Since the whole point of a republic is to express and manifest sovereignty as coming from the people, who not do it directly?

Elective assemblies are a relic from a time when it was necessary, in order for the people to have input into the making of laws, to elect someone who would physically get on his horse and ride to a central place of deliberation. Parliaments are a primitive form of information-processing technology. And constitutions are an attempt to limit the power of the Parliament to pass laws, in the name of the residual sovereignty of the people.

There is now no longer any excuse for such complicated arrangements, which even at best (and they are often not at best), can never be as representative of the people, as the people are.

The internet has removed the need for these middle-men. Barnaby Joyce said he doesn’t need to go to Canberra to vote – he can vote from home online. Well bully for you Barnaby, so can the rest of us!

How about this for a new constitution?

Each elector has one single secure online vote on any proposed law.
Any elector may propose or amend a proposed law.
If and when a proposal gets a majority of votes of all electors, it becomes law.
Voting is voluntary.
The constituency votes as one electorate.

The Parliament is phased out. The legislative sovereignty returns to its origin in the people.

The Cabinet loses its legislative, but retains its executive capacity. Each Minister remains responsible for ensuring that his Department carries out the law as enacted.

The office of Governor could be retained or abolished. Whether monarchical or republican, the Chief Executive’s role is to dismiss Ministers who don’t comply with the law.

The States could be retained or abolished.

The judiciary could be appointed directly by the people.

Now let’s see how republican the republicans are.

since women and men comprise the primary elements of community, each with different and
distinct life experience, law would be enacted if a majority of women agreed with a majority of men.

i like the idea peter...but as the replies..indicate..people arnt intrested in change...anything to do with law/govt..they run and hide

even our most articulate/opinionaters remain mute...if the media dosnt tell them what to think about...they simply refuse to think about it at all

anyhow ...as legally ...silence signifies concent
i think you have overwelming..de facto...agreement
even i can find no fault ..in your proposal

so let have the vote
all in favour....
against...

i think the yeah's have it

...division required?

ring the bells

whistler,
Your woman/man dichotomy is offensive.
Are you saying that people who don't identify as female or male are "secondary elements of community"?
Your gender dichotomism ignores the scientific reality that gender is a social construct.
There is, in fact, an infinite gender spectrum with as many facets as there are people.
Each has a "different and distinct life experience".
All of these genders should have equal representation in the new republic.
Anything less diverse would be blatant dichotomous genderism.

Peter Hume you are suggesting we “cut out the middle man”….

And impoverish those who seek to benefit by deception and exploit the gullibility of the electorate.

It sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Certainly the tiers of government we have and the vested interests who populate them are a waste of effort, a drain of the real “wealth creators” of the nation and the servants who are so ensconced deserve to be destitute, if their “skills” cannot be redeployed from sucking the life blood out of the real economy.

My only concern is the appointment of ministers to oversee their portfolios and I suspect the ombudsman’s dept and the auditor generals areas should be beefed up (to keep the bastards honest, since the democrats are a long time spent force).

Publically appointed judiciary (along with so many other “public chairs”, occupied by unelectable bums) is another excellent suggestion which will keep the incumbents in line with public expectations.

Maybe include a referendum pole process which could be tested on the topic of the reintroduction of the death penalty.

And since, under the rules of universal suffrage, where women and men each get equal vote, Whistlers daft notions (of parallel universes) would never be needed

And like you observe, the role of “Head of State” could be either an elected or appointed president or an hereditary monarch, since the role would be purely ceremonial and separate to the process of “government” (as it is pretty much now).

Australian law recognises women and men as primary steakholders of community, thus the
mandatory, yet changeable, designation of gender on birth certificates.
a claim by one gender that gender is inconsequential is an obvious attempt to eliminate the influence
of the other gender in favour of the claimant's gender.
a claim by a male that gender is inconsequential is an obvious attempt to eliminate the influence of
women.
if women won't go away and men aren't prepared to grant women equal rights over their status at law,
men should pretend women don't exist, a bizarre and pernicious strategy.
if women and men collectively can be convinced to reach agreement that there are no women and men,
then there are no women and men.
good luck ... lol!

Re “Australian law recognises women and men as primary steakholders of community, “

Ah Whistler I do so love your posts

The notion of “Steakholders” leaves me with the image of a BBQ and each “steakholder” burning their own bit of cow.

-(that’s just the men, of course..

the women are all congregating in the kitchen – as happens at most of the BBQs I have been to)

“thus the mandatory, yet changeable, designation of gender on birth certificates.”

“yet changeable” for the gender-benders… a less than insignificant number within the wider Australian community of men and women

“a claim by a male that gender is inconsequential is an obvious attempt to eliminate the influence of women.”

Not at all

I am recently remarried, to a woman (no weird stuff for me).

She is free and has equal right to me to to vote as she sees fit

but we are “mirrors” of one another and I know she would not vote for the sort of bunkum you try to promote here.

Your notion, that people are less than people simply because of their gender, is utter rubbish.

The fact is: women are free to vote as they see wish and if that means they choose a male as their parliamentary representative, so be it.

Men are also free to vote for women…

I voted for dearest Margaret when I was in UK…

Mind you she had bigger balls than most men but is still quoted as saying she owed nothing to the women’s liberation movement.

Keep 'em coming Whistler.. I am rolling around the floor over your last “Gaff”

(and that is a “Gaff” as an error

and not a "Gaff" as an article of clothing, worn by the gender-benders who seek to change their sexual designation on their birth certificates)

whistler, get with the programme.

>>Australian law recognises women and men as primary steakholders of community<<

Men are the steakholders. Women are in charge of the salad.

Without wishing to be too picky - because I do believe that we are horrendously overmanaged, and that the sheer unadulterated waste involved in what we presently term "government" is totally abhorrent - there are a couple of inconsistencies in your proposals, Peter Hume.

Let's accept for a moment that we get to the point where we have abolished the parliamentary assemblies.

From your summary, we would be left with a Chief Executive, and some "Ministers", who form a "Cabinet". I missed the part which explains how these people get elected, and how they are removed from office.

There's not much point in having a vote, if there's no-one in cohort from which you are allowed to select that represents your views. You'd effectively have been disenfranchised, which I don't believe is the objective.

Or is it?

And who proposes the laws? It sounds as though you will allow anyone to do this, at any time. After all, you allow any elector to amend a proposed law, so it would follow that anyone can put one forward.

That would be interesting.

I also doubt that any of them would actually get passed.

>>If and when a proposal gets a majority of votes of all electors, it becomes law.<<

Getting past the fifty percent mark with voluntary voting, plus the ability for anyone to amend along the way, would be a challenge.

I can see a certain amount of excitement about it, though, watching the approval snake wiggling its way to the magical 50% mark... but hold on a moment. What happens if someone makes an amendment that I don't like, after I've placed my vote? I'd have to be able to retract it.

Or are you suggesting a separate vote, each time an amendment is made? What happens if there are two amendments that conflict with each other. Or, what happens when a thousand amendments are offered, all on the same day?

And incidentally, who is going to draft these proposed laws in a manner that eliminates ambiguity, is clear about the existing law(s) that are being amended or eliminated?

Gee, I really hate to be negative, but...

Here's another thought.

>>Each Minister remains responsible for ensuring that his Department carries out the law as enacted.<<

So we haven't actually rid ourselves of the departments? Or are they determined by the electorate as well?

And what happens when a law that is passed on Tuesday, is countermanded (by 51% of the people) the following Tuesday?

How will the "Department" be able to maintain any consistency, if we all keep changing our minds?

I guess all this (and I have more) leads to the obvious conclusion that the "government by Twitter" that you are proposing simply isn't going to happen.

In fact, when you think about it, it has all the vacuity of social networking, without the feeling of community...

Would we all be visible to each other in your Twittertopia, Peter Hume?

I presume we would be at some level, simply to prevent voting fraud...

Talking of which, given the nature of the voting, how would you prevent me from selling my vote to the highest bidder?

Yet another use for eBay...

Sorry. Won't work. Not in this century, anyway.

Pericles
“Men are the steakholders. Women are in charge of the salad.”

LOL.

Yes, anyone can propose a law.

Did you ever use newsgroups? It would work like multi-party emails, with nested hierarchies, so you can create new responses in sub-posts, instead of in a long scroll like OLO.

This is already the deep structure of ordinary meeting procedure, judicial proceedings and Parliamentary proceedings. You proceed by motion. An amendment, if carried, supersedes the foregoing motion. A number of amendments is not a problem; might be an improvement.

The executive branch of government remains the same, except at the top. The removal of the legislative capacity of the Minister means in effect that the office of Minister would merge with that of head of the department. Having no legislative capacity, they wouldn’t be elected, they would be appointed as now. The people of course could always modify the executive, by adding or removing departments.

“There's not much point in having a vote, if there's no-one in cohort from which you are allowed to select that represents your views.”

I don’t understand. There’s no need for someone to ‘represent’ your views, because each voter represents his own views. It’s not a representative democracy, it’s a direct democracy. Our current epi-centre of government, the Cabinet, has both legislative and executive functions. This Cabinet would be only a meeting of executive officers, without any legislative function. Their job would only be to carry out the law.

If not many laws were passed, this would prove that the laws currently being passed are not in fact representative of the will of the people.

“And what happens when a law that is passed on Tuesday, is countermanded (by 51% of the people) the following Tuesday?”

The same thing, and just as unlikely, as now.

Preventing fraud? We have ATO, ASIC, and bank accounts online, so presumably it’s doable.

“…simply isn't going to happen. “

“No man can predict the future. That is in the hands of the gods.”
Homer

“There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
Burke

It's nothing to do with the technology, Peter Hume.

>>Yes, anyone can propose a law... It would work like multi-party emails, with nested hierarchies, so you can create new responses in sub-posts<<

You are kidding? Apparently not...

>>You proceed by motion. An amendment, if carried, supersedes the foregoing motion. A number of amendments is not a problem; might be an improvement.<<

And each amendment needs more than 50% acceptance, am I right?

That doesn't sound at all practical to me.

And when does a proposal actually become law? Or does each amendment automatically rescind the previous law? If so, how does anyone actually know what is in force at any one time?

>>The people of course could always modify the executive, by adding or removing departments.<<

That, on the other hand, is a steamingly good idea. If only...

>>There’s no need for someone to ‘represent’ your views, because each voter represents his own views. It’s not a representative democracy, it’s a direct democracy.<<

Oh, sorry. I thought you mentioned that the populace could hire or fire a department. And the Ministers in charge of those departments - you mentioned there is still a Cabinet - they are appointed by whom?

You omit any mention of enforcement. How do we, the people, get to ensure that the executive enforces all these laws we impose upon them? We are left without any power, since there is no body that we are able to authorise to do so.

>>Preventing fraud? We have ATO, ASIC, and bank accounts online<<

I wouldn't sell my bank account details. But if I am able to propose a piece if legisation that advantages me significantly, I might also take the trouble to buy enough votes from other people in order to get it through.

>>“There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”
Burke<<

And there's nothing so embarrassing as an idea that is less than half-baked.

The form of our representative democracy has many faults.

But that doesn't mean that any random load of old cobblers will be an improvement.

Pericles

You obviously have no idea what it was like to try to find and up-date the law not long age before the internet existed. It was done by physically going to the Government Printing Office, buying the relevant Acts and later amendments, cutting out the repealed provisions, and pasting in the new amendments – literally with scissors and glue! This was called ‘getting your Act together’. This ritual had to be repeated any time you needed to rely on the Act or Regs.

It is far easier now with online technology to find updated law than it ever was, so you appear to be making objections based on nothing but idle sniveling. While this may satisfy, or delight, your intellect, it does nothing to tarnish the lustre of my wonderful new Constitution sir.

Besides, the difficulty of finding the law was never held to be any impediment to the sovereignty of *politicians*; so I see no reason why the much greater ease of doing it now should be any impediment to the sovereignty of *the people*.

The fact that you, in your abysmal ignorance of meeting procedure, think it would not be ‘practical’, is irrelevant. It is in practice the procedural foundation of Westminster democracy, not only in the legislature, but in the courts and administration as well.

By the logic of democracy, if the people decided to make votes known, or transferable, who are you to decide beforehand that they may not?; especially since, if the current representatives decided so, you would have no standing to stop them whatsoever.

What if a person decided to sell his vote? Well there’s nothing stopping him from selling it now. In fact if anything, it is easier now to vote using someone else’s name. All you’ve got to do is ‘vote early, vote often’.

Enforcement? Appointments? Governor.

The argument that the people are ‘a load of old cobblers’ is against democracy itself. Maybe they are. But the river cannot rise higher than its source. The ‘representatives’ can’t be in any better position, whether they do or do not represent the people.

as it stands, this proposal fails for no other reason than its contempt for women, manifest in the
denial that women and men make distinct contributions to decision-making wrapped in the male
author's derogatory banter towards women.
men who claim to speak on behalf of women forfeited credibility a century ago when women were
granted franchise.

Peter Hume,
Sorry to rain on your parade but, it does need a lot more thought.
So, in your mind, the fact that I have a computer and the internet my vote is more important, than er those who don't have internet. That would include the people next door and the people across the road, and much of Australia's outback?
We can't get ADSL 1 reliably and I'm in suburbs, ADSL 2 isn't even being considered by Telstra only copper exchange.

Then there's the secure line bit, when we develop one perhaps we can consider it.

What you are suggesting would (maybe) suit the people in or around Cities, that have the time or smarts to think of the questions let alone the answers e.g. Who is going to disseminate the information necessary to make an intelligent/informed decisions.

Do you really want people to have access to all of the defence information, diplomacy...?

I don't want the departments and the ministers to have more power than now. Let alone the likes of some super smart and manipulative extremists, business , special interests.

Your suggestion for laws and law changes would swamp the the system with ill-informed self interested requests.

Voluntary anything in Australia tends to mean the dedicated and the 'hard cases' not necessarily a true democratic reflection.
50%+1 of say 56% (23% of the population) isn't a democratic mandate it's an invitation for more corruption from vested interests/minority interests, able to afford media access.

How is a person who lacks competence or ignorant of how, what to do to with personal issues with government, with no local representative? Most of the reps electoral office time is taken up with these issues.

BTW: Up to date legislation with expert commentary is available in most academic libraries and/or publishers like CCH .

I humbly suggest that we fix the system we have, and not run off and half do, make one that is worse

Examinator
Yes there would need to be some public provision to enable everyone to access the law-making website. Perhaps each Post Office could have internet stations.

But when we consider the current costs of the palace of Parliament and all its hangers-on; and when we consider the high likelihood that the cost of government in general would fall under the new arrangement; it would be worth it.

So today’s technology is secure enough to tax us and to bank on, but not to let us vote?

Passing a law would require fifty percent of the entire electorate whether or not they voted on the proposal, not just of those who voted on it. 23% would never suffice.

The opportunity for abuse by vested interests and self-interested requests is much greater now than it would be under the new arrangement, because it would require fifty percent of the population to approve, most of whom would have to pay for the snouts in the trough.

As it is now, a small handful of people in private party meetings and preselections get to decide whether the entire population should pay a new tax, or pay for the politicians to bribe their pet favourites with benefits paid for by everyone else. What’s preferable about that?

Your objections assume business as usual. But it wouldn’t be, precisely because the thought experiment itself, proves that most political activity today does not in fact represent the will of the people at all. On the contrary, it actively misrepresents and exploits them.

No matter how unrepresentative such a direct democracy would be, it would never be anywhere near as unrepresentative as the status quo.

Neat sidestep, Peter Hume.

>>It is far easier now with online technology to find updated law than it ever was, so you appear to be making objections based on nothing but idle sniveling<<

We were discussing the making of laws, not the finding of them.

But it does raise an intriguing additional point. Do you believe that all Australians qualified to vote are able to fully understand the laws of the land? If so, you might like to explain why so many of us need to consult lawyers, for anything remotely legalistic?

>>The fact that you, in your abysmal ignorance of meeting procedure, think it would not be ‘practical’, is irrelevant.<<

It may well be irrelevant to you that your proposals are impractical - which they patently are, as I have pointed out - but their impracticality will prevent them from ever being adopted.

So much for "the lustre of [your] wonderful new Constitution sir."

>>if the people decided to make votes known, or transferable, who are you to decide beforehand that they may not?<<

That's deliberate misrepresentation of my observation. I merely pointed out the chaos that would ensue by making that transferability instant, without limitation, against each new amendment, that any citizen could propose, at any time.

I absolutely agree that it should be allowed. But the fact that you cannot see the impossibility of this process in action speaks volumes for your preference for neat-and-tidy theories over reality.

Talking of misrepresentation...

>>The argument that the people are ‘a load of old cobblers’ is against democracy itself.<<

It is your proposal that is a load of old cobblers, not the people.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cob1.htm

>>No matter how unrepresentative such a direct democracy would be, it would never be anywhere near as unrepresentative as the status quo.<<

That is only true in theory.

If your suggestions result in no new laws being passed, due to the total impossibility of the proposal/amendment/50% scenario working at all, would this be a good, or a bad thing?

And would that be "representative", or "unrepresentative" of the will of the people?

I agree quite a lot with your proposals, Peter;

Our government is a shambles- anachronistic, inefficient and with very little accountability and representation.

Firstly I think Parliament should be abolished and simply replaced with separate and largely independent ministries of each field of governance- each with separate candidates all directly elected by the public (who have access to CIR to use at any time they choose to override them- in ANY field of governance, policy or law).
In this context a head of state, whose job it is to regulate any excesses or corruptions in other fields (and enforce broader representation on the individual ministries to ensure no minority interests dominate- MIGHT actually have a purpose- otherwise, abolish it and keep the money.

Voting SHOULD be voluntary in all forms, and will go forward regardless of how few people show up; So long the access to voting is fair and easy- if 10% are the only people that could be bothered showing up- tough for everyone who was too lazy- at least apathy will play less a part.

States- should simply be split up into new lines- actually representing the people and climate- sovereignty could go either which way.

Judiciary- sounds good.

How republican are republicans- my guess- the majority of republicans haven't put an ounce of thought into such proposals- the wishy-washy symbolism is the only focus.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I find it amazing that while I came to the Commonwealth of Australia fas an ALIEN (From The Netherlands) I am somehow more aware of the true application of the constitution then anyone else. Indeed, after a 5-year epic legal battle on 19 July 2006 comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth on numerous constitutional issues, including that the Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to force anyone to register and/or to vote!
.
But with politicians not interested in the constitution, unless it suits their purposes, they rather go for the political benefits and even if this means acting unconstitutional.
.
No matter what constitution might be in place there will always be politicians who will seek to ignore its limitations and therefore the aim is not to change constitutions but to hold politicians accountable who ignore constitutional limitations.
VOTE for INDPENDENTS is one way to teach them a lesson. Hold them legally accountable is another, but then where is the ROYAL COMMISSION into the unconstitutional armed invasions into Afghanistan and/or Iraq, when so many innocent lives were lost?
.
The constitution belongs to WE, the People, and not to any government or the courts but in reality we have squandered our rights buy allowing politicians to abuse and misuse their powers and no constitution in the world will ever deal with this or prevent this unless WE, the people, finally hold them accountable!
And as my website also indicates the Commonwealth of Australia is nothing more but a POLITICAL UNION as like the European Union, and never can be a republic!
I would like to see people making suggestions about the constitution to actually bother to read up what it stands for.
.

we the people bespeaks men.
the people is women and men.
women and men should hold
their own legislatures accountable.