Yup, and particularly if we could eliminate the road block (opposition for its own sake) element that prevents it?

After all there's enough divergence of views inside any caucus/cabinet, to ensure ideas are thoroughly aired and reviewed, before they are introduced to the house.

The same could apply to the senate; but only if it were a real house of review, rather than as all too often, a rubber stamp for the ruling party.

And you'd further erode the power of tinpot tyrants, if every vote had to be a secret ballot and conducted electronically, with a personal key, under a vote/intention hiding cowl!

Meaning, if people had first to be thoroughly persuaded of the merit of good ideas, rather than bulldozed into accepting increasingly bad ones, our Parliament would function far better!

As they would in the case of states, if an intending governor sort election in a winner takes all contest, even if that needed a rerun between the to leading nominees, to decide the outcome.

Who would then be charged with selecting a cabinet from the world of private endeavor and experience, as new department heads, who also must be held equally or more accountable for outcomes; and or, thanks to an entire independent media, And a more muscular ICAC, any internal corruption or nepotism.

This way, we could likely improve our parliaments out of sight, massively reduce government and duplication; and half the cost to us, the eternally suffering taxpayer, of having them.

I rest my case.
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, how would we keep the senators accountable if we can't see their voting record?

Voting records under the Westminster system mean little. Because of party discipline parliamentarians must usually vote as the party room tells them or risk disendorsement or other penalties. Due to party discipline the parliamentarian must place the wishes of the party room ahead of the desires of his or her district so the parliamentarians are not really representatives of their districts. The decision of the party room also takes precedence over conscience, justice and the good of Australia and the world.

Under the separation of powers recommended by Montesquieu government is divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. The legislative body makes the laws, the executive enforces them and the judicial system oversees their application. The three branches are checks and review bodies on each other. That is not true under the Westminster system as the executive body is part of the legislature and not separate.

Considering the flaws in the Westminster good government under it is accidental.

Perfect, David:

<<Considering the flaws in the Westminster good government under it is accidental.>>

The Westminster system ensures that only a handful of voters will be represented in parliament.

One way to make parliament work better would be to give any member of the public a right to sue any member of parliament for misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive. This is the expression from the Trade Practices Act which is the ordinary standard now applied to companies and natural persons, but only in trade or commerce.

The effect of exempting politicians from this standard is to extend to them a legal privilege of deceptive conduct even concerning huge amounts of public money in which politicians have a personal interest, so long as they're acting in their official capacity. That's why, for example, Gillard was able while campaigning to induce electors to vote for her by saying "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" or words to that effect, and then when elected, to introduce a carbon tax. John Howard was also notorious for his distinction between core and non-core promises.

It's actually a disgraceful state of affairs. It's a big conflict of interest, obviously, which is why it's illegal in advertising. In a word, it's fraud.

You often see where companies offer goods for sale on a 'satisfaction guaranteed or your money back' basis, and I have sometimes taken advantage of this with no problems. For example a while ago I bought a musical instrument from Aldi, took it home and tried it, decided I didn't like it, and returned it for a full refund, no questions asked.

It just goes to show how far the political sphere is from ordinary standards of honesty and decency, when we reflect what a joke it would be currently if the people - the supposed principals of which government is the supposed mere agent - were to sue to get our money back if not satisfied with the services they're providing.

Aidan:
Accountable? By who? Us or those who effectively control Parliament?

We've made a secret ballot compulsory in all or unions; arguably to limit the power of tinpot tyrants to control them or any funds under their management!

Voting records count for little when measured against rigid party control; and or, progress and actual results!

I remember well a time during the eighties, when the Gold Coast City Council was so gridlocked by competing ideologies!

The state government had no choice but to sack the lot and replace them with a single administrator; who reportedly got more done in just six weeks, than the literal years of gridlocked council.

Had that council been compelled to install electronically assisted secret ballots, the totally inflexible tyrants creating the very gridlock, would have been dealt out of the power games all politicians seem to play, and just decided on merit?

Hopefully, occasionally?

The secret ballot, video conferencing and key-locked voting pads, would enable a member to attend the floor of the house from anywhere!
[Particularly if that enabled them to avoid an in your face, abusive expletive riddled "secret conference".]

The Parliamentary or electoral office/home.

Anyway, voting records count for very little, when all the ever are, it would seem, a rubber stamp or proxy for the ruling elite!

Besides, electronic voting records could be kept and or accessed, the way our private phone conversations are now; say, just before any new round of elections/after the final selections; and to ensure they were still made accountable, when it really counted!

In other words, you really would have to stand on your record, not the too clever by half, spin that invariably replaces it!

And all you (or competing parties) need to see to know that voting record, would be an open or closed electronic gate or 0 or 1 (meta data) in relation to x, y, w, v or z!

Just not on the day, so as to remove the control of the usual medley of control freaks at the centre of most parties?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Rhosty,
<<Accountable? By who? Us or those who effectively control Parliament?>>
Both. And even being accountable to parties is better than nothing, as elections provide us with the opportunity to hold those parties to account.

<<We've made a secret ballot compulsory in all or unions; arguably to limit the power of tinpot tyrants to control them or any funds under their management!>>
ITYF that's a secret ballot among members, not a secret ballot among representatives!
The latter would lead only to duplicity.

I am amazed that none of the posters on this subject seem prepared to face current political realities. The main one is that voters do not want to pay ANY more taxes, and would much rather have all current taxes abolished. This does not mean that they want reduced government spending, just the opposite. A party proposing a radical solution to this problem, such as financing government expenditure from the sale of politicians' assets, would be overwhelmingly elected (I wonder why no-one proposes it?)

The other reality that poisons the current political debate is the realisation by many voters that both parties would do much the same if in power, and that the game is to ensure that the other side gets as much blame as possible for the measures that both propose. In times such as these when the living standard of ordinary people must be reduced, this causes many to vote informal, on the basis that at least they are denying public funding to the politicians.

If either party were to take genuine selfless action, by, for example, beginning their cuts with substantial reductions in politicians' salaries and perks, someone might believe them, but they most probably would not notice because of all the pigs flying overhead.

Aidan.
I'm not saying that Representatives shouldn't be unaccountable, as you imply.
Just that their voting records shouldn't be an open secret.

What you seemed to have missed is the recoverable electronic record, that would shine a light on every voting record.

And given it's done electronically by a key operated device, from anywhere inside parliament, not just the floor of the house and where the Sayers count the numbers; and allow the feudal chief to decide who should be punished for not following the chieftain's explicit orders.

Now you may see that as democracy in action; whereas, I don't and counter by arguing if members can be told how to vote, what is the point of knowing how, or why they simply can't be replaced with rubber stamps that serve the same purpose.

And there certainly wouldn't be any difficulty in knowing what those same rubber stamps recorded.

And while were at it, I'd remove compulsory preferencing in favor of optional preferencing and or proportional representation or both!

Arguably to further erode the power of the faceless men and or, reduce their ability to manage outcomes via preference swaps.

Just as my phone records can be read to allow me to assert, that a certain call was made or or email advice sent, it it just as possible to know the voting record of candidates, when it counts!

Or is that just too much democracy and genuine accountability, and to the employer, the tax paying public, not a handful of unknown officials, whose voting records or real intentions are never ever known.

If you know anything about binary systems, you will know; there,s only a yes or no, and therefore an ability on the part of an independent electoral commission, to publish those voting records in enough time, to assist Joe public to make up their mind

The question put, was how do we improve parliament, not the powers of those currently controlling all facets of it; and completely unaccountably, from behind the scenes!
Rhrosty.

As we enter the final days of the public hearings of the Trade Union Royal Commission I find myself in the peculiar position of agreeing with John Howard.

John Howard has told Janet Albrechton of his unease with the way that Tony Abbott and George Brandis have used the Royal Commission process as a means to achieve a political end.
There is certainly no doubt that Abbott is using the law to achieve a political goal and his agenda is clearly to smear the Labor Party, both its former leaders and its current leader.

However as we have seen Tony Abbott has a habit of failing in the public’s eyes on anything that does not involve the military. The only things that have propped up his plummeting opinion polling have been his response to the Malaysian Airlines disasters, and the war on terror.

Home grown issues like the budget, broken promises of which there has been too many to count, soaring unemployment, and a skyrocketing cost of living has seen the public perception of Abbott sink rapidly and it’s fair to say that he started out as one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers ever elected, if not the most. Let’s face it, the only reason Abbott won the election is because he was not Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd.

So if Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd had become so unpopular then why the need to try to publicly humiliate them in Royal Commissions.