The formation of electable (partially democratic) local government in the City of Sydney and in Melbourne dates to 1842, the same year as the establishment of the first at least partially elected (as opposed to non-elected) NSW Legislative Council - see link here to download a pdf on history of City of Sydney Council:
http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/learn/history/civic-history/council-history

So the first partially democratic state and local governments in Australia date back to the same year: the history is more complicated than just saying that local government came "after" state government. The NSW Legislative Council dates back to the 1830s, however prior to 1842 it was a body appointed by the State Governor (a dictator appointed by the imperial authority in Britain), not an even partially electable body, so not democratic in any sense.

It is definitely high time that local government was recognised in the Constitution, but I am sure the State Governments will want to know how Constitutional recognition of local government will affect they want to manipulate it (e.g. via boundary changes).

Australia is the most governed country per capita, so the last thing we need is the third tier enshrined in the Constitution. We need to abolish local government, reduce the duplication and waste and, most of all, get rid of the springboard for wannabe politicians who use council as a launching point for higher office.

HEAR HEAR !! Personally I'd prefer to abolish the infinitely more wasteful state gubmunts however that would be difficult if not impossible. Local authorities should remain constitutionally unrecognized for exactly the reasons suggested in the previous post. One worthwhile change would be to revert to the almost universal pre-1970s system whereby councillors were unpaid / voluntary local business operators who 'sat' during their lunchtime. Actually I believe this is still the arrangement in many areas in the sticks. There was infinitely less corruption than is currently the case, probably because improper doings would immediately result in the culprit encountering a knuckle sandwich and their business being blacklisted. Representation is clearly maximized when the councillor lives next door and / or drinks at the local pub. The recent concept of 'super councils' as developed by Teflon Pete in Queensland are, as has been suggested, perfect stepping stones for the more avaricious bloodsucking parasites.

I am looking for the catch.

There is no way I am ever likely to vote for any change in our constitution, ever again. After this Rudd/Gillard mess I will never take anything any politician says as true, & will in fact expect a hidden agenda every time they open their mouth.

So thank you Julia & company for creating my total distrust, but no way will I vote for any thing you suggest.

In fact if you or any of your mob have had their dirty fingers anywhere near anything, I am bl00dy well sure it's implementation will be to my/our disadvantage.

Whether in Constitution or not, not really important. Local govt will remain important.

Another of those non-issues, like the Republic, that dont really make much difference. Life goes on in Australia,and there are far more serious issues of concern that will decide our fate.

You miss the point. Sure there are 'bigger issues' at stake, like the bloodsucking parasites busily squandering taxpayers money in ever increasing volumes. One of the expense items is the cost of local gubmunt. By legitimizing the entities, the bloodsucking parasites have our formal blessing to throw our money at ever more inane causes. reducing the size of gubmunt / local authorities including making local authority positions unpaid / voluntarily will dramatically reduce expenditure & assist whatever moronic treasurer we inherit after September to balance the books. Mind you it also reduces the control exerted by said bloodsucking poarasites & thats exactly why they won't buy the idea of smaller gubmunt.

IMO, any constitutional change needs plenty of time to debate it. We need to consider the consequences (especially the unintended consequences). The last thing we need is the State and Federal politicians telling us what they think is best - based on their motivated reasoning - and we just accept what they say.

The LNP supports it and I wrote this to the LNP Federal members of Parliament.

"See attached for some background on one of the possible consequences of Local Government being added to the constitution.

You might love the idea of another 'back-door' way to get the "Sustainability" crowd to run our lives, but I hate it.

You might be interested in 'Agenda 21' and what it really is. There is much more to it.

Agenda 21 and local government:

http://archive.iclei.org/

http://www.iclei.org/

http://www.green-agenda.com/index.html

http://slavenewworld.ca/index.php/agenda-21/54-agenda-21/1305-agenda-21-in-your-area-local-governments-for-sustainablilty

http://nwri.org/agenda-21/

Around 100 Australian local councils have already signed up to it and are now obligated to comply with UN commandments No matter how it is denied). Some examples are:

Australian Capital Territory Government
Ashfield Municipal Council
Bega Valley Shire Council
Burwood Council
City of Lake Macquarie
City of Sydney
Coffs Harbour City Council
Gosford City Council
Hunters Hill Council
Kogarah Council
Leichhardt Municipal Council
Liverpool City Council
Mosman Municipal Council
North Sydney Council
Brisbane City Council
Cairns Regional Council
Ipswich City Council
Sunshine Coast Regional Council
Townsville City Council
Adelaide City Council

The last thing we need is the State and Federal politicians telling us what they think is best - based on their motivated reasoning - and we just accept what they say.

Personally I don't believe **ANYTHING** uttered by a bloodsucking parasite. Basically if their lips move I automatically assume its a lie. Motives are invariably suspect / nefarious and this won't be any different. Mind you if Agenda 21 puts the kybosh on 'developers' (more correctly 'attilas' after the fifth century barbarian), it might not be altogether bad. On the other hand, United Nations decisions aren't exactly notable for their common sense & if the bloodsucking parasites have their grubby snouts anywhere near, I smell something fishy thats not seafood.

I am also for more efficient govt at all levels. i am sure there is much waste at all levels.

Essentially agree with praxdice. No ifs buts or maybes, we should recognise councils.
Recognising them, won't somehow magically increase the number of Bureaucrats or Politicians, as another poster seems to oddly believe?
Just recognise the few not currently receiving official recognition, via the constitution!
Now if we could just have a referendum to remove the middle tier, or money shuffling middleman, State Govts.
We'd save around 70 billions per!
Nothing that they currently actually "manage" or block, that couldn't be better managed through the Fed, local councils, and reinstituted voluntary unpaid regional boards? Who basically sit through their lunch hours!
And usually consist of highly experienced professionals and local successful business operators!
Meaning, we could actually reduce current bureaucracies, rather than expand them, as others, with perhaps a vested interest in, the current status quo, have fatuously suggested or keep insisting on?
Rhrosty.

neverwas has done it again, he has topped Don for faux outage and shock about this government.

Whilst it would be the best thing since sliced bread, abolishing state gubmunts is almost certainly impossible. Even if it was possible to workaround the constitutional issues, could anyone imagine dictators like General Disaster voluntarily relinquishing his position ?? I believe however there are steps we could put in place that over time would provide the levers necessary to regain control over our elected servants.

Firstly, demand total & irrevocable control of the parliamentary renumeration tribunal & subsequently starve the bloodsucking parasites into submission.

Secondly, demand citizen initiated referenda as I understand is the case in Switzerland. Someone in a different thread suggested 'it would never be allowed' .... high time it bloody well WAS allowed !!

Obviously the most difficult hurdle to overcome is the legendary apathy of the sheeple.

The issue has been canvassed here:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Fb1be7f36-6faf-4129-9dcc-edb4e15956a1%2F0001%22

Professor Twomey has the final say:

"First of all I will just talk about some of the points that I think are peripheral—to get rid of them—and then move to the core issues. The peripheral points concern other reasons why you might want constitutional recognition of local government in the Constitution. One of the reasons that is sometimes stated is that local government is a third level of government in Australia and it should be recognised in the Constitution. This, I think, is a bit of a misleading argument. Technically, local government is not a third independent level of government in Australia; it is a sublevel of government of state government.

Our Constitution is a dualist system. It has two levels of government—a federal government and a state government. If you were to introduce local government as a separate, independent third level of government you would have to change a whole lot of other provisions in the Constitution. First of all, you would have to have powers of local government to make laws. You would have to have rules about how those laws conflict with the laws of the Commonwealth and the laws of the state and how it all fits together. You would have to change other provisions of the Constitution, like section 114; where local government comes under a state for the purposes of local government property not being able to be taxed by the Commonwealth; you would have to change your implications, like the Melbourne Corporation implication that protects state governments from Commonwealth government action. You would have to have a similar principle in relation to states and local government, and it would be very complicated and I do not think anyone is proposing to do that.

Although many of us, probably including me, have often described local government as a third level of government, I think that for these purposes that is not what we are trying to do. If we could avoid that sort of loose discussion to avoid those sorts of issues, that would probably be helpful.

The only referendum I would vote for would be one reducing politician's salaries and expenses and providing that the only money they can spend getting elected would be that raised by putting their daughters on the streets.

The outrage is real Kenny but it is a faux government.

Thanks Peter Lang,

A point I’ve been making for some time is that Agenda 21 is foisted onto local government by this so called “benign” constitutional change.

It goes further still in the UK. Several councils acted upon the UN determination that people buying fish and chips were putting too much salt on their supper. The 17 hole salt shakers were removed by health departments and replaced with 6 hole shakers.

I think we need to be very wary about what is being proposed in this referendum and like so many, I feel I’m not getting the fully story.

Given Labors near perfect reliability on proposals, that is whatever they say the correct is to do the opposite, it is easy to resist Gillard's siren call to waste time and divert attention. Lets see, the NBN is in its death throws (Samsung is developing 5G), the mining boom is bust (as forecast by adults), the Laptops for ever child are broken, the "Asylum Seekers" are still dying (and real ones left to rot in refugee camps are dying too), you can't give away Carbon Dioxide credits and Gillard and Swan are liars.

Would you even let them run the sausage sizzle at Bunnings or one at your kids school?

The only referendum I would vote for would be one reducing politician's salaries and expenses and providing that the only money they can spend getting elected would be that raised by putting their daughters on the streets.

:) :) :)

I think we need to be very wary about what is being proposed in this referendum and like so many, I feel I’m not getting the fully story.

Since when do the bloodsucking parasites EVER tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ??

Would you even let them run the sausage sizzle at Bunnings or one at your kids school?

If I had my way, **NO** bloodsucking parasite whether red, blue or green, would be allowed out of jail without an armed escort.

I have just come away from 7 years as a councillor including one term as Mayor.
Unfortunately, the latest blood-sport in Australia, particularly from a populist media, is 'council bashing'.
I'll admit, much of the criticism can be justifiable, however it could be argued that Local Government is a 'more legitimate' level of representation than either state or federal government because of residents direct access to council staff (compared to fed or state boffins) and closer interaction between ratepayers and elected officials.
Should LG be granted constitutionality? The question should be, will it? Politicians I have spoken to on the subject don't give it much hope. I think all of that is beside the point anyway.
Almost everyone I speak to believes we are over-governed in Australia, and I agree.
So would giving another tier of government constitutional legitimacy fix that? Of course not.
We have to start serious debate about how we should be governed, i.e. the status-quo or something more befitting the 21st century Australia.
In my humble opinion, local government should be regionalised, essentially taking on the role of the states, and state government and it's wasteful duplication (and triplication) of services be abolished.
We also need to get away from the rusted on "Statists" who continually put legal, political and nonsensical road-blocks in the road of change and we must find a way to make change.
And it's not change for change sake. The vast majority of Australians demand it!

Whilst I have no doubt the majority of thinking Australians are in favour of abolishing the states, it appears to be a difficult if not impossible task for constitutional reasons, at least thats what the powers that be would have us believe. In addition, we have a bunch of virtual dictator premiers who would obviously throw up a zillion excuses why their very comfortable little empires shouldn't be dismantled. I'd feel a lot more confident about the exercise if we had some semblance of accountability however as it is, the bloodsucking parasites at both state & federal level have the upper hand and ride roughshod over us. I believe we need to devise a way to make the clowns sit up and take notice before we have a fighting chance of something as dramatic as deleting a whole level of gubmunt.

My personal feelings are that putting something in the constitution is a last resort, as it is almost impossible to remove and reasons that seem good today, may end up as a real issue in a few decades.

If normal federal law can deal with the issue, then leave the constitution alone.

I had not realised that my post would draw forth such animosity towards politicians, and that was not its intention.

I think we are over-governed and over-regulated, but not over-represented. The difficulty is separating the representation from the regulating. And I do think that local government has problems. I don't have an immediate answer, but putting LG in the Constitution is not the way to go. It might make things easier for the Commonwealth, but whether or not that would be good for LG is not obvious.

Don Aitkin - I had not realised that my post would draw forth such animosity towards politicians

The bloodsucking parasites are unquestionably their own worst enemies. Decades of untold arrogance, unbelievable personal greed & a total lack of accountability could hardly enhance the public image of politics. The reason why the vast majority of referenda fall flat is simply that the sheeple have universally adopted the 'if their lips move' criteria for judging whether or not an elected representative is lying. Personally I believe the invasion of lawyers has been the single most significant factor. The breed is infamous for twisting words beyond recognition, its also arguably the most avaricious & self-serving species ever to evolve on planet earth.