Thanks for the comprehensive reply dozer. I admire your knowledge of Australian politics.

You wrote:

<< …the Hawke and Keating governments introduced crucial pro-market reforms in the 80s and 90s, continued under Howard and Costello, until many of these were reversed under Rudd and Gillard. >>

Yes, so there are often bigger differences between different governments of the same political brand than there are between Lib and Lab!

<< The immigration system in place under The Howard government, although strict, allowed the government to increase both our immigration and refugee intake to the highest levels in our history. >>

And this basically remained the same under Labor. Indeed, one of the very first things that Rudd did was to further increase immigration.

When you compare the immigration rate under Howard and Rudd/Gillard to the lowest level under Keating, and when you consider the need for us to head towards a sustainable society, which would necessitate a very much lower immigration rate, recent Liberal and Labor policy has indeed been very similar.

I come from a position of desiring a very different government, in the interests of achieving a sustainable society. This requires the abandonment of continuous rapid expansionism. From this perspective, Lib and Lab really are practically identical.

I can see that from your perspective they are quite different. But I’d say that the differences are just not very significant in the bigger picture.

As for the mining tax, and direct government intervention in the interests of better wealth distribution, it seems that we could debate it at length. But another time, as it is moving a bit far from the subject of this thread.

Cheers

My thanks to Davidf and Producer for some interesting leads.
I've discovered thanks to David NOTA (none of the above) parties and movements exist in many parts of the world. Indeed one man in Australia, Geoff Richardson went to the extreme of changing his name to “of the above, none”.
I particularly like the UK version: “No Candidate Deserves My Vote.”
That's the sort of party I would join.
To paraphrase the Great Marx (Groucho): Any party that would have me is no party I would vote for.
It's interesting that people felt a need for such a movement, even in electorates where voting isn't compulsory.
How much more necessary in our system where we are compelled to vote?
The proportional voting system also does seem more fair.

Yes, you're right Producer, it's a good thing that humanity do get a few lucky brakes from time to time.

It is almost enough to make me believe in god, that we were spared that rip off merchant Al Gore.

The US could not have survived even a single term of him, & one of Obama as well.

God must have been in heaven to save the whole planet from Gore, pity he went on holidays & allowed that fool Obama a run with the main team.

Hasbeen,

You appear to have one very warped view of history. For one who supposedly favours sustainability, your inferred support of a war-mongering persuasion in US politics seems far from rational. GW Bush will certainly feature as a prime example of infamy and outright incompetence through one of the saddest episodes in human history.

Producer,

Well done, however you did not address the second post on this thread, by Grim, suggesting that Queensland would be better served with a bicameral parliament - Q being the only unicameral parliament in Aus (having abolished their Upper House in 1922 - according to Wikipedia). This factor alone places Q at risk of a runaway parliament - irrespective of persuasion. Not a good look, and 7 to 1 against (bicameral to unicameral) should indicate something.

Surely the best chance for effective representation is to maintain an Upper House whose members are elected for a term twice the length of the Lower House term, and with half of all Upper House members coming up for re-election midway between each Lower House term?

Jiggling with proportional representation can also only be less effective than a fully compulsory preferential system - with all parties declaring preference distribution beforehand, and with retention of a facility for individuals to allocate all preferences (below the line) if they should so desire. It appears to work well elsewhere in Aus politics, and, although you cannot please all of the people all of the time, excessive tinkering with a fully functional model defies logic. Queensland is simply out of step.

Saltpetre – I am not a fan of a bicameral system although I believe it does serve a purpose, in that by default, does introduce a degree of proportionality to our current federal parliament. I believe government should be as small and frugal as practicable and only deal with those matters that can only be dealt with by government. I don’t want to bunny on and be accused of hypocrisy.

I believe a proportional system such as they have in Germany and NZ that has divisional representation plus a list to ensure proportionality is the best option. I don’t think these systems require an upper house as it is highly unlikely that any single identity would gain a majority. Voters deserve and should get the representatives in the proportions they vote. If they get it wrong they can only blame themselves. This can not be said of the current system!

This may interest ya’all. I made the genuine suggestion that they should consider proportionality on the ALP’s web site “think tank” (I’m not a lefty or a member, or a righty for that matter) under the login name “Producer”. You would never guess, but I am no longer able to log on. Guess it didn’t fit into their propaganda.

Perhaps the ALP would prefer these questions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related

Finally I don’t know whether you wonder as I do, why the media (with the exception of The Canberra Times) doesn’t pick up on the non democratic nature of our current system. Surely Aunty could have Kerry to do a bit on four corners.

Hi ludwig, thanks for your response. a fuller response is coming soon. Just busy atm.