We've already seen some reforms to the way our federation is managed, like the abolition of COAG and the creation of the national cabinet, which will now remain in session together with some subsidiary councils. The national cabinet was formed to deal with one specific health issue, with decision-making principally delegated to national medical experts. It was an exceptional, specific task of limited duration.

Clearly, Australia is capable of quick national action if needed. The urgency of major governance system reform should be next on the agenda.

Some have suggested that federation has been shown to work well during the pandemic, given how things have been handled by state governments. The Ruby Princess drama surely suggests otherwise. Although the national cabinet had adopted full control of the pandemic issue and section 51(ix) of the constitution states that quarantine is a federal power, it was still left to the NSW government to deal with the matter. It failed to do that, and got the blame. What about the federal Health Department and Border Control?

Another example is the fact that several states have kept their borders closed, which is clearly not in service of the national interest. The Queensland tourism and hospitality industry in particular is annoyed by this. Farmers operating close to borders have been severely disadvantaged, as have several schools.

Thus far, in spite of several major conferences about "fixing the federal problems" in a piecemeal, tinkering fashion (see 2008, 2011, 2014), a deep conservatism has prevailed. Some change-resistant scholars have argued that federalism still has something to offer, that the problems are either imagined and/or insignificant, or that federalism can be "saved", "rescued'" or "made to work". The constitution is also often cited as a major obstacle to real reform.

This approach looks much like capitulation. Why not rewrite this archaic colonial document? Yes, both major parties have interests, although of a different kind, in maintaining the status quo - but it could well be of much greater advantage to both of them, and the country, to take on a bold renewal program of governance system reforms.

I am talking about abolishing the states.

The reality is that there are too many politicians in Australia: 754 at the state and federal level, to be exact, for 25 million people. There is also a cumbersome decision-making process caused by opposition that takes place in both the cross-party and federal-state arenas. Ending the duplication of so many federal-state activities would add up to a lot more in savings than the cost of 300 to 400 MPs, their salary, accommodation and transport expenses. The speed of decision-making would increase significantly.

How can we still hesitate to act following the current crisis and the realisation that there has to be much more co-operation instead of continuing with the endless blame game? If the solution of major health problems is to rely on the medical scientists, what about the other scientists? What about political scientists and constitutional experts who have studied alternatives beyond the Westminster and US systems? There certainly were conditions that suited federation in 1901. But since 1945, the times have changed dramatically. Superior communication and transport systems, plus the concentration of our population in a few cities, now favour a decentralised unitary system. Centralisation is now a problem at the state level, not the national level.

Abolishing federation has been ALP policy in the past. A well-known important older text, by Professor Gordon Greenwood (1946), comes to mind here. The replacement of federation was also strongly supported by former prime minister Bob Hawke. As far as the Coalition is concerned, it is not entirely impossible either, given their earlier great ambitions to achieve a balanced budget.

READ MORE:

Real savings can be made in abolishing federation. Eliminating unnecessary state governments would turn Australia into one efficient nation with a lean, democratic, two-tier governance structure, comprising a national government and local governments. There would room for appropriate regional clusters as an in-between mezzanine-type level, somewhat like the Regional Organisations of Councils, which already exist but are not given much publicity or financial strength. In other words, not more states, as some quasi-reformers have suggested at times, using section 124 of the existing archaic constitution, but none at all!

The incredible complexity that is part and parcel of federation needs to end. Major cities should be part of the local government structure, with special city governments taking over many of the functions of state governments. Regional and rural Australia would then become the direct and total responsibility of the national government, a logical, long-overdue and highly desirable reform. We can then start also on effective decentralisation, build up Australia's 50 or so significant regional cities, instead of squeezing more people into the five larger cities - a major security risk to boot. Farming and other regional communities especially would progress. The local government sector would cease to be the Cinderella of the existing structure.

Of course, it would mean a completely new constitution - something desirable for very many other reasons as well.

And yes, this would all certainly stimulate strong growth in Canberra as well, as the national capital. The potential for that growth is beyond question. Effective decentralisation of regional development would be achieved from Canberra, not the state capitals.