King Hazza, whatever differences in opinion we have are not that significant compared to our agreements.

I agree that our country is not a democracy, but I think you would agree with me that we are still a good deal closer to being one than, say, North Korea, Burma/Myanmar and those Latin American dictatorships of the 1970's and 1980's.

We still have some freedom to express disagreement with the Government and an ability, even if it requires an inordinately large amount of effort, to prevent some of the worst abuses by our Governments as happened when the attempt by the NSW, Victorian and Federal Governments to privatise the Snowy Hydro was defeated in 2006, or when the Iemma Government's plans to sell the electricity generators were defeated in 2008.

So, we still have a good deal to lose as well as to gain.

If we don't appreciate what we have, for example, a (still) relatively free Internet, we could well lose it, (as you have shown that you understand (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9861#158494)).

---

We have to be wary of calls to remove bureaucratic waste from Government, because:

1. Everyone should be guaranteed as a human right, the right to a livelihood. If it happens that a good many jobs in Government, as well as the private sector (e.g. most advertising, libel litigation, property speculation, white elephant infrastructure construction, most of the finance sector, etc.) are socially useless, then society should give people, who earn their livelihoods in those ways, alternative means to do so, before axing those jobs.

2. Many jobs which have been cut under the pretext of removing Government waste have met real needs, and there are many unmet needs in society that could be met by an expansion, rather than a contraction of public sector employment. I therefore advocate the adoption of the Newcastle University's CofFEE program (http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/) costed at $9billion per year at most to give everyone, not employed, a socially useful and adequately paid job.

Actually I'm proposing that a new system of voting and government offices be introduced, and instead of regions electing a representative for parliament, the entire nation directly elects candidates into each ministry.
All it will mean is politicians will no longer be able to get back-bencher roles (and allowances) for doing basically nothing- and the people we do elect are nationally accountable and precisely the person we wanted for the intended job.
If we required coalitions, less jobs would be axed as long as enough people actually wanted them in the job.

I think it's important to have a representative system that requires minimum intervention by the public (but allows it regardless). With the Westminster system it may well require a LOT of public intervention to sidetrack all of its flaws.

Greg
Fantastic article.
Whilst the USA form of democracy has its flaws it is least a dynamic political model that has the capability of being changed, unlike Australia, whereby the referendum is yet to be held to change anything.
Of course Australia is free of gerrymandering big sars.
The cheapest effective way of countering is of course to make voting non compulsory. Thus without a defined numerical constituency as such there can be at least an offsetting the gerrymander setup.
Look at Joh Bjelke Peterson and QLD for this type of iniquitous setup.
The requirement that politician must LIVE in his electorate for at least 10 years before he can represent his constituency Is perhaps one of the more appealing parts of USA obligation to the electorate.
However until him Australian system adopts a responsible political process for its local government all are lost as far as emulating the USA is concerned.
On the whole though an excellent and well thought out article.

Greg,

People often argue that the States in Australia are failing, I would counter that it is actually local government that is failing.

There's a joke that NSW stands for Newcastle Sydney & Wollongong. The State government spends more of its time running these cities than it does running the entire State.

In greater Sydney there 39 mayors and 500 councillors, none of them are responsible for the buses, major roads, water or sewage. Talk about a bloated top-heavy soviet style bureaucracy. Unfortunately the British establishment in this country tend to focus on abolishing the States rather than reform of local government, the pretence being that it would save us money when really its a British versus American thing.

Contrast this to greater Brisbane where there are only 26 councillors and one mayor. City Hall in brisbane is responsible for the new Brisbane City tunnel, major roads, the ferries, the buses, water and sewage. The system works better there because local government has a greater share in responsibility.

Another issue we could use off the Americans is the fact that the States should be self funded, this would end the blame game between the States and the Commonwealth, unfortunately the major parties do not seem to want this, even though I think Frasier did try.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6419