If as we are told, our representatives are in parliament to serve not the themselves not the party so much as we the electors. If members are so sensitive to communication form their electors then presumably there should be more party dissension. Maybe there is and it is not reported. Maybe never enough to sway the Government. But what about Iraq were there not enough members approached or was the opposition not large enough to be influential in enough seats to worry the Government? If the media had informed rather than harangued the users, something investigative reporting could have done even then, would there have been an influential majority?
If your suppositions are correct do we not need an informing media to provide accurate data on which to base opinion. Media uninfluenced by ministerial grouch such as that from former Senator Alston to the ABC.

It is highly unlikely that any of the MP's consulted their constituents. We don't hear from them from one election to the next, and then only on behalf of the party they represent - they don't represent us, they represent a party, or themselves in the case of independents.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have NEVER been consulted on any subject by the politicians, state or federal, who want me to vote for them and/or their party

Leigh, I don't think you should be sitting around at home, waiting for the phone to ring with your local member wanted your opinion on a piece of legislation. It works the other way, if enough constitutuents raise issue with their local member, then they generally take it to the next cabinet and try to get some changes done then. If they are in the opposition, then take it to a mate on the other side of the house, to return a previous favour. Most of this is out of sight, but it actually does have effect. One of the myriad examples of this working (for, it being acheived inside "internal democracy" means that it still gives the impression of unity) is the Blackspots legislation, created by the pressure by National party MP's who listened to their electorates about the poor quality of telecommunication.

As a general rule, it's best to clear up any problems before it comes to a vote, because to loose a vote is embarassing. That is the stratergy taken by the grand majority of the elected.

Having a conscience vote on every issue does raise one very simple problem, that it clashes with the idea of a mandate. If a government is elected on a platform with certain core promises, then these should be passed. On issues raised after the election as "non-core promises" like IR reform and VSU, we saw a suitable amount of open debate within coalition ranks, and saw changes to these policies. This debate was barely tolerated, but tolerated nonetheless.

Yes, it was an interesting debate to behold on RU486, but seeing as I did not elect my local member to pass such a bill (not knowing that this was going to come up), it was actually a loss for democracy in many ways. Individuals, voted for because of their party allegiance, were voting as individuals. Whilst we entrust then with this task to deal with important issues, they should not do so too often, lest they see themselves as our masters, rather than our servants.

Hi y'all
Funny thing, the constitution presumes that the members of parliament are elected to represent their electorates in the case of the House of Reps and their States or territories in the case of the senate. The government is appointed by the Governor General for as long as they, the government, retain the confidence of the parliament - i.e. a majority - up to the expiry of the parliament. There is no mention of parties or mandates or safe seats.

We, the people, have bought a system whereby the local member represents a party to us provided that we vote for them as proxy for their party leaders as our least worst government. This is directly opposite to the situation envisaged by the constitution.

But, the current situation, volte face as it may be, places the onus on we the people to exercise ourselves in the recall of our representatives to give an account of their performance. If we don't like their account, we should sack them by voting for someone else at the next available election. The myth of the necessity of "stable government" will be trotted out in defence of the status quo: it is a myth.

odsoc

No thank you. The last thing I want is my MP voting on his personal values.
I can get a reasonable idea of the response of a party. I have no chance of getting close enough to a number of candidates, before an election, to have the same chance of electing the one closest to my ideal.
The last thing I want is a "loose cannon" independent as my representative, thank you.
Hasbeen.

DFXK,

Tried that, it doesn't work because not enough people do it. It's only in the last year or two that I have stopped writing to politicians, not just my local "representative"; and I started about 40 years ago.

We have a prime ministerial 'democracy' under which Ministers are mere rubber stamps and local members and backbenchers toe the line

Hi Folks,

I, like Hasbeen, prefer the party system – indeed the two-party system – as the best way forward into the future: viz, a “Government” and a strong and encouraged “Alternative Government” (Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition).

Personally, I think we have a pretty good system, especially with:

i) compulsory voting (just as I also believe in compulsory education)

ii) preferential voting in single-member electorates (where a candidate therefore needs 50% + 1 of the vote to win the seat)

I am wondering if anyone has ever heard of the 19th Century British "Chartists"?

They wanted 6 MAJOR reforms to their British parliamentary system. They got nowhere in Britain during the 19th Century (FAR too radical!) However, quite a few who were influenced by these ideas either migrated to Australia or were Transported here (as political prisoners - before the term was coined).

As it turned out, Australia became the first country in the world to implement 5 of the 6 reforms, which are TODAY seen as fundamental to good democratic practices and processes.

Indeed, a country would be hard-pressed to call itself a true democracy UNLESS it practiced these 5 things:
Universal manhood suffrage
Every man can stand for parliament
Parliamentarians are paid
Equal electoral boundaries
Secret ballot (now known globally as the "Australian ballot"!)

The 6th reform has NEVER been implemented ANYWHERE in the world ... yet.

I am "convinced" (in a rather 'religious' sense of the word) that it would be a fulfillment of the democratic dream.

We have BUILT a fairly good system of democracy in Australia, however I don’t believe we have yet learnt how to MAINTAIN it.

The 6th reform is ANNUAL GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Too “costly”?
Too “unstable”?
Not enough time to “get things done”?

Frankly, I believe it would be:
money well spent for better accountability and transparency;
give stronger mandates to get things done;
be MORE stable;
and give us ALL better ideas of where we stood with long-term planning.

A House of Bricks costs more than a House of Straw.

Your thoughts?

David (in Perth, Western Australia)

Hasbeen
Bull dust. How do you think parties form if not by identifying common, easily recognisable values. Basic campaigning and town hall style meetings where the candidates are asked some common questions, give a five minute speech, and respond to a few questions from the floor would pretty quickly sort the wheat from the chaff for most people.

I reckon if you then got the locals in a town hall (shed, barn, paddock, local talk-back radio) once a year (on a round robin around the electorate) to follow up the candidate's performance, you'd pretty quickly find out what he or she was doing, whether they were worth their salt, and whether you wanted them to keep on representing you. The only real difference would be that with a bit of work, the voters would own the pollies, not the parties.

PerthWestern, I reckon annual elections have one small problem at a state and national level: many decisions made at those levels don't manifest their consequences for a few years. There is a risk that shortening the term, would shorten the time-span focus of the pollies - i.e. they'd make decisions for short-term gains regardless of long term consequences.

odsoc

I'm with Leigh. The MP's did not take much value in the views of their constituents as the thousands of letters and emails were over 95% against this bill. Even polls had the issue at around 55% to 45% for the bill, yet the split amongst parliment was no where near this. And this is the democracy the author wants? What a joke.

Yes, yes and yes, Dr Marinac.

But I fear that politics will allow only limited scope for elected MPs to honestly represent the people they are supposed to serve.

Aside from the very rare conscience vote like RU486 – one other instance where parliament can become delightfully transformed is in the case of minority government.

I had the pleasure some years ago of witnessing the passage of Freedom of Information legislation in the Tasmanian parliament when Labor governed in minority (in an accord with the Greens).

The FOI Bill was drafted by Green MP Bob Brown, and tabled by Labor. The debate was conducted without rancour. During its passage, the bill was amended through four voting combinations: 1. Labor + Green. 2. Labor + Liberal. 3. Liberal + Green. 4. Labor + Liberal + Green.

The amended bill then proceeded to the Upper House where it was further amended by the (mostly independent) House. Nearly all of the amendments were constructive and in most cases strengthened the resulting Act.

The result was good legislation (later weakened by majority government). But the most fascinating aspect of this experience was the ‘ownership’ that all political representatives had over the result. What a striking contrast to the kangaroo court that usually describes parliamentary debates when government is in majority and allows little say by others.

Minority government can deliver much more vibrant representative government, so it should be welcomed. Yet, as the author explains so well, good representative government is a nightmare for Executive Government, which enjoys the luxury of unchecked authority over the parliament. So minority government is painted up as a big bogey.

But, back to majority government, like the author, I would urge backbenchers frustrated by their imposed disempowerment to expand the opportunities for free-conscience votes