Philip Adams has been selected to participate in Kevin Rudd's Canberra talk fest. In his latest "Late Night Live" program he asked listeners to send him ideas on governance.

I responded with the following email:

Dear Philip,

Congratulations on being selected for the Prime Minister's Canberra talkfest. I am responding to your request for ideas on governance.

The obvious next step in the privatisation of everything is to auction off parliamentary seats. Every seat will be sold to the highest bidder for a term of three years. The proceeds of the auction will be divided equally among the people whose names appear on the voters' roll for constituency.

To ensure transparency the auction will be conducted on eBay.

The person who pays the most for his or her seat becomes prime minister. The person who pays the second highest amount becomes treasurer and so on down the ranks.

The person who gets his or her seat cheapest becomes minister in charge of Aboriginal affairs.

This system has the obvious merit that plutocrats do not have to waste a lot of money hiring expensive lobbyists to try and influence members of parliament or the cabinet. It also benefits the electorate directly.

If you don't like auctioning seats we could try the BIG BROTHER HOUSE option.

A big brother house is built in every constituency. All candidates are incarcerated in the big brother house prior to the election. They are monitored by TV cameras that may be viewed via the internet.

Every week the electorate votes one candidate out. The last person to remain in the big brother house wins the "big prize" – a three year term in parliament.

I am happy for you to present these ideas to the Prime Minister without attribution.

Yours sincerely

Does anyone else have ideas for Philip Adams?

Here is a link to the Late Night Live website.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive

If either of these proposals is adopted immediately we shall be spared "Kevin10" bumper stickers.

The other obvious benefit to auctioning off the seats, stevenlmeyer, is that we will return to the good old days of not being obliged to pay members obscene amounts of cash in pay, perks and super, saving the country further squillions.

Sadly, your Big Brother option - despite its other, almost irresistible attractions as a selection process - lacks this important ingredient.

But there are a few other dimensions to your proposal that bear further analysis.

There would, unhappily, still be an element of responsibility to the electorate from which your seat originates. Inconvenient, especially as ahead of time you would not know whether any bid was successful, and therefore whether you would achieve your goal of power, to add to your financial status.

It would therefore be far more attractive to the candidate to bid far higher, and offer far more money to be available for distribution, for those locations containing the more disadvantaged people.

As the member for a rich inner-city suburb you would be constantly harrassed by your well-heeled constituents, many of whom may also of course be "failed" would-be members.

On the other hand, as the successful bidder for an inner-city slum, or a "battler" constituency in the bush, the people will be instantly grateful to you, having shared in the proceeds of the auction. On balance, they'd be much easier to please.

I think the idea has enormous merit. The more you look at it, the more obvious and logical it becomes.

Since most of those in the super-rich category have achieved that status through i) luck ii) gouging or iii) dubious financial engineering, the candidates will be both ready for power and willing to put something back into the community to achieve karmic balance.

You're not going to the 2020 summit, by any chance?

What about a good old fashioned chook raffle. First prize PM, Second prize Treasurer...consolation prizes MPs.

That should ruffle a few feathers.