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