Dear Lexi,

I think you were addressing my post, not Bazz's.

Even if our views about the items you mentioned may differ: social welfare; public health; education; co-ordination of trade; and economic policies, none of these requires a federation. In principle, these policies need not change at all once Australia becomes a confederation instead of a federation. The fact that there will be no federal parliament does not mean that states could no longer talk between them - as equal and voluntary partners of course.

The main reason for abolishing the federation is not to cease welfare, health, education or trade, but to allow individuals more remedies against state-oppression:

If one state forbids circumcision, or kosher/halal food, then Jews and Muslims can move to another.
If one state forbids carrying the ritual dagger, then Sikhs can move to another.
If one state forbids home-births, effectively incarcerating pregnant women in hospitals, then women can travel to give birth in other states.
If one state mandates immunisation, then those who cannot accept it can move to another state which doesn't.
If one state forbids riding a bicycle (without a helmet), then another state may allow it.
If one state forbids a person from practicing a given trade, say on the grounds that s/he is not deemed to be sufficiently qualified, then they may still be able to practice their trade in another state.
If one state forbids gay-marriage, then perhaps other states will allow it.
If one state forbids abortions, then perhaps other states will allow it.
If one state forbids euthanasia, then perhaps other states will allow it.
If one state forbids swimming-pools without chlorine and it's very important for someone to have it, then they can move to another state where chlorine is not required.
If one state requires all water to be treated with fluorides and one is allergic, they can move to another state where fluoride is not mandatory.

The list goes on and on and on. The things you care most for yourself and your family may also one day appear on this list!

Yuysu recently, here in this forum I saw in one of your posts, the thought us westerners have far different thoughts and ideas than your self.
Excuse me for again saying what I think, but are you sure your views are shared by most?
I think the thread is about the changing nature of upper houses.
And the effects of those changes on Democracy.
I am yet to find any thing better than that system.
Let us think together,is it likely NSW voters,haveing delivered a very big win to Liberal coalition, almost a wipe out.
Are content that the upper house held the government to ransom?
Barry OFarrel is, rightly so, seen as a failure, but some of that is because of the upper house.
Did voters want shooters party representation? lessons in gun craft in schools? shooting in national parks?
Are we all aware of the nature of the Reverend Fred [mad as a hatter] Niles history? his demands of governments?
Can Democracy continue to deliver landslides but be stalled in upper house by far less than 20% of votes?
Make it a criminal offense to stop ANY PARTY'S members crossing the floor but get rid of upper houses.
If minority's continue to block majority's then we face some thing other than Democracy.
Greens, tell me it is untrue,try to hold the wishes of 88 in every hundred up so only they say how some issues are handled, is that ok?

Belly,

Just a thought...
Remember when the Howard government gained control of the Senate as well. They wasted no time in going to extremes and introducing Work Choices. This led to their ultimate demise because when they had the power they went too far in the eyes of the electorate - and that electorate delivered in return a crushing defeat.

You're right that the upper house can stymy a government's intentions, but it can also protect the electorate from the excesses of power.

Dear Poirot,

That is precisely the point I've been trying to
make - but you did it so much better. I totally
agree - we need to keep that balance.

The benefit of an upper house, is that many of its members recognize that they are responsible to all the voters in the state or country. About 70% of the MPs in the lower houses of Parliament refuse to deal with voters other than those in their own electorates. i.e those on whose votes they are dependent. This completely ignores their role as legislators producing good laws and policies for all citizens. This cozy neglect of their duty, prevents ordinary voters having significant influence on what government does. These same MPs are only too happy to meet and talk with party members and political donors or citizens of great wealth and influence, who do not reside in their electorates. Upper house members all over Australia have been excellent in assisting voters on matters of personal state and national importance. They also moderate the self interested party political antics of those with large majorities in lower houses.

For any person to influence government via elected MPs, they must influence more than half of them. It is no good trying to influence government, simply via one local MP who may have no influence within his or her party and be of no consequence to other parties in parliament. Few governments will help a voter via an opposition MP, thus making that MP look good to the voters, that is the opposite of their long term aim of controlling government themselves.