"Neoliberalism in effect undermined the class positions of both major political parties" .. this author has spent way too much time studying politics. One of the evident trends in recent decades has been the rise of what Paul Keating called the "aspirational" classes.. another way of saying this is that people have generally became more prosperous and have much less time for the old-style rhetoric of bosses versus workers (although Labor still tends to talk in that language).
Maybe this has also affected the Libs, but either way forget the neoliberal label - its an American thing, and reflects the more extreme politics found there. As for the solutions, to overcome this problem of volatility, the author proposes solutions that would bring yet more lunatics to the fore (the various consultation structures he proposes).

This is not impressive. Maybe we could work on reforming the Senate instead..

"Neoliberalism seemed to work relatively well in Australia..."

Not only seemed to, but did. And the enormous increase in incomes and welfare that it has generated has produced something new and unprecedented in the history of democracy; an electorate which is, generally speaking, better informed and more politically savvy than their elected representatives. The parliamentary sausage factory now has glass walls; we can now see exactly what happens inside in real time, often better and more clearly than the participants can.

Can the Westminster system adjust to this without destroying the gains that an educated electorate has produced? I think so; but we might have to go through a series of one-term governments until our politicians learn to start listening to what we tell them.

I would agree the Senate needs reforming.

For a look at a display of shrieking, yelling, ranting, arm waving, spitting and hurling verbal abuse, there is this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jul/01/michaelia-cash-labor-sisterhood-penny-wong

Now the person in question (Senator Michaelia Cash) holds a “Bachelor of Arts with a triple major in public relations, politics and journalism from Curtin University, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of London, and a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from the University of Western Australia.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelia_Cash

I would consider the money spent on her education as being very poor value for money.

While the public accepts members of juries to be selected at random from the public, we still ELECT people into the Senate, which is supposed to be a "House of Review".

Compared to Senator Michaelia Cash, I see no great problem in developing a Citizen's Senate by randomly selecting about 150 members of the public to be in the Senate, (and those members are only there for 1 to 2 years only, before another lot is randomly selected).

It would be interesting to run a Citizen’s Senate in parallel to the poor value for money monstrosity that is our elected Senate in Federal Parliament, and the Citizen's Senate can arrange online voting, consensus conferences etc.

Agree with roses and incommunicado.
And can only add, today's new labor seems somewhat to the right of Menzies liberals?
I listen to parliament as entertainment, when the school holidays are on and I can't listen to more mature people, arguing over tin toys and sandpits?
Questions are asked, and in most cases avoided, and not even very cleverly, but usually as a blame shifting tirade, against a previous administration.
Preferences allow manipulators to make behind the scenes deals, that all but deal out the mug voter.
And isn't this a pigeon coming home to roost, with many minor parties getting in the way of major parties exercising almost absolute power.
If we the people made a practice of simply putting the incumbent last on the ballot paper, many of these backroom, dark dastardly deals done in the dead of night, would be completed emasculated!
And get the case for fair, less manipulable proportional representation, advocated and on the table, with self survival, urgent alacrity.
I've listened to enough talk about more democracy, now I want to see action.
That action must also includes a bill of irrevocable rights, if only to stop power hungry psychopaths from removing what remains!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty

I have an experiment you might like.

Go to this page, and there are 100’s of poll questions concerning current political and social issues in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/polls/

Now, answer the poll questions without first looking at the poll results.

I seem to agree with the majority most of the time.

Although these polls may not have demographically representative sampling, I have a hunch the results of these polls would represent the opinions of the majority of people in this country most of the time.

But the government seems to take the opposite rout to the polls most of the time.

For example, with the question "The Opposition has called for a second Senate inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank financial planning scandal. Do you approve of this move?" , then 87% of people in the poll said "yes", but the government isn't going to do it.

So there seems to be a total disconnect between the public and the government.

Either the public is wrong in the polls, or the politicians in government who are supposed to be representing the public are wrong.

OK Rhosty and Incomunicado, you are suggesting replacing the Senate with a 'jury' of 150 randomly selected citizen, to sit for a maximum 1- 2 years?

Well I agree that would be a good system. Previously I stated that the system only needs to be tweaked by reforming the Senate voting card process. But I reckon your idea would be an improvement on the current Senate. But it couldn't be compulsory for randomly selected 'senators' to sit - they would have to be offered a seat with the option to refuse.

One reason this system would be an improvement is that party politicians get generous superannuation benefits plus free air travel within Australia (the latter for the rest of their days). http://www.smh.com.au/national/full-list-of-federal-mps-entitlements-20090521-bh0v.html
I reckon 'gift of superannuation riches', which increases if they get to do second or third terms has potential to corrupt some party politicians. Reason is that it means they are tempted to follow a party line even if they disagree, in order to keep their candidacy in the next election.

The 1-2 year random selection option would mean they can only get modest pensions anyway, thus removing any perverse incentive to vote against their conscience.

But how will this ever change? Will pollies ever vote to disband their house and forego their promised riches?

PS I'm a self funded retiree - rental and pension income totals $42,000 for me and my wife and we're happy with that so we're not jealous of the pollies, just outraged by the injustice......