The article assumes that democracy is a good thing, whereas the point of departure - popular lack of confidence in the government and parliament - is evidence that it's not. So perhaps Dino, you should have checked your assumptions.

You ignore the possibility that what people don't like about democracy, are things that would be made worse by the reforms to federal parliament that you advocate.

If we assume that government is a kind of machine for producing a kind of goods, then making the machine more efficient will be good.

But if it's a kind of machine producing a kind of bads, then we don't want it to be more efficient at producing bad things.

Federal parliament and the federal government are, as concerns the federation, the core democratic institutions par excellence. One reason for the popular lack of satisfaction in them may be that democratic institutions are not as good as Dino assumes.

Democracy actually makes for the most unlimited government power ever. Attila the Hun never presumed to tell his subjects how they should wash the dishes. Genghis Khan never presumed to dictate what kind of light they could use in their own home, or what to put in their children's lunches.

What enables this concept that government's legitimacy is limitless, is that in a democracy, the people are indoctrinated by compulsory state education during their formative years, to believe that "we" are the government, and the government is us. This means that governments can and do claim that anything they do, automatically and intrinsically represents the popular will, by the mere fact of them being elected.

It is this blatantly untrue premise explicitly and implicitly trotted out at every occasion, plus the fact that a government is, legally speaking, a monopoly of fraud, that brings the federal parliament and government into low popular esteem, and which Dino's proposals would do little or nothing to improve.

Democracy is unquestionably good.

I sympathise with the sentiments behind points 1-3 and 6, but apart from supporting a Commonwealth ICAC, I disagree with the other mechanisms suggested for implementing them.

The problem with enforceable codes and rules about election policies is that they impose another legalistic structure between the people and their representatives. The process of enforcing either mechanism would be slow, bureaucratic, and partly unenforceable. How do you judge, legally, whether a representative has been sufficiently open and accountable? Isn’t this what we all assess at election time anyway?

These processes would simply add the opinion of another set of unelected officials to the opinions we all hold anyway. And if you think judges support honest conduct, then I invite you to re-live my 33 years in legal practice. You would conclude they are no better than our politicians.

Fixed terms for Governments and elected representatives create other barriers between the people and their representatives. Why shouldn’t an electorate be permitted to re-elect a member if he/she is performing satisfactorily? And all Parliaments have maximum terms.

A better solution than points 1, 3 and 6 is to add a voter-recall provisions to the Constitution. Apart from six months after an election and six months before, voters could opt to trigger a by-election. Then the decision would then be made the voters, not unelected officials.

With fixed terms, the better solution is in the Advancing Democracy model. Currently early elections are triggered by the exercise of royal power. The Prime Minister or Premier advises the relevant Governor to dissolve the House, and it must cease its sittings and go to an election, regardless if that is what the House wants. Why should such a power exist? The Advancing Democracy model transfers the power to dissolve Parliament early to Parliament. A PM wanting an early election would have to get his/her own nervous backbench to support the move by a resolution of the House. The proposed provision is here: http://www.advancingdemocracy.info/cmspage.php?pgid=125&pid=8

Thank you for the article. It helps to know I’m not the only one who frets about these issues.

This govt; in particular has shown more self interest than most. At the expense of democracy. This govt; wants to take money from medicare and save it up for a 20 billion medical science programe.

It is so sure of that will happen that they already had an account opened for it.
So much for the news that we can not afford medicare. The savings from medicare was going into a futures savings account, along with savings from university funding cuts.

Why aren’t we told the truth. A reform of govt; should be to govern for Australians, without self interest.
When we have elections, advertising should be banned, as of the time an election is called. They need to be judged on performance and not swayed by advertising.

As Abbott says he will be judged on performance, you could say the people have already passed judgment, so why does the party persist in flogging a dead horse. He says party’s that change leaders don’t get reelected, his only defense, you could say more self interest.

Jardine, it was ancient Sparta that had the most unlimited government power ever, and that certainly wasn't a democracy.

I congratulate the writer on a Brilliant piece of writing coupled with the analysis of the widespread discontent in the current Federal [and State?] models of parliamentary 'protectionism'. However 'We the politicians intrinsically know best once we are elected and will only consider the views of those that we managed to convince [con?] to elect us as their representatives when it suits us - not some 'stupid?' democratic notion that we should be accountable, individually and/or collectively, 'Heaven forbid', during our entire terms. What a dangerous idea it would be to the sancrosanct 'rights of the great elected' who often act as if they were demi-Gods!
The sooner a model similar to what is proposed is adopted the better. I would certainly consider voting for any person who stood for this policy platform - Independent or not. "Prevention is always better than cure!" [At present the only remedy is via the 3-4 year or so ballot box mechanism which often just reguritates the same tired, hackneyed policies and politicians to snuffle in the collective trough of taxpayer-funded luxuries. Politicians should be held in the highest esteem - not given a status of those who play the piano at a brothel or sex industry men's sexual health comfort centre/ retreat/establishment or purvey the 'relief' that some married men need to be able to apparently operate half sensibily even though they 'love' their partners and any resultant kids. [With apologies to Rahab the prostitute who was in the lineage from which Jesus Christ was born - though there is some doubt whether she was a prostitute or innkeeper in those times.]

I don't agree that our democracy as we know it is a good thing, it's time it evolved. It's a 19th century institution that needs to move with the times. The issue is, the reason for it's failure lies in humanity. We should never have abdicated leading by appointing others to do it, there-in lies the flaw no amount of regulation will ever overcome. I prefer the Libertarian Socialist model of "laws without leaders". If we survive, I assume we'll eventually morph into something resembling that. Professor David Graeber has more reading on that model.

"Democracy is unquestionably good."

The principle that the majority, by being the majority, are right is certainly questionable.
The principle that they have a right to force everyone to obey their opinions, and pay for them, is certainly questionable.
The principle that the politicians, by being politicians, have a legal privilege of misleading and deceptive conduct, is certainly questionable.
The idea that rights are whatever the State says they are, is certainly questionable.
And if the only thing that stops majoritarian rule from being abusive, is entrenched legislated standards preventing the majority from voting to get their way, that's not much of a recommendation, is it?

Aidan
Did ancient Sparta make it illegal for people to cut their grass or use household lighting that the State disapproved of?

At least with tyrannical non-democracies, people didn't believe that they were doing it to themselves.

Over the past 12 months federal government agencies have referred stories by journalists from Guardian Australia, news.com.au and the West Australian to the Australian federal police (AFP) for their reporting on the government’s asylum seeker operations during the time Scott Morrison was immigration minister.

Campbell Newman says he cannot guarantee the Liberal National Party's big spending promises, even those with bipartisan support, if the party wins government but not the seat a project is in.

We all know polls usefulness & accuracy depends on who wrote the questions, who conducted the questioning, how they conducted it, who they chose to question, & who interpreted the result.

You don't have to look very far to see this article is based on a "desired answer" poll, conducted by one of the most biased institutions in the country. Just a little thinking will tell you it was conducted in Canberra, mostly on the university's campus, & the results are not worth the paper they are printed on.

That makes the whole article totally meaningless, based as it is on a con job.

Just another example of the left piddling in each others pockets, for that warm feeling it gives them.

Just you remember that when it suites you to believe polls.

I liked the article, but I think you made it more complicated than it needed to be.

For my way of thinking, don't tip-toe around it.
Pretend you are bartering for a good deal on a product, like a used car for example. (in this case democracy)
Start at the extreme level, (like offering them $100) and then make concessions back.

Our federal government isn't democracy's weakest link.
Western democracy isn't really democracy at all.

Start here with a top-down approach.

STEP 1.
Ban people that hold dual citizenship from voting or holding office.
- You are either loyal to the country or you are a foreigner.
STEP 2.
Ban political donations so that democracy can't be bought.
- No more special treatment for anyone.
STEP 3.
Ban lobby groups that serve to dilute real democracy.
- Let the people's voice be the only voice.
STEP 4.
Ban political parties so that candidates stand on their own merits.
- Are politicians loyal to the people who vote them in or the party they belong to?
STEP 5.
Politicians must keep election promises, or face jail.
- If they change their view on a certain topic they were voted in on, they should hold a referendum or bring new policies up at the next election and let the people decide.

ITS REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

43% believe it made a difference on who is in power you stated.
That's because people a slowly waking up.

Confidence in its Defense Forces (40%), Police Force (31%), and University System (26%)
I wouldn't call those numbers reasonably healthy.

As for confidence in Defense forces, those 4 out of 10 Aussies that have confidence must have rocks in their heads.
If NZ attacked us maybe.
If a POWERFUL foreign enemy REALLY WISHED us harm it would only take 2 or 3 nuclear armed subs sitting off our shores to VAPORIZE our cities before any of us could run to the toilet to change our underwear because we knew what was happening. And our nation would be mostly destroyed and ready for invasion with an unarmed population.

Armchair Critic,

I would like to see citizen initiated referenda, such as they have in Switzerland, with voter veto (of legislation passed by the politicians) and voter recall.

Some of your ideas are good, but others would present a problem. Some people who have migrated to Australia and their children have no choice about being dual citizens because their home country won't allow them to renounce their citizenship. Banning political parties might well increase uninformed voting because of difficulties in finding out what often huge numbers of candidates stand for. I have long felt that candidates should be required to post a policy statement on the internet, but there would probably just be too many of them. If a politician sells out his constituents to toe the party line, he will be vulnerable to losing to an independent or minor party candidate at the next election.

Banning donations is good, but we will need some other method of campaign funding. Maybe we could pay for a certain number of debates, but no sound bites or advertising. I am not sure how banning lobbyists can work. Where do you draw the line between lobbying and a constituent telling a politician his concerns?

We all hate lying politicians who make promises that they have no intention of keeping, but sometimes promises have to be broken because circumstances really have changed, and there isn't time to hold it off until the next election or until a referendum can be organised. If a politician can't convince most of us that breaking the promise was justified, then we should have the right to recall him or her.