World Movements of Tectonic Proportions

There are movements of tectonic proportions slowly maturing in the world today. Are we aware of how the world is changing? We know that China is advancing economically, by sheer hard work, export and financial prosperity. With its very large population labour shortage does not appear to be a problem. Nor is it attractive as a place for refugees to seek asylum with its low wages and unattractive welfare profile.

By contrast, Western countries have needed labour and considerately (having welfare policies), have welcomed refugees without really knowing whether they are from persecution or the desire for economic benefit and generous welfare, which is more readily available in Western countries, which are far less economically buoyant than China.
Coincidentally, eager refugees from Islamic countries have families to follow, some with the multiple wives and many children permitted by Islam.

European and other countries, which have majored in sympathetic refugee programmes and generous welfare conceived in a more prosperous era, are starting to realise that economic problems and the influx of predominantly Muslim welfare claimants, are a bad mix.

Thus while Western nations, involved in economic and Islamic immigration problems, slip behind, China is naturally and quietly growing in wealth and power.

A New Kind of Parliament

We need a new kind of parliament (based on ballots to decide all debates) which can provide stable government where parliament itself rules, not parties.
Parliament itself has the power to make changes in its procedures.
Functions of Parliament, House of Representatives, The official statements. J131. Item 11. The development and use of procedures that will enable the House to discharge its functions in the most effective form.
The New Parliament
Prime Minister and ministers ( and the Speaker)! all elected by the members and responsible to them, each being chosen as the best for each office.
1. Democratic strength to be, flexible, decisive, and strong yet fully accountable. to the voters.
2. Objective and purposeful debate in parliament, using sound argument aimed at swaying members' votes in the ballot.
3. Elimination of self-promotion with lengthy formal speeches and. other like humbug.
4. Real, non-partisan decisions instead of the predetermined outcomes predetermined in party rooms).
5. The ability to freely and quickly form a majority on an issue or an appointment to an office on the basis of objective merit.
6. An end to the nonsense of party politics---the party tactics of attack, defence and cover-up.
7. Government by parliament itself and no party government to be “toppled”.
8. Greater power and flexibility in parliament.
9. Prime-time telecasts, which become more and more vital viewing for an increasingly informed broadcast audience.
10. Fixed terms of parliament as a viable option.
11. New levels of openness and honesty in government and the bureaucracy.
12. Strength of parliament to lead us well in all eventualities.
And elections without:
1. The expensive presidential-type advertising campaigns of party leaders.
2. The excessive powers of single-issue groups.
3. The dire influence of big money.
4. The misuse of the media in the dissemination of misinformation.

Euthanasia – A Conscience Vote

.
Should a matter of this kind be decided by the people or leaders?

The government's proposal to give our politicians a conscience vote indicates its preference towards the people being involved. However, should Opposition refuse to free its members to vote by conscience the motion must fail, being passed only by an insufficient majority, on the ground that a convincing majority is essential in a matter of such serious import—which suggests also that a period be allowed before the vote to enable community consultation by representatives, each in their own electorates.

This seems to be advisable as it really is a decision for the people to make. Undoubtedly the beneficial interest of the individual concerned is of paramount importance as the main consideration but it is also a vital matter for us all that fairness and reliable process applies without question.

Those in favour probably consider the freedom of personal choice to be the most important consideration.

Those against may be influenced by a possibility of improper, or undue influence on feeble or senile aged patients. To guard against improper influence, it may be feasible to have the relevant person privately interviewed by an independent public advocate or mediator, or verification by two independent members of the medical profession.

Interference of religious leaders in this debate would seem to be totally inappropriate. In passing, one might wonder if those pleading ‘the sanctity of life’ are also committed pacifists.

We, the people, must rally to the cause of a more ready involvement in discussion of some of the more serious matters of our national life.

‘Beauty in Ugliness’ is the answer? Not likely!

.
The curse of ‘democracy’ is the institutionalisation of opposition to government. Partisanship is its lifeblood. In parliament it feeds every antagonism in the community—to no worthwhile purpose despite myths to the contrary. Seesaw government is not good government.

While competition is a constant challenge to better performance in sport, and other areas of human effort, it is often disastrously unconstructive in government—quite ‘ugly’ in fact. Where is this vaunted ‘beauty’?

Democracy’s aim and purpose is to achieve government which responds to the people, not the anger of a losing political party, the lust for power of which swells with opportunity created by a government which is weak or so overloaded with problems that a only a government of unity and cooperation can solve; e.g. Britain in WW in WII.

At present we are in similar case with hefty problems; the challenge of opportunity to march with the advance of communication technology, the problems of a worldwide flush in asylum seekers, climate change, and water—too much and too little. And that is just for a beginning—the ‘minor’ problems of tax, education and health which concern us are certainly not diminishing.

Changes in parliamentary procedure are newly empowering the members, but at what cost to the ‘stability of government’, which the independents were keen to protect? The handful of independents are causing havoc, rather than stability and may well bring on a new election, with change dictated more by whim than careful thought, a component absent from party election campaigns.

Let’s not think for a moment that the conflict of party politics produces sensible, accountable government; nor can the handful of uncertain independents. But the secret electronic ballot ruling parliament certainly will. Do you, can you, will you, just believe that?

Real democracy is waiting to move in and cleanse the ‘Aegean mess’ of party politics.

Tyranny - a better way?

Michelle Grattan (The Age 10/9) writes of a new ‘Tyranny of tiny numbers’ in our new parliament, whereas we have been used to the tyranny of the majority, giving rise to the idea that politics has nothing to do with morality. In fact all tyranny is immoral—taking advantage of others unable to resist, for many reasons, in different areas of life, not only in politics.

In fact democracy is a moral concept paralleling the ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ of the French Revolution, no doubt inspired by the commandment to ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’, and the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’.

If majorities do not rule, minorities do. But ‘Government FOR the people demands that majority power must recognise and acquiesce in the needs of minorities.

We are used to the idea of majority party rule, usually for the term of parliament. The party has the authority over everything during its term, although the new party government is far more accountable than is usual.

But is this the only way? The many differences of opinion on many a problem, or policy for its solution, would suggest that a majority on each problem should be better, if possible, on the basis that such a majority can be objectively informed over a period long enough, by popular participation, for all relevant facts to appear, and all relevant factors given their due weight.

Such a process could dispel bitterness by its manifest fairness—a factor to be much valued in a world in which unfairness and resulting enmity so often result in resort to weapons in the pursuit of ‘justice’.

Fairness is surely the basis of peace in any society and we who believe in it seek it objectively through the democratic process. It therefore well behoves us to see to it that such a process reflects a fairness which is based on moral motives.

Change is never easy, but with conviction and faith attending, all is possible.

A New 'paradigm' -- 'ugly but beautiful'

In a day of high drama, Julia Gillard was granted the right to form a government—of sorts—with the tenuous promise of the backing of independents—with support more conditional than anyone has ever had in attempting to maintain government before.
Rob Oakeshott, the key architect of this traumatic arrangement, described its future operation as ‘ugly but beautiful’. It is a scenario to delight independents but give the new government many a headache, with guarantees limited to support for supply and opposition to frivolous no-confidence motions. He has cobbled together this combination of open, independent voting by some five independents without any limits to the dysfunctioning of the adversarial two-party system, since it transpires thatany member can initiate legislation and gain a powerful following.

There will.be little legislation which can escape controversy. Oakshott’s idea, as he suggested, is that the word ‘mandate’ would have no place in this parliament, meaning the power of the government to legislate will be based, virtually, on the PM’s persuasive ability, and the validity of the various members’ desire for stable government.

If the Prime Minister can manage to carry important legislation through the Lower House successfully she will be a tactical magician, not to mention a political diplomat of outstanding calibre. What may well be a problem is if a non-government coalition should pass legislation with costs beyond government control.

Oakshott’s attempt to achieve a non-partisan parliament with a handful of independents, is a bold attempt and is to be commended, for changes making parliament more sensible and accountable -- we hope it can work.

A fragile government is formed

In a day of high drama, Julia Gillard was granted the right to form a government—of sorts—with the tenuous promise of the backing of independents—with support more conditional than anyone has ever had before, in attempting to form and maintain government .
Rob Oakeshott, the key architect of this traumatic arrangement, described its future operation as ‘ugly but beautiful’. It is a scenario to delight independents but give the new government many a headache, with guarantees limited to support for supply and opposition to frivolous no-confidence motions. He has cobbled together this combination of open, independent voting by some five independents without any limits to the dysfunctional operation of the adversarial two-party system.
There will be little legislation which can escape controversy. Oakshott’s idea, as he suggested, is that the word ‘mandate’ would have no place in this parliament, meaning the power of the government to legislate will be based, virtually, on the PM’s persuasive ability, throughout the life of the parliament.
If the Prime Minister can manage to carry important legislation through the Lower House successfully she will be a tactical magician, not to mention a political diplomat of outstanding calibre.
Oakshott’s attempt to achieve a non-partisan parliament with a handful of independents, is a bold attempt and is to be commended, and has achieved much improvement in executive accountability.
However a ballot parliament would be far better able to achieve his desire for a non-partisan parliament with far less trauma and waste of time. When will we see sanity prevail?

Update on our Mess

.
We are coming to the end of a tortuous (or, perhaps tortured) national election process, with two parties struggling for the right to exercise the power of government, which, incidentally, really does belong to the people.
The three ‘indies’ and the Greens minor party have made demands which could well be passed without any thing like the genuine majorities that the free voting of a parliamentary ballot would produce—or a referendum.
Wheels and deals are, and will be the order of the day.
No matter who wins the privilege of government, there will be great difficulty in maintaining stable government, let alone with justice a firm priority. We need radical reform of our stumbling political system, in which morality has been said to not apply. It is high time it did – only possible by the active involvement of the people.

We have endeavoured to show that transfer of power back to the people can be achieved very simply in a manner that is far more beneficial to the people and all political practitioners with benefits such as:
1. Opportunity for all the people to have a practical involvement in government at will.
2. Involvement of all MPs in leadership, on behalf of their constituents, creating a unity of the people with the process of government, which will have beneficial ramifications throughout the whole of society.
3, A drastic improvement in the life of parliament – becoming calm and rational in debate, knowing that any unworthy arguments will fall flat, but useful policy has a better than even chance of success, by reason of need and by sound debate.
4. A new confidence in the executive, with each appointed as the best for the job, by ballot of the members.
5. Accountability of the bureaucracy beyond doubt, being supervised by elected ministers whose one task is to secure the effective, efficient service of the parliaments requirements - unhinderred by vested interests.
6. Restriction of elections to those electorates whose representatives have not achieved the desired rapport with their constituents – national elections with their marginal seats dictating outcomes being irrelevant and abolished.

The ballot in parliament is drastically needed to bring order out of the tangled mess in which politics is now.