SKaVeN wrote:
That's why I said reform. If - even today - we need to maintain specific & differing state laws, I don't see why we can't do that even without the state governments.
We can't do without the states or state governments because they are fundamental constituents of a federal system.
SKaVeN wrote:
If not, why not combine or replace them with one set of federal law?
Again, the Constitution says so. The Federal Convention debates make it clear that while recognising the need for a national government, the protection of state autonomy was foremost in the minds of the majority of delegates.
The preamble to the Constitution establishes Australia as "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth" and there is considerable doubt as to whether such a wholesale change as abolition of the states would constitute an "alteration" of the Constitution within the meaning of section 128. The High Court has already ruled that the Commonwealth is indissoluble (when Western Australia attempted to secede in 1933) and ruled that a referendum to change that part of the Constitution would itself be unconstitutional as it would violate the indissolubility of the Commonwealth.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that there is a better way of doing things, but the Constitution says otherwise and by design it is extremely difficult to get even minor changes passed. The Constitution was specifically written to prevent the balance from shifting too far in favour of the Commonwealth.
It is pointless debating whether we
should abolish the states without first whether we
can. The unanimous opinion of the best constitutional lawyers in the country is that we can't.