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.