Most of the decision makers in the higher reaches of government are trained in the law. In medieval days those of status who had differences would employ knights as surrogates to argue their case on the field of honour by combat. English common law continues that tradition. The field of honour has moved into the courtroom, and, for the most part, those who make the law govern us. By the nature of their training they are unfit to govern us. They continue to be surrogates for the interests of the contributers to their party. There is a difference between Australia and the US. Because of party discipline generally legislators vote as a bloc in Australia. In the US party discipline is less tight therefore contributions are made to individuals rather than the party. In Australia the legislators are bought wholesale whereas it is a retail transaction in the US. In Australia legislators represent neither their constituents, the interests of Australia or their own conscience. Their obligation is to support their party and those who control or contribute to their party.

Can anything be done to change the system and get legislators who are dedicated to the public interest, represent their constituents and/or answer to their conscience?

David

Can anything be done? Yes. We can continue with the same old same old until we have a huge upheaval that makes everyone look inwardly and see the bleeding obvious – that there are grave problems with our system of governance and economic management - and demand significant reforms.

Short of that happening, no I don’t think that there is anything that we can do…not of the necessary level of significance at least.

The upheaval(s) need to be pretty damn substantial to make us change in the necessary manner. Small glitches will probably work against us. Even the global financial ‘meltdown’ looks like it might work against us, by engendering a reinforcement of the continuous-growth economy rather than spurring the vital change towards one based on an end to expansionism, thus making a bigger crash inevitable.

Small changes in what appears to be the right direction could actually be reinforcements of the ‘business-as-usual’ approach. This certainly seems to be the case with climate change.

Unfortunately I can’t see any hope of us getting the right leaders or the necessary amount of public pressure to be able make the necessary legislative changes without one or more enormous crash events.

60 percent of our polititions are or were lawyers
WHERE IS THE SEPPERATION between law admin and law creation?

As lawyers they would know the legal NESSISITY of standing in a court
[standing MEANS there is a victim [in court testifying HOW your acts CAUSED personal injury TO them

long has the hogh court ruled against greenies [because they had no personal injury[ie they lacked legal standing]

so were is the victim in MY smoking MY pot
but lawyers know LEGALLY a plant is a fixture[ie a part of the land]

yet by deception solicites the person LETTING a plant grow [only god can make a seed to grow] and to plead guilty [when any true lawyer would say two points[its not a fungable [a tradeable commodity because it is attatched to the land thas cant be possesed [and two there is no legal standing [there is NOT an injured party]

a simple referendum can rewrite the constitution[read it and see the only legal tender is gold and silver coin] banknotes arnt even legal tender [under the CONstitution] yet courts take fiat currency [deemed ] legal tender ,when it isnt constituted to legally

[constitutionally legal tender ie ;be an iou[promise to pay]fiat paper issued between banks [owned and controlled by bankers [not govt

despite the fed trademark lable[noting neither buisness law nor govt constituted protections can audit this demonic currency bankers use to subvert sociaty with fiat paper [they can issue at whim [then lend TO govt [the people] at intrest[payed out of Your wage tax]

[noting wage tax IS NOT income tax]
taxing earnings is unconstitutional [too]

much reform is needed to legitimise govt [but states are of no use]two levels of govt [federal and council ;the 'state' adminestrative bodies go under fed controle

david, we live in a british society, with no tradition of democracy. parliamentarians are sitting in seats once held by norman warlords, when they sat together to dispose of the people who lost at hastings.

you are a 'subject', the people cast down. voting for a representative in parliament puts a rough limit on what the elite can do, but does not and can not make them do anything. it was never intended, in britain, that the people should rule.

as you have no, no, means of affecting the legislative process, your status is 'tax-cow'. what can be done? form a (would-be)citizen action group. promise each other to vote only for representatives that will institute democracy.

unfortunately, growing up a subject does not form the character of a citizen. so nothing can be done,oz will remain a medieval fiefdom in political structure and in national character.

The only way I can see to bring about change is by the introduction of 'Citizen Initiated Referenda' (CIR) Switzerland has had this for 100 years and on 50% of the times used has changed the governments decission.

In a nutshell, how it works is simple. If x number of voters, say 2%,petition the government on an issue the government is obliged to hold a referendum on the issue at next election. what the people say is then law.

If we had CIR it is interesting to speculate if we would have been part of the Iraq invasion or if there would have been such a massive increase in immigration for the coming year. Unless the government wants to go to referendum, it must consider what it judges the people want before acting. In other words pay far more attention to what the people want, after all they are supposed to represent us, are they not?

But I think I may as well whistle in the wind as CIR is democratic and gives us people power. The politicians would fight tooth and nail to prevent that.

Dear Banjo,

It is not on a national level, but some states in the United States have not only citizen's initiated referendums but also initiative and recall. California is such a state. Initiative is a citizen's petition to either consider a particular question or vote on a particular question. Question 8 in California recently outlawed same-sex marriage. Recall is a citizen's petition to have a citizen's vote on whether a public official should be retained or replaced. California got rid of Governor Davis and replaced him by Swartzeneggar as a result of a recall petition followed by election.