Abolishing the States: Craven's one eyed view
John August responds
Click here for PDF version

Greg Craven's federalist article in the last issue of Policy makes numerous misunderstandings of the ‘Abolish-the-States’ position. It refuses to acknowledge there could be any problems with federalism, and claims our imperfect federation captures the benefits of an ideal federation. He dismisses, rather than engaging with, our arguments about waste, the arbitrariness of state boundaries, and possibilities for Constitutional change. He attaches problems and agendas to our position that just don't exist.

The group ‘Beyond Federation’ (which I'm involved with) advocates this cause. We run periodic congresses, one recently in Gippsland (9-10 July). We've had several over the years, in Canberra , Sydney , Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Contrary to claims that we are politically narrow, perhaps inspired by Whitlam, we have support from across the political spectrum. We've had Liberal Party members address our congresses over problems like the Murray-Darling River . And we have Vietnam Veterans among our number, who feel strongly about their contribution to the anti-Communist cause.

Fundamentally, you can be in favour of subsidiarity and decentralisation, and also in favour of abolishing the States. Rather than seeing the States as ‘decentralised federalism’, they're more obviously ‘duplicated centralism’ in the different capital cities. Craven seems blind to the city-country divide. Dr. Chrissy Sharpe, ex Greens WA MLC, tells us that just as some residents of Perth claim the ‘Eastern States’ are grabbing a disproportionate share of WA's resources, Country WA residents claim Perth grabs a disproportionate share of WA's resources. Country residents in my own NSW say it stands for ‘ Newcastle , Sydney , Woollongong’.

Our models include moving power downwards from States to Local and Regional Governments. Presently, Local Governments are creatures of the State Governments - but some approaches contemplate giving constitutional recognition to Local or Regional Government.

Certainly, some power is going to migrate upwards to the National Government. However, rather than checking this power through the wasteful states (like shooting yourself in the foot), we contemplate other checks on power. These include having councillors double as Senate representatives and the power of recall of sitting members by the electorate. This means we have the benefit of uniformity. We do acknowledge that diversity has its benefits - but it’s better to have smaller regions capture that diversity. At present, the States are large enough to compete wastefully with each other. Coal is but one example. And remember the Carr-Kennett conflict over Fox Studios? If only they could have met privately, decided on a price, and flipped a coin. Competition in this case benefited Fox Studios at the expense of Australia .

Getting rid of the States is not just something to do because of waste and inconsistency - we see it as a path towards a more open and accountable Government.

John August
Committee Member, Beyond Federation

Policy is the quarterly review of The Centre for Independent Studies. For more information on subscribing to Policy, click HERE

If you are interested in the Centre's activities and publications, why not subscribe to e-PreCIS, our regular email update on the latest news and events.

(e-PreCIS requires html capable email facilities, such as Microsoft Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger)