"Howard recently called for us all to become "aspirational nationalists". Probably by design, no one has been able to fathom what he meant by that."... says Paul Kerin.

Sorry, but it's pretty clear what Howard is doing here with his use of 'aspirational' everything.

It means absolutely nothing, but it sounds good. Wait for 'aspirational democracy', aspirational egalitarianism', 'aspirational fair-go', 'aspirational Christianity' (but never 'aspirational Islam') and so on.

It also allows Howard to show that he is not 'forcing' people to think like him, unlike those Stalinists-in-the-ALP-with-their-union-bosses-driving-everything.

In the same manner, Howard has purloined all those other phrases that clutter our 'Aussie lexicon', like 'quintessentially Australian' and all those awful ones all politicians so love- battler,mateship, fair go, egalitarian/ism, and so on.

Howard is not alone here, in this 'phrase theft'.

Only today Beattie was giving us the 'Aussie values' crap too.

See The Oz, 6/9/07 p. 5, 'Millionaires row slapped down over land grab'.

Here the filthy rich have stolen public land to extend their jolly gardens down towards the seashore. Instead of Beattie simply calling them thieves he had to invoke 'Aussie values' and declare his, perfectly reasonable, action to retrieve these 'enclosed' lands were all to do with ' a fair go for all Australians' and that he 'love[s] egalitarianism', whatever that means... could be a case of aspirational egalitarianism here perhaps?

Shame Beattie doesn't believe in a 'fair go' or 'egalitarianism', whatever that means, for the Aboriginal peoples we all thieved wages from years ago, isn't it?

Howard's silly phrases also show how desperate he is, which is more to the point. And instead of pretending to understand them as some deep and mystical message, they should be seen as a shallow and rather sloppy massage.

Wont work!

A bureaucracy is needed to restructure bureaucracy. Bureaucracy only expands. That is as ironclad as the law of gravity.

If we're going to play around with the structure of government, I think we need to move away from the locality based representative system. Rather than electing a representative of a particular geographical area, I think we should elect a representatives directly to ministerial roles. That is directly vote for the Health Minister, Education Minister, etc. In effect allowing the public to chose, for example, the Labour Party's health policy and the Liberal Party's education policy. Each of these Executive Ministers would then be responsible for their own taxation/budgets, allowing for not only clear political accountability but financial accountability as well.

It would be necessary to have a form of senate to balance these executive roles, which would be similar to the current state based representatives, albeit without the state divisions. This would be to limit the powers of the specific executives and allow for the complex balancing of the national agenda.

Essentially, I think a fine grained, compartmentalized democracy with clearer roles and better accountability is the way we should move, rather than towards a more centralized and monolithic government.

UTTER HOGWASH! It's edge-fiddling on an issue you appear to know nothing about.

I totally disagree. "we must abolish state governments - and beef up local governments".

Local Councils hardly have the capacity to deliver the services required from State and Federal partnerships. Most of the 157 Councils in Queensland are struggling in a "BACK_WATER".

The federal government has done little on infrastructure... we have a Federal economy smoking on socio-economic indices under the lid.

At ground levels we have not the skills education, nor political will to up-grade ourselves (expeditiously) to install the socio-economic platform for services needed, as they are and will be required in coming years.

Many regions lack the pure access to pure social capital.

We are not applied enough and nor do we have the advocacy and resoures to take on the research, diplomacy nor accountablity of issues required to work with a entirely centeralised located federal government. (Those already busy would be busier or else just plain out to lunch!).

Consultancy is a key communication issue when it comes to getting things inclusive and done.

Agreed, we are in some ways vulnerable to the same things ie: access to good economic governance and regional trade markets... See APEC's issues for regional-isolated economies.

We need institutional and adminitrative reform across all government and community processes.

We need to pro-activate civic participation productively, so no one gets left out. This is up to us as citizens to do more to understand.

We are seculor, reluctant to change, we have honest and geniune grassroot problems that would only become more economically bi-polar without the right balance of inputs to build infrastructure at all regional levels.

Redtape has to do with people, administrators and governments everywhere. The Beattie reforms as they have proven in other regions are an instrument toward positive change, in this decade ahead.

Whether these reforms work is up to every citizen living in the Queensland, to work towards creating network-partnerships for change within their own communities.

From this base we have a stronger position to reach the ears of any government.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

The author points out why we had small local governments in the first pace, with one of the points being low population densities, then carries on to argue that we need to get rid of small councils because of their tiny populations. Huh? I used to live in NSW's smallest (by population, 250 ratepayers) shire, which also had one of the largest areas. Everyone knew every councillor, and held them to account publically. An amalgamation was chosen with another local rural shire, so that amalgamation with the local municipal council would not be forced (as the municpal council is constantly broke and bickers amongst itself for years before coming to a decision on anything).

Rather than forcing amalgamations, other options such as equipment and resource sharing should be explored first. Basically this is what gives economies of scale, and if it cant work as a sharing arrangement, then it wont work for amalgamated entities either. Local councillors get very little pay anyway, so the number of politicians at local level isnt really that big of a concern. Especially given that the more local they are the more accountable they will be held by the public.

We are not “one of the most over-governed nations on Earth”. The comparison with the United Kingdom is false and of limited relevance in any case. I have just counted the number of politicians in England. There are more than 30,261 members of the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland, Welsh, London and eight unelected English regional assemblies and the various county, district and borough councils. That is one politician for every 1,983 people, not one for 20,000.

To put it another way, the UK has one politician for every 8 square kilometres, and, if the author’s figures of 22,600 Australian politicians is still correct, Australia has one politician for every 34 square kilometres.

If you are a resident of Bedford, you will be governed by the Bedford Borough Council, the Bedfordshire County Council, the regional assembly, the UK Parliament and the European Parliament – and, Australia, with only three tiers of government, is supposed to be over-governed. Please!

I do not know where this move against the states comes from, but it is not well argued.

Removing an elected tier of government will not reduce bureaucracy

Given that WA is ignored in general anyhow, apart from taking
Dollars to fill federal coffers, making decisions in Canberra
as to what goes on here, would be even worse!

Best in that case that WA would secede and let you people
over their paddle your own canoes.

"Beattie said recently: "I've never seen a group of politicians losing their jobs ever cop it on the chin"... that's the trouble with politicians... no memory.

Didn't the ALP in Qld rid us all of the corrupt upper house some years ago?

The only State to be freed of these time-serving lurkmeisters.

These days it would be seen to be 'un-Australian' to do anything like that.... the 'fair go' would kick in, and we'd see 'pollie mateship' take over, even amongst total strangers, so I hear.

Anyway, Canberra can't run anything efficiently now, why would anyone believe they would without the States there?

The same groups of people who enter State parliaments would move to regional assemblies, why is there any notion that a completely different class would spring up to take over?

Far better just to try to make what we have, work... but we could do away with more upper house lurkers around this wide brown land.

Let the contribution from "Yabby" be a lesson to the rest of you. As long as we have whackos over here in WA who are still advocating secession, constitutional change to abolish state governments will never happen.

Wow! I wonder if we could get rid of - wait for it...Canberra?

I look at the Brisbane City Council they cover a huge area,and from when I lived in QLD to me,they did not appear to do a bad job.
Then I look at Perth,what a joke less people but more councils, CEOS and assorted hangers on we have heaps.
Let start by having one Council for one City,god knows how much that would save here in Perth,biggest problem is it might increase the unemployment figures.

Victoria has 12 senators, 37 federal MPs, 88 state MLAs, 40 state MLCs and about 600 local councillors in 79 councils. (An hour of searching has not provided me with the exact number of the last.) That is a total of about 777 politicians, one for every 6,577 people or one for every 305 square kilometres. It puts the UK figures in perspective. The UK’s number of politicians per head is three and a half times Victoria’s; the UK’s number of politicians per square kilometre is nine times Victoria’s.

It also leaves, on the author’s figures, some 21,000 councillors for the other five states and the Northern Territory. There are just over 600 local government areas outside Victoria, which means that, on the author’s figures, the average council has some 33 councillors on it. I have never heard of a council with that many councillors. I suspect the figure of 22,600 Australian politicians is way wrong.

If these jurisdictions had the same number of councillors per head as Victoria, we would have 18,000 fewer councillors. I do not recommend that because all the mainland states are much bigger than Victoria.

If we really want to reduce the number of politicians, we could reduce the number of councils and/or the number of councillors in each council. Removing states would remove a trivial number of politicians.

The other advantage that the states (except for Queensland) have over councils is that they have bicameral legislatures which ensure that every government (except Queensland’s) is held to account by a Legislative Council that does not control. In every state but Tasmania that Legislative Council is more representative of the voters than the Lower House because the former is elected by proportional representation.

If we were founding Australia today, we would certainly have at least a three-tier system, in line with the thinking of every other reasonably sized, reasonably populated, reasonably wealthy country on the planet, though we might increase the number of states.

"Even politicians recognise that states are anachronisms..."

New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland may be anachronisms, but the other states guard their rights fiercely (yes, there is life beyond the East Coast of Australia). In the case of isolated but resource-rich Western Australia, is state autonomy an anachronism for this historically reluctant member of the Commonwealth?

Abolishing the states would probably result in a resurgence of secessionist sentiment in WA. The "Cinderella State" - an overlooked chunk of land which contributes more to federal funds than it gets back - would not take kindly to the complete erosion of its autonomy.

So the question becomes: how much is WA worth to the rest of Australia?

Well lets see

40% of 100% the state government uses in red tape.

So schools miss out on the extra 40% funding due to states incompetence.

But hey people blinded by the fact that the unions say this must be right.

Unions only care for one thing labor in government.

One also has to look at how the states run incompetently.
It is a shame people do not say what they think but just pander to party lines.

This has caused us the most amount of grief.
Public transport being privatised
the unions knew before nsw state election who cared they didnt had to get labor in.

When you lot work out that government is about the people and not these hitler,communist parties then things will change.

You dont even have what it takes to make a stand without polls,unions,corruption,sexual abuse,physical abuse of children and peadophiles not including swansea.

So when it comes down to it if we where to do a check on these parties you wouldnt touch then with a forty foot barge pole.

But this is all ok as long as these people do not live next to you.
But its ok for these people to create policy for you and your children.

Who are hypocrites and predators

You keep voting them in.

Then therefore you get the corruption you deserve and less jobs no manufacturing.

You are all pathetic.

Tapp, I continue to be impressed by your reasoned argument, your well developed logic, and your incisive rhetoric!

I get it sarcasm

The truth will come out

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton
swulrich@bigpond.net.au

The Blue Cross, one house may work in the states. I'd prefer to see the federal senate kept though. Look what sort of rotten legislation has gotten through whilst the govt has held the balance of power in both houses. Better to have to negotiate with small parties/independents in the senate, as that at least ensures that more issues get into the public domain, and legislation is given greater scrutiny before being passed holus-bolus. Barnaby Joyce was a breathe of fresh air for a while, but party politics forced him to pull his head in (mores the pity). I'd hate to think that a government could just pass anything they liked without decent scrutiny.

We can abolish the states by a slow evolutionary process.However there is more to Govt reform than just reducing tiers of bureaucracy.There needs to be a total cultural change whereby people are both rewarded financially for good decisions and efficiencies but also made responsible for waste and poor decisions.

John Howard should be at least on a $5 million pa package which should change according to the economic and social well being of the country.Just a single term of an ill disciplined stupid Govt can set us back for decades.Remember Gough?

We are not getting the best talent to Govern this country.Macquarie Bank pays salaries of $30 million plus bonuses,yet to run a trillion dollar economy we pay peanuts.Just look at the talent below Kevin Rudd.This has got to the lowest ebb in ability I've seen in my lifetime.They make Gough's era look like absolute geniuses.There is not a personality in that party you would call inspirational.No one approaching Tony Blair's charisma or intellectual prowess.

Reduce the number of pollies and lazy cats and pay the rest a lot more depending upon their performance.

Don't see a real problem with the existing boundaries or the people:pollie ratio. The problem seems to lie in the quality of our elected representatives.
I can't recall when a pollie fronted up to an election and ran on the basis of what they had achieved. Instead, they run on recantable promises.
If the elected officials were in office for the real reason of providing us with the things that are necessary to support a functioning society; things we can't provide for ourselves as individuals, then what we have now would be fine. Instead what we see is local council slavery to land developers and landscaped vanity sites, state raking in more money to spend on themselves and the feds being blatantly and transparently dishonest with everything they touch.

Quite agree Country Gal, I would not support a single house arrangement in Canberra.

But we do need change there too, a move to involve a greater range beyond major parties, perhaps a Tasmaniac system that allows minor parties...and multi member electorates.

No need to stick with what we currently have, just because it suits political parties that have very few actual members.

Save 30billion...now thats a surprise...wanting to reduce government administrative costs...

It would seen there are duplications in federal and state governments...Australian government.a.k.a. crown the corporation...runs both...so literally two employess doing same federal/state work...and mix fact that female government employees far outnumber males suggesting crown a sexist employer...hard to get official statistics...and on top add the factor crown doesnt allow any form of transparent monitoring and accountability of its actions...and we have entrenched system corrupting of what should be...

which is we the common public...each have a power over our own selves, our needs and happiness...come together to bring this power under a common control...ieparliament/government/judiciary...to administer this power for betterment of us the common{ie...commonwealth}...note 'us' and not any other body/corporation linked to it...so government/judiciary should be common employees not crowns...and crown does not really care how many employees it has...it pays them and bills reserve bank with mark up...so we pay through our taxes...

when we have such deviation of administering governing from what it should be...talking about removing state governments without addressing above fundamental issue is...yes...different designed cover for same old same old...and our fault for not keeping close monitoring of 'own' governments using our powers, and acting quickly to correct...after all corruption goes hand in hand with any organized administration given power...just human nature we all have to be aware of...and giving our power brings our duty to ensure its applied in balanced force...

I would think...state government made all powerful over its ground and people, for theres more direct link between people/state government action/accountability than at federal level eg ir laws controversy...[ie law the people dont wont passed and administered by crown...now monitored by ombudsman who is yep...crown...so all power and no accountability leads to...forseeable trouble so why create it?]...and federal stick to foreign affairs...as designed to do...so lot of federal employess will get fired...but hey we will save $30billion right?...

Sam
Ps~to achieve this we the common have to clean up the high court...which has continually been removing the existant power of states and giving it to the federal for years...without a solid legal basis...

"As long as we have whackos over here in WA who are still advocating secession, constitutional change to abolish state governments will never happen."

BC2, well thats great news! Whackos like me happen to think that
whilst the feds are screwing billions out of WA in royalties and
other taxes, they could at least give a bit back to help finance
the infrastructure costs, due to these projects.

Clearly you have no problem with WA taxpayers being given the
rough end of the pineapple by Canberra. I happen to disagree and
I think that we are suckers to put up with it. We need Canberra
alot less then they need us and they should be reminded of it
constantly.

There are 80 countries in the world with more than ten million people. Every one of these 80 countries has at least three levels of government. Far from being redundant, having states (or provinces or regions or some other intermediate tier of government) is standard practice throughout the world.

If the states were abolished, the intermediate tier would be created as an internal arrangement of the national government. The only difference would be that it would be unelected.

Every country of over one million square kilometres (on eighth the size of Australia) has at least three tiers of government. Every country with more than 10 million people (half the population of Australia) has at least three tiers of government. Every country with a GDP of more than $US200 billion (less than one third of Australia’s) has at least three tiers of government. The figures supplied to show that Australia is “over-governed” are wrong.

The campaign to abolish the states simply has no justification.

Chris it is not the levels or tiers of our Govts that is a problem, but the lack of level heads that run it.

We can achieve far better results with two tiers.Make local Govt more professional and get the community more involved.Basic services can be delivered more effectively at a local level.The complex part is working out the finances between Federal and Local Govts.

It can be done via a slow evolutionery process.Our dysfunctional State Govts have brought it upon themselves and we the electorate are looking for better results for our hard earned tax dollars.After all,are we not a democracy?

We Need STRONG OPPOSING SIDES on ALL levels of POLITIC's for health, safety and debate.

I recall like a friend, the TIM FISHER SPEECHES and I congratulate each as contribution to public life.

".... those of us who make it through the tortuous course of democratic politics have the chance to make a contribution ... with courage and with both hands".

There are NO real jokers in public life- but we must laugh.

OUR SENSES are reflected by our INTER - CONNECTEDNESS.

WHAT EVER we are DOING... we are involved in our own definition of change or is it attentiveness...

'Well' DONE Peter BEATTIE, I have liked you as I came to like TIM FISHER, MR WRAN, and many others from across our Australian multi party platform.

I agree you have been a face for QUEENSLAND and personally you gave me the gift I needed most.

I will remember you for the UN "Community Engagement Declaration" and it's connection to SEOUL.See Declaration and DOHA TALKS)

I thank you for your jack-flips and sorrys.

I do believe your support with the Beyond Blue, the Health Quality Rights CONSULT e-democracy forum and the discussions on Health Standards :_* Mental Health (being my own campaign focus) and the partnership for the Bush Blue-Print (by design) for its suggestive ... (wait for it) on the ground connecting infrastructures ...

I will miss you, as PM Mr Howard said.

I will thank you for your BOLD REFORMS. even if it is now we are grasping with our balance for present and future inter-generations.

May the "whole" family come first... it is important that we DO OUR BEST!

Meinmuk!

http://www.miacat.com/