Abolish state governments

ABOLISHING state governments would rid the nation of a cumbersome bureaucracy that is costing $30 billion a year — and a rare survey of state public servants indicates they would be happy to see them go.

Ninety per cent want the present system changed, with two thirds saying they would prefer a less unwieldy two-tier system.

(from "'Crazy' state system costing us billions" by William Birnbauer,August 6, 2006 The Age)

Australia is a small country of only 20 million. The state system causes government and law enforcement issues that cannot be resolved under the current loose, unenforceable constitution.
The question is whether the make-work aspect of the current sloppy system is more important than the need to render good government, justice, and other services.
The UK governs 70 million people with only one court system, for example. Australia effectively has 16 court systems -- at least two levels in each state, then the federal magistrates' court (FMC), and the Family Court of Australia (FCoA).
In 1901, distance and a sparse population made a state system, if not practical, at least a reasonable political expedient. In today's flat world of instantaneous communication and easy travel, the a rationale is as outdated as the horsehair wigs magistrates wear (and the feudal reasons for them!) It's long past time Australia joined the rest of the world in the 21st century.

The resulting confusions earn billions for lawyers who can play one system against the other.

Conflicting courts and notorious bias

One example may threaten the effectiveness of Dianne Bryant's efforts to reconstruct the FCoA along the model she employed in the FMC, and make it more humane and responsive.
The early results from Practice Directive 2 'put up or shut up' attitude on the part of magistrates and opposing litigants dealing with unsubstantiated allegations of domestic violence or abuse has effectively removed 75% of these issues from the Family Court. The allegations have been forced into the arbitration or counselling phases of the Practice Directive.
But lawyers realize these allegations will still have the same results, and possibly more profitable (for them) results in the lower state courts.
This fact will undermine the quality of the FCoA judgments, but more than that, the purpose.

One of the positive goals of Chief Justice Bryant's changes to the FCoA is to reduce the amount of police involvement. A simple expedient is to state: "If there is a concern about contact with the other spouse, then set up an exchange of custody where there is no contact between the former spouses." -- A simple and effective answer.
This expedient will require police involvement in many cases, and consequently limit the goal of reducing police involvement.

What about the Family Law lawyers?

If not the police, who will provide the no-contact exchange areas? Based on the idyllic naivete of CCH below (Fuzzy Logic, "Hopeful Foolishness"), lawyers may be called upon to handle the exchange of children. To expect such exchanges to go uneventfully is ludicrous since the lawyers are schooled in the adversarial system and have long memory. Lawyers will simply use the exchanges to bait and note issues to be drawn into court at every opportunity.
Perhaps someday Australia will be blessed with a cadre of Family Law lawyers who seek to truly help families -- with an equal respect for the rights of all members of the former family -- but that cadre is not anywhere to be found today.

"The interesting thing... will be to see whether family lawyers can become family dispute resolution practitioners and there does not seem to be any compelling reason why that should not be the case." (from "First FRCs hit the ground running" published by CCH News)

There are, in fact, billions of "compelling reasons: Billions of dollars.

Lawyers will test to establish weak points

Like the above example, Family Law lawyers will test the new system strenuously for a period of time trying to establish conflicts within the law and case law to exploit for their own greed. How long will this period last depends on an undeterminable number of factors. Undeterminable because the issues have not arisen or been developed yet.

At least without the madness of the state system, the federal courts can maintain jurisdictional cohesion on the orders these families must face, and -- to some degree, at least -- how the lawyers will deal with them.
In the current system, a family must face and abide by predictably conflicting orders from at least two levels of courts. There is simply no reason for it.

In such a climate, you can expect the Law Institute and lawyers to support radical feminists' opposition to doing away with the state system. The current system allows too many opportunities to undermine reforms.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
The mind is everything. What we think we become.
- Buddha.