Penekiko,

If one were to look at the political scene in the short term, then it might appear healthy. However a longer-term view shows quite different.

If a party wants to get into federal politics then it is easiest to get into the senate first, and the federal government has a list of which parties have been in the senate since 1949 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/briefone.htm.

The Labor party and the coalition have been the stayers, with several smaller parties forming, then disbanding over time. This is not good for democracy, as it means an enduring two-party state (which can often result in a choice between two evils for the voting public)

It is now quite difficult to form a political party that may have a chance in federal politics, as that party has to have considerable financial backing, and it has to make sure it has dotted all the I’s and crossed all the T’s (as One Nation found out). That is a considerable deterrent, but it also appears that a political party has to be prepared to sell it’s soul along the way to establish itself in parliament, and then keep itself there.

The article titled “The grubbiest preference deals” at http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2004/10/03-0005.html gives an idea of the rorting now occurring in government involving preference deals. This is also highly non-democratic, because these preference deals means that a member of the voting public has minimal idea of who they are actually voting for, or where their vote is going.

So in the longer term, Australia is heading towards a bureaucratic dictatorship, where backroom deals determine who is in power, and the voting public has minimal idea of what is occurring.

That is why I would like to see all political parties out of the Senate, (together with their grubby preference deals), and independents only voted in the Senate. The Senate then becomes a proper house of review, and becomes the people’s house in parliament. Politicians can play out all their games and political bun-fights in the House of Reps only.

I hope the included links provide you with sufficient information.

I agree with you Timkins, there is not much to disagree with and I am a very disagreeable person.

I'll just add a couple of things, one of them is that having the taxpayer fund political parties a certain ammount for each vote they get above some percentage in each seat is a good idea and goes a long way to end the financial difficulties of starting a minor party.

Your idea about independents only, has merit and is a real solution to the problems you have mentioned above. But I still don't agree that the Greens did poorly in 2004, yes they lost potential senate seats due to the culture of dodgy dealings, but they didn't do poorly.

I still find the 'insiders and outsiders' article a bit crazy, perhaps if the author cleared up exactly what a centre party would stand for. This includes broad policies and principles. I know I wouldn't vote for what I imagine a centre party would stand for.

Timkins,

I put forward your supposition in an essay i wrote about democracy at uni. Lecturer didn't really like the idea - said it had too many holes in it to work.

He saw a problem would occur that groups of people would clump together any way and vote along similar lines often.

You would need an ACCC type watchdog to ensure people wouldn't collude and of course it would be undemocratic to not let parties in the Senate - just as it would be undemocratic to ban independents.

People like to form groups. Strength in numbers. Divide and conquer.

Good in theory though.

t.u.s

Politics is about compromise, whether that happens inside a party where each mp has a vote and a say on the party's stance. Or outside parties in the parliament between independents and parties. So our current party dominated system is only un-democratic in that independents (and minor parties) don't recieve equal financial support compared to the bugger parties. But essentially you would have the same dealings and compromise (no matter how collusion riddled it is) with an independent or party dominated senate.

So in regards I don't think it would matter much either way, but it would probably be better to have parties recognised, rather than underground institutions, that way the voter can be informed the most.

While the Coalition's opponents engage in academic arguments about voting demographics, indulge in wishful hopes for changes to voters' attitudes and squabble about abstruse differences of principle, the Coalition holds its ranks and the reins of government untroubled by an effective opposition or a credible threat to its tenure. We do not have the checks and balances of the American system or its separation of executive and legislative powers.
The electorate, furthermore, has demonstrated its disdain for an independent Senate. How many would care if the government now made changes to the way Senators are elected? (Not all changes require a referendum.)
Even the devolution of some jurisdiction to the States is overshadowed by the fact that the federal Government has the principal taxing powers and, therefore, economic power.
Party discipline is rigid here; we do not have the dissenters found in the United States or the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister and his government have their caucuses in thrall.
Within constitutional definitions of federal jurisdiction, where is the check on the government's power? Who can challenge it? What restrains it? Not the nominal Opposition. Not "public opinion". Not the "yes-men" in the government caucuses. Not the splinter groups in the Senate, nor the independents in the House of Representatives.
We need an effective Opposition and a credible alternative government. The contest for the Treasury is the game; everything else is a mere distraction.