/The Westminster system, as currently ‘operating’ in Australia might be examined as to whether it is the most appropriate political model for Australia. Particularly that it has given birth to and continues to nurture a two party system which increasingly has failed to deliver satisfactory outcomes for the people of Australia. Might we not examine other models, including a Republic, or at least see where the current system might be improved and made more responsive, including throwing up better candidates for election?'

Bruce, any examples we could aspire in case of a republic superior to our system or maybe some role model political candidates

We certainly need an inquiry into the "Westminster" system as it operates in Australia, especially in the context of discussions about Australia becoming a republic.

What we are talking about are the essential elements of a well designed political and government system. At the heart of any such discussion must lie consideration of the concepts of separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. A well designed government system separates the executive from the parliament, ensures that the judiciary is independent, and guarantees a recognised watchdog role for the media - the fourth estate.

To some degree, the US does better on these issues than Australia. In the US, the elected President is CEO of the administration. Here in Australia the PM fulfils that role as well as being the Leader in the parliament. Thus there is a much greater concentration of power here in the role of PM. The US (and the UK) also explicitly recognise the important role for the media, whereas here in Australia there are calls to curb the role of media even more than is currently the case.

Discussion of these issues is fundamental to any discussion about a republic. However, we rarely see any serious discussion on these matters.

Firstly, why, when discussions of alternative government systems are raised, do we automatically assume that the next logical step must be a Republic?

Secondly, why on earth would anyone advocate yet more costly Commission Inquiries into blatant ineptitude? And what would the outcome of such an inquiry be? Certainly no government of the day (or yesterday or tomorrow) would welcome any such criticism, let alone implement suggested changes.

Our system needs total dismantling and rebuilding. Substitution of heads of state while maintaining a two party preferred political operation will not bring about any real and recognized change.

If something is broke, you can sometimes fix it. More often than not, you need to throw it out and get a new, updated model.

Bruce, yes we desperately need an inquiry into our governmental system.

And we absolutely need inquiries into the sustainable use of water and long-term planning for climate change.

Hey, wait a minute…. no, we don’t need a bunch of inquiries, we need just one….

A Royal Commission into how best to achieve a sustainable future in Australia! This would incorporate water, climate change and the system of government all in one!

What a great idea!

We have two political systems in Australia which most do not comprehend or realise it.

1. The Commonwealth of Australia government which is the peoples government and must adhere to the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia Acts 1900 (UK). Included in the Constitution are the separation of powers i.e. The Parliament, Senate. Judicature etc.

2. The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION which is the current political system operating in Australia now. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard is the C.E.O. of the Federal Government CORPORATION and is registered with the UNITED STATES SECURITY COMMISSION so in actual effect they adhere to foreign policy and are ruled by UNIFORMED COMMERCIAL CODES U.C.C. this has enabled unlawfully removing the separation of powers without our knowledge or permission.

The AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CORPORATION enabled all of the Australian peoples inherent natural common law rights be removed and replaced by Legal Parliament Statutes (U.C.C. Contract LAW). The Australian Law Department, Police Forces, Courts etc. are all CORPORATIONS now with Australian Business Numbers A.B.N.

They are all reliant on the unlawful AUSTRALIAN ACT 1986 which in a referendum vote of the people of Australian voted to retain the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK) therefore the AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 is unlawful and any STATUTES, LAWS, REGULATIONS initiated under the ACT CANNOT BE ENFORCED ON THE PEOPLE without their consent.

Better candidates? Hmm.
Well we could extend our defamation laws into parliament, so as to prevent the sort of disgusting display during question time, and on show, during the final sitting of the 2012 parliament.
The PM has questions to answer?
Says who? The people who want her job!
Why?
Well, because she was duped and betrayed by a person she trusted implicitly, around seventeen years ago.
A betrayal that cost her, her then career, and her relatively lucrative partnership in a law firm; and, a huge price!
Should she be pilloried for that, 20 years on?
And or, on a clients instruction, did the very best job she could, in incorporating an association of union members, in W.A!
I mean, her job then was to act on her clients instructions, to the best of her ability!
That was and remains every lawyer's job description, to this very day, and in so doing, often have to be seen with some pretty shady characters; and or, cut a few corners?
So, should we take every criminal Lawyer to task, for associating with or defending criminal clients?
And wouldn't any judge simply throw out Julie Bishop's questionable stat dec's, apparently elicited for rank political purpose, from reportedly, proven fraudsters; on the grounds that they were entirely unreliable? Ditto, those who present or seek to benefit, from similar material?
Better candidates?
Well yes, but we would have to reform parliament first, so as they won't be driven away in droves, by the very unseemly spectacle and personal, play the man not the ball, unedifying cat fight, that likely has harmed the attackers, far more that the attacked!
To be continued.
Rhrosty.