If your local member of federal parliament is only concerned with matters within his/her electorate, s/he should surely be a better local member than if s/he has a portfolio to administer, yes?

If the people of Griffith have Kevvie Rudd as their local member, sitting on the back bench and doing only local membery-type things, then he should be a much better local member than when he was PM or when he gets a ministry in the new Gillard government, you would think?

In fact, when he was PM, how could he realistically have had anything more than a tiny token input into local issues?

How can anyone in the ministry or shadow ministry or with some other important role in parliament possibly be a good local member?

Is it an important basic principle that people be able to communicate and work directly with their local member, and expect to be properly represented by them, rather than by their staff?

Isn’t there a fundamental flaw in the system whereby local members can be taken completely or almost completely offline and given other duties that demand all or practically all of their attention?

Ludwig
It depends on the person, many backbenchers are involved with parliamentary committees and the like, and many who do little else may still turn out to be dead losses especially in blue ribbon seats.

In some ways a PM electorate may get more attention than others as it is important in the Party system for a PM to retain his/her seat although this is influenced by the nature of the electorate and if, like Bennelong, demographics change over time which affect voting patterns.

I cannot see any other way a PM role could be organised. Electorate staff are capable of chasing up matters on behalf of a PM should they be absent. I would be more worried if Mr Rudd took up the post at the UN as a part-time job than holding a portfolio responsibility and electorate duties.

Agreed Pelican.

There are a number of variables that seem to be more important than the actual workload or job of an elected local representative.

In fact, judging by the lack of response on this thread and by the general lack of comment about local members’ roles within our political commentariat, it would seem that there is very little concern at all, and that a local member who is committed to his electorate only is no better than one who is a minister or the PM, all else being equal.

So I wonder; is this lack of concern due to apathy, with most people just being disinterested in the performance of their local member at the local level, or is it due to performance at the local level having very little to do with the local member’s workload?

Probably a fair bit of both.

I think that it makes a mockery of one of the basic tenets of democracy – that local members are elected first and foremost to work for their local community.

Ludwig says:

".., judging by the lack of response on this
thread and by the general lack of comment about
local members’ roles within our political commentariat,
it would seem that there is very little concern at all,
and that a local member who is committed to his
electorate only is no better than one who is a
minister or the PM, all else being equal."

Could that be because most of the 'politically aware' realize, however dimly, that the Constitution, on the face of it, has enshrined the erstwhile convention of responsible government, that convention whereby Ministers of the Crown are answerable to, and drawn from amongst the membership of, the Parliament?

I do trust that your use of the term 'political commentariat' refers to that of MainStreamMedia world and OLOArticleDom, not that of these erudite discussion threads, Ludwig. How am I going with anglicised German compound words, BTW?

Returning to article 1 of the memorandum.....

A courageous Governor-General or Administrator of the Commonwealth of Australia could go behind the face of the Constitution, and appoint whomsoever she (they are both currently female) will as Executive Councillors and Ministers of the Crown. The only rider to that is that of Section 64 of the Constitution, which specifies that:

"64.

.

.

After the first general election
no Minister of State shall hold office
for a longer period than three months
unless he is or becomes a senator or a
member of the House of Representatives."




Were I to be a fully empowered Deputy Governor-General enjoying Her Majesty's pleasure, I could turn that expectation right on its head! In the right exceptional circumstances I could draw from a pool of around, say, 1200 persons chosen by lot, and appoint sets of them for a three month stint of duty in the respective Ministries, then accept their resignations, give them each a day's leave, then re-appoint even those very persons to a different Ministry for another three months. I could go on doing that for the entire life of a Parliament, if in my judgment the circumstances warranted it.

Ludwig,

You have spotted one of the weaknesses in the system.
My experience is that most members don't actually do that much for individuals as such, most of it is actually done by their local office staff.
Mort of their Parliamentary time is taken up, or should be with committee work, research and house time.

I'm of the opinion that often ministerial places are influenced, amongst other things, by this state/electorate.

I favour the executive ministers as being cleared from local duties and based in Canberra.
I am aware of that this would require us moving from the Westminster system which, I believe is outdated, broken, largely inefficient and more often counter productive. Then again, I don't agree with the adversary party (with their internecine undemocratic power groups) system either.

signed G Fawkes' understudy

You might as well argue that because many politicians have to sacrifice home life through their travel and especially the attendances in Canberra, they should all be represented by proxies.

Actually if they were represented at home by proxies some of the spouses might regard that as equal rights given the 'comfort' services provided by the worshipping groupies (they wouldn't like that title) to pollies. It is a cold heartless place Canberra and pollie and journalist alike seek solace in things warm like Glenfiddich and something wiggly, although journos might always have to pay for both.

There is always the option for leaders to spread the work around and there is always an abundance of backbenchers with both arms the same length and bored looks on their dials. Some PMs have farmed out work to an extent, but there is more ego for the PM and ministers in keeping all of the eggs under the bum. That is especially so where a small executive of the 'IN' group is formed, as is usually the case.

In all seriousness, I have dealt with local members with and without portfolios and I reckon that all members, especially ministers, could do with advice on how to organise themselves and how to delegate. The judiciary is the same and courts would operate much better if judges had management training. It comes down to working smarter and prioritising everything. There are very, very good PAs who can make most managers look good and for senior pollies there are some gifted people available - but not from the party's limited gene pool though.

Apart from that, a PM or minister representing an electorate is a big swinging .... and there is no doubt that their electorates get superb value in representation from the important stuff that is sieved though to them.

Frankly the pollies aren't the problem. Think instead of an apathetic public. The opportunities are there but rarely taken up to take up their civic responsibilities and engage with their local community, including the local members, local, State and federal.

Over the past few years I have made written representation to my Federal member on 4 occasions regarding various local matters. Matters that required a reply. I have yet to receive a reply.

Benq, I’ve had a similar experience, to the extent that I have realised the complete futility in having anything to do with one’s local member!!

----
<< the Constitution, on the face of it, has enshrined the erstwhile convention of responsible government, that convention whereby Ministers of the Crown are answerable to, and drawn from amongst the membership of, the Parliament? >>

Yes Forrest, it is central to our system of governance that those who govern us are drawn from the pool of elected local members. And I reckon that there is something fundamentally flawed about that.

----
<< You have spotted one of the weaknesses in the system. >>

I reckon so Xammy. This issue has been raised before on OLO. But I don’t recall whether there were any practical suggestions proffered as to how the system might be changed.

----
<< You might as well argue that because many politicians have to sacrifice home life through their travel and especially the attendances in Canberra, they should all be represented by proxies. >>

Corny, I reckon that just about all local members that have acquired duties that demand a major portion of their time ARE essentially represented by proxies in their electorate. Those proxies are their staff, who presumably only contact their boss if they really need to and who presumably can sign many letters which appear to have been written by the local member without s/he seeing them first!

There is only one sure way to get the attention of a less than helpful local member and that is to enlist the help of the media. Don't threaten it in any letter - it will be rightly ignored - just go to the media. The only snag in this is if the media don't think your plight or story is newsworthy enough but there is always ACA or TT.

However, many local members do take the time to meet with constituents even if their staff do some of the leg work in following up concerns.

Ludwig, cornflower.

The issue is a "the chicken or the egg" one, which came first the replacement of personal responsibility or the opportunism of power? (

One can't suggest a solution without first defining/acceptance that there even a problem and then the true nature of the problem.

one must then drill down to understand the identify the players/stake holders particularly the self interests e.g. Parties are inhuman players and individuals within those parties have their own agendas that by definition do not put the public first. ( Abbott's/ JG's rise to power...make no bones about it personal ambition with in the party context was the main driver.)This is also true with business (particularly the media). Those in those power (concentrated) groups will manipulate, distort the truth for their own benefit under the cover of the organisation...(the survival of the organisation).

In this way we are conditioning our species to be more selfish and lowering the threshold of the compassion gene.

I see local members in this self - interest bugger the whole lens. Particularly when one comes to (not unique example) my local MP will and has ;
Voted his own personal interests above that of the wider community. i.e. his power base is his Catholic church and voted on RU486 (abortions) to solidify his support and to curry favour from the conservative right in his party.
He was investigated for diverting funds to assist the state party .(nil all draw)
He involves himself in State issues rather than federal.
In most electorates around me, evidence/experience clearly shows that their local office does most of the work.

We are as a species altering our DNA by favouring the uber aggressive ...business success/politics/sport at any cost backing this with conditioning.

In every other way evolution is changing us genetically. Redheads , the appendix, height , weight etc. etc. so why not aggression/selfishness as I said the *need* for this is well past.
We like no other species can influence our species future directly.

Ludwig says, in commenting upon the apparent enshrining of responsible government within the Constitution, that:

"Yes Forrest, it is central to our system
of governance that those who govern us are
drawn from the pool of elected local members.
And I reckon that there is something
fundamentally flawed about that."

There is nothing in the Constitution that enshrines any requirement that members of the Parliament shall be 'local'.

To be sure, there is a recognition in the Constitution that, prior to Federation, that was the way representation was largely achieved, and provision made for continuity thereof in predominantly transitional provisions. Indeed, Senators are not 'local' to any Division, other than that of the State at large from which they are returned, but even this practice is not mandated by the Constitution. It would be possible for Parliament to provide for the return of Senators from Divisions within States if it so desired.



The Constitution is very flexible. It is the thinking of many that is not.



So it is of concern to me that anyone should think that there is anything flawed with the concept that Ministers should be responsible to Parliament, if that is the aspect of our system of governance that is considered to be flawed.

My little foray into hypothetical Deputy Governor-Generalship was purely to illustrate one of many seemingly unexplored aspects of the flexibility of our Constitutional Monarchy, wherein we live, at least potentially, under the rule of laws and not of men. My beef is that these days, just about all who aspire to elected office seem to have disdain for the Constitution, and take first resort to proposing change to it when they cannot see an easy means to getting their own way, rather than respect it and exploit its latent possibilities.

In making that foray, I can hear already from both open and closet republicans, who would have us live under the rule of men and not of law, the complaint that any such Vice-Regal action would amount to that office engaging in politically partisan activity and overthrowing our 'democracy'.

Bulldust!

Why not go all the way and have separation of powers as envisioned by Montesquieu? A legislature empowered to make laws, an executive empowered to enforce the laws and a judiciary empowered to exact penalties for violation of the laws and to intepret the laws. The Westminster system combines the executive and legislative functions. The US system has its own flaws, but the executive, legislative and judicial branches serve as checks on each other. I think this is preferable to the Westminster system where the functions are conflated.

Am I right in thinking that some of this dissatisfaction with the lack of 'local' focus with respect to members of the House of Representatives is in reality a dissatisfaction with political parties as they have come to be seen by the public? I know Ludwig has in the past expressed a desire for a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

Let us look at whether a Governor-General could give the people this choice that political parties, by and large, seem not to want us to have. Let's explore the flexibility of the Constitution in this respect.

A Governor-General seeing a need to give the people such a choice would have to work entirely within the law at all points along the way. At the very outset, it would have to be presumed that the G-G would receive advice from the incumbent Executive Councillors NOT to attempt any such thing.

So a G-G would have to determine the incumbent Prime Minister's commission, and immediately appoint new Executive Councillors. Needless to say there would have to be seen to be good cause for such a bolt from the blue, such Dismissal. Its been done before. Let's just say there was such cause, and that that new Executive Council supported such an intention of the Governor-General to give the people a 'none of the above' option. Without first amending the Electoral Act, it would appear such a plan could not get off the ground. Not so.

The G-G could cause persons chosen by lot to be nominated as non-partisan candidates, one in every Division. That might appear stymied should those chosen choose not to agree to stand, or be under some disqualification, as there is no existing law to say they must so serve. There is also no law that would authorize the G-G to even conduct such a ballot.

It seems at every turn there is an impasse. Is there prospect of anyone being lawfully commanded to so nominate, volunteers being potentially partisan, and therefore unacceptable?

Maybe.

It is unreasonable to expect a local member to attend to everything personally, otherwise staff would not be required. If you don't get a reply to a letter (was it an email?) ring or go to the office.

Local members are accountable in parliament and through the regular polls.

I don't share the jaundiced opinion of some here at all. If you take part in what is going on locally, especially if you are willing to do voluntary work, you are forever bumping into local, state and federal members. They are people too and a bit of respect and understanding goes a long way.

Speaking of volunteers, the advice of old soldiers is frequently represented as being "never volunteer for anything". There might be some whom that saying could come back to haunt.

Section 68 of the Constitution states:

"68. The command in chief of the naval
and military forces of the Commonwealth
is vested in the Governor-General as
the Queen's representative."

As commander-in-chief of the military forces, the G-G has the power to reactivate dormant commissions and restore the holders thereof to the active list.

The G-G's problem as to the selection of persons by lot, as it turns out, has been solved in advance. There exists a class of persons, holders of dormant commissions, that were once chosen by lot, many of whom are still alive. Those being persons called up in birth date lotteries under the Selective National Service legislation of 1964, who, (stupidly?) volunteering and meeting selection and training requirements, subsequently were commissioned as officers in the Australian Military Forces of that time. Restored to the active list, such could be commanded to nominate where instructed by the G-G.

Endorsed by no political party, such candidates-by-direction would simply be identified on the ballot paper as the G-G's candidates, and attract no public funding in consequence of any primary vote they may receive at the elections.

Voters would gain thereby an opportunity of expressing their degree of satisfaction, or the lack of it, with existing alternatives. Should it be that dissatisfaction is widespread in the community with all major political parties, it could come to be that many of the G-G's candidates may be returned as members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. Should there be a clear majority of such returned, nationwide, then public policy may get to be proposed and debated, in, of all places, Parliament. Wouldn't that be novel!

Australia would have led the world again in democratic innovation, conscripting a prospective government chosen by lottery for ratification by the people if the people were to so choose.

Nil bastardum carborundum.

I wasn't trying to kill the thread Ludwig, honest. Not even give it a 'local'. If anything, to give it a stimulant. Perhaps people just don't believe any more. So I hope my suggesting across-the-board dissatisfaction with political parties did not unproductively derail 'locality' from the discussion, or in any way 'dismember' it.

Its just that I like to make my posts somewhat entertaining, rather than nasty, brutish, and short, as many posts have latterly been in a 'racist you to the bottom' challenge posed by an article author on another thread (some becoming even shorter to the point of infinite smallness in the process, as you very well know).

This is what Graham wants us to do, I feel sure. So I just keep rubbing my mouse cursor over my screen until words come up, and they invariably do, as many as 350 of them at any one time.

To me the Constitution is a living thing, pregnant with possibility, a slumbering ever-present guide to any that want to read its pages and observe its body-language with respect and a spirit of genuine inquiry, but also a fire-breathing dragon if woken by a Governor-General and taken out for a ride. It'd be good to see the Governor-General go for a burn on the Constitution.

In a way its a bit like owning a dog: there exists a responsibility upon any owner to see that its dog gets a bit of exercise now and then. I think its probably much the same with fire-breathing dragons. Except with the Constitution that responsibility is called maintenance, rather than exercise, and it is prescribed in Section 61 as a statutory responsibility of the Governor-General.

Given that there appears as if there may be a defective alteration to the Constitution, it could be that we see some gubernatorially-general maintenance take place. This time it may not need to be defective advice that may bring the Governor-General into play, but simply the absence of any advice at all having been given.

Local representation just doesn’t seem to count for much at all. Over the years I have been involved with many local issues in which the council as well as state and federal members should have been called upon for assistance.

But quite frankly, I learned early on that it is better to just stay clear of the lot of them, not because my views on issues were different to political directions of the day, which they largely were, but because our supposed local reps are just simply not really local reps, including one’s local ward councillor!

Even when I took forward issues which thought would resonate with pollies, such as better speed limit and other road safety signage, it was a struggle to get any response and an impossibility to get any action!

----
G’mooorn’n Forrest.

<< It'd be good to see the Governor-General go for a burn on the Constitution. >>

Yes it would be. The old Con……stitution could do with a bit of an overhaul and update.

It is high time that we improved our respect for the rule of law and worked towards matching general practice with the rule book, or changing the rules to match general practice.

This has been one of my main themes on OLO….. and it really struck home last week with my 24 hour suspension, when I didn’t think that I was infringing the rules of this forum as they seemed to be operating and was simply trying to induce a bit of humour into the discussion…. with a dig at me ol’ mate CJ, but of the sort that he and others would have known was not nasty but rather, tongue in cheek.

Yes I’m still a might peeved about that. But at least I can now see that my suspension was tiny compared to the other suspendees, none of which have returned yet, many days after the Great Deletion! I wish I’d had that perspective before I responded personally to Graham....not that it would have reduced my outrage.

350 words, so end of waffle. I’m off to work!