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!