A simple answer to the problem of deficits, taxation and services is to simply do away with ideologies and just go with what works.
Are you aware that Optus Australia is 100% owned by the government of Singapore? This effectively means every Aussie who has an account with Optus is subsidising the the tax payers of Singapore (top rate 20%).
How many people overseas are effectively paying tax for us?
Instead of taxing resource companies, the smartest thing our gov. could do is invest in them.

BRAiN SPIKE

a simple rule change
political appointees ;by parties
only allowed one time/by party nursing/then must go independant

this independance of the party/extends their full term
and at next election partie must yet again put up fresh blood

really the root of the rot
is the parties party loyalty = treason

parties are nurseries for wanna bes party PATCIES
anymore they become coRRupted/

stuff the party line
its too fine a line anyhow/most of the time

Roses1

The EU is beginning to develop more direct democracy systems.

“Direct democracy is coming to the EU, in the form of the European Citizens' Initiative.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11791272

Perhaps the Australian government will take note of that.

One proposal for a Citizen’s Senate is as follows:

“All adults would be eligible for selection, and can decline if they don't wish to serve. The random group would be stratified for age and income to match census data on the makeup of the society it governs. Participants would be paid a salary equal to twice the average wage.
The chamber has reduced responsibilities – it is a house to approve or veto legislation produced by an elected legislature, and they would not be involved in drafting or altering legislation. They would also be accorded the sole power to redraw electoral boundaries.

A Bill sent from the Representatives would, after discussion, be subject to a vote as to whether it should be immediately ratified, or whether it needs a detailed review. The review committee would be drawn by lot from among their number, and work as a deliberative forum able to hold public hearings, invite expert testimony, take submissions from citizens, hear from sponsors and opponents of the Bill from the Legislature, and discuss the merits of the Bill openly among the themselves. The Committee would then report back to the Senate as a whole with each individual citizen representative presenting their own independent judgment as to whether the proposed legislation is in the public interest.

There is no 'party line' to adhere to. Every vote is, in effect, a conscience vote. A simple majority is required to pass or reject the legislation.”

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/alternatives/structural

However, there are many other ways towards direct democracy.

Such as having “None of the Above” on a ballot paper, which means every political party now has to consider what the public actually wants to be able to get their votes.

And having secret ballot of course, to help remove all the mindless, dumb dumb politicians who just vote along party lines.

Yes, Incomuicardo. What I particularly like about your proposal is "There is no 'party line' to adhere to. Every vote is, in effect, a conscience vote. A simple majority is required to pass or reject the legislation.”

Note that the system of senate inquiries you propose is very similar to the existing system, which works well. I have testified and been quoted in / testified in 3 Senate Inquiries so far this year, once as an individual (Fuel tax) and twice representing community groups (Direct Action Plan and Public Transport Inquiries). So my personal experience is that this aspect of the democracy does work. The recommendations of the Committees were sensible and must have influenced some senators (particularly cross-benchers)

From reading the 'European citizens' referenda' link you provided, it seems this has had limited success in Netherlands, Slovenia and Austria but has resulted in some crazy infrastructure schemes being canned. So it may be worthwhile but I think that a reformed senate along the lines of this discussion would be more effective.

PS I would be interested to hear your comments Peter.

bE YE wise as sephants

What are the ten D's?

The ten D's of opposition tactics are:
http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/advocacy/respond-to-counterattacks/respond-to-opposition/main
* Deflect
* Delay
* Deny
* Discount
* Deceive
* Divide
* Dulcify
* Discredit
* Destroy
* Deal

Specific strategies for responding to opposition tactics

Some of these tactics can be dealt with in similar ways; these are grouped together.
Deflect and Delay

Deflection happens when your opponents try to shift the focus of the debate from the real problem to other issues, or when they try to "pass the buck" to a group with little or no authority. Delays occur when the opposition says it is working on the problem, when the reality is that nothing has been done. Sometimes they do this by claiming that they don't yet have enough information to move on the problem, when there is already plenty of information. Often the opposition will form a committee or commission to study the problem, putting things off for as long as possible. Your opponent is most likely hoping that the public will lose interest if the issue can be put off indefinitely

Roses1

The proposal wasn’t my proposal, but comes from the newDemocracy Foundation website, and they list many other alternative systems that could be used for direct democracy, with both “structural” and “instrumental” changes.

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/

Switzerland has a political system based around referendums that is very interesting.

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerlands-system-referendums.html

I vote for no political party anymore, and I find it is very refreshing to read through possible alternatives to the current mess we have as our governments.

There is a possibility of establishing a Citizen’s Senate in QLD, which currently has no Upper House.

The Upper House was abolished some time ago because it was thought to be an unnecessary expense.

Then, QLD went through the corruption of the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era, and recently the QLD government has gone into severe debt because of overspending.

A previous QLD government overspent in an endeavour to buy votes, leaving QLD with a $90 billion debt, and about $4 billion a year interest repayments.

It is food for thought that a Citizen’s Senate in QLD could have stopped all that, and it would have paid for itself many times over.