Klaas was unable to speak at the 1st Shed a Tier Congress as planned, however Klaas advises that his speech was to be substantially like the following discussion piece which he submitted to the Abolish States collective discussion group on 3 May 2001:

Comments on discussion over the last couple of weeks.

Several important items have come up wich have tended to attract comments from four to five members of ASC.  I would like to make a small contribution.

Thirty years ago I wrote an MA thesis on federalism (Sydney) and a few years later a Ph. D. thesis on Inter-Regional Polarisation of international regions (UNSW).  The first one required that I had to demonstrate familiarity with the then quite extensive - and interesting - literature of federalism (especially in the light of newly independent nations emerging from former colonial units) and the second one required an extensive treatment of the concept of regions - although especially in an international setting.  Many of the arguments touched on in recent days bring back memories of that research. One can very easily get lost in definitional controversy though.  We need to guard against this even though discussion is essential.  There are no ideal configurations for federalism and regional structures, even assuming that there is some definitional agreement, because the political realities and practicalities will tend to interfere with implementation.  Rather than over-debate such concepts we need to concentrate on the task we have set ourselves which is to replace the existing system with a different one which is (a) more efficient and cost effective, (b) more democratic and participative (c) and is straightforward, simple, instead of ambiguous and (too) open-ended.  To that end the language we use needs to be deliberately different from the old language. This is not really an academic exercise.  For the reason I recommend that we refrain from using “federalism” for a new organisation even though it is likely to have some quasi-federal qualities.  What we want is a decentralised unitary form of state.  This involves the abolition of divided sovereignty and a federal constitution that list a series of selected federal powers for the limited national government (as created in 1901) - Section 51 - with all other powers left with the states as protected by their own state constitutions - even though they can be overidden by federal legislation in the case of conflict - only.

All that must go and we should be quite candid, clear and upfront about it. A unitary state means that there will no longer be state or regional constitutions and no local government powers, or regional powers, that have the quality of being “sovereign”,  protected in a federal constitution (in Section 128). “Decentralised” means that local/regional are outlined in the constitution and that these are normally exercised by the lower level units - and also that much of the implementation of national legislation is left with the lower level units powers, at the discretion of the national (not central) government. To reach this point a process is required - a process of steps in a package which must no doubt be tied to the advent of the Republic.  It cannot be achieved in one big change but this is not to say that a daring model is not achievable or that it will necessarily take a very long time. I am convinced that progress along these lines can be achieved quite quickly, that it is essential that it be undertaken SOON and that once the serious discussion has started in Australia, it will gain a solid and enthusiastic momentum in of its own. Sure, this has to be pushed along by many community groups but it is my view that one or more political parties have to bundle this energy into political representation for constitutional change. Seen from this perspective the platforms of the Democrats and Greens, need to be sharpened and focused much more. At present these aspects are still of secondary importance to them - as is, even, Proportional Representation.

Consensus

It is desirable that we move towards a consensus or at least agreement on the most fundamental issues. As a group we need to present a clear platform.  There may be some details which can be left “open-ended” but not critical aspects of the proposals.  New members who come to the Collective should know what the agreed fundamentals are - these are not up for reconsideration and new debate.  We would be re-inventing the wheel many times if that was the case. Clearly, if some people come to us and, say, some of your key proposals are wrong in my view we should be able to say, well, that’s our position, we have discussed these matters fully - you don’t have to join us.  There will certainly be lots of people who are sympathetic to the changes proposed but who will say that it is just too difficult - we’re stuck with federation (I mentioned Helen Irving at the dinner, Brian Gallighan is another one).  Obviously, I do not at all agree with such views and I counter them where and when they pop up but we should not spend too much time on them.  The main issue to develop our program and policies and have clear position of (a) what we advocate; (b) how to get there.

The consensus positions developed by Mark have merit.  John’s addition (Emailed on lst May is less convincing to me. You talk about "improving allocation of powers and responsibilities between the three tiers” - but we suggest shedding a tier. In the same possible addition “less competition between the states” - doesn’t that suggest that the states continue to exist?

Position of Local Government and Regional Organisations.

As expressed earlier my view is that the second tier should be Local Government, more or less as it exist at present, minus the new City Governments, combined with regions which are built around the Voluntary Regional Organisations - many of which have been around for quite a few years (some 75) and are natural clusters.  Max Bradley mentioned that there are actually a large number of other, functional regions which work well - are these regions associated with State Departments?? - and these may well continuee to exist in a new organisations as part of national departments of state.  In 1994 there were 53 of such regions and I don’t really know whether or not this is still the number. It is true that a lot of local government units are not part of these regions and that the idea of clusters in sparsely populated areas has little meaning.

The principal purpose of such regions is coordination of local government functions across a fairly large area and, of course regional devlopment.  My view is that these regions can take over some of the functions of state government on behalf of local government rather than as a delegated function by the national government.  The tier is local government not regional government with its own elected parliament and civil service. I would describe the regions as a “Mezzanine Level” - there is new language for you!

Over time this could change and the new Republican constitution should make flexible provision for that as a possibility: some regions may prefer that to a group of elected local councils.  We are not going to advocate both deliberate not - but there should be provision for an alternative, if so desired.

The administrative regions should of course be detailed in the new Constitution and be instrumental in receiving and channeling grants to the local government areas.  As Max suggests the Grants system works quite well apparently. Regions could take the place of states.

A big change would be the introduction of City Government all the larger cities and this would eliminate many traditional city-based local councils.  That should be an excellent move. Of course there will be many detractors but many city-based local councils have very little community recognition as THEIR Council - quite different from the situation in country areas.  Almost certainly the opposition would come from vested interests of property developers who have their henchmen and women on Councils.  Most City dwellers will identify with a broadly representative City Council which could use the old State Parliament as its new home perhaps.

The name of "Abolish the States"

The issue was raised should that name be changed? Abolish is somewhat negative unless you have an alternative proposal to go with it.  We have but the name doesn’t say it.

So the terms Replacing should be in it or Regions. Like Regional Reform Movement or A Republic with Regions , Regions In - States Out, Replacing States with Regions. Strengthen Local Government, Replace the States, Regions instead of States.

Section 128 problems.

A. J. Brown from Brisbane expresses real concerns about getting any of our proposals for major constitutional changes passed. I have a theory about a developing/accelerating process (and enthusiasm) for constitutional change, which should start with a preferential referendum about a Republic and its President, as part of a much more comprehensive program - instead of piecemeal tinkering which has been the unsuccessful dominant mode in the 20th century. I can explain this more full later but the core of is that constitutional referendums be tackled through an Enabling Question 1. Here is a segment of material from Republic Now! (about you will hear more later)

Question 1 - Enabling question.

“For the sole purpose of voting on this package of proposed constitutional changes, detailed in the sections below, are you in favour of disregarding a requirement of Section 128 that a constitutional referendum needs to be carried by a majority in a majority of states, and replacing it by “a majority in three of the six states” (in addition to an overall national majority)?”

YES/NO

Thus the first question would mean that amendments put in later sections of that particular referendum ONLY would be carried if they are approved by an overall national majority and a majority in at least three (instead of at least four) of the six states.  Obviously, those who oppose any constitutional change would not accept that but those who accept the substantive changes that are proposed would almost certainly approve it.  Clearly, this is therefore not a blanket change to Section 128 - which was attempted, unsuccessfully, by the Whitlam Government some 27 years ago, in quite different circumstances.

Naturally, the enabling question itself would need to be approved in terms of the existing Section 128 provisions, meaning that it must be carried by at least four out of six states.  It is suggested that the First Preferential Referendum package, as proposed here, would be carried readily and Australia would become a Republic with a Directly Elected symbolic President - something that over 70% of voters have fairly consistenly supported prior to the Referendum of 1999, for at least two years.

That very success would set the tone for subsequent referendums and sweep away the NO syndrome.  The procedure can be repeated for the Second set of Preferential Referendums most of which would be carried.  The following Parliamentary election would the be contested on a new electoral system, Proportional Representation which will ensure a democratically elected Parliament where the term One Vote One Value actually means what it says.  In this way, further far-reaching changes would be still more likely, quite legitimately, even within the amendment framework of the present Constitution. Thus, continuity and legitimacy would be observed.

Klaas Woldring