Abolishing the states - the benefits ignored

Far from being "set in stone", our founding parents saw the Constitution as a dynamic document, not something operating as the "dead hand of the past". It seems they did not appreciate the difficulties that party politics would engender. The processes for constitutional change were never intended to be an insurmountable barrier - they were there to ensure changes would be worthy. This is in contrast to commentators like Craven who seem to say the constitution is written in stone and we even think about changing it at our peril.

Constitutional change is not the only possibility. Craven notes the states have been under siege. He seems to be saying that just because the states are so weak, no one could be bothered to kill them off now. But, to us, they're still as wasteful, still as frustrating as they've always been. Craven stops short of observing that, in time, the states could wither away to a mere shell and changes to the Constitution would be merely cosmetic. This is not something we advocate - it would mean that we never engaged with the issue of what Australia means and the ad hoc progression would be destructive and wasteful. But it is another possibility if we refuse the potential for constitutional change.

One worthy constitutional change is state abolition. While Craven claims otherwise, BF would be willing to accept Australia not going in that direction, if everyone really did think that. Perhaps we have a respect for Australians which Craven lacks. In any case, state abolition has not really been discussed and has never really been on the table. It may have to be done in stages, but we plan to make principled advocacy towards this goal.

So, I hope you're feeling a little more positive about the idea of abolishing the states. Disagree with us if you will but please, disagree with us and not a straw man - not something nobody is in fact saying!