Sound like good ideas. What are the chances of any of these reforms happening? Given the rather high cost of union membership has there ever been any thought given to creating a dual membership fee structure that includes union and Labor party membership?

I have only read a small portion of your article, but I must point out that the State Government cannot function properly unless the federal government also is run economicely, and that has not been happening since 1971. That was the year that the top tax had started to be dropped, and after another 30 years, Wayne cannot get it into his head that just giving the millionaires and multi-millionaires a chance to increase their bank balance is not what is needed, our wage earners and small business need a fair go also, along with our economy, and that can only be achieved by increasing the top tax again to 1960's level and increasing the no tax up to about $30,000 or $40,000, wharever is needed to keep the tax return to government at the 30% of GDP that is needed, although the corporate tax which had a run of about 43% for 20 or 30 years helped to keep predatory purchasing at bay and kept many small businesses viable, is also needed. Bugger the mining exports, they destroy our own manufacturing industries, the payment for the coal etc, is done by our shops selling foreign goods received in payment, in lieu of the Australian ones that would keep Australians employed. I think Wayne is a complete idiot or worse. The mining exports, is not viable, considering the reciprocal imports affect our own manufacturing industries.

I want you to be honest, when you joined the party, or if you intend to join, you have to sign a "pledge" that you will agree with the decisions of the majority. I would not join for the reason that I have pride in my integrity, and I know a few more people who I respect who would not join for the same reason. The consensus is that any body who signs that "pledge" has no integrity and if they do, don't have much in the way of intelligence. You can check, how many times have decisions been made that you disagree with. How many times do you believe that the wrong decision has been made?

@Merv09 - there's no pledge to agree with the decisions of the majority. The pledge reads: "If admitted to membership of the Australian Labor Party,I hereby pledge myself to the principles of the Australian Labor Party’s state, national and local government platforms...."

The principals are pretty broad. You won't find much to disagree with in statements of party principals in any of the parties, they're a bit like religions that all essentially have a 'do unto others' type philosophy. The pledge does continue on to exclude those who are communists or fascists which is probably about all they mean by agreeing to the principals of platforms i.e. you should be free market, social democratic.

Interference by federal Labor will result in a media circus at both federal and State levels. Have the lessons of Rudd's removal been forgotten so fast?

The oppositions in the States are so devoid of policies and suitable shadow ministers that none can rate as an alternative government. It is certainly that way in Queensland where the National Party still has fond memories of and clings to the tarnished Joh Bjelke Peterson years.

What is happening is the slow and unplanned loss of State responsibilities as part of the ever-present quest for power by Canberra. However, it is urgent that there be recognition that State governments are past their 'use-by' date. What should happen is cooperation between all jurisdictions and political parties to sort the responsibilities that should go to local government. The fly in the ointment is personal and sectional interest. It is easy to see why such apparently diverse interests, such as mining billionaires and politicians, want to preserve a dysfunctional system while it continues to serve their interests.

A courageous statesman (scarce as hen's teeth) would propose the abolition of State governments to build up large local governments in their stead, but overall, the number of politicians at all levels and their retinues should be drastically reduced.

Dick, I went to join about 35 years ago, and that was the demand put up to me. I dare say a number of members who joined that long ago were probably hit with the same demand. If it has changed, I would expect to see a better class of decisions, I sincerely hope so. I am too old to worry now, I am 80, and my hope for the future is for my grandkids and those people of that era, and this era of course, however I still maintain that Wayne Swan wants a good kick where it will hurt most. I hope you have noticed that apart from the Pig farmer, all the Prime Ministers and Treasurers since 1971 - I haven't checked before then, have been Lawyers, and I know that they are over represented for there to be a genuine cross section of representitives in the party, and in government. I could consider they would for the better, but it has proved otherwise, they still insist in going downhill into a recession, not too much intelligence there, is there.