I just spent a few days on the farm with my partner's family, who have a property of several thousand acres in a place called Bute, around 140km north of Adelaide. Heard of Snowtown? Yup, the bodies in the barrels in the bank vault - near there.

This time I learned a lot about how agrarian socialism works in Australia. Something city slickers just cannot understand and proof to me why a simplistic approach as let the market rule just won't work.

Maybe it was learning about the young farmer who inherited his land and didn't spray his weeds which were jumping the fence into the neighbour's paddock. Or the people who lived up the road who weren't taking their turn to drive the kids to meet the school bus. And the sheep farmer dependent on the efficient farmer's best stubs of the new harvest to graze his flock. And the terrible roads, internet and mobile phone networks and so much more.

Naturally talk turned to water and climate change, a given in a place where the whole town stood still when the weather came on for a full ten minutes. The news mentioned the new $10 billion deal for the Murray-Darling. My partner's father, a member of the ABB Grain board, said he thought the idea of an expert commission was a good one. He said the science should dictate the way to manage water, not the politics.

He went further and even suggested that the idea should be applied to our political system. Instead of politicians being elected to parliaments, representatives of key groups would be elected by their members for a six year term (and no more). To get elected in this system of Expertocracy, you have to be a member of a registered, member based organisation, eg the farmers, miners, steelworkers, doctors etc, the people that know how to run the country, he said. The parliament then elects the executive. And why not? Maybe we could use Germain's Generalized Expertise Measure (GEM) to set the standard? At least food for thought.

Elite obsessions? I think they should best be kept to oneself don't you Davo?

The 3 R's, Republicanism. One, the desire to have a country responsible to itself and no other. Some obsession Dave. Sounds like democracy to me. Yourself?

Two, reconciliation. Is that where Howard sees the real problem with his IR laws and tries to reconcile with the workers? It surely can't be allowing our inidigenous people the same rights as all others. Can this be what you despise Dave?

Three, refugees. Sorry again Dave. We're all refugees here mate. Some willing, some not. But no, we ain't directly descended from the Royal families of Europe and no we don't really choose inbreeding as our method of populating that free country you also detest.

Take the goddam piece of fruit out of your mouth as we can't understand what you say. Actually we don't want to hear it, OK?

The real 3 R's. Just for Davy Boy. Right, Rong and Rorts. A coalition dream. Forget spelling as long as it's right, Right? Write that Davy.

Forgot one, Rubbish, make it 4, who's counting? Back to writing letters to Big Al.

Davo, what a surprise, you think the tories will win again, well good luck old mate, you 93' run may just be broken.

Enderverse

The system you describe is the Hong Kong 'democracy' - so called functional constituencies.

Chris Patten tried to rerig the system by making it into as close to a 'genuine democracy' as he could under the HK Basic Law - for example, making all employees of insurance companies the 'insurance constituency' rather than just their lackies and mouthpieces. As most working people were employed by organisations which were represented by functional constituencies, this expanded the franchise to a level far closer to 'genuine democracy'

Of course the Communists were fuming over this and got every one of their stooges and puppets in HK and abroad (such as the permanent head of the Prime Minister's Department in the UK) to try to destroy Patten, without much luck. The whole UK-China trade relationship was going to collapse, according to this reasoning, if you didn't cede everything to the Communists that they wanted.

Patten came back to China as the EU Trade Commissioner, and placed egg on the face of several Communists. And no ban on HK students has been placed on attending Oxford University, though he is the Chancellor of it.

No, Enderverse, the idea is just as stupid here as it is in HK

Poor old Dave must be experiencing a horrible meltdown of cognitive dissonance. He's holding a fork in his toaster.

He loves the constitution that lets him keep his queen, and he loves the Liberals for keeping the riff raff in order.

But what to do when one's beloved Liberals repeatedly violate the spirit, if not the letter, of one's beloved constitution?

He might have better luck abandoning the constitution and just spruiking for the royal family outright. It would probably be the more honest thing to do.

He did state;
“Australians live under one of the world’s oldest, and most democratic constitutional systems.”

This just shows that David Flint doesn’t know what he is talking about!

There is this excellent document published titled “Is the constitution safe” by Nick Hobson which shows how Federal Government of all political colours have secretly replaced the entire Constitution with the purported Australia Act 1986.
I responded to this document with my article titled “The Constitution is a PERPETUAL LEASE”. See my blog
http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH Making clear that the elaborate swindle to rob us of out constitutional rights is not on and it as is unconstitutional.

On 6-7-2006 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

I then filed this as evidence in my appeals (a 5-year legal battle against the Federal Government lawyers which were heard on 19 July 2006, and I succeeded on all constitutional grounds and so in the appeals.

See also my website www.schorel-hlavka.com

You see, I placed also before the Court John Howard had no position to authorize any armed invasion into the sovereign nation Iraq and within Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) committed TREACHERY.
Likewise so his cohorts.

The then Governor-General Hollingworth for whatever he may have done wrong, at least he refused to DECLARE WAR but Howard and his cohorts took it upon themselves to go to war nevertheless.
I lodged on 18 March 2003 an application in the High Court of Australia seeking a Mandamus/Prohibition for Australian troops to invade Iraq, but the High Court of Australia, on 19 March 2003, the day of the invasion, refused my application within section 75(v) to proceed! Seems to me they were taking sides with the Government rather then remaining impartial.

While State Premiers now are handing over legislative powers, it is and remain unconstitutional as Subsection 51(xxvii) and (xxxviii) are not for the purposes now being used for.
And there is more, as I have set out in great details in my various books.