This Authority overlaps at least four states which is odd from a political point of view. Too many governments are involved while the environmentalists have their oar in too. The farmers are deeply worried. It is said there has been far too much water allocated to irrigation. Particularly excruciating to food growers must be the extensive allocation to cotton farmers on the Darling, with big properties, but above all they are irrigating with huge arrays of water sprays. Surely evaporation must result in huge water waste in that warmer climate— and as they say on the Murray—cotton ain’t food.
The basin authority reminds one of the Tennessee Valley Authority in America which also extends over several states through the catchment area of the Tennessee River.
It was ‘created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression.’. A comprehensive development tool, ‘TVA was envisioned not only as a provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee Valley Authority) .
But for the Murray - Darling Basin the driving force is environmental—the water-starved condition of the river system itself. The question is: does the authority have the same comprehensive development agenda as the TVA. It seems not—hence the substantial worry for farmers’ and their business infrastructure communities.
Authoritarian control is likely to lead to serious financial loss and community discouragement throughout the basin.
All residents in the catchment area have a real stake in the decisions to be made and need to have a voice, to allay their fears of unjust outcomes. The answer, to give coherent policies and stakeholder confidence would be for the basin to have its own democratic regional government possibly one hundred electorates, overlapping the several states involved, with independent representation throughout.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Afghanistan confusion
Here in Australia the parliamentary debate on Afghanistan is very welcome, not least because it opens the door to a future pattern of government openness in matters of 'defence'. The fact that differences of opinion have appeared there is equally welcome for the same reason, for which we have the Independents to thank, especially Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor. A conscience vote would seem to have been eminently appropriate as well- short of a secret ballot.
The ‘view of the PM that we will need to be involved militarily for a further two to four years, beyond the nine already spent, illustrates the very vagueness of an expected outcome, as outlined by the two years, or possibly four, and maybe up to ten years of unspecified involvement! That would indeed be a record of incompetent interference in the affairs of other nations!
Talks with the Taliban, already under way, underline NATO’s uncertainty, with echoes of the Russian failure there, American failure in both Vietnam, and Iraq now closer to Iran then ever. We haven’t won any of the changing objectives after nine years, so our exit strategy is dead, and the only remaining option is to negotiate with the Taliban.
But that won’t answer our fears for the mistreatment of women under that regime.
We are slow to realise that the day for interference in sovereign nations to impose other values by force is gone.
We must turn our attention to international moral influence through the UN to see human rights improved everywhere. The UN has the role, and its power and authority, savaged by the US over Iraq, must be enhanced by the loyal endorsement and support of all nations. The UN needs every one of them. That must be our hope - politically.
The ‘view of the PM that we will need to be involved militarily for a further two to four years, beyond the nine already spent, illustrates the very vagueness of an expected outcome, as outlined by the two years, or possibly four, and maybe up to ten years of unspecified involvement! That would indeed be a record of incompetent interference in the affairs of other nations!
Talks with the Taliban, already under way, underline NATO’s uncertainty, with echoes of the Russian failure there, American failure in both Vietnam, and Iraq now closer to Iran then ever. We haven’t won any of the changing objectives after nine years, so our exit strategy is dead, and the only remaining option is to negotiate with the Taliban.
But that won’t answer our fears for the mistreatment of women under that regime.
We are slow to realise that the day for interference in sovereign nations to impose other values by force is gone.
We must turn our attention to international moral influence through the UN to see human rights improved everywhere. The UN has the role, and its power and authority, savaged by the US over Iraq, must be enhanced by the loyal endorsement and support of all nations. The UN needs every one of them. That must be our hope - politically.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Respect for retiring politicians ?
Mary Delahunty (Age 12/10/10) asks why the public is so ungenerous that we can’t say thanks to retiring politicians (of either party—as she adds John Howard and Peter Costello to the present retirement of Peter Batchelor and Bob Cameron).
In her excellent article she ponders why we are ‘weary’ of the contest, when it is the politicians who do the hard work (trying to please everyone), and so ‘grumpy’ and ‘surly about politics’ ‘or in a sort of civic amnesia‘.
Why do we hate politicians? With Multiple portfolios to watch (and inspire?) are they really deserving of the near contempt that we accord them, relishing every public attack, by a ferocious media—‘a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits’ (quoting a remark of Tony Blair).
Why the near contempt, particularly for the member of the unsupported party?
There are good reasons. Some give politicians a bad name because they are ambitious with their self interest sticking out, and obnoxious to their opponents, though often just for public consumption. But the odour is bad.
Elections choose governments (rarely representatives). We need objective, cooperative, parliamentary government, alert and fiercely attacking the problems, not each other. But parliaments do not rule, they can’t, being more about providing a Colosseum for the entertainment of a jaded electorate. And with this we come to the bad reasons for having a ‘down’ on politicians.
Do we realise the depth and breadth of the responsibilities they have to undertake? Ministers often wear several hats, looking after several portfolios. There is an immense amount involved in government (apart even from the nonsense and waste of time of party politics), including in state governments. But we often see a light-hearted comment about abandoning state governments! Do we then simply add all those responsibilities to our central government—and then, predictably, whinge about centralism.
We are supposed, as a democracy, to be a self governing people, whatever that might mean, but in fact we would not really want to spend any of our precious private time being involved (although a few could and would). We’d be scared stiff to have all that responsibility. So it always devolves to the few who will.
But there is light ahead. Recent events in our Federal parliament give some hope, with independents coming out of the dark, but the real solution is in a working relationship in every electorate between people and their representative conditioned by ‘ballots in parliament’ to be an independent. Not all could or would be involved, but the door to a monthly meeting for their participation would always be open.
And as previously noted, parliament itself would then govern with a direct line of communication and responsibility from the grass roots to parliament—actual democracy. Many changes—all good— would follow, including a well-deserved respect for politicians, even, if only, because their re-election would be entirely in our hands.
In her excellent article she ponders why we are ‘weary’ of the contest, when it is the politicians who do the hard work (trying to please everyone), and so ‘grumpy’ and ‘surly about politics’ ‘or in a sort of civic amnesia‘.
Why do we hate politicians? With Multiple portfolios to watch (and inspire?) are they really deserving of the near contempt that we accord them, relishing every public attack, by a ferocious media—‘a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits’ (quoting a remark of Tony Blair).
Why the near contempt, particularly for the member of the unsupported party?
There are good reasons. Some give politicians a bad name because they are ambitious with their self interest sticking out, and obnoxious to their opponents, though often just for public consumption. But the odour is bad.
Elections choose governments (rarely representatives). We need objective, cooperative, parliamentary government, alert and fiercely attacking the problems, not each other. But parliaments do not rule, they can’t, being more about providing a Colosseum for the entertainment of a jaded electorate. And with this we come to the bad reasons for having a ‘down’ on politicians.
Do we realise the depth and breadth of the responsibilities they have to undertake? Ministers often wear several hats, looking after several portfolios. There is an immense amount involved in government (apart even from the nonsense and waste of time of party politics), including in state governments. But we often see a light-hearted comment about abandoning state governments! Do we then simply add all those responsibilities to our central government—and then, predictably, whinge about centralism.
We are supposed, as a democracy, to be a self governing people, whatever that might mean, but in fact we would not really want to spend any of our precious private time being involved (although a few could and would). We’d be scared stiff to have all that responsibility. So it always devolves to the few who will.
But there is light ahead. Recent events in our Federal parliament give some hope, with independents coming out of the dark, but the real solution is in a working relationship in every electorate between people and their representative conditioned by ‘ballots in parliament’ to be an independent. Not all could or would be involved, but the door to a monthly meeting for their participation would always be open.
And as previously noted, parliament itself would then govern with a direct line of communication and responsibility from the grass roots to parliament—actual democracy. Many changes—all good— would follow, including a well-deserved respect for politicians, even, if only, because their re-election would be entirely in our hands.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
The enemy of life - Self Absorption!
*
Jim white, a Telegraph columnist, in his article 'Misery of impending doom strikes early for midlife males'(Age 5/10), with his key phrase ‘what’s-the-point- self absorption’, aptly identifies the vulnerability of the midlife crisis, now coming earlier according to relational analyst ‘Relate’, because of ‘job insecurity, emotional uncertainty and the grim assumption that things aren’t going to get any better’. A downward spiraling of the hopes of many human lives is the depressing outcome of the 'self-absorption’ syndrome.
Contrast that scenario with the words of the Lord, Jesus Christ: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” . And that is the experience of all who can believe, and receive, the promised Spirit – the Holy Spirit. Why, you might impatiently exclaim? Because it is only natural to want a serious answer to the all-important question, which lies at the very heart of our life on earth—not to mention the hereafter (the eternal mystery).
The answer lies, very clearly, in the life and death of Jesus our Lord—a life marked by a sacrifice and humility beyond any human experience, as He lived and died for us all, that we might all know the secret life of God, who created us in His own image. Yes, it’s our created nature to love our fellow human beings, with the humility of self-forgetfulness—the exact opposite of the self-absorption, which is so destructive of life. Various religions have shown a search for this answer right down through history, with the Greek discovery of the principle of democracy also reflecting this search for the real meaning of life.
As a professing democracy we should not fall for the lure of power and the self interest that lies behind it, but we do. Our politics is so confused by selfish loyalties we cannot attain to the unity, and the harmony of government based on the morality of a real democracy—e.g. the equality expressed in the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others, as you would have them to do unto you’. Self-absorption is the endemic factor at the root of all human conflict.
Religious people, call it sIn the centrality of the 'ego', the self absorption which ruins the good life we, and others around us might have. That’s why Jesus came, why He died—to show us how. He simply said: “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."Matt. 11:28. To understand calls us to believe, to choose, and to follow—to participate in the blessings of a new kind of life, which God intended and which never ends.
Jim white, a Telegraph columnist, in his article 'Misery of impending doom strikes early for midlife males'(Age 5/10), with his key phrase ‘what’s-the-point- self absorption’, aptly identifies the vulnerability of the midlife crisis, now coming earlier according to relational analyst ‘Relate’, because of ‘job insecurity, emotional uncertainty and the grim assumption that things aren’t going to get any better’. A downward spiraling of the hopes of many human lives is the depressing outcome of the 'self-absorption’ syndrome.
Contrast that scenario with the words of the Lord, Jesus Christ: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” . And that is the experience of all who can believe, and receive, the promised Spirit – the Holy Spirit. Why, you might impatiently exclaim? Because it is only natural to want a serious answer to the all-important question, which lies at the very heart of our life on earth—not to mention the hereafter (the eternal mystery).
The answer lies, very clearly, in the life and death of Jesus our Lord—a life marked by a sacrifice and humility beyond any human experience, as He lived and died for us all, that we might all know the secret life of God, who created us in His own image. Yes, it’s our created nature to love our fellow human beings, with the humility of self-forgetfulness—the exact opposite of the self-absorption, which is so destructive of life. Various religions have shown a search for this answer right down through history, with the Greek discovery of the principle of democracy also reflecting this search for the real meaning of life.
As a professing democracy we should not fall for the lure of power and the self interest that lies behind it, but we do. Our politics is so confused by selfish loyalties we cannot attain to the unity, and the harmony of government based on the morality of a real democracy—e.g. the equality expressed in the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others, as you would have them to do unto you’. Self-absorption is the endemic factor at the root of all human conflict.
Religious people, call it sIn the centrality of the 'ego', the self absorption which ruins the good life we, and others around us might have. That’s why Jesus came, why He died—to show us how. He simply said: “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."Matt. 11:28. To understand calls us to believe, to choose, and to follow—to participate in the blessings of a new kind of life, which God intended and which never ends.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
‘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.
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.
Friday, September 10, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
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?
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?
Sunday, September 05, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Change and Decay
In a must–read article, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/fiddling-while-the-earth-burns-20100826-13u4m.html, Richard Eckersley claims that: ‘Neither politicians nor citizens fully grasp the size of the gulf between political priorities and social realities’, and that: ‘politicians and the electorates they serve must have the courage to enact sweeping policy changes that (will) shift the course of the deep current, not just stir up the surface eddies.’
‘We cannot meet these challenges with “politics as usual” approaches which seek to offend no one, yield to vested interests and require no “sacrifices” in our way of life’ he says, and ‘we need also to acknowledge the systemic failure of our politics to deal with our problems.’
He further connects the rising ‘cultural emphasis on materialism and individualism’ with the crisis in mental health, which should surely wake us out of our political lethargy.
In his day, British PM Harold Wilson is reported to have said that: ‘Those who reject change are the architects of decay’.
What better description of the current mess in which our much vaunted democracy now is, could there be?
It is vital that we pass from the present impasse with a new determination to mend our ways. Rob Oakeshott has given us a lead, but without dealing with the ruinous incubus of party politics, the role of independents is just as bad as any other aspect of party politics. Without the radical change of the ballot in parliament, his reforms will not be possible and no lasting improvement will be achieved.
We have a lot of very serious work to do to chart a sound and sensible course for the future. May God help us.
‘We cannot meet these challenges with “politics as usual” approaches which seek to offend no one, yield to vested interests and require no “sacrifices” in our way of life’ he says, and ‘we need also to acknowledge the systemic failure of our politics to deal with our problems.’
He further connects the rising ‘cultural emphasis on materialism and individualism’ with the crisis in mental health, which should surely wake us out of our political lethargy.
In his day, British PM Harold Wilson is reported to have said that: ‘Those who reject change are the architects of decay’.
What better description of the current mess in which our much vaunted democracy now is, could there be?
It is vital that we pass from the present impasse with a new determination to mend our ways. Rob Oakeshott has given us a lead, but without dealing with the ruinous incubus of party politics, the role of independents is just as bad as any other aspect of party politics. Without the radical change of the ballot in parliament, his reforms will not be possible and no lasting improvement will be achieved.
We have a lot of very serious work to do to chart a sound and sensible course for the future. May God help us.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Advent of the Three Independents
The ABC 24 interview with the three independents this morning underlined the acute dilemma of a form of democracy long past its use-by date. And the extremely fragile nature of negotiations was further heightened by a remark of Tony Windsor that the two leaders must show goodwill or he will support neither, and that of Rob Oakeshott that he had suggested to both leaders that we have consensus politics but one rejected the idea.
This wish directly echoes the principle contained in the ballots in parliament reform, as does his other comment that while they are struggling with the responsibility of securing stable government, one hundred and forty five other members are on holiday! That is absolutely true. In a balloting parliament equal opportunity and responsibility to influence outcomes by principled debate, and the freedom to vote according to conviction would apply to all members.
The further comment by Jim Katter that two suicide phone calls from farmers this morning emphasised the seriousness of the position our democracy is in. The imputation appeared to be that if government cannot get its act together, discouragement and depression abound, and desperate cases become hopeless. The people NEED good government
Rob Oakeshott has commented that 'party politics is so yeaterday'.
It was further declared, quite truly: 'Conscience votes yield true debates'.
Sent to the heroic independents:
Compromise politics has also been mentioned, but clearly a comprise on
each issue by you three or four and our two cheerless leaders is not
really a feasible solution. As independents there is no doubt that you
and your constituents will not stomach that. As a long term advocate of
no-party politics and genuine consensus I am deeply interested in your
tough fight.
'A NEW DEMOCRACY'- has urged the introduction of ballots in parliament
(electronics obviously) for some years,
If the going gets impossible, may I urge that you consider the following:
With the ballot operating:
1. ALL MPs will be independent and freely voting
2. Genuine debate with genuine outcomes will occur without undue delay
3. Ministers will ALL be appointed (elected) by parliament
4. All MPs will be integrating policy directions in their having local forums,
5. Voters will be confident in, and proud of government, ridding constituents of despair.
6. Genuine consensus will be built on secure PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT.
This wish directly echoes the principle contained in the ballots in parliament reform, as does his other comment that while they are struggling with the responsibility of securing stable government, one hundred and forty five other members are on holiday! That is absolutely true. In a balloting parliament equal opportunity and responsibility to influence outcomes by principled debate, and the freedom to vote according to conviction would apply to all members.
The further comment by Jim Katter that two suicide phone calls from farmers this morning emphasised the seriousness of the position our democracy is in. The imputation appeared to be that if government cannot get its act together, discouragement and depression abound, and desperate cases become hopeless. The people NEED good government
Rob Oakeshott has commented that 'party politics is so yeaterday'.
It was further declared, quite truly: 'Conscience votes yield true debates'.
Sent to the heroic independents:
Compromise politics has also been mentioned, but clearly a comprise on
each issue by you three or four and our two cheerless leaders is not
really a feasible solution. As independents there is no doubt that you
and your constituents will not stomach that. As a long term advocate of
no-party politics and genuine consensus I am deeply interested in your
tough fight.
'A NEW DEMOCRACY'- has urged the introduction of ballots in parliament
(electronics obviously) for some years,
If the going gets impossible, may I urge that you consider the following:
With the ballot operating:
1. ALL MPs will be independent and freely voting
2. Genuine debate with genuine outcomes will occur without undue delay
3. Ministers will ALL be appointed (elected) by parliament
4. All MPs will be integrating policy directions in their having local forums,
5. Voters will be confident in, and proud of government, ridding constituents of despair.
6. Genuine consensus will be built on secure PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The ‘Morning After’
.
This morning the business community are trying to come to terms with the prolonged government caretaker period caused by the election failure to produce a majority party to form a government. The tenor of thought that business is attempting to gulp down is that we have a great democracy and they just have to be patient until perhaps the middle of next week when all seats have been resolved and a government crocheted together.
Meanwhile a flurry of discussions is commencing in Canberra with separate meetings of Greens and Independents to decide their several positions in eventual agreements with either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott to form a government.
From the time of Kevin Rudd’s expulsion from the Prime Ministership until a government is finally formed constitutes a time of disruption in government, which is loaded with uncertainty for business.
When we consider the fact that, as we have pointed out in an earlier article (17th Aug), national elections to choose a party government are so stupidly unnecessary and harmful to the life, business and social, of the nation.
Another worrying aspect of this party-politics-driven mess is that, with the formation of government involving the strong influences of the Greens and Independents in the balance of power, there will be an ongoing uncertainty about the direction of government policy for some time to come. Then we will have an idea whose issues will predominate—those of the people with Labor, those of business and investment with the Coalition, or those of the Greens.
But what we do know is that minority forces are entering the ‘castle’, pulling up the ‘drawbridge’ and quickly filling the ‘moat’. The ‘peasants’ will be excluded until the charade of the next election. Parliament will be under the authority of a leader, with parliamentary government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people in shreds.
A travesty of democracy!
This morning the business community are trying to come to terms with the prolonged government caretaker period caused by the election failure to produce a majority party to form a government. The tenor of thought that business is attempting to gulp down is that we have a great democracy and they just have to be patient until perhaps the middle of next week when all seats have been resolved and a government crocheted together.
Meanwhile a flurry of discussions is commencing in Canberra with separate meetings of Greens and Independents to decide their several positions in eventual agreements with either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott to form a government.
From the time of Kevin Rudd’s expulsion from the Prime Ministership until a government is finally formed constitutes a time of disruption in government, which is loaded with uncertainty for business.
When we consider the fact that, as we have pointed out in an earlier article (17th Aug), national elections to choose a party government are so stupidly unnecessary and harmful to the life, business and social, of the nation.
Another worrying aspect of this party-politics-driven mess is that, with the formation of government involving the strong influences of the Greens and Independents in the balance of power, there will be an ongoing uncertainty about the direction of government policy for some time to come. Then we will have an idea whose issues will predominate—those of the people with Labor, those of business and investment with the Coalition, or those of the Greens.
But what we do know is that minority forces are entering the ‘castle’, pulling up the ‘drawbridge’ and quickly filling the ‘moat’. The ‘peasants’ will be excluded until the charade of the next election. Parliament will be under the authority of a leader, with parliamentary government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people in shreds.
A travesty of democracy!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Election Campaigns -- turning into High Farce
That the election is descending into high farce is not something I am that sorry about.
It points up the stupidity of our obsession with party politics and its pathetic squabbles. How can sensible discussion and firm decision occur in this ugly climate of the pursuit of power?
We have already noted that a ballot control of parliament would eliminate the parties, their leaders, and these national elections which defeat democracy, by making individual representatives into part hacks whose motive of service to the nation, if any, is wrecked on the shores of party power and purposes, instead of the wellbeing of the nation.
We have destroyed the soul of the nation, leaving the people confused and without the will to face up to and defeat some of the most challenging problems of our time. The sad part is that with, party politics eliminated, the involvement of the people, their wisdom and good will restored by an orderly breed of democracy which is our right, these problems could easily have been already overcome – water under the bridge – and we could be looking confidently for fresh fields of social need to conquer.
We should all be ashamed.
It points up the stupidity of our obsession with party politics and its pathetic squabbles. How can sensible discussion and firm decision occur in this ugly climate of the pursuit of power?
We have already noted that a ballot control of parliament would eliminate the parties, their leaders, and these national elections which defeat democracy, by making individual representatives into part hacks whose motive of service to the nation, if any, is wrecked on the shores of party power and purposes, instead of the wellbeing of the nation.
We have destroyed the soul of the nation, leaving the people confused and without the will to face up to and defeat some of the most challenging problems of our time. The sad part is that with, party politics eliminated, the involvement of the people, their wisdom and good will restored by an orderly breed of democracy which is our right, these problems could easily have been already overcome – water under the bridge – and we could be looking confidently for fresh fields of social need to conquer.
We should all be ashamed.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Population and Immigration
.
Economic growth is favoured by some to enhance material standards of living, but it is said that for the whole world to increase their standards of living to emulate the West would require a couple more planets!
It follows that, in future, the desire for improved living standards will be forced to consider social, political and spiritual aspects of life. But under the party system this is hardly on the edge of the radar.
Industry needs skilled migrants to escalate growth, which makes investment safer than a static population, and helps with the aging of the population However this only shifts the problem ahead as the workforce so advantaged will itself age and the problem re-emerge.
Importing skills robs other countries too, a point that should worry us—as a world we must advance together to reduce (eliminate?) conflict—quite a challenge!
It seems clear that a better answer, which would take longer, would be the assiduous re-skilling of our young who have fallen behind – a truly challenging task Some might well question whether the need for a greater discipline in our young might not be more important than more and better school facilities, though the latter is politically easier, which is, of course, the trouble with our dilapidated democracy.
We are obviously not too good at facing down the really hard problems, without the ready help of the people at large, the need for which seems to be disregarded by our politicians.
An allied concern is the involvement of far too many with drugs and the relationship of mental problems. There again the rate of road accidents among the young especially makes one wonder. It does look like the hopelessness of the political scene is a contributory cause of the wide spread spectrum of problems in our society.
It is said that a cause of the world population explosion is the backward situation of women. They might well be less prolific with a surge in education of women in backward countries—a monumental task! An advance in education of women could enhance their status and reduce fertility.
Furthermore, we need to promote a better democracy worldwide than we have achieved so far. It’s up to Australia as a world leader in democratic reform. The decisions that are needed to solve these difficult world problems are essentially political. In other words, popular democratic government must have the clarity of purpose and the power to decide relevant policies without a roadblock from culture or religion.
These problems are far too little heeded, but will loom increasingly large in the very near future. Nothing must delay our efforts to find the just, fair solutions for all the world’s citizens (man, woman or child). That we do indeed need a New Democracy is abundantly demonstrated by the chaos of the current election and confusion of failing policies. Do these problems have to linger on or will there be a new vision and vigour to solve them? There’s really no option though, is there?
Economic growth is favoured by some to enhance material standards of living, but it is said that for the whole world to increase their standards of living to emulate the West would require a couple more planets!
It follows that, in future, the desire for improved living standards will be forced to consider social, political and spiritual aspects of life. But under the party system this is hardly on the edge of the radar.
Industry needs skilled migrants to escalate growth, which makes investment safer than a static population, and helps with the aging of the population However this only shifts the problem ahead as the workforce so advantaged will itself age and the problem re-emerge.
Importing skills robs other countries too, a point that should worry us—as a world we must advance together to reduce (eliminate?) conflict—quite a challenge!
It seems clear that a better answer, which would take longer, would be the assiduous re-skilling of our young who have fallen behind – a truly challenging task Some might well question whether the need for a greater discipline in our young might not be more important than more and better school facilities, though the latter is politically easier, which is, of course, the trouble with our dilapidated democracy.
We are obviously not too good at facing down the really hard problems, without the ready help of the people at large, the need for which seems to be disregarded by our politicians.
An allied concern is the involvement of far too many with drugs and the relationship of mental problems. There again the rate of road accidents among the young especially makes one wonder. It does look like the hopelessness of the political scene is a contributory cause of the wide spread spectrum of problems in our society.
It is said that a cause of the world population explosion is the backward situation of women. They might well be less prolific with a surge in education of women in backward countries—a monumental task! An advance in education of women could enhance their status and reduce fertility.
Furthermore, we need to promote a better democracy worldwide than we have achieved so far. It’s up to Australia as a world leader in democratic reform. The decisions that are needed to solve these difficult world problems are essentially political. In other words, popular democratic government must have the clarity of purpose and the power to decide relevant policies without a roadblock from culture or religion.
These problems are far too little heeded, but will loom increasingly large in the very near future. Nothing must delay our efforts to find the just, fair solutions for all the world’s citizens (man, woman or child). That we do indeed need a New Democracy is abundantly demonstrated by the chaos of the current election and confusion of failing policies. Do these problems have to linger on or will there be a new vision and vigour to solve them? There’s really no option though, is there?
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The End of National Elections
.
In a ballots-in-parliament regime, only independents will be involved in elections— no parties, no leader contest, none of the national elections that we, and the business community, presently endure. They will be scrapped; a thing of the past. Elections will be confined to the local nomination of well-known candidates and the local members will each be ‘directly elected by the people’ (as the constitution says!).
A greater contrast can hardly be imagined than the difference between the present national (or state) elections, to decide who will be Prime Minister (or Premier), and the new, simple, local elections which will apply under the new ballot regime in each parliament.
Some of the major differences:
• The cost of elections will be a mere fraction of present cost.
1. Under the present party government regime all the attention and the money is centred on the leaders of the contesting political parties.
2. Much of the present cost of elections—of national advertising, by mail, letterbox, radio and television will become pointless.
3. Well-performing members of parliament will be uncontested—cost free elections! (These may have been, in some cases, ‘marginal’ seats.)
• The present undue influence of powerful minorities will be demolished.
• The involvement of the national media will be considerably altered, turning its attention from its influence on elections to a continuous analysis of national problems and their solution. Local media will be intimately involved in the local elections.
• Parties, and their ambition for power will be banished from parliament by the election and confirmation of ministers and officials in each ministry by ballot of all the independent members, bringing in genuine parliamentary government. Ministers will then have considerable security of tenure, while retaining the confidence of parliament.
• Ministers will be free from undue interference by vested interests and minorities generally. With that freedom, the needs of minorities will receive calm consideration from parliament, uncomplicated by the fear of their erstwhile power.
• Parliamentary government will be continuous, helping all sectors to get down to business constantly. There will never be a caretaker period due to an election, and never be a change of government—parliament itself being the government.
• A cooperative, objective approach will apply to all problems before parliament, without partisan complications, and no wheeling and dealing, as parties do, if to their advantage. All influence will be confined to objective fact and persuasion.
• The new regime will usher in a period of stability and confidence in government, unknown to the present day. There is no reason why terms of parliament should not be fixed to four or five years, due to the continuing accountability of members of parliament through the continued scrutiny of their performance by their constituents on a continuous basis throughout the parliamentary term, in the public meetings that each member will be keen to maintain in each electorate.
• There might well be more!
In a ballots-in-parliament regime, only independents will be involved in elections— no parties, no leader contest, none of the national elections that we, and the business community, presently endure. They will be scrapped; a thing of the past. Elections will be confined to the local nomination of well-known candidates and the local members will each be ‘directly elected by the people’ (as the constitution says!).
A greater contrast can hardly be imagined than the difference between the present national (or state) elections, to decide who will be Prime Minister (or Premier), and the new, simple, local elections which will apply under the new ballot regime in each parliament.
Some of the major differences:
• The cost of elections will be a mere fraction of present cost.
1. Under the present party government regime all the attention and the money is centred on the leaders of the contesting political parties.
2. Much of the present cost of elections—of national advertising, by mail, letterbox, radio and television will become pointless.
3. Well-performing members of parliament will be uncontested—cost free elections! (These may have been, in some cases, ‘marginal’ seats.)
• The present undue influence of powerful minorities will be demolished.
• The involvement of the national media will be considerably altered, turning its attention from its influence on elections to a continuous analysis of national problems and their solution. Local media will be intimately involved in the local elections.
• Parties, and their ambition for power will be banished from parliament by the election and confirmation of ministers and officials in each ministry by ballot of all the independent members, bringing in genuine parliamentary government. Ministers will then have considerable security of tenure, while retaining the confidence of parliament.
• Ministers will be free from undue interference by vested interests and minorities generally. With that freedom, the needs of minorities will receive calm consideration from parliament, uncomplicated by the fear of their erstwhile power.
• Parliamentary government will be continuous, helping all sectors to get down to business constantly. There will never be a caretaker period due to an election, and never be a change of government—parliament itself being the government.
• A cooperative, objective approach will apply to all problems before parliament, without partisan complications, and no wheeling and dealing, as parties do, if to their advantage. All influence will be confined to objective fact and persuasion.
• The new regime will usher in a period of stability and confidence in government, unknown to the present day. There is no reason why terms of parliament should not be fixed to four or five years, due to the continuing accountability of members of parliament through the continued scrutiny of their performance by their constituents on a continuous basis throughout the parliamentary term, in the public meetings that each member will be keen to maintain in each electorate.
• There might well be more!
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Real Representation – Some Way to Go
Education funding like other policies, is decided at the ethereal level of the Prime Minister and cabinet, rather than by real representation and real standards of justice. The capacity of influential interests to govern swags of votes is very influential as an election looms.
Education minister Simon Crean (the Age 5/8), after meeting the chairman of the Bishops Commission for Catholic Education the day before the election was called, said that Labor was not favouring private schools at the expense of public education: “I reject that totally”, he said.
However the Education Union president said: “the current (Howard) model delivers one-third of federal funding to government schools which teach two-thirds of the nation’s students.” Is that justice?
But, the question here is not primarily what is just, but what makes justice difficult to achieve, and what difference would there be in the quality of representation and government decisions if parliamentary government (by secret ballot rule) were to replace party governments, which accept (seek?) election assistance by favouring influential groups. In fact, do we have valid democratic representation under the party system? Clearly the answer is NO.
In a balloting parliament, being compulsorily independent, and perforce, holding regular local meetings, members could be, and would be, regularly challenged about such issues as the one quoted above. It is pretty obvious that the Crean assertion would be heartily rejected at that level, with parents of non-government schools too shamed before constituents generally to press for the suspect view supported by the minister.
We are here seeing a stark comparison between a just basis of representation under a ballot parliament, and the effective interference of lobby groups on poll-driven party government. Lobby groups are myriad, dividing and conquering a disunited, troubled, confused public. The hoo ha over the mining tax is just another example.
What a democracy we have! To misquote Abraham Lincoln: “when will public opinion in this country (be) everything”, with a continual grass-roots connection to parliamentary ballot government via genuine, independent representatives.
Education minister Simon Crean (the Age 5/8), after meeting the chairman of the Bishops Commission for Catholic Education the day before the election was called, said that Labor was not favouring private schools at the expense of public education: “I reject that totally”, he said.
However the Education Union president said: “the current (Howard) model delivers one-third of federal funding to government schools which teach two-thirds of the nation’s students.” Is that justice?
But, the question here is not primarily what is just, but what makes justice difficult to achieve, and what difference would there be in the quality of representation and government decisions if parliamentary government (by secret ballot rule) were to replace party governments, which accept (seek?) election assistance by favouring influential groups. In fact, do we have valid democratic representation under the party system? Clearly the answer is NO.
In a balloting parliament, being compulsorily independent, and perforce, holding regular local meetings, members could be, and would be, regularly challenged about such issues as the one quoted above. It is pretty obvious that the Crean assertion would be heartily rejected at that level, with parents of non-government schools too shamed before constituents generally to press for the suspect view supported by the minister.
We are here seeing a stark comparison between a just basis of representation under a ballot parliament, and the effective interference of lobby groups on poll-driven party government. Lobby groups are myriad, dividing and conquering a disunited, troubled, confused public. The hoo ha over the mining tax is just another example.
What a democracy we have! To misquote Abraham Lincoln: “when will public opinion in this country (be) everything”, with a continual grass-roots connection to parliamentary ballot government via genuine, independent representatives.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Collapse of Big Australia
Ross Gittins (The Age 4/3 – ‘Collapse of Big Australia’) debunks the notion that an increasing population is all good, pointing out that federal government, often influenced by big business etc, favours increasing population, as investment is much safer in an expanding market. But state governments bear the burden of added housing, transport and other infrastructure requirements.
This disconnect between federal and state jurisdictions, unresolved at federation, has created a perennial source of inefficient administration, sometimes duplication, and tension. Since WWII taxation is mainly in the power of federal governments, with the states standing in line for the funds to carry on the burden of infrastructure. State parliaments long preceded the federal parliament and some sensitivity aggravates an unsatisfactory relationship, especially among the resource-rich states of the north and west. Additional tension results from the efforts of federal governments to pull rank, wanting to dictate the terms upon which the funds are distributed to the states. There has to be a better way, but it won’t be by returning taxation powers to the states.
In a way which might prove useful for us too, Germany’s state parliaments supply delegates (in proportion to state populations), to the Bunderat, a Federal Council, which is involved in legislation with the Bunderstag, the German parliament—seemingly a very useful connection. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrat_of_Germany.
Gittins concludes his analysis of ‘sustainable population’ with: ‘‘the message to the elite from the unwashed of the outer suburbs is: “if you want more migrants, first get you act together”’. No doubt very sound advice!
But, added to the federal/states tension is the innate inability of party government to provide the unifying leadership which could incorporate the wisdom and best efforts of the people in a growing vision—a flourishing democracy which can meet the future with confidence, and verve—yes, ‘get our act together’!
This disconnect between federal and state jurisdictions, unresolved at federation, has created a perennial source of inefficient administration, sometimes duplication, and tension. Since WWII taxation is mainly in the power of federal governments, with the states standing in line for the funds to carry on the burden of infrastructure. State parliaments long preceded the federal parliament and some sensitivity aggravates an unsatisfactory relationship, especially among the resource-rich states of the north and west. Additional tension results from the efforts of federal governments to pull rank, wanting to dictate the terms upon which the funds are distributed to the states. There has to be a better way, but it won’t be by returning taxation powers to the states.
In a way which might prove useful for us too, Germany’s state parliaments supply delegates (in proportion to state populations), to the Bunderat, a Federal Council, which is involved in legislation with the Bunderstag, the German parliament—seemingly a very useful connection. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesrat_of_Germany.
Gittins concludes his analysis of ‘sustainable population’ with: ‘‘the message to the elite from the unwashed of the outer suburbs is: “if you want more migrants, first get you act together”’. No doubt very sound advice!
But, added to the federal/states tension is the innate inability of party government to provide the unifying leadership which could incorporate the wisdom and best efforts of the people in a growing vision—a flourishing democracy which can meet the future with confidence, and verve—yes, ‘get our act together’!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)