“A politician has as much legal right as any other citizen to resign from his job at the drop of a hat or at the beckon of a lovelier position.”

Politicians take many more ‘rights’ for themselves that any other citizen, so there is no reason why they should have this ‘right’ as well when they have far more responsibility than other citizens, and they get paid well above their worth.

So, of course they have a “legal and moral obligation” to pay the costs of a by-election if they resign at any time other than election time. The problem is, politicians make the laws, and they have no particular moral code.

Forget it. It’s not going to happen.

The simple solution seems to be to not have a by-election. If a sitting member resigns in a huff, his or her seat should be offered to that candidate in the previous election who scored the second highest number of votes.

One of the main supports of our democracy is that because of our history, politicians in Australia are always treated with suspicion, and often despised.

This reduces their ability to fool the people as much as is possible in less happier lands, as Shakespeare would say.

We know that they are not human. Anyone doubting this should just look at the toilets at Parliament House; there are toilets for men, women, and members.

There is obviously a need for politicians to be paid, as otherwise poor young people would not be able to afford to become a member. However there seems no need for their salary to be any more than the dole, as Parliament has determined that this is the amount needed to support someone. As a special concession, we could exempt them from the work test. This would also solve the question of Parliamentary superannuation, with the rule being that the super pension could not exceed their ordinary salary.

The next question to settle is the one of public funding. It is always a complex issue for me at each election, as I am looking to vote for the person I want whilst denying them any public funding. The method, of course, is simple; give your first preference to a candidate who will receive less than 4% of the vote (and thus receive no funding), and give your second preference to the one you prefer. The method is easy to use in the Senate, but harder in the Reps.

Another reform that is urgently needed is for there to be a compulsory extra candidate at all elections, who would be "Vacant". "Vacant" could receive votes and preferences like any other candidate, and if elected, the seat would remain vacant until the next general election.

If these reforms were adopted, the savings would easily fund the cost of by-elections. However, as a previous poster pointed out, there is no chance that any of these reforms will be adopted, so we will just continue along as at present.

This is merely the price to be paid for democracy. If one must be poor Australia is the place to do it, democracy forever.

Merely, SHONGA? Merely?

>>This is merely the price to be paid for democracy<<

It is an enormous price to pay.

If we did actually achieve something close to a democracy at the end of it, it might conceivably be worth it. But we don't.

We have completely lost any connection between what we vote for at the polling booth, and what the government that we "elect" actually implements.

More to the point, we don't have the capability to stop them - they claim a "mandate" for any policy they choose, simply because they garnered sufficient "votes".

My apologies for all the "quotation marks", I usually try to avoid them. Unfortunately, the language itself has been bastardised to reflect the result, not the process itself.

"Votes" is a classic. My vote for candidate X has a very good chance of being counted against the tally for candidate Y, for whom I wouldn't cast my vote in a fit. Where is the sense in that? How can it be said that my vote was somehow in favour of candidate Y?

This leads to the "mandate" they assume to be theirs, even if they have been returned through unearned preferences. If I look - as I did the other week - at a list of eight candidates and find only one worthy of my vote, the candidate who receives the "2" is in fact the least of seven evils. For the winner to claim my vote as a "preference" is a perversion of the English language.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, or sadly, or even ironically, even that doesn't matter much in the long run.

because whoever is "elected" by my "vote" can use this "mandate" in any way they see fit. They can, and do, ignore the expression made by the people for or against a particular law (GST, anyone?) and proceed to do whatever they feel like.

Without penalty. And while collecting their pay, perquisites and privileges without shame or a backward glance.

The system is rotten to the core.

Democracy itself is rotten to its core, no matter how well you try to dress it up. Fundamentally you are supporting the 'right' of the majority to tyrannise the minority.

It is fundamentally about imposing your will on other people via the violent threat of the government.

Healthwatcher - I agree, and I've held that view for a long time. It would resolve a lot of problems and save the constituency a lot of money.

this is another chat about belling the cat. ozzies talk endlessly about what pollies 'ought' to do. but never investigate the equally important subject of how to make it happen. natural enough, since they are without power to initiate legislation.

you have to wonder why they bother, although most do not. there's a good reason most ozzies are utterly uninterested in politics- like the weather,it's just something that happens to them.

The proposition that a politician should pay for the by election costs is probably one of the most inane that I have ever heard.

Firstly: politicians' salaries compared to their counterparts in business are low and their job security is at best tenuous. The cost of a by election is probably greater than the politician could earn in 10 years.

Secondly: As they are not obliged to resign such a huge penalty would ensure that they continue until the end of their term or an act of parliament removes them.

If the pressure to resign was for misconduct, they would simply remain in office until the end of their term as only criminal action is cause for parliamentry action.

If the reason is personal, the member could simply not appear for work, as he is not obliged to.

Therefore, if the MP wishes to resign it is counter productive to place any impediment in his way. The cost of the by election is simply an operating cost of democracy.

Finally: any penalty to enforce someone to continue working in his position has been so thoroughly trashed in the courts that the only legal response would be gales of laughter.

Shadow Minister,

You can't stop a member from resigning or force him to work, but you could avoid the expense of a by-election by giving the seat of a resigning politician, except where his reasons are legitimate, to whoever came second when he was elected. If that person no longer wants the seat, it can be passed down the list of candidates. It might be tough on a politician's electorate if he stays, but refuses to do any work, but Parliament can still function.

What about those cases (in NSW Local Government) where the Electoral Commissioner has allowed ineligible candidates to be elected and then the citizens having to wait for other candidates to go the the expense of overturning the election result (with no help or deliberate hinderance from the Electoral Commissioner! ! !) and then seeing an expensive by-election.

Shouldn't the Electoral Commissioner pay for their errors, and, perhaps tighten up the enrollment procedures to prevent it happening again?