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.