Good evening. Tonight I'll be taking a critical look at some articles by the Centre for Independent Studies, arguing in favour of the status quo.

The CIS is a group which broadly pursues conservative and libertarian goals, and includes Federalism and the Constition amongst its concerns. Another player is the Samuel Griffiths Society, which is named after a High Court Judge who protected Federalism. It focuses on the Constitution and Federalism but has a broadly conservative thrust. This is ironic, given that Samuel Griffith was a progressive for his day. He had a strong commitment to a fair go for working people, one vote one value, and also opposed the importation of slave labour into North Queensland.

In a recent publication of the CIS by Geoffrey de Q. Walker, "Ten Advantages of a Federal Constitution", Walker complains about the lack of awareness of the advantages of Federalism amongst the community, with concern about the traction that the Abolish the States movement has been able to attain. Certainly, there's sporadic coverage of the Abolish the States issue in different newspapers. Equally though, papers like "The Australian" have been known to push the Federalist line. But, even with the coverage we do get, it seems of the "flash in the pan" variety. We don't know if it represents something the author is really passionate about, or something which fills the pages. This "flash in the pan" coverage has not really gained much momentum. But, perhaps regardless of your situation, you'll always bellyache about the challenges for your position.

In a perverse sort of way, though, we agree with the Federalists - there should be more awareness of the advantages of Federalism, there should be more awareness of its problems, too. Its would be great for options for Government to be a contemporary matter which is generally discussed. But many groups trying to push their view are frustrated with both the opposition and a lack of interest in the community in their issue generally. But that is the state of the world - it is a definite step to move past the ups and downs of our lives and take an interest in the broader institutions around us.

But lets take a look at the ten advantages Walker puts forward. 1. The right of choice and exit

The right of choice and exit is one which only those financially well off to move are able to take advantage of, and even then there are siginificant costs; in contrast, a working government system benefits all.

2. The possibility of experiment

Rather than having experiment, States do different things for the sakes of bloody mindedness, and this is a limited benefit. There is much activity overseas in similar western democracies which could be considered for inspiration, and there's also the option of regions performing experiments.

3. Accommodating regional preferences and diversity

The states have more disparity within them than between them; a farmer in Northern NSW may have more in common with farmer in Queensland than with Sydneysider. Smaller government divisions would better capture this diversity.

4. Participation in government and the countering of elitism

A complex government system, as we have, means that governments can buck pass and dodge responsibility. A simpler government system is easier to understand and influence.

5. The federal division of powers protects liberty

In the US, it was their Federal Government which intervened on behalf of blacks in the Southern States. There's no evidence that a Federal system protects liberty.

6. Better supervision of government

A system which is more complex is more difficult to supervise. Its difficult to see how a Federal system involving the States as we have them now is easier to supervise.

7. Stability

Rather than having states to counter power, high courts and different houses of parliament are more effective checks without the associated waste.

8. Fail-safe design

Supposed fail-safe design means that the ship can go on with one of its compartments failed. However, equivalently the whole ship can be slowly rusting because nobody notices; the whole nation can be sick like someone with a cold and never recover.

9. Competition and efficiency in government

My reply to the competition argument is similar to that for experiment.

10. A competitive edge for the nation

As for financial advantage, Mark Drummond has calculated that the States cost us at least $30 billion dollars a year, something we would save in removing the states.

Moving onto other publications, the CIS published an article by Professor Greg Craven of Curtin University in their Winter 2005 issue of Policy magazine. Walker's argument, which while it has problems, articulates a case in favour of Federalism. Craven, in contrast, makes a show of engaging with arguments in favour of State abolition, but presents a serious mis-representation of the abolish-the-states position.

Sadly, he sees strange motives in those who might oppose him : we're deluded, arrogant, irrational, elitist and so forth. In fact, we do acknowledge the opposition; we acknowledge the benefits of distribution of power, but seek better ways of realising the same positive outcomes. And we'd never question the motives of our opponents : we differ, but don't think of them as defective ! Its important to avoid making personal slurs in putting forward our argument.

Craven tries to associate advocacy of State abolition with Howard's recent frustration with the States. But our discussion long predates Howard's public frustrations, and we're certainly not wanting to give the Howard Government (or any Government) carte blanche to do whatever it damn well likes. We acknowledge the importance of checks and balances - but not if you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Craven claims State abolition is only pushed by residents of NSW and Victoria. The reality is very different. We have proponents in Queensland - including the Constitutional Lawyer A.J. Brown at Griffith University. Several Tasmanian councillors were planning to attend this conference (perhaps they have) - there's been support in Tasmanian newspapers - including a Hobart Mercury editorial. Other advocates include Dean Jaench in SA and Dr Chrissy Sharpe, the Greens MLC in WA.

In 2001, A.J. Brown surveyed Queenslanders; around 60% expected and looked forward to basic changes. Around 40% were interested in more than minor change, including State abolition. In 1997, "The Big Conversation" was held all over Australia - virtually all forums wanted a stronger role for local government - and approximately half of the forums explicitly explored removing the States. This was a majority of those in SA, WA, TAS, NT and NSW.

Contrary to claims of us being politically narrow, perhaps with a line going back to 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 amongst our number, who feel strongly about their contribution to the anti-Communist cause.

There's waste - as I've just outlined, and Craven makes a passing reference to it. Federalists often talk about the benefits of federation - but they don't try to articulate what they're worth, or try to balance things out. The best Craven can do is put the word 'savings' in quotation marks to discredit it without looking further.

Historically, the States did surrender their taxation powers to the Commonwealth - and did not try to regain them afterwards. National powers have increased. Craven notes this, and we agree. However, we see these developments as positive. Yes, if the Commonwealth did not have taxation, you'd have fewer problems with the distribution of responsibility and power. Federalists point this out, and we agree with them. But the cure would be worse than the disease. Finances are a difficult issue. Rather than just giving up and running in circles, we prefer to engage with the issue.

Craven tries to use international comparisons to shore up his case. Yes, Federations are emerging overseas - EU and Scotland/Wales in the UK. But here the political units capture real social differences - unlike Australia. He claims Australia's federalism delivers decentralisation. An alternative interpretation, better supported by international comparison, is that Australia's State and Commonwealth governments are among the most centralised in the first world, and that our system is better characterised as "duplicated centralism" rather than "decentralised federalism".

Craven fails to acknowledge that many people in the country see the State capitals dominating. Country residents in my own NSW say NSW means "Newcastle, Sydney, Woollongong" or "NSW Stops at Wagga". Max Bradley, previously a councillor in Berrigan Shire NSW, 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 WA residents see Perth as grabbing a disproportionate share of WA resources.

The States are very similar, and _are_ just "lines on a map". A.J. Brown's research suggests that the boundaries of NT and SA - cutting a swathe through the middle of Australia - originate in the treaty of Tordesillas from 1494.

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.

The "smaller, subtler" differences Craven talks about are best captured in a political level below that of the States. Local government, regional government, call it what you will. While local government is a creature of State government, we'd be willing to give local government constitutional protection. Our opponents claim we only talk centralisation ...

We're not talking about removing local initiatives and prerogatives. We can improve the links between levels of government - for example mayors could be representatives in the upper house. This would improve regional influence. While the Senate was intended as a house of State representation, this has long since been lost through party dominance and rivalry.

Australia has seen few Constitutional changes. But, many proposals were in fact political axe grinding - be it Menzies' attempt to ban the Communist Party - or Labor's attempt to get nationalisation of industry into the Constitution. They must have made many Australians cringe, regardless of their politics otherwise.

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 also seems they did not appreciate the difficulties that party politics would engender. The processes for constitutional change were never intended as an insurmountable barrier, a statement that the constitution should remain pristine - they were there to ensure changes would be worthy. This is in contrast to commentators likes Craven who run contrary to the intent of our founding parents.

And a worthy constitutional change is State abolition. We may have to work to it in stages, rather than all at once. We would seek the support of the Australian people. And, much to the surprise of our opponents, we seek it respectfully - without arrogance. If the Australian people don't want to go that way, then we accept that. Having said that, we'll do our best to persuade them of its merits.

But constitutional change is not the only possibility. With time, the States could wither away to a mere shell, so that changes to the Constitution become merely cosmetic. Its 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.

That brings my talk to a close. I hope you found it interesting.