Should Australia Abolish States?

This assignment examines the debate surrounding the potential abolition of Australia's state and territory governments in favor of a unitary system. It analyzes historical context, the arguments put forward by both sides (Labor and Coalition), and the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a change, including cost savings, streamlined governance, and the allocation of Commonwealth revenue.

Do you think Australia should get rid of the states/territories and adopt a unitary system?
Why or why not?
In Australia, there have been talks going around regarding the issue of removing federalism
altogether. This would mean the abolishing of the States and Territories in the country and there
will be only one central government. These talks were further encourages from the example of
India, which did towards the imposition of GST. That is considered as a step resulting in the
decline of federalism. Former prime minister, Bob Hawke had also given a call for the
abolishment of the State and Territory governments. Historically, labor has supported
centralization while the coalition was in support of federalism. Therefore, the proposal made by
Hawke is not surprising. However, leaving aside the party politics, it can still be stated that good
reasons are present do to which Australia should consider introducing such a change in its
constitution (Galligan, 1995)). The reason behind having a federal constitution in Australia is a
negative one. There was an apprehension among the colonies that they may be dominated by
each other or by the newly formed national government. Hence, it can be said that the adoption
of federalism, as compared to a unitary system can be described as the price that had to be paid
for creating Australia as the nation (Brown, 2004). On the other hand, at its worst, it can be
described as a base compromise, which had to be made to deal with the colonial jealousies and
which now burdens Australia with an expensive and complex form of government that was not
necessary (Brown, 2002).
As compared to the countries like Nigeria, where federalism has to be a doctor to provide ethnic
autonomy, no such problem is solved by the Australian federalism and similarly provides no
such benefit. It is supposed that the major benefit provided by federalism is in the form of

protection provided by against tyranny, as it defuses power. However, it is worth mentioning that
federalism does not impact in any way, what can be done by the governments to the individuals
and the defects only which government may do it (Jungwirth, 2001). The distribution of power is
not an effective tool that can be used for the protection of liberty as compared to the restrictions
on power. Similarly, federalism does not prescribe an effective limit on what may be jointly done
by the Commonwealth and state parliaments to an individual. For this purpose, a Bill of Rights is
required (Brown, 2001). The result is that Australia has nine governments and team legislative
chambers, while it has only a population of 22 million. All this involves huge costs.
On the other hand, if Australia decides to move towards a unitary system, it will mean that, as is
the case with the UK and New Zealand, Australia is also going to have only a single national
Parliament. It will have all the lawmaking powers. The Parliament will be in a position to
delegate the lawmaking authority to the regional or local government as at present, the state
parliaments delegated powers to the local authorities (Winer, 2002).
An advantage of such a situation will be that there will be no more disputes regarding this
lawmaking power is held by the national Parliament. Similarly, there will be no doubts regarding
the fact that the national legislation overrides the regional and local legislation. In this way, the
legal system will become a simpler. It will also result in reducing the cost of compliance for
businesses as well as the individuals. Similarly, instead of having multiple agencies like at
present, the country will have a single department of education and single departments of
environment and agriculture etc. Another problem that is present in case of the federal state
relations is related with the allocation of Commonwealth revenue to the States (Jungwirth, 2001).
However in a unitary system, the expenditure is decided on the basis of the actual needs of the

people, regardless of where they live and without any reference to the man-made state
boundaries.
Therefore in the end, it can be said that at present, the focus is on “reforming the Federation” but
in this case, the real issue is not debated, which is why should Australia have federalism at all?
The issue is if we are going to write a new constitution, would we really opt for the present nine
government system. If the answer to this question is in the negative, then there is good reason to
present the change such a system.

References
Brown, A.J. (2004) ‘One continent, two federalisms: rediscovering the original meanings of
Australian federal political ideas’, Australian Journal of Political Science vol. 39, no. 4
Brown, A.J. (2001) ‘Can’t wait for the sequel: Australian federation as unfinished business’,
Melbourne Journal of Politics, vol. 27
Brown, A.J. (2002) ‘After the party: public attitudes to Australian federalism, regionalism and
reform in the 21st century’, Public Law Review, vol. 13 no. 3
Galligan, B. (1995) A Federal Republic: Australia’s Constitutional System of Government,
Sydney, Cambridge University Press, pp. 32,
Jungwirth, G. (2001) in G. Patmore and G. Jungwirth, eds, the Big Make-Over: the New
Australian Constitution, Sydney, Pluto Press, 2001, p. 135
Winer, S.L. (2002) Political Economy in Federal States: Selected Essays, Cheltenham, Eng.,
Edward Elgar, p. 96.