The Necessity of State Government in Australia: A Queensland Perspective

Parliament House in Brisbane, the seat of Queensland’s Parliament (unicameral since 1922). State governments in Australia originated from British colonial administrations that federated in 1901.

‍

Historical Context

Australia’s state governments trace their roots to the six self-governing British colonies that existed in the 19th century. By the late 1800s each colony (including Queensland, established as a separate colony in 1859) had its own parliament and laws, though they remained under British oversight (The Federation of Australia  - Parliamentary Education Office). On 1 January 1901, these six colonies – Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia – united to form the Commonwealth of Australia under a federal system (The Federation of Australia  - Parliamentary Education Office) (Federation of Australia - Wikipedia). Upon Federation, the former colonies became states and retained their systems of government (with their legislatures and institutions largely intact), while a new national Commonwealth government took responsibility for matters affecting the whole nation (Federation of Australia - Wikipedia). This arrangement was a compromise intended to balance national unity with regional autonomy. Over time, state governments have evolved but remain central to Australia’s governance. For example, Queensland is unique in that it abolished its upper house (Legislative Council) in 1922, leaving a single-house Parliament – making it the only Australian state with a unicameral legislature (1.4 The power of the Parliament of Queensland - Legislation ...). Despite such changes, the fundamental role of state governments established at Federation – managing regional affairs within the federal system – has endured for well over a century.

Necessity and Function of State Governments

State governments exist as an integral tier of Australia’s federal structure, with constitutionally defined roles and responsibilities. The Australian Constitution enumerates certain powers for the Commonwealth (federal) government (e.g. defense, foreign affairs, currency, immigration), and all other legislative powers default to the states ([

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments (https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Government)

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments


](https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Constitution%2C%20the,out%20its%20system%20of%20government)). This means that states are responsible for a wide range of domestic matters that directly affect citizens’ daily lives. Major state responsibilities include public hospitals and health services, primary and secondary education, policing and criminal law, roads and public transport, land use and environmental management, utilities, and emergency services ([

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments


(https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Constitution%2C%20the,out%20its%20system%20of%20government). Each state operates under its own constitution and parliamentary system, allowing it to legislate on these areas to suit local needs (

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments


(https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Constitution%2C%20the,out%20its%20system%20of%20government).

The existence of state governments reflects both historical necessity and functional advantages. Australia is a vast and geographically diverse country; having regional governments enables laws and policies to be tailored to different conditions and communities. As one commentator noted, Australia’s great diversity in climate, resources, terrain, and population density means needs and problems differ between regions – providing justification for devolution through state governments (Awardees’ gratitudeHere). In other words, state governments allow flexibility and local adaptation in policymaking that a single central government might struggle to provide for such a large country. States also serve as an additional layer of democratic representation and accountability. They have their own elected parliaments and executives, which can respond to regional issues more directly than the distant federal government. Moreover, federalism creates a degree of healthy balance: powers are divided between federal and state authorities, which can act as a check on over-concentration of power. Legal scholars argue that this division “prevents the abuse of power by dividing it” and ensures a balance of perspectives in governance, as different state governments can pursue different policies and share best practices (Awardees’ gratitudeHere). For example, one state might trial an innovative program (in health, education, etc.), providing a model that others can learn from or avoid. This capacity for policy experimentation and regional initiative is often cited as a benefit of maintaining state governments. In summary, the state tier of government in Australia exists to manage important functions closer to the community, to reflect regional diversity, and to uphold a federal balance of power within the nation.

Arguments Against State Government

While state governments are deeply embedded in Australia’s system, there is ongoing debate about whether this layer of government is truly necessary in its current form. Critics who question the need for state governments often argue that Australia is “over-governed” for its population, pointing out the potential duplication, cost, and complexity of having federal, state, and local governments. Proposals for reform range from altering state boundaries to outright abolishing state governments in favor of a two-tier system (national and local). The key arguments against the state level typically include:

• Local Decision-Making and Grassroots Engagement: Detractors contend that governance would be more democratic and responsive if more power was shifted to local communities rather than centralized at the state level. Local governments are the closest to the people and often have a better on-the-ground understanding of community needs. They can foster grassroots participation in decision-making that large state bureaucracies might overlook. The Australian Local Government Association, for instance, emphasizes that as “the level of government closest to the community”, local councils have the greatest opportunity to engage people at a grassroots level and work collaboratively for public good (). Abolishing state governments could empower regional and local authorities, ensuring that decisions about services like planning, schools, and policing are made by those living in the affected communities. Proponents argue this bottom-up approach would lead to more tailored solutions and greater public trust, as citizens feel a direct connection to their governance.
• Decentralization and Efficiency: Another argument is that removing a tier of government would streamline administration and reduce bureaucratic overlap. In the current federal system, responsibilities often blur between federal and state (and state and local), leading to duplication of agencies and “buck-passing” of blame between levels of government (Awardees’ gratitudeHere) (Awardees’ gratitudeHere). A more decentralized model (with only national and local governments) could clarify who is accountable for what and cut down on regulatory complexity. Even some prominent figures have questioned the necessity of states. Former Prime Minister John Howard once observed that Australia’s “founding fathers were probably wrong to saddle us with states”, though he noted it may be too late to fully undo it (Awardees’ gratitudeHere). Similarly, former PM Bob Hawke has been a long-time advocate for reorganizing or even abolishing the states to modernize governance (Awardees’ gratitudeHere). Their view is that a unified national framework, combined with empowered local governments, could deliver services more uniformly and eliminate inter-governmental disputes over funding and responsibility. In practical terms, a two-tier system might also decentralise the location of government services – for example, federal departments could have regional branches, and local councils could take on roles like managing schools or hospitals, potentially bringing decision-makers closer to the service delivery point.
• Financial Savings: A major point in the debate is the cost of maintaining state governments. Running eight separate state/territory governments (six states plus the ACT and NT) entails significant expenditure on parliaments, bureaucracies, and duplicate departments. Several analyses have attempted to quantify how much Australia could save by eliminating the state layer. One comprehensive study by Dr. Mark Drummond (2008) estimated that around $50 billion could be saved each year if Australia scrapped the state governments and moved to a streamlined national-local system (BraveNewClimate - BraveNewClimate). This figure includes savings from cutting a large number of politicians, senior public servants, and administrative support, as well as reducing overlapping programs and regulatory frameworks. Even if such estimates are debated, the potential savings are undeniably large. Queensland’s portion of these costs is substantial: the Queensland Parliamentary Service alone costs about $130–$140 million per year to operate (LAQ 2024-25 SDS), and that is just the legislature and associated support, not the entirety of the state’s administrative apparatus. If the state government were abolished, proponents argue, much of this money could be redirected to frontline services or returned to taxpayers. For example, instead of funding two health or education departments (federal and state), a single integrated system could be more cost-effective. Supporters of this view often cite examples like the United States, where some individual states govern populations far larger than Australia’s with a single legislature – implying that Australia’s multiple state governments might be an unnecessary luxury. Indeed, advocates note that Californians (population ~39 million) get by with one state government, whereas Australia (population ~26 million) maintains eight legislatures – suggesting room to trim excess (BraveNewClimate - BraveNewClimate). Of course, opponents of abolition respond that many of these “savings” would be offset by the need to expand federal agencies or local bodies to take over state functions, but the net financial argument remains a centerpiece for those against the state status quo.

Youth Justice System Focus

Debates about state versus local control often highlight specific policy areas, and youth justice in Queensland has become a case in point. Queensland currently faces significant challenges with youth crime and detention, raising questions about whether the state-run system is effective or if more localised, community-based approaches could work better. As of mid-2023, Queensland had the highest number of young people in detention of any Australian jurisdiction – around 300 youths detained on an average night (Youth detention population in Australia 2023, State and territory trends). The state operates three youth detention centres (in Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns), which are frequently at or over capacity. These facilities house roughly 306 young offenders at any given time when full (). The cost of running Queensland’s youth detention system is very high: it costs about $1,880 per day to detain one young person, adding up to roughly $210 million per year to keep 306 youths incarcerated (). This figure does not even include the broader youth justice spending on courts, police, and supervision – it is solely the cost of detention beds. By any measure, this is a heavy investment. Yet despite the expense, outcomes have been poor. A recent independent report described Queensland’s current detention-centric model as “the most expensive and least effective solution to youth crime that we have designed” (Damning report reveals Qld youth detention ‘most expensive, least effective’ — EducationHQ ). Around 90% of young offenders in Queensland reoffend after release from detention, one of the highest recidivism rates in the country (Damning report reveals Qld youth detention ‘most expensive, least effective’ — EducationHQ ). Such statistics suggest that the state-run approach of detaining troubled youth is yielding disappointing results in terms of rehabilitation or public safety.

These concerns have prompted exploration of alternative models that shift away from a pure state custody approach toward local support hubs and community-based interventions. One illustrative case is a community initiative in Townsville called Fearless Towards Success (FTS) – a grassroots program aimed at serious repeat youth offenders. FTS operates a local support centre (or “hub”) that provides wraparound services for high-risk youths, many of whom are well-known to the justice system. Instead of focusing on punishment, the program prioritises intensive personal support: it offers a safe space, mentorship (often by staff with lived experience), cultural connection for Indigenous youth, life-skills training, education and employment pathways, and consistent long-term relationship building. The philosophy is to address the underlying issues – trauma, family instability, mental health, substance abuse, lack of skills – that often drive young people into crime () (). Proponents note that “a one size fits all approach doesn’t work” for the most challenging 10% of offenders (), and that no one was truly listening to these youths under the traditional system (). Programs like FTS aim to fill that gap by tailoring support to each individual. Crucially, advocates point out the economic logic: Queensland is currently “happy to pay $13,000 a week to detain a youth”, but invests comparatively little in proactive support on release () (). If even a fraction of the $210 million annual detention cost were reallocated to community programs, far more young people could be engaged in positive activities. As the FTS submission to Parliament bluntly asked, can’t we do better with a $210 million investment spread across just 306 kids? (). The suggestion is that locally-run support hubs could achieve better outcomes at lower cost by keeping youths out of expensive detention in the first place. Early indications are promising – while quantitative results for the new FTS model are still being gathered, qualitative feedback shows better engagement of youth who previously revolved through the detention system (many find the community hub a more trusting environment than state-run programs) () ().

Another instructive example comes from outside Queensland: the Maranguka Justice Reinvestment project in Bourke, NSW. This initiative, while not about abolishing state government, demonstrates how empowering a local community to tackle youth offending can yield significant benefits. Bourke’s program, led by local Aboriginal leaders, redirected funds that would have been spent on prisons and detention into community-driven solutions – things like an Early Years family center, free driving lessons for teens (to reduce unlicensed driving offenses), local employment and education programs, and community policing partnerships (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke) (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke). The results were dramatic. In just a few years, this holistic, place-based strategy contributed to major drops in crime: between 2015 and 2017, youth major offenses fell by 18%, non-domestic assault rates fell 34%, domestic violence incidents fell 39%, and drug offenses dropped 39%, among other improvements (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke). Reoffending rates also declined as more at-risk individuals were diverted into support programs instead of cycling through custody (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke) (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke). Importantly, studies found this approach was far more cost-effective – dollars spent on prevention in the community saved multiple dollars in avoided policing and incarceration costs (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke) (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke). Bourke’s success has been cited nationally as evidence that community-based interventions can outperform centralized, punitive models. For Queensland, it suggests that investing in local solutions (like neighborhood youth centers, mentorship schemes, family support services, and indigenous-led programs) could not only save money in the long run but also create safer communities. These case studies – FTS in Queensland and Maranguka in NSW – highlight the potential advantages of moving decision-making and resources closer to the community level, especially for complex social issues like youth justice. They bolster the argument that the state government does not have to be the sole manager of such problems, and that sometimes smaller-scale local innovation can achieve what large state systems have struggled to deliver.

Conclusion

The question of whether state governments are a necessary feature of Australian governance, or an outdated layer of bureaucracy, inspires passionate views on both sides. On one hand, the historical and practical rationale for state governments is clear. They provide regional representation, tailor government services to local conditions, and form a critical part of the checks and balances in Australia’s federal democracy. The state system has proven resilient, adapting over time and collaborating through forums like the National Cabinet (formerly COAG) to address national issues. Abolishing or radically restructuring state governments would be an enormous and risky upheaval, potentially disrupting services and requiring complex constitutional change. Defenders of the status quo also caution that promised cost savings might be illusory, as the responsibilities of states would still have to be carried out by someone – either an expanded federal bureaucracy or many more local councils – which could introduce its own inefficiencies. On the other hand, the critics of state government present a compelling case that Australia’s governance could be simplified and improved by reducing duplication. They point to huge potential financial savings and examples of policy areas (like youth justice) where state-led approaches have struggled, suggesting that a leaner two-tier system could redirect attention and funds to where they are most needed. For Queensland specifically, a state often at the center of these debates, the thought experiment of eliminating state government raises both hopes (of streamlined services and empowered communities) and concerns (about loss of state identity and accountability).

In weighing both perspectives, it becomes evident that there is no simple answer. The benefits of localism and decentralisation – greater community engagement, innovation, and possibly cost-efficiency – must be balanced against the benefits of the state system – regional coherence, experienced administration, and constitutional stability. Any move to abolish state governments would require not only constitutional referendums but a complete re-imagining of how services are delivered and how democracy functions across Australia. Short of such drastic change, many experts suggest pursuing incremental reforms: for example, clearer delineation of federal-state roles, reducing overlap, empowering local councils in specific areas, and experimenting with regional governance models within states. These steps could address some criticisms (improving efficiency and local input) without the wholesale removal of a government tier. Ultimately, the necessity of state government in Australia is a question of trade-offs. State governments remain a foundational part of Australia’s federal balance, deeply linked to the nation’s history and identity. Yet the ongoing discussion – illustrated by Queensland’s own challenges and innovations – indicates a healthy democracy continually re-examining how to govern best. Whether through states or other structures, the goal is the same: an effective, responsive government that serves the people. The debate on states’ necessity ensures that Australians keep striving for that ideal, evaluating what works and what might work better in the generations to come.

Sources: Historical background and federal structure (The Federation of Australia  - Parliamentary Education Office) (Federation of Australia - Wikipedia) (

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments


(https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Constitution%2C%20the,out%20its%20system%20of%20government); roles of state governments (

The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments


(https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/about/Pages/The-Roles-and-Responsibilities-of-Federal-State-a.aspx#:~:text=Under%20the%20Australian%20Constitution%2C%20the,out%20its%20system%20of%20government); arguments for federalism (Awardees’ gratitudeHere) (Awardees’ gratitudeHere); critiques by public figures (Awardees’ gratitudeHere); estimated cost of state governments (BraveNewClimate - BraveNewClimate); Qld state costs (LAQ 2024-25 SDS); grassroots governance (); youth justice data and costs () (Damning report reveals Qld youth detention ‘most expensive, least effective’ — EducationHQ ); community alternatives and outcomes () (Justice Reinvestment Helps Reduce Crime in Bourke).

‍