Sorry for confusing a number of issues. Political science is new to me, so I hope you can forgive my ignorance in this area.

Upon reflection, IMHO it might be safer to conclude that the UK has sovereignty capable of creating or abolishing sub-governmental units and Australia has two levels of sovereignty with similar capabilities.

Governments are self regulating monopolies with an evolutionary propensity to create extra unnecessary work and income for themselves. Both the UK and Australian models are guilty of this, so I agree with you and Jill and conclude that the regimes in both countries, are equally overburdening their communities with too much government that manifests itself within the multiple layers.

That being said, Australia’s second sovereign level has the added expense of being 6 replicated sovereignties, with their own sub-governmental units that replicate the other states sub-governmental units and also a lot of the federal and local government functions as well. The adversarial nature of this fragmented power, between the 6 states and commonwealth, has the states working independently and against one another as well as against the commonwealth.

The replication seems excessive and inefficient, especially in light of the Australian population being 1/3 that of the UK. Concentrating power does carry more risk, but considering the UK has for many years successfully conducted a unitary state, those risks seem ‘over-stated’. So having a centralist government in Australia wouldn’t be the end of the world. The majority of the world’s countries are unitary states and this includes other successful western styled democracies like France, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland and Japan etc…

Anyway as mentioned above there are no easy answers, but this seems like the best solution put forward thus far;

Bring Back the Currency Lad Says:

“rog is correct one cannot abolish states but one can increase the number.
Why not increase them a lot and abolish local councils!!�

Concerning your quote, I don’t understand why devolved levels should be counted differently from sovereign ones, but if you’re doing that then we only have two. The local councils could be legislated out of existence tomorrow if the state governments wanted to. I also fail to understand how come a sovereign government leads to a particular inefficiency that a devolved one doesn’t. In any case, it contradicts your next paragraph so I will assume I’ve thoroughly misunderstood your intention.

But… you count the UK as potentially having only a single layer of government, yet you count us with three. Why do you count the local governments in Australia but not the local governments in the UK? If anything, my understanding is that English local government councils do more than ours.

I did not put forward any nexus between unitary government and fascism. I do however think that a federation is a better protection than not having a federation. A Bill of Rights is also a protection, but to a greater extent requires the consent of those whose power it limits to be effective.

And finally, there is no way cutting out the states will ease the concentration of power the politicians have. Give us one government instead of eight and you suddenly have much fewer people with much more power. If your aim is to reduce the number of politicans, it would be safer to do so by getting rid of the Commonwealth, but retaining free trade and passage between the states (amongst other things). This way, no politician commands more power than he can muster up in one state, instead of the whole continent. Also, by having more politicians, you are increasing the chances an outsider can get in and helping to reduce the problems of a developing “élite political class�. More people with less power, not less with more.

I haven’t said that I abhor the British Government anywhere. The rise of the Scottish and other local British parliaments however do weaken your arguments. I recognise that the British parliamentary system came with a great deal of angst and bloodshed over a millenium whereas in Australia our democracy has had a far shorter and more civil development. That is why is it important that if we are to make changes we should give the consequences proper consideration. After all those who took away the stolen generations were outcome focussed – they just had no appreciation of what the outcomes would be as they gave no voice to those affected. It was an efficient but flawed process.

You should consider, if you are unable to impact on Waverley council, how can you possibly impact on a far more remote and powerful Federal Government? Councils are the most accessible form of government having councillors with smaller electorates and living in their local community.

You could also consider the angst that we undertook at the end of the twentieth century over a largely ceremonial position – the Governor General or a President. At that stage Mr Howard was of the school that wished to cling to monarchy. It was a process that took time and money and effort and ended in the proper constitutional result – a referendum.

In comparison a desire to get rid of the states by stealth and in the heat of an election campaign is radical indeed and could have many unintended consequences for the concentration of power. It would almost certainly impact badly on those living in smaller states which still have the majority of the land mass of the country.

The funding of one hospital in Devonport after a refusal by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to negotiate with the states over more general Hospital funding was bad policy and will mean that every change proposed by the states to deal with the pressures on their hospitals as a result of funding pressures, caused by reduced Federal funding, can be undermined.

It’s a bit like the husband who cuts the household budget and then goes out to do the shopping for treats. The kids may be inclined to blame Mum and see Dad as the saviour at first. However when Dad gets sick of the extra shopping and has less money to spend on those things he wants, the kids are likely to get potatoes, not pudding, again.

“you are wrong when you say that the United Kingdom still has the “efficient� same government that defeated the Nazis.�

Didn’t they loose Ireland in the 1920s some fifteen years before they defeated the Nazis. So I put it to you “that the United Kingdom still has the “efficientâ€? same government that defeated the Nazis”.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/keydates_1901_present.cfm

“four levels are directly comparable to the levels we have here in Australia, but there’s only one way to count them—four.”

“In a unitary state, any sub-governmental units can be created or abolished, and have their powers varied, by the central government. The process in which sub-government units and/or regional parliaments are created by a central government is known as devolution. A unitary state can broaden and narrow the functions of such devolved (sub-)governments without formal agreement from the affected bodies.”

You can call it 4 levels if you like, but I will call it 2 or maybe one.
Parliament and the devolved political bodies (which have been granted powers on a regional level).

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/electing_mps.cfm

“And as four using a piece of paper to protect our rights, ask the people of China and the former Soviet Union how well that works.�

I fail to see the nexus between Fascism, Communism or Nazism and the UKs utilitarian system, which you and Jill put forward.

“I would rather use a mechanism rather more fundamental to human behavior—greed for power—to make sure no-one gets too much.�

Well, unfortunately, it is the elite political ruling class getting “too much� in Australia and a culling is needed.

And as four using a piece of paper to protect our rights, ask the people of China and the former Soviet Union how well that works. I would rather use a mechanism rather more fundamental to human behavior—greed for power—to make sure no-one gets too much. Not to suggest a Bill of Rights is useless, but it can only be one small component in the protection of our freedoms, and should never be too heavily relied on.

There is only one sentence in your whole post that’s correct (aside from your comments on your local government)—Australia’s federal system has become a mongrel. Let the states be (financially) independent of the Commonwealth and we will be the better for it.