Dictator!

Why not simply state your intention to rule over the Australian provinces from Beijing?

Yes, it would be nice to break Australia into 50 states - but then get rid of the overlording commonwealth!

To begin with, let's have independence for the Australian states as they are today: this certainly will save the expense of the Canberra parliamentarians and their regime.

Ban all political parties and get rid of states.
Appoint the person most suitable for the task to that task.
Have elections for individuals putting their case for the appropriate job as in "real life".
The Leader to be the person responsible for the Environment. After all that is what keeps us alive and nothing can be more important.
That should ensure that none of the present bunch stick about.

Sorry mate, don't buy any of this, given you seem to be focused almost exclusively on the needs of the politicians, rather than the folk they allegedly serve!?

There is an appetite for change, with the first surely just getting the no can do, roadblocks out of the way!

Yes we have far too many, endlessly arguing the point pollies and too many frozen, resolutely immovable, afraid to make a decision for fear of failure. Like rabbits caught in the spotlight and it would seem, not quite as intelligent?

The pollies we just don't need are those warming leather in state, middlemen fee charging, parliaments! And cost us 70 plus billions per while they doze undoing what the other lot did; and before a single service or amenity is rolled out courtesy of completely non essential, cost adding administrations.

With one single exception, we remain the most over-governed country in the world.

Simply put, when leaders and politicians have to make a case for their cause with insurmountable unarguable reasoned logic, reliant on principled persuasion only.

That along with costless civility and courtesy, will be the very reform we need!

Born to rule, foul mouthed bullies, serving this or that vested interest? Have had their day and stuffed this nation up, almost beyond redemption and repair!

Think, we were once the third wealthiest nation on the planet and a creditor one at that! With a Manufacturing/ideas based, economy!

Yes there is an appetite for change, just not in those currently occupying this nation's alleged parliaments!? Nor in any of the current occupants?

Solution?

Get out and vote and put the (bought and paid for?) incumbents last on the ballot paper!
Alan B.

Alan B: You claim: "The pollies we just don't need are those warming leather in state, middlemen fee charging, parliaments! And cost us 70 plus billions per while they doze undoing what the other lot did; ", so where did you get this figure from? I suspect you just made that up!

All of the politicians salaries at all levels of government, together with all of their support stuff, across the whole of Australia wouldn't even come close to this figure! 70 Billion is *a lot* of money-- you obviously have no idea how big it really is. Just to give you some perspective, there are over 100 countries whose whole nominal GDP is less than $70B-AUD. Indeed, it is about equivalent to the GDP of Luxembourg which is a country with some of the very highest average incomes and standards of living in the world. So do you really think that the combined income of that just a few thousand pollies and stuff is equal to this?

Also you say: "With one single exception, we remain the most over-governed country in the world.". What do you mean by "over-governed"- are you referring to the number of levels of government? Or the ratio of politicians to population? Or something else? If you're refferring to the number of levels of Government, then Australia is nothing special compared to other highly developed countries with large areas (such as USA or Canada: both have 3 levels of government internal to the country plus the UN externally if you want to count that as well). Many European countries which are all smaller geographically than Australia also have 3 or more levels internal to the country (eg: France has 4 levels- National, Regions, Department and Communes) and they also have the EU parliament and UN government structures above them.

Thinkabit. An oxymoron if ever there was one.

Around this world there are single cities with populations larger than Australia! And administered by single authorities.

You can suspect all you want! But the reported and published, all the money in, money out figures, are out there for those who genuinely want to see them?

Just as one example, look at the school halls roll out and then try to understand, if that's possible? Why the same hall rolled out by a, so called, state administration. Sometimes cost 30% more than the same hall, financed by private schools.

State boundaries should only exist for competing sports!

After that all the blame shifting and costly duplication would cease if a single financing government handled it and those costs could be further reduced with much more regional autonomy and direct funding models that simply bypassed the cost adding middleman!

Meaning as much as 30% more would be available for health and education as coalface expenditure!

After all, we are just one country!

And I stand by what I've read, believe, recall and recount!

Moreover, in my working life as an analyst, I had to nut out accurately, hundreds of complex computations daily, minus the use of a calculator.

So I understand some maths!

You can suspect that 1+1 make 11 if you like?

These state parliament acronyms may have been necessary, when we were seven different, steam and overland telegraph colonies, with real borders and customs etc, allowing stuff in if the tariffs were right!

And still run as seven different and competing countries, today, in a very different 21st century.

I suspect you are only able to cast doubt? By claiming that you suspect! Rather than come up with some bona fide, published, ipso facto, fact checking of your own?

Too bone lazy perhaps? And then we wonder why we are going to hell in a handbasket?
Alan B.

Alan B: You say "Around this world there are single cities with populations larger than Australia! And administered by single authorities."-
Here is a list of the largest cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities. It shows only three cities (bounded by the one administration), Shanghai (pop:approx 24.25M), Karachi (~23.5M) and Beijing (~21.5M) that have populations comparable with Australia's (24.5M). NONE OF THEM are distinctly larger than Australia's population (although Shanghai may be just larger depending on the accuracy and timeliness of these satistics). Also note that ALL citizens of them are governed by multiple layers of government. Each of these layers of government provide services and law making within their areas of responsibilities. Indeed in some villages/towns in China there can be upto 5 levels while sometimes in Pakistan more than 3 as well (when including local/tribal semi-formal governing arrangements of Pakistani backwaters).

Now, referring back to your original squeal: you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between a government's parliament and its civil service. You are clearly referring to politicians and parliament costing us billions of dollars and not the executive/civil service (which you switch to talking about in your last rant). So instead of me wasting my much more valuable and important than your time- I suggest you google "Separation of Powers" and "Westminster System".

--Continued below--

-- From above --

Lastly, your simple example: "Just as one example, look at the school halls roll out and then try to understand, if that's possible? Why the same hall rolled out by a, so called, state administration. Sometimes cost 30% more than the same hall, financed by private schools."
It doesn't matter which level of government paid for the hall it will always cost more than a private construction. There various reasons for this:
- Some of it is due to the fact for a government to do anything requires a lot more time and work to get it approved and budgeted.
- Some is due to the fact that those bidding and quoting for a government project (of any of the federal/state/local bodies) requires alot more paper work and stuffing around such as complying with stricter environmental/social/heritage etc.. requirements than private builds.
- Some of it is due to the fact governments in general like to spend big and have ostentatious grandiose costs involved (eg: such as having artists commissioned for painting/sculptural features).
- And lastly some of it is due to the fact that contractors add in a government bid factor, ie: they just quote more than they would for private jobs simply because it is a governement paying for it (a bit like it cost more to build a house in a wealthy suburb than a poor one or it costs more for lawyers to do a an office fit-out than it does for a charity to fitout the headoffice: as-an-aside, according to classical economics this shouldn't happen but it certainly does which shows that classical economics doesn't always work).

I think you may have missed a few South American cities thinkabit, and they lend critical weight to my argument.

It wasn't just one school hall, but many, with the worst examples of classic skimming, seeming to be in NSW?

Moreover, I just don't buy the excuses youve been so adroit at trotting out?

One wonders if you weren't part of that corrupt or incompetent Labor administration?

As for being over governed and we are, we have more politicians per head of allegedly represented populi than any other country, bar one!?

Wriggle and squirm all you can, but the raw numbers bear me out.

If you're looking for more reliable information, give Wikipedia a miss and try Google scholar?

As for what governments cost? Add up their entire revenue stream including all fees, charges, fines and duties etc, plus any deficit they add to last years numbers. Then match that against actual service and amenity expenditure. Then subtract the difference.

The latter numbers are what we pay for the privilege of buck passing, excuse making state governments. And at an average of 10 billion per per parliament. Thats 70 plus billions we just do not need to spend on them, to keep them and their veritable armies of bureaucrats in the privileged lifestyles they've become accustomed to.

And WASTED public money, whatever the larger or smaller number, better spent on the huge nation building, national infrastructure deficit!

Rapid rail, half a dozen carbon free thorium power projects, several space age desal projects, road and rail tunnels etc.

Moreover, there's significant savings to be had, by the rollout of direct pro rata funding and regional autonomy. Around 30%? And a lot of critical coal face funding!

Which will leave the states screaming about being circumvented and loss of control or reason to be!

The level of government that collects the tax should be the level of government charged with the responsibility of distributing it, without another arm of government with its fat little fingers in the till getting their cut!

It's just costly outsourcing by another name!
Alan B.

Governments and their armies of bureaucrats/civil servants are all part of any parliament! And all trying with every fibre of their beings to somehow justify an unneeded existence.

The essential ones, like Police personnel, emergency service, courts and judges can be transferred to federal departments or control? Or local regional councils?

Two levels of government, excellent scapegoats by both top and middle tiers, for the endless waste and snouts in the public money trough.

Just remove the middle tier and with that gone, so also are the endless scapegoats and excuses for failure to launch!

Infrastructure only needs to be delayed for a decade, for the roll out cost to double!

I don't separate ministers and their armies of civil servants, the way you try to?

They all cost public money, and largely, constitute a parliament.

Furthermore, we just don't need, what amounts to folk who take tax revenue, extract their wages, admin fees, expenditure, ultra generous pensions and perks, then hand the rest to, outsourced service, like the now extremely costly prison service, in many cases.

When we could have just gone to that same outsourced service provider directly, or the recipients, without the aforementioned unneeded middleman, unnecessary participation or costly, cost adding control!

And if we need a referendum and a changed constitution to make that happen? Then that's what we should do, must have!
Alan B.

thinkabit,
If you're going to use school halls as an example, at least base it on the reality not the Mad Monk's spin!

The best value was achieved in WA where the state government closely scrutinized the tenders. If anything cost more than it should, they demanded to know why.

The huge waste occurred in NSW and Victoria. In both of those states, the scheme was administered by the private sector as the government no longer had the capability.

Whether they work in the public sector or the private sector is not the determining factor for whether the staff can do their job well.

Alan B: You say, "I think you may have missed a few South American cities thinkabit, and they lend critical weight to my argument."

No, I didn't miss them and no they don't add weight to your "argument".

The largest population under the one local government in South America is Sao Paulo with about 12million which is only about half the size of Australia. Perhaps you're confused by the difference between the population a city proper (ie: the population under the one city government) and the population associated with a city's urban area (which will typically include more than one local government). Eg: Sao Paulo's city proper only has about 12million but about has about 40 million in its urban area.

But regardless of this, you seem to be missing a crucial point here: even if Sao Paulo had more than Australia's population its cizitzens would still subject to 3 levels of Government, specifically: The City/Municipality Government of Sao Paulo, The State Governemnt of Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo is the a city within the State of Sao Paulo, similar to how there is New York City and the State of New York in the USA) and lastly the government of the Federal Republic of Brazil.

3 or more levels of government is quite common among countries with populations in the millions and/or with large geographic size/dispersed areas, however there are exceptions: such as the UK-- the UK is a bit weird and I've never fully understood it but from what I understand different parts of it have different numbers of levels but much of England has only 2 levels I believe.

Also, for completeness it should be mentioned that some territories of Australia only have 1 or 2 levels but these are just corner cases. In general almost all Australians have 3 levels.

Thinkabit, the UK currently has the European tier of government on top of all the rest, though that probably won't last much longer.

Then there is the UK government in Westminster.

Then there is the government of Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. England misses out on this tier.

Then (in England at least) there are two tiers of local government: County and District/Borough/City. But some of the latter have seceded from the former (and are now known as unitary authorities). And ISTR one district was completely abolished after its residents voted to do so.