There were only two or three councils based around Young and Cowra shown as ‘fit for future’ if merged. All other councils were marked as ‘not fit for future’.

So, if only a small number of these councils are deemed ‘fit for future if merged’ how does merging the other councils deemed unfit make them viable if they are merged? This does not make sense.

The government’s own TV advertising does not make this clear either. Judging by the available information, we will simply have bigger councils ‘not fit for future’.

Smaller councils tend to respond to their residents needs more quickly while larger councils tend to focus on the major towns or cities in the council’s boundaries.

To me, the ‘fit for future’ question should be applied to the state governments and territories. This is not as silly as it sounds.

Former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie made the comment earlier this year that Australia is over-governed and that state governments should be abolished.

In 1999 the cost of duplication between state and federal governments was $30 billion. The cost could well be tenfold that now. 

In addition the NSW State Government has shifted a number of state government responsibilities onto local governments without compensating them for the added costs to local government and therefore ratepayers.

The mothballing of country branch lines by the State Government has meant higher road maintenance costs to many country councils and, despite their requests for additional funding, none was provided.

This has all been done in the name of making the State Budget look better. Additional traffic on the roads brings with it the added risk of more road accidents and the costs of associated trauma to the community.

Abolition of state governments doesn’t mean abolition of the states. Abolition of state governments would allow more efficient use of available funds between federal and local governments.

 Abolition of the state governments would allow uniform laws and regulations across the country instead of the current situation with different laws across each state or territory.

Instead of funnelling all federal money for local governments through the state governments such monies would be paid directly to the local councils eliminating the middlemen (state governments) and their administrative costs. 

Without the state governments local governments would assume more responsibilities but be better financially supported by federal government.

If looked at analytically the question is not whether councils are ‘fit for future’ but are the state governments ‘fit for future’ and the answer is resoundingly ‘not fit for future’. 

State governments are a drain on resources and taxpayers funds. Australia would be better off without them and be able to institute uniform laws across the country as an added bonus.

The question should not be whether unfit councils should be merged to be bigger unfit councils but whether state and territory governments are ‘fit for future’

Greg Price, Goulburn.