federations are emerging overseas such as in the European Union and the break-up of the formerly unitary United Kingdom into Scotland and Wales. However, in these examples the political units capture substantial historical and social differences - there's no similarity to Australia. Craven claims the Australian Federation has delivered decentralisation. But international comparison suggests Australia's state and Commonwealth governments are centralised - our system is "duplicated centralism" - not "decentralised federalism" as Craven claims.

Craven is blind to the fact many people in the country see the state capitals as dominating. Country residents in NSW joke that NSW means "Newcastle, Sydney and Woollongong" or "NSW Stops at Wagga". Max Bradley, previously a councillor in NSW's Berrigan Shire sees the dominance of Sydney and doesn't even notice Canberra. Dr Sharpe in WA notes that while some people in Perth see the eastern states grabbing a disproportionate share of the resources from WA, country residents see Perth claiming a disproportionate share of WA resources.

Craven admits the states are very similar but tries to claim the smaller differences are significant. BF acknowledges that "smaller, subtler" differences exist. The point, however, is that there are more differences within the states than between them. A farmer in northern NSW has more in common with a farmer in southern Queensland than with a Sydney resident.

These differences are best captured in a level below that of the states. Local government, regional government - call it what you will. We agree there are differences in the Australian population, it's just that the states steamroll over these differences without looking. While local government is a creature of state government, we're willing to consider giving local government constitutional protection. So, we are not the "centralists" Craven claims we are.

Our argument is a lot more subtle than Craven claims. But, yes, we do say state boundaries are arbitrary "lines on a map", though Craven might try to ridicule the point. A.J. Brown's research suggests the boundaries of NT and SA - cutting a swathe through the middle of Australia - originate in the Treaty of Tordesillas from 1494. When the Pope divided the world between the Spanish and Portuguese, the contested boundary of their domains passed through the middle of Australia. It meant the UK, trying to be sensitive to foreign interests, settled in eastern Australia first and the lines that give SA and NT their identity originated in this long-distant historical accident. This is but one example of how Australia's state boundaries developed more by accident than design.

Craven prefers to emphasise current differences between the states, regardless of history. Well, if those differences are that significant, fair enough. Mere history does not of itself provide an argument - we'd be the first to agree. But history does tell us that our current boundaries are arbitrary and not something to get worked up about.

Craven claims removal of the states means an end to local initiatives and prerogatives. But regions, rather than states, could pursue local initiative. We could improve the links between levels of government - for example mayors could be representatives in the upper house - and this would improve regional influence. It's not like the current Senate performs its intended function as a house of state representation. This has long since been lost in party dominance and rivalry.

Craven claims the states are "laboratories". But in reality we have a lot of bloody-mindedness and difference for its own sake. People in trades like teaching, nursing, plumbing are frustrated at the hurdles involved in having your qualification recognised in another state - a boiler maker (sheet metal fabricator) spoke about his frustrations in working across the country at our Albury-Wodonga congress. And if you want new ideas, you can learn a lot from other Western democracies. But to the extent you really need experimentation, this could be implemented by giving regions some freedom to do things differently – perhaps on application to an extra-governmental body like the High Court.

Craven ridicules Australia's lack of significant constitutional change. While this is true, many proposals for change were political axe grinding - be it Menzies' attempt to ban the Communist Party or Labor's attempt to get nationalisation of industry into the Constitution. These proposals must have made many Australians cringe, regardless of their politics otherwise.