As technology changes and reshapes the global economy capitalist nations have rightly engaged in a process of on-going and thorough economic reform (admittedly more pronounced in some states than others). Unfortunately our political systems have not been given the same attention. Is it any wonder our political system is showing signs of fatigue: we are running a 19th century political model in the 21st century lumbering along with a political system designed for a completely different set of circumstances. We need to shift our focus from economic to political reform. The introduction of citizen-initiated referendums would be one simple change that might drag our political system into the 21st century.

I disagree. I think the system is ok, but the quality of the players may not be up to scratch.

While much is said of Rudd, i personally think his intellect is vastly overrated. I mean every policy i have looked at hardly portrays Rudd matching the rhetoric he displayed prior to being elected.

I think better policy leadership will come when we have leaders that recognise the reality of policy difficulties for Western nations today. Only then will the public and players have a starting point to work with.

I mean carbon tax to change our ways, but we cant export enough of polluting materials.

I mean look at our growing industries; international students, online and casino gambling, and live animal trade while our quality industries go down and down.

I was hoping that the Coalition would have the guts to highlight some of these isses, and suggest why hard decisions could be made that encourage us to make some sacrifice for the longer term national interest.

We can better address the balance between consumption and production, and economic versus environmenal considerations, but i am still waiting for the right type of political leader that can lead on demonstrating complexity.

Come on Abbott, you only have Labor and Gillard to beat. I am one of the few academics that stick up your intellect. Dont be afraid to sell the truth and why we, as a nation, can do much better.

for example, if we are to be a lower cost naiton to atract investment, explore measures to help keep house and land prices witin the reach of orindary Austs. If that means some limitations on foreign ownership for residenctial property, so be it. If this means a loss of stamp duty for govts, so be it.

We cannot expect Austs to accept hard change, yet allows our developed assets become the toys of rich, often from corrupt countries.

If we are to accept foreign ownership of production, let them be limited to 49%, especially in case of authoritarian China.

Over the weekend, the media have happily reported that the Opposition will focus their efforts, in the final sitting week of the parliament, in trying to position the Prime Minister as an unreliable and unsatisfactory person to whom the truth is a stranger, that they will try to disrupt Question Time to put aside Standing Orders for debate on a matter of national importance namely, the PM's trust- worthyness. They will in all probability fail in this attempt as they have in all other such disruptive charades but they will, again, have trashed our parliamentary system and reduced the level of debate to the lowest common denominator.
the system is broken and needs a rewriting of the rules particularly the gimmick of attempting to set aside Standing Orders which allows an opposition Leader or delegate to jump onto a soap box to vent his or her spleen only to find that the motion is defeated. Perhaps, those speaking to such a motion need to be limited to a maximum of three minutes.

There are some fixable thing that need fixing in the Australian parliamentary system. Having taken an interest in US politics for fifty years the last thing we need is a President elected by the general public. The US system is more broken than our parliamentary system. Australia's success in dealing with the GFC shows that.

A learned body, formed from such people as the chief justices of each state court system, the Justices of the High Court elected representatives of university senior staff and maybe a few other groups, but no business representatives, could elect a president or recommend a panel of potential presidents to parliament. One of the duties of the president would be to chair the cabinet and ensure that cabinet is never a one man band, or a gang of four.

The president should have the right to comment on non security parliamentary and government actions and deliberations.

All our politicians need to attend and pass exams in some compulsory subjects such as economics, a broad course in science, the history of science, and maybe even the history of religion, in their first term in parliament.

I recall debates in parliament about public interest committees and the undesirability of not having governments pick winners. If governments had not picked winners in the fields of clean water, hospitals, decent state education systems, power generation, telephone services and many other fields we would be a very backwater society.

Countries need to apply the intellects of their most competent citizens to the government of their societies.

Foyle is correct. An elected President/Emperor/king whatever you call it, is the worst possible form of government. One man can never make good decisions in our complex society - even if 'advised' by his unelected cronies as in the USA.
We need neither a government, nor political parties - they are the death of democracy; we need a parliament of true independents who listen and debate, discuss and argue politely and then make decisions by consensus, having been advised by true experts and wise people who have the interests of the nation at heart, not their invisible god or the welfare of their family business or the shares they own in a multinational corporation.
Voting must not be compulsory, and the speaker/chairperson should rotate.
There is no need for a leader - there is need for rational, reasoned debate and laws that benefit everyone.

Well you didn't have to look to the bottom of the article to see it was penned by a naive youth. Can anyone past puberty not see that the worst people to govern Oz would be Turnbull, & KRudd, present ruler excepted of course.

You couldn't be more wrong Foyle, I can't imagine a worse choice of people to chose anything. I wouldn't trust such a group to pick a name for mt dog, let alone someone to govern real people. There could not be a group of people in Oz more inclined to approve of entrenched elitism & privilege.

In fact I think it is about time that all people on the public payroll were excluded from voting in any elections. After all they have a definite obvious conflict of interest, when they enter a polling station.