I wholeheartedly agree with this article.

Funny that this article advocating Swiss style Binding Citizens should have been published just today.

As it happens, I have just sent an open letter to Bob Brown and the Greens calling for them to introduce legislation to allow citizens to initiate referenda which would be binding on their Parliament.

The letter is to be found at http://candobetter.org/CitizensInitiatedReferenda http://candobetter.org/node/1725

Comments there or here are welcome.

The appalling misgovernance of this country in recent decades has been the direct consequence of politicians being able to do as they like between election times.

What motivated me to write the letter is Senator Stephen Conroy's arrogant determination to impose his mandatory Internet Laws regardless of the facts, reason and their unpopularity.

Another example of how little substance there is in our democracy is are Bligh's $15 billion fire sale opposed by at least 79% of the Queensland public. (Details of how the Government and the newsmedia cheated the Queensland public out of being able to have any say about this at the last elections can be found in the article "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties" of 30 April 2009 at http://candobetter.org/node/1725 and other articles at http://candobetter.org/QldElections)

James Sinnamon

Brisbane Independent for Truth, Democracy,
the Environment and Economic Justice

Australian Federal Elections, 2010

http://candobetter.org/AustralianElections

I don’t know that I would wish to go the US way, but the idea of having a politician actually representing his electorate, instead of his party, would certainly be a good idea. If, in Australia, you contact your so-called representative, you get whatever the party allows them to say, i.e. if he or she even bothers to answer your correspondence.

I certainly do not feel that we have a democracy under the Rudd Regime, but the last years of Howard were not very democratic either. The sameness of the two major parties is probably at the heart of our lack of democracy. Vote one way or the other, and the result won’t be much different no matter which autocratic ‘leader’ heads the government.

I’m not sure that “…people perceive them (politicians) on election day” in “that way” or any other way; Australian voters are real dummies when it comes to politics, and it is these dummies we have to thank for the truly dreadful people we get in parliament. As long as we have compulsory voting, the drones will continue to go along every two or three years and blindly put numbers in the order that Labor or Liberal or one of the totally useless minor parties instructs them to do. Oh, and let’s not forget the ‘1’ in the box on the Senate paper because it’s too much trouble to take the time to vote in the way that could make the Senate more effective.

We could probably save a lot of money by doing away with make-believe local representatives. The author has spelled out the extent of their usefulness in his eighth paragraph. In Labor regimes, they are not allowed to differ from the PM and his henchman. In the Coalition regimes, they are supposed to have the right of dissent and vote accordingly but, apart from dumping of the autocratic Malcolm Turnbull, and the stand against Red Rudd’s huge tax scheme under the guise of helping the environment, and the odd occasion when a couple of renegade wets went pro-illegal entrants, the ‘right’ is not exercised

...very often.

So, local MP’s are a waste of money and space.

And, of course, no matter which mob of drongos (or worse) we ‘democratically’ elect, they can act like Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin for their time in power. The trick is to get in, then it’s all plain sailing to get all sorts of taxes and perks in early so that the drones will not remember how they were shafted at the next election.

It’s good to see that the author has brought up Kevin Andrew’s hypocritical comments on immigration. We all know (perhaps not the voting drones) that both major parties are dead set on lowering Australians’ standard of living with huge immigration targets. Red Rudd’s current lack of concern about illegal boats (55 this year) is making his task of filling up Australia for himself and his wealthy mates just that bit easier. It’s the poorer Australians who will be suffering, not those in Canberra’s Kremlin.

It is a sad thing that Greg Lees 14th paragraph sums up in a nutshell everything that is wrong with Australian politics and politicians: “Assuming he (Andrews) is genuine, this is an excellent example of our enfeebled democracy. If he objects to it now, why did he not object to it then? I suggest, because the executive rules with dictatorial authority even over ministers who despite their position have no power. So what hope for us then, to influence our masters?”
And it applies to everything in Australia, not just immigration. The ordinary citizen cannot have any influence over Australian politicians. Perhaps, if most Australians were not political drones, it would be different.
The are two ways to get rid of the disinterested and stop idiots and dictators from being elected: voluntary voting and Citizen Initiated Referenda. The problem is, our ‘democratic’ politicians will not allow us to have either of these things

If the electorate was more mature, Kevin Andrews would get credit and encouragement for having the courage to speak his mind.

As a government minister he could have represented those views in cabinet but he would not have had the luxury of speaking otherwise in public. That is not a fault of the parliamentary system, in fact it is a strength that once decisions have been made on policy, ministers are obliged to carry them out.

Make no bones about it, the gun turrets of those with a vested interest in high immigration numbers would have swung Andrews' way immediately and he will be under endless fire from now on as anyone is who dares to question immigration policy. He is already being called a xenophobe and racist - so much for free speech.

A good start Greg, but only a start. But at least you have started the conversation.

Politics 101 tells us that the design of an effective government structure is fundamentally about checks and balances and separation of powers.

Further, it is generally true that the great republics provide the best structure to deliver effective separation of powers and the needed checks and balances. The US is probably the best example of a (relatively) well designed republic.

It is generally recognised that there are four arms to government. The parliament (or congress) which is often comprised of a house of representatives and a senate. The second arm is the administration. The third arm is the judiciary. And the fourth arm is the press, which has a recognised role to keep government accountable to the people (when the system is working properly).

In Australia, we do not get effective separation of powers, thus the checks and balances are fragile indeed. The Prime Minister is the head of both the parliament AND the administration (or public service). He gets to appoint whomever he likes to the judiciary. And in Australia, the media is constrained by oppressive libel/slander laws, compounded by a sometimes too cosy relationship between the media proprietors and the Prime Minister. As a consequence, we have very few of the effective checks and balances that we need to hold a PM accountable.

About the only encouraging development has been the ascension of independents to the Senate. Senators Steve Fielding, Nick Xenophon, and Christine Milne have all distinguished themselves by asking tough questions of the government, and making it difficult for them to get their way. However, a senate majority for the government would deliver almost untrammelled power to the PM.

This discussion is essential in advance of talk of a Republic.

As to squeers perception of some shadowy secret society….
“Yes! That is, Australia is governed by an autocratic conservative hegemon: a narrow-minded, ignorant parochialism holds permanent sway.”

No no, Col, nothing so insidious. Our western democracies are failures and it has nothing to do with the politicians.
Democracy was invented when the world was fundamentally divided into nation states. The world is now a goldfish bowl and the myth of enlightened self-interest is exposed as benighted parochialism. Democracy has outgrown its context. No electorate is capable of making salubrious or ethical decisions as they still react (there is precious little thinking going on) in compartmentalised terms. It would be interesting to put various of the big "solutions" to referendums; they would all be defeated, imho, in favour of the queeziest half-measures that could be gotten away with. That's why democracy is always shelved during emergencies such as war; someone has to take real decisions, rather than making a career out of keeping the ignorant electorate happy. Humans being what they are, politicians relish such opportunities to stretch their legs and be done, for a time, with pandering to those they rightly despise---their constituents, as a body.
Democracy can only work when in it is put into practice the way the Greeks intended: participation rather than apathy. Indeed, only those who participate in a meaningful way should have a vote, otherwise self-interest would always thwart enlightened/ethical measures. Precisely the state we have now!
Anyone for democratic oligarchy--with fail-safe mechanisms built in?
Again, politicians "are" the electorate's, that is the "majority's" mirror image.
If democracy is to reassert itself, however, it has to stop "thinking" (that's a laugh) in nationalistic terms---selfishness on a national scale.