http://bigpondnews.com/320/240/jpg/data/articles/2013/01/02/TopStories/skynews_1226307442.jpg
State Governments should be overhauled or abolished, says former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie.



Quote:

State Governments should be overhauled or abolished and could be replaced by larger councils, according to former Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie. Mr Beattie has told The Australian newspaper the States needed to be redefined or abolished given a 2006 High Court decision that upheld the Work Choices laws. He said in the wake of the Federal industrial relations laws the states had become 'hand maiden of the Commonwealth'. Mr Beattie is reported as suggesting that larger regional councils could in the long term erode the power of the states and lead to a new structure of government for Australia. This would reduce duplication and provide better government services, the newspaper reported. Mr Beattie said one of the reasons he quit State politics was because he thought the future of State Governments was 'dim'. The call comes after recent urgings from former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, for state governments to be scrapped.

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2013/01/02/Former_Premier_calls_for_States_overhaul_831999.html?cid=ZBP_NEWS_L_L1_Former_Premier_calls_for_States_overhaul_020113

If we get rid of the states what would happen to the Senate? The senate was set up to look after states rights.  why don't we do away with local council amalgamate them and have them run by administrators

We could have State government building schools, hospitals, etc and federal government providing and paying the staff to run them.

Have to agree with Beattie .. we should have federal and then either local or regional representation ... get rid of the middle man. We do it in business when we can because of enormous savings to consumers, why don't we do it with governance and save taxpayers a small fortune?

Something needs to happen. Our local council is trying to finance a truck bypass to get all the big rigs off the main street through town.

This shouldn’t be a local issue.

The States created the Commonwealth not the other way around.....If you think WA will accept being run by you wankers in the East you are more stupid than I thought!!!

>:( >:( >:(

You're right there phil. WA has always asserted its state rights, even to the point of threatened secession.
Those equating a removal of the state level of govt with business cost-cutting should remember that we are not just talking about profit & loss, we are talking about separation of powers under a constitution.
I wouldn't want to see Ms Gillard having total control of the country, nor Mr Abbott either.

Of course we are talking about a change in the seperation of powers and the constitution ... you cannot remove the states otherwise. WA is happy to talk the talk now that mining is so in demand, but like everything else, that cycle will one day end and WA will then come running to the wankers on the East to save them (again). '

I don't think it will happen, I just think it should happen.

Beatie is wrong.

In Australia there are 809 elected State and Federal politicians for a population of 22 million people according to http://www.britzinoz.com/uk-australia/comparisons/politics-comparison-uk-aus also there is 6636 councillors in 668 councils across Australia according to http://www.regional.gov.au/local/publications/reports/2002_2003/C1.aspx, which makes average of 3020 politicians or councillors for every man, women or child in Australia
     

State	Population June 2012	Federal Politicians1	number of Members of the House of Representatives	State Politicians2	Number of members of the different Lower Houses of State Parliament	Councils3	Councillors	Total number of politicians & councillors	The average number of person in Australia for every politicians or councillors
NSW4	7,247,700	60	48	135	93	172	1,760	1955	3707
Vic	5,574,500	49	37	128	88	79	623	800	6968
Qld5	4,513,000	42	30	85	85	134	1,160	1287	3506
WA	2,387,200	27	15	95	59	142	1,360	1482	1610
SA	1,645,000	23	11	58	47	69	751	832	1977
NT5	232,400	4	2	25	25	63	708	737	315
Tas6	511,700	17	5	40	25	29	274	331	1545
A. C.T.7 (Canberra)	370,700	4	2	17	17	nil	nil	21	17652
Total	22,485,300	226	150	583	439	688	6,636	7445	3020

Notes:

1 Include all Members of House of Representative and Senators.

2 Include all members of the the Lower and Upper Houses of the State.

3 Council numbers from local government authorities exclude some non-affiliated local governing bodies and does not cover all 722 local governing bodies that receive financial assistance grants.

4 New South Wales data is from 1999 elections, no later separated data was available at time of printing. From Candidates and Councillors 1999-2000, published January 2001.

5 Queensland and Northern Territory have not got a Upper Houses of Parliament.

6 Tasmania has multi members electorates

7 Australia Capital Territory has no upper house of Parliament or any councils. It has multi Members electorates, the electorate names are Brindabella, Ginninderra and Molonglo, there are different number of Members to be elected from each electorate. Five (5) Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory are still to be elected from each of Brindabella and Ginninderra and seven (7) Members from Molonglo, making the 17 Members in the Assembly.

Sources: Unpublished from State local government Associations and State Departments responsible for local government, Data for Queensland from Population data from ABS 2003, Australian demographic statistics, cat. no. 3101.0, Sep 2003.


List of politicians in the federal and state parliaments of Australia

•   there are 226 in the two houses of the Australian Federal Parliament.
  The House of Representatives with 150 elected representatives.
  The Senate (the upper house) has 76 elected senators.
  
  
• There are 17 in the single house of the Australian Capital Territory Parliament
  The Assembly with 17 elected representatives.
  
  
• There are 135 in the two houses of the New South Wales State Parliament
  The Assembly with 93 elected representatives.
  The Legislative Council (the upper house) has 42 elected senators.
  
  
• There are 25 in the single house of the Northern Territory Parliament
  The Assembly with 25 elected representatives.
  
  
• There are 85 in the single house of the Queensland State Parliament
  The House of Representatives with 85 elected representatives.
  
  
• There are 58 in the two houses of the South Australian State Parliament
  The House of Representatives with 47 elected representatives.
  The Senate (the upper house) has 11 elected senators.
  
  
• There are 40 in the two houses of the Tasmanian State Parliament
  The House of Assembly with 25 elected representatives.
  The Legislative Council (the upper house) has 15 elected members.
  
  
• There are 128 in the two houses of the Victorian State Parliament
  The House of Representatives with 88 elected representatives.
  The Senate (the upper house) has 40 elected senators.
  
  
• There are 95 in the two houses of the West Australian State Parliament
  The House of Representatives with 59 elected representatives.
  The Senate (the upper house) has 36 elected senators.
  

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_politicians_in_Australia#ixzz27WIb6Vx8

wise, you need to fix which makes average of 3020 politicians or councillors for every man, women or child in Australia

to

which makes average of 1 politician or councillor for every 3020 persons in Australia

ill edit this to a . when you edit it

which makes average of 3020 politicians or councillors for every man, women or child in Australia

Interesting who would have thought the politicians numbered at 3,000 times our population, wow in Australia we have 22Million X 3020 politicians = 60,000,000,000.

Is that 60 Billion politicians in Australia, that is a plague.

Suspect you mean something else?

John S wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 3:17pm:

In Australia there are 809 elected State and Federal politicians for a population of 22 million people according to http://www.britzinoz.com/uk-australia/comparisons/politics-comparison-uk-aus also there is 6636 councillors in 668 councils across Australia according to http://www.regional.gov.au/local/publications/reports/2002_2003/C1.aspx, which makes average of 3020 politicians or councillors for every man, women or child in Australia       State Population June 2012 Federal Politicians1 number of Members of the House of Representatives State Politicians2 Number of members of the different Lower Houses of State Parliament Councils3 Councillors Total number of politicians & councillors Average population per Politician or councillor NSW4 7,247,700 60 48 135 93 172 1,760 1955 3707 Vic 5,574,500 49 37 128 88 79 623 800 6968 Qld5 4,513,000 42 30 85 85 134 1,160 1287 3506 WA 2,387,200 27 15 95 59 142 1,360 1482 1610 SA 1,645,000 23 11 58 47 69 751 832 1977 NT5 232,400 4 2 25 25 63 708 737 315 Tas6 511,700 17 5 40 25 29 274 331 1545 A. C.T.7 (Canberra) 370,700 4 2 17 17 nil nil 21 17652 Total 22,485,300 226 150 583 439 688 6,636 7445 3020 Notes: 1 Include all Members of House of Representative and Senators. 2 Include all members of the the Lower and Upper Houses of the State. 3 Council numbers from local government authorities exclude some non-affiliated local governing bodies and does not cover all 722 local governing bodies that receive financial assistance grants. 4 New South Wales data is from 1999 elections, no later separated data was available at time of printing. From Candidates and Councillors 1999-2000, published January 2001. 5 Queensland and Northern Territory have not got a Upper Houses of Parliament. 6 Tasmania has multi members electorates 7 Australia Capital Territory has no upper house of Parliament or any councils. It has multi Members electorates, the electorate names are Brindabella, Ginninderra and Molonglo, there are different number of Members to be elected from each electorate. Five (5) Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory are still to be elected from each of Brindabella and Ginninderra and seven (7) Members from Molonglo, making the 17 Members in the Assembly. Sources: Unpublished from State local government Associations and State Departments responsible for local government, Data for Queensland from Population data from ABS 2003, Australian demographic statistics, cat. no. 3101.0, Sep 2003. List of politicians in the federal and state parliaments of Australia   there are 226 in the two houses of the Australian Federal Parliament. The House of Representatives with 150 elected representatives. The Senate (the upper house) has 76 elected senators. There are 17 in the single house of the Australian Capital Territory Parliament The Assembly with 17 elected representatives. There are 135 in the two houses of the New South Wales State Parliament The Assembly with 93 elected representatives. The Legislative Council (the upper house) has 42 elected senators. There are 25 in the single house of the Northern Territory Parliament The Assembly with 25 elected representatives. There are 85 in the single house of the Queensland State Parliament The House of Representatives with 85 elected representatives. There are 58 in the two houses of the South Australian State Parliament The House of Representatives with 47 elected representatives. The Senate (the upper house) has 11 elected senators. There are 40 in the two houses of the Tasmanian State Parliament The House of Assembly with 25 elected representatives. The Legislative Council (the upper house) has 15 elected members. There are 128 in the two houses of the Victorian State Parliament The House of Representatives with 88 elected representatives. The Senate (the upper house) has 40 elected senators. There are 95 in the two houses of the West Australian State Parliament The House of Representatives with 59 elected representatives. The Senate (the upper house) has 36 elected senators. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_politicians_in_Australia#ixzz27WIb6Vx8

waaayyyy to many .... even at 1 poli per 3020 citizens

Poor ol' labor want a full transition. States are far to hard to manipulate when they are liberals. Councils will not get the power they need to tell labor federally to P off.

Ready for the but but liberals but.

The ends justifies the means. Labor will at some point have enough time to totaly screw us all, so dont care about a short term liberal government with the same controls.

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:39pm:

Of course we are talking about a change in the seperation of powers and the constitution ... you cannot remove the states otherwise. WA is happy to talk the talk now that mining is so in demand, but like everything else, that cycle will one day end and WA will then come running to the wankers on the East to save them (again). ' I don't think it will happen, I just think it should happen.

IMO WA should pay its fair share of its revenue to the Commonwealth.....WA has been the recipient of revenue from other States in the past and should accept to do some of the heavy lifting to support our fellow Australian's.....When Colin Barnett was calling for more of the pie I was not impressed with him in the least.....All he has proposed for WA is building monuments to his Government like the Perth Arena and the Riverside Drive waste of space....I like most West Australian's am proud to finally repay the rest of Australia for their generosity and support!!!

>:( >:( >:(

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 5:36pm:

Poor ol' labor want a full transition. States are far to hard to manipulate when they are liberals. Councils will not get the power they need to tell labor federally to P off. Ready for the but but liberals but. The ends justifies the means. Labor will at some point have enough time to totaly screw us all, so dont care about a short term liberal government with the same controls.

you've really no idea what you are talking about do you?

Councils (although I think regions would work better) would have a lot more power than they do today ... just because the libs want to retain the excuse of 'it not us it's them, all their fault '.... abolishing the states means no more buck passing, and no states manipulating scenarios for political benefit (such using royalties to score political points against the federal govt.)  .... you don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs?

poor old pete,
such a media tart.
i so miss his nightly appearance on the news in his variety of hard hats  ;) ;)

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:05pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 5:36pm: Poor ol' labor want a full transition. States are far to hard to manipulate when they are liberals. Councils will not get the power they need to tell labor federally to P off. Ready for the but but liberals but. The ends justifies the means. Labor will at some point have enough time to totaly screw us all, so dont care about a short term liberal government with the same controls. you've really no idea what you are talking about do you? Councils (although I think regions would work better) would have a lot more power than they do today ... just because the libs want to retain the excuse of 'it not us it's them, all their fault '.... abolishing the states means no more buck passing, and no states manipulating scenarios for political benefit (such using royalties to score political points against the federal govt.)  .... you don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs?

don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs

I doubt that removing the State governments would have a huge impact on that number, its the local councils in every area where the numbers add up.

This argument is a furphy, look at NSW where there would be maybe 200 state poli's for around 8 million people or about 1 for every 40,000 people.

It wasn't so long ago that the state governments were the only thing standing in the way of workchoices which shows they can be effective at moderating an out of control federal government.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:05pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 5:36pm: Poor ol' labor want a full transition. States are far to hard to manipulate when they are liberals. Councils will not get the power they need to tell labor federally to P off. Ready for the but but liberals but. The ends justifies the means. Labor will at some point have enough time to totaly screw us all, so dont care about a short term liberal government with the same controls. you've really no idea what you are talking about do you? Councils (although I think regions would work better) would have a lot more power than they do today ... just because the libs want to retain the excuse of 'it not us it's them, all their fault '.... abolishing the states means no more buck passing, and no states manipulating scenarios for political benefit (such using royalties to score political points against the federal govt.)  .... you don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs? don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs I doubt that removing the State governments would have a huge impact on that number, its the local councils in every area where the numbers add up. This argument is a furphy, look at NSW where there would be maybe 200 state poli's for around 8 million people or about 1 for every 40,000 people. It wasn't so long ago that the state governments were the only thing standing in the way of workchoices which shows they can be effective at moderating an out of control federal government.

like I said earlier, I think a regional system would work better ... lets look at the Illawarra .... you have Wollongong council, Shellharbour council and Kiama council ..all within 20 km's of each other with who knows how many councillors on each ... put in one regional council to encompass all those areas and eliminate state govt, and the number of reps per population will start to resemble common sense

John Smith wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:14pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:05pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 5:36pm: Poor ol' labor want a full transition. States are far to hard to manipulate when they are liberals. Councils will not get the power they need to tell labor federally to P off. Ready for the but but liberals but. The ends justifies the means. Labor will at some point have enough time to totaly screw us all, so dont care about a short term liberal government with the same controls. you've really no idea what you are talking about do you? Councils (although I think regions would work better) would have a lot more power than they do today ... just because the libs want to retain the excuse of 'it not us it's them, all their fault '.... abolishing the states means no more buck passing, and no states manipulating scenarios for political benefit (such using royalties to score political points against the federal govt.)  .... you don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs? don't think 1 representative per 3000 people is too much progs I doubt that removing the State governments would have a huge impact on that number, its the local councils in every area where the numbers add up. This argument is a furphy, look at NSW where there would be maybe 200 state poli's for around 8 million people or about 1 for every 40,000 people. It wasn't so long ago that the state governments were the only thing standing in the way of workchoices which shows they can be effective at moderating an out of control federal government. like I said earlier, I think a regional system would work better ... lets look at the Illawarra .... you have Wollongong council, Shellharbour council and Kiama council ..all within 20 km's of each other with who knows how many councillors on each ... put in one regional council to encompass all those areas and eliminate state govt, and the number of reps per population will start to resemble common sense

You only have to look at Sydney I think there is about 13 councils in the great Sydney area. Why can't they operate with just 4 or 5 regional council?

One could look after Sydney the south eastern and the inner west area, another the northern area, another the western area another the southern suburbs and another the south western suburbs.

The same with the Central Coast have one Regional Council instead of 2 like they got now.

I would agree with doing something about local government but believe that the state government adds significant value.