Max Bradley has proposed his "Shed a Tier" model, where the states are
eliminated, and state responsibilities are retained by the state bodies 
which would then report to the Commonwealth Government.

Max's model also includes changes to the National government to make it
more accountable to electors, and includes the notion that in view of
his changes, the need for a senate as a "check and balance" is less
relevant.

There are two "elements" which Max's model seems to  be responding to.
The first is the presence of the States, and the second is the lack of
accountability of the Federal government.

Max's approach has a particular focus in its explanation of problems and
their causes.

With regard to grants, he says :

> The Federal assistance grants are allocated on a formula, that has
> worked well for many years, so it is tried and proven.

> They are allocated on a formula and not on how they are spent so each
> council can spend them on administration if they like.

Here max separates out Federal policy into the "good" and presumably the
"bad", in that we can separate out the "good" without seeing the good and
bad as resulting from the "overall system".

There are several areas where Max makes assurances about the causes of
existing problems, whereby his model will rectify those problems.

Max does not want the councils to have any "State like" powers.
There does seem to be "meddling in local affairs" by a distant
government. The problem is that its easy for an Australia wide policy
to be positive, but have abrasive consequences for some particular
regions.

To his credit, however, he is not after "local additional power" in an
attempt to correct any such abuses.

Max's solution to the "distant meddling" is to make government more
accountable.  Other models propose regional parliaments, so that what
would have been "powers to meddle from afar" are implemented locally, so
at least they are not implemented "from a distance".

Others (like Charles) see this as bringing government closer to the people,
moving it from the state capital to a closer regional capital, but
Max sees the implementation of regional governments as moving power from
a local council to a distant regional capital, with there being little
difference between the distance "To Shepparton" vs. the distance "To
Sydney" vs. that "To Canberra".

Max writes :

> I always use Berrigan and The Berrigan Shire as an example, is so that
> when a suggestion of regional governments, that will be just new smaller
> states, or very large councils, and at the same time take away my local
> council, I can point out some of the repercussions of such actions with
> very first hand knowledge.  If we are making a better system of
> government, then make it better for the right reasons.

Others propose a direct link of representation from local regions to the
National government, something which Max has problems with.

Max's single paragraph encapsulation :

Australia's system of government would change by abolishing the 
state governments, to one in which political and financial powers and 
other responsibilities presently held by the states and territories are 
transferred to the Commonwealth. Local Government and Regional areas, 
who are close to the people, will administer and implement the laws and 
deliver government services, with greater financial support from the 
Commonwealth.
 
Max continues :

The aim of the Shed A Tier model is to keep government as simple as
possible so as anyone can understand it and take an interest in
politics; solve as many of the present problems as possible with the
simplest and smallest changes; and propose changes that enough
people will accept so they may be implemented.

I do not dislike the states [in particular], what I have a problem with
is the whole system of government in Australia, because it is
undemocratic, too complicated, to costly, centralised in the capital
cities, and not helping to lead Australians to a better society.

The Shed A Tier model :

Abolish state government
Transfer the states powers, responsibilities, territory and assets to 
 the national government.
Local government stay much as it is.
Retain present federal electorates.
Retain the present Parliament house in Canberra.
Administer health, police, education through the present regions.

A new National Government

Five year term.

Every Member of Parliament must stand for an election of the
parliament before and not exceeding five years and seven days.

Use present Federal electorates, adjusted by the boundary commission
as necessary.

One fifth of the electorates vote every year, with every electorate
voting every five years.

Voting will be on the Saturday before the 30th September.

Members of the parliament will be dismissed from the parliament for
any criminal offence.

The parliament as a whole can only be dismissed for not upholding the
constitution, by the high court.

A member of the parliament who does not serve to the end of their
full term will pay the cost of a by election.

A member of the parliament elected at a by-election will serve to the
end of the normal term of that electorate.

An electorate can bring on a by-election when a petition of more the
30% of the electors has been presented to the court.

The members of parliament will appoint a leader who will become the
prime minister, and this position will be the highest position and be
the leader of the Australian nation.

A referendum will happen when one third of the members of
parliament vote for it.

The referendum questions with be presented to each set of electorates as
they go to the poll, so it may take five years to achieve a result.

A member of parliament must be an Australian citizen and can not
have duel citizenship.

To become a member of parliament they must be twenty one or older, and
must not reach the age of seventy five years during their term in
parliament.

A member of parliament can only serve three terms consecutively, then
must have a five year break.

Only Australian citizens can vote.

Voting is not compulsory.

Must be more eighteen years of age or more to vote.

Max also writes :

I trust everyone reading this wants a better system of government, one
that is simpler and clearly accountable.  It is not about abolishing the
states, but rather state government.

It means taking apart the government system, making it simpler,
streamlining it, and have it fit the needs of the Australian people.  It
means taking the governments of eight regions of Australia and making
one national government.

I have trouble with regions be it thirty or sixty.  Even with sixty
regions many will still be bigger then Victoria.  How could there be a
community of interest over such a vast area ?  What about the large
cities, will they be one region, or divided up - how?  People only have
an interest in their community and have no interest in a region.

It seems there is a great misunderstanding as to what local
government,or councils role is, and what they actually do.  If anyone
looks a Victoria and sees what has happened there since the
amalgamations, they will dismiss the chance of having the people
agreeing to having the local councils made bigger.

[However, AJ notes separately that amalgamations in Tasmanian have
progressed without significant ill effects. - JA]

On speaking to many mayor and councillors from across Australia on the
Shed A Tier project, they all agree, state government should go and then
many say " We will replace them with regional government".  When I ask
what will these regional government do, no-one has any idea how this
will be an improvement on present councils..  Where will the
headquarters of the region be, " In my home town." How do you elect
representatives, how do you pay them, are they full time, where do they
meet, what power do they have?  Nobody has any real answers to these
simple questions.

[this does not consider the discontinuity of laws between states, quite
apart from what goes on at a "local" level.  People's interaction with
govt/law is not just at a local level.  Replacing the system with
regional government can improve the State - National separation, quite
apart from what happens regionally - JA]

Charles put forward some problems with our present government; Here's
Max's take on them :

> Lack of accountability in government.

This is not a fault of government - it is the result of a lack of
interest and participation by the people.  People and governments will
only be as accountable as people make them in any system, hence my model
emphasises simplicity.

When did anybody ring their local member and them they had it wrong or
some thing need to be changed.  When did anybody ring the minister for
silly walks and tell them they were not doing it right.

[While Max's local member may be approachable, Ministers may deal with
hundreds of letters a month -JA]

> Lack of transparency in government.

Most people who take a real interest in politics know what our
governments are up to and are very transparent in what they are doing,
which in most cases is looking after themselves and a party.

> Feelings of powerlessness by the people.

The reason this feeling is there is because the people do nothing about
it, and use this statement as a excuse.

> The feeling of remoteness of the government from the people.

Even the people in the other towns in my shire which are within 30 kms
of the shire office reckon it is to remote, so I really don't know how
to overcome this, other then to have a system that put some
representation as close to the people as possible.

[Perhaps this is something that people will always complain about.  I
suspect we need to distinguish between "real" remoteness and an
expression of people's laziness.  Sure, government should be accessible,
but that does not mean people need to make zero effort to get in touch -
JA]

> Inappropriate electoral laws engineered by major political parties.
> Overriding power of the two major political parties in our system.

These are a huge problem in our present system, but remember the people
keep voting them into power.  Any new system needs to look at ways
of kerbing such power.

> Rising power of multi-nationals.  Ever increasing power of international
> organisations

With these two unless the people are willing to change their
voting habits then this will continue and no system of government will
change this with out the people forcing it.

                --- ****** -----

Debate on Max's model naturally focused on country and regional Australia.
When asked about the problems of city governments vs. higher level 
governments including state governments, Max's reply was :

> I do see problems in large city regions, and in a lot of cases if these
> councils were smaller these problems could be overcome.  Brisbane is an
> example.

Max focuses on "smaller councils", even in larger cities, when some people
are focusing on council amalgamations in cities.

Mark reports that during discussions with Max,

> we arrived at tentative views that some sort of whole of Sydney
> authority was called for, with democratically elected positions, but
> that this authority would not amount to being a full-blown regional
> government with a full complement of functions.

> We felt that significant urban and transport planning and
> water/resource management roles would be apt for such an authority,
> which could be termed (say) a "special purpose metropolitan
> government/authority", leaving to local councils within the metropolis
> the fuller, more GENERAL array of municipal functions, powers and
> responsibilities.

Now we move onto discussions of close to the people government, and
regional Australia.

Charles asked :

> I thought one of the aims of Abolishing State Gov'ts was to bring
> government closer to the people.  This proposal has Canberra
> directly controlling what happens in Broome with relation to everything
> except Rates, Rubbish and Roads.

Max's reply :

> Can you tell me the difference in distance from Broome to Perth and
> Broome to Canberra.  The Mob in Canberra already control every thing
> including rates roads and rubbish, because they control the money.  Can
> you suggest a system of national laws, police, health, and education
> that does not require a central government ?

Mark wrote :

> At present we have nine "big" governments (state, territory and federal)
> which, except for the ACT (and perhaps Tasmania) preside over large
> populations spread over immense land areas - so it's like duplicated
> lots of the "mobs from Canberra" that Charles refers to above.

> And, accounting for just 6 to 7 % of total government spending, we have
> local government which actually does much more than roads, rates and
> rubbish, but obviously can't do as much as can counterpart local
> governments in countries like Switzerland, Canada and the USA, where
> local government account for 21, 18 and 24% of total government spending
> respectively (these figures might be a year out of date now I should
> add).

According to Max, in rural areas, the local government delivers most of
the services which citizens make use of. Mark continues :

> My position is that if we abolish states and move to a system where
> close-to-people local/regional government end up accounting for 20% or
> so of total government spending, that would give us a great system.

Max stated what he saw as the problems of the current system, which he
said would be fixed by his model :

> The Huge cost of having more then one government and more then one
>   parliament.
> Different laws and rules.
> Different education standards.
> Disjointed health and aged care.
> Different Police forces.
> Buck passing between governments.
> Far too many politicians.
> Far too many bureaucrats.
> Too many people making laws and rules.

Its reasonably clear that these will be rectified by the Shed a Tier
model. However, some remaining claims by Max are a bit more contentious :

> Complicated system of government.

Certainly its true the government would become simpler.  But, it could
also be susceptible to its own problems.

> Communities have little control over their local issues.

If communities have control over their local issues through their local
government, then there's no gain to be made. If they do not have control
over local issues because there is "distant meddling", then we have to 
assume that the remaining elements of the model stop "distant meddling".

Anthony David writes :

> One of the problems I have with the current Federal system is that for
> many people, in particular those in the bush, there is a sense of
> powerlessness when it comes to being on the receiving end of State AND
> Federal Government decisions.  I feel that it is very important that
> specific powers be proscribed to Local Government and that some of it
> could even be a subset of the Federal powers.

Returning to Max :

> Lack of interest in politics by the people.

Here we're assuming the model will improve things, so that people become
more interested. But we're assuming the result.

> The whole system of government is geared to money instead of people.

This is too easy a thing to say, and has little depth.

> Very poor constitution

This is too open to debate. I've read the constitution. It could be better,
and it needs a commentary to make any sense. But, a "rewrite" is not the
only way to improve the situation. More awareness is another fix. Further,
you could make minimal changes to the constitution to enable Max's model
and still have a messy constitution.

Charles and Max debated their respective models. Its difficult to separate
out this debate, but I've located this bit of debate here. Its mostly to
do with Max's model, though Charles does refer to his.

 From Charles to Max, talking about the remoteness of a "regional" model
vs. a "local government" model; Charles >, Max >> :

> There is no difference in remoteness between the present system and
> regional governments.  That is why I am advocating regional gov'ts.
> Under the model I have in mind, the gov't in Perth would disappear and
> there would be a regional gov't in Broome responsible for the
> implementation of nearly all gov't services in that region.  The only
> function of the gov't in Canberra would be broad policy on most subjects
> and total responsibility for such things as defence, immigration,
> customs, etc.

>> There is already a council in Broome with a mayor who is local.
>> This council already implements most government services.

>> Canberra already control every thing including rates roads
>> and rubbish, because they control the money.

> Under my model,  80% of national revenue is passed to regional
> gov'ts without ties.  This would be enshrined in the Constitution and
> could only be altered via a referendum.

>> When we go to war we only have a very limited amount of money to use.
>> If the people have control over their politicians then the money will be
>> spent where it is needed.  Where else would the National government
>> spend the money ?

>> Can you suggest a system to get national laws, police, health, and
>> education that does not have a central government ?

> My approach advocates only national laws (ie, only the national
> Parliament has the power to pass laws), and there would be only one
> police force.  However, there would be Regional Police Chiefs and they
> would be talking to the Regional Parl't.  The National Parliament would
> also establish national POLICIES on Health, Education, etc.

>> Have Health, Police, Education administered by the present regions.

> If the State's powers go to the National Gov't then who or what is going
> to administer these functions?

>> With health it will be the people in Wagga, with police it will the
>> people in Newcastle, with education the people in Deni.  What is the
>> contradiction ? The only change will be who is their boss.  It will be
>> someone in Canberra instead of Sydney.

>> So if there is only going to be national laws what are these regional
>> parliaments going to be doing , checking on barking dogs.  We already
>> have regional police chiefs.  Mine is 600kms away.

One of the issues above is that of the powers and responsibilities of
the regions vs.  the National Government and councils.  This has focused
on barking dogs and police services more generally.  Anthony provides an
example of the issues of regional administration, applied more particularly
to education :

> While a national curriculum and pay structure for primary and secondary
> education is beneficial from the point of view of student and teacher
> mobility between regions, the educational needs of the Brewarrina
> Community and the educational needs of the Belconnen community do not
> completely overlap.

> It is important that people feel empowered by the abolition of the
> states, not isolated and powerless.  Decisions that directly affect a
> community should be made by the community.  There's a danger when all
> power is conferred to a central executive, remote from a large portion
> of the population it purports to serve.

[The issue seems to be of isolation and ineptness, not corruption -JA]

> The above example, I think, does not require legislative power on the
> part of the local government but it does require administrative
> responsibility.

> Trading hours for example, could be a local legislative responsibility
> as it affects local businesses, their employees and local customers.

> One counter-argument I come across when talk to people regarding the
> empowerment of Local Government is "But Councils are corrupt".  It is
> imperative that Local Government reform be implemented in tandem with
> Constitutional reform in order to improve the accountability of all
> elected governments.

Mark makes a comment to try to clarify expenditures and responsibilities
between the national government and regions :

I'd envisage a system where the expenditure pie might be something as
follows:

*  national government responsibilities - centrally operated: 30 to 40%
(including defence, foreign affairs, customs, national law and regulation
etc.)

*  national government responsibilities administered through regional
authorities like the regions Max refers to (which could host democratic
election features whilst falling short of amounting to regional
governments - this is a point we need to open our minds on - perhaps
40% to 50%

*  local government with present powers but significantly increased GENERAL
autonomy to do what they like: 20%

I wrote on this subject earlier :

Max noted that the Federal Government currently hands out grants to
local Governments directly, all 900 of them.  Mark notes that other
countries have many regions operating below the Federal Government.

So, with certain operations, we can have a large number of regions and
one Federal Government.

However, if you have a lot of regions, then operations must travel in
one direction, from the Federal Government to the regions.

Consider Federal grants to Councils. The Federal Government hands out the
money, the Council agrees to do certain things with it. No negotiation.

However, look at the Premier's conference and how the different states
squabble for funds from the Federal Government. It is bad enough with the
completely unworkable with 900 regions squabbling.

You would not want to have the Federal Government set up a law and have half
the regions start special pleading, so the framework would have be to set
up to allow questioning of the overall law without special pleading about
a particular region.

You would have to have a different scheme for allocation of funds. Its
a challenge to provide something which has clarity so it does not invite
argument, but can also respond flexibly to changing situations.

According to Max, a region with too many people will cover so large an
area that the people in it will not have anything in common with each
other.

But, if you set the regions geographically, and you'll find that some
regions have much fewer people than others.

If each region receives a certain amount for running administration,
then regions with small populations will need more money per person to
run the administration.

Its the other side of "one vote one value" : "one basic money
entitlement one value".

We might justify having differences in expenditure because people
throughout Australia are guaranteed particular levels of service
regardless of location, and different principles drive this.

Next, there's the issue of size. A region which is
too large will have people with nothing in common, but a region which
is too small will have enterprises which are inefficient.

Assume, for example, that each block has its own Council and garbage
truck, when one truck would equally well serve many blocks.  In this
example, the effect of scale is obvious, but I suspect that present
Council sizes are too small, on economic grounds.

Countering this is the notion that as an entity gets too big it becomes
a bureaucracy. But, there must be an optimum point on the
trade-off, and my suspicion is that present Council sizes are too
small. Further, if Councils start dealing with more money, the effects
of having too small a size compared to the services delivered will be
even more prominent.

This triggered a discussion between myself and Max, which follows. Max
is indented as >>, I'm indented as >.

>> How can the Shed a Tier model be any more unwieldy have 900 regions in
>> one country that having 270 in one state.  What is the difference
>> between lot of regions and a few regions ? Operations still must
>> travel in one direction, from the federal government to any number of
>> regions.

> Your model does not allow for _increased_ power or autonomy of the
> regions.  It is only workable as long as the national government plays
> the tune and everyone else is happy to follow.

>> This is what happens now with nine centralised authorities, with very
>> little input from regions.

> Your position is not _wrong_, but has consequences and implications,
> which you may be ignoring.

> Thompson favours the notion of the national government setting targets,
> standards, laws and the local governments setting their own
> implementation of these things.  It is one approach.

> However, the view expressed by Rodney Hall and others is not that there
> is anything wrong with states having state-like powers, but rather that
> we are overgoverned and the allocation of powers between states and the
> Federal government is problematic.

> The issue is not whether we can have a workable government involving 900
> regions, but rather whether we can accept the necessary lack of
> independence and one way flow of authority which goes along with this.

Max writes about economics of the facilities Councils provide :

>> The example of the garbage truck is very relevant, as my council has a
>> joint contract with a Victorian council for our garbage collection.
>> This done not mean that we should amalgamate with that council.

> In that case, you're talking about administering garbage collection,
> rather than providing it yourself.  Take this far enough and a council
> does nothing except provide some notional democratic level. 

>> At no time did I say that my council does not do the work of collecting
>> the garbage.

> Well, how much economic input, and administrative input are you putting
> into the process ?  If its just economic, and you do it "yourself", then
> sharing with other councils has less meaning, and amalgamation makes
> sense.  If you are sharing, you must be losing the economic component,
> and you are becoming a notional democratic level which oversees the
> provision of something it does not provide itself.

>> You may find some sort of economic grounds for the assumption that
>> councils are too small, but that [service delivery] is only a very small
>> part of what councils do.

> There are other issues than just economics, certainly.  That doesn't
> mean that we should dismiss economic considerations, either.

>> I keep having to asking and as yet have not got an answer, from the
>> people who want more states or regions, what powers they will have, how
>> will the government be elected, were will the parliaments be.  Is it 30
>> or 100 regions, what will define a region.  How is any of this going to
>> fix the problems we now have, is it only going to be 30 or 100 worse
>> then the eight we now have.

> Max, you like to ask "difficult questions" of other people's models,
> without really acknowledging that your model invites "difficult
> questions" of its own.

> How are we going to be sure there is input from the regions into
> determining national policy, so that it not implemented naively from
> afar ?

> How can we be sure that the formulas set will do their job, but be able
> to change them as the need develops, without having them changed at the
> whim of government for bad reasons ?

>> what powers they will have,

> OK, we've removed education, health, law and order to the national
> government for starters.

> Powers would extend to local zoning and development, along with services
> such as garbage collection.

> Speaking differently to powers, however, there might be some
> implementation of say, national immunisation campaigns by regions under
> direction with national health.  However, there would be a single
> originating authority on all health issues, which would be an
> improvement on what we have at present.

> Essentially, a lot like local councils at present, but with increased
> powers (and responsibilities) - an increase consistent with their larger
> size and increased scale of operation.

>> how will the government be elected, where will the parliaments be.

> Clearly, you divide the region up into electorates, and vote one or more
> people into the regional parliament from each electorate.

> I cannot see this being more arbitrary or worse than present - are not
> the present councils subservient to the local government act, and would
> not the present wards of councils have been drawn up arbitrarily under
> the direction of the state government ?

> If a region has a single major town, then at the town.  If two major
> towns, the democratic centre at one town and the administrative at the
> other.  If we have several major towns, then democratic representation
> of the remaining towns would provide sufficient input into the process.

>> How is any of this going to fix the problems we now have, is it only
>> going to be 30 or 100 worse then the eight we now have.

> Regardless of the number of regions, a better delineation of powers
> between the tiers will be an improvement.  That's always been part of
> the plan.

> To the extent that the 8 states currently squabble between each other
> and the federal government this is a problem.  But we've never been
> talking about having 30 states with the same _reasons_ for squabbling.
> We've never been talking about changing just the number of states.

> a better delineation of powers between the tiers will be an improvement.

>> Here we have powers again, and it will only be an improvement if it is
>> simpler and involves the people.

> I agree, simplicity and involving the people are good things, but
> regardless, a better delineation of power is still an improvement.
> You're being too harsh to say "it will _only_ be an improvement if ..."