AustralianWhig89, Thursday, 30 December 2010 1:36:37 PM

The heck with federalism and the sorts of social experiments you advocate.

Do away with State Governments, continue Local Govt and have intermediate Regional Councils that have representatives form the Commonwealth Govt, Local Govt and various community experts.

Govt policy ought to be reasoned, not experimental.

McReal,
No. I’m advocating a hybrid mix i.e. the best of both world’s: “cantons” - they have the size of a regional government (the states atm are way too big, hence the perception they are inefficient), but still retain the constitutional sovereignty of a state (to implement novel ideas). Thus, cantons seem like the best option. This sort of federalism (small, yet allowed to implement 'big ideas’) is adopted in Germany (if they are doing it, it must be efficient!), Luxembourg, Austria and Switzerland. Even in Finland and Norway the regional governments are sovereign to set their own income taxes and everything is administered locally!

Reasoned policy is important yes, BUT there has to be a reality gap: good policy should work in practice and not just theory. Many policies can be “reasoned” in theory, but in practice end up as a disaster. Thus, cantonal government ensures <evidence> that a proposal works in REALITY (and are administratively feasiable).

Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments *without risk to the rest of the country...*". So I agree abolish the states as they exist (let’s face it, they only way this is going to be done is if people request it: Canberra and the States are impotent), and replace them with the model that contains the best of both worlds: practical ideas but does not expose the entire country is a disaster a Canberra-centric approach may entail i.e. cantonal government. Progressive ideas would never passed when power is concentrated in one area alone. You need to *PROVE* they work.

Rather than Cantons, why not just accept that Australia was not 'Terra Nullius" and there were in fact around 500 separate and distinct nations in existence when the English first invaded?
I for one am very much in favour of CIR, and also repealing compulsory voting. I reckon I could name around 50 off the top of my head who are either: "not interested in politics"; "not interested in current affairs"; believe it "doesn't matter which side gets in..."
"Who's the Prime Minister of Australia?"
"Who's our local member?"
Taken in toto, I think it's quite possible these people could actually be the majority, and we force them to decide who should govern us?
If CIR encourages people to be more connected, it can only improve improve politics.
After all, in a Democracy we get the government we deserve.

Grim,

The cantons could indeed be modelled on the 500 separate and distinct nations in existence! (Although wouldn’t go as far as 500). Of course, our geography (and hence, environment) is quite broad and diverse, and even in Sydney /NSW the geography the same is true. So it makes sense to accommodate to these conditions, and have small “regional government” or cantons, or whatever you want to call them. I think people can also get involved over local matters (e.g. local roads, parks, museums, cultural centres) as well. If government is too far away (i.e. is Canberra-centric), that can also spawns general apathy and disinterest and the feel that you are powerless to influence decisions.

I agree with your sentiments – Westminster governance has basically ‘dumbed down’ the entire population. Although not too sure about compulsory voting – as I want everyone to think for themselves on all matters – perhaps for constitutional change (so CIR on constitutional matters) voting should be compulsory – but for ordinary legislative proposals at least 50 percent of the voting population should have cast a vote for legislative proposals (i.e. if you were to remove compulsory voting).