[AussieAV]

The unfeasible solution I was referrig to was the formation of the State of New England, which I now realise you weren't saying. Lets drop this part, obviously its just about us thinking that the other is referring to something else and getting further and further from what we originally meant.

As to the Regional government part I get what you are saying ( at least I think so). I'll put it in my own words so you can set me straight I'm on the wrong track.

Basically you're suggesting Regional Government bodies the size of what would currently be a few local councils amalgamated together, but with greater power over the running of their region and how their funding is spent. These regions also have direct parliamentary representation as they are also Federal seats. This bit I get, not saying I agree with it entirely, but some positive concepts in there.

The bit that I'm questioning is when you say "The Fed then allocates the GST money in basically the same way, but instead of the states collecting it, each region get its money directly from the Fed."

What is the process the Fed will use in deciding how much funding each region gets? Isn't this going to be just as likely to have some areas complaining they are the poorer cousins to other regions, and aren't being treated fairly. What I'm trying to say is won't having one entity (The Fed) determining how much goes to each region be even worse than the States doing it. The Fed can't possibly be "more in touch" with each region's needs than the current State Govt, when it is, by definition, "further removed". Surely the need for the State Level still exists, even in your model?