Religion and Democracy

1. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of ‘Nomad’, was interviewed on ABC TV Lateline last night. She is in constant need of security, due to criticism of attitudes, associated within some Muslins in her book. She spoke of weak attitudes in government circles with regard to Muslim cultural practices, such as ‘honour killing’ and female genital mutilation.

2. Ali reports that it has been said: ‘But we must respect their culture!’ In such a context such timidity in government is very concerning. The idea that people of any religious persuasion can be considered above the law is quite untenable, calling into question the authority of democratic government.

3. Democracy, was defined by President Lincoln: a style of government making us all equal before the law: in submission to the law, in power and responsibility for making law, and in individual rights.

4. But, in fact, as Tony Fitzgerald, well known ex-judge, and leader of the Fitzgerald Inquiry in Queensland, acerbically points out in a politics damning speech to the Accountability Round Table in March, our democracy fails miserably on each count.

5. Fitzgerald, quotes a comment by Chief Justice Earl Warren of the US Supreme Court years ago: ‘law “presupposes a broad area of human conduct controlled by ethical norms and not subject to law at all”’. While religion may have a role to play in enhancing the spiritual life of individuals, as citizens, it cannot seek independence from the authority of the law.

6. Ballots in parliament, to decide all debates, will clear corruption and strengthen government, by making MPs accountable to the people.

7. Can anyone deny the urgent need for democratic reform of the voting system in parliament

A Citizens Assembly – Yes or No?

Tony Abbott, on the run yesterday, rejected Julia Gillard’s policy of having a Citizen Assembly to help clarify the problem of Climate Change. He claimed we already have a citizen’s assembly—parliament. But party politics has amply demonstrated that it cannot be relied on to define the objectives and sieve the arguments, to reach solid conclusions in any satisfactory time frame.

In fact, our democracy, with its manacled attachment to political parties and loyalties, ensures parliament is a place of unseemly behaviour, deliberately aggravated obstruction, ludicrous confusion, and wasted time and talent. And the election process suffers the same problems. After the election the new parliament will be the same.
The actors’ roles may change but not the plot.

Serious matters, which parliament cannot resolve, will linger on undecided, subjecting concerned people to prolonged angst, for no other reason than the incompetence of parliament. The ballot for elections must be replicated in parliament to control all voting. Then, a change of government will never be needed—and in fact will never happen. The members, all independents, will see to it that the will of the people will influence parliament continuously—true parliamentary government.

A Citizen Assembly!

Many loud voices are demanding instant action on climate change, but neither the Coalition nor Labor under Julia Gillard, are in a hurry. She intends to create a Climate Change Commission to study the science, and randomly select one hundred and fifty citizens in a ‘Citizen Assembly’ to decide on the Commissions findings. More
In fact there is a considerable reluctance to face this issue throughout business, and in the community. To imagine there is a wonderful cost-free solution is to believe in fairies. Pay we must, and to find the most acceptable answer a ballot process in parliament – or inclusion in a referendum may be needed to give the required certainty.
.
‘Australia needs “deep consensus” before taking action, (Penny) Wong said, since “This will transform our economy for decades to come.”’

Something new! On-line Senate representation

A SENATOR ON LINE
A new political party is fielding Senate candidates, operating on line, offering direct contact with voters,and so enabling them to vote on line on matters before parliament -- http://senatoronline.org.au/


'Senator on Line' is a newly registered, unaligned party, which will field candidates who will take the results of on-line votes and represent these voters in the Senate. A vote on anything before the Senate will be available on its website, so that the people can express opinion on matters before parliament by having a vote directly via the internet at any time. The party undertakes that their unbiassed senator will thus represent the results of on-line voting directly in parliament.

Now that's something new and constructive to keep an eye on!

Democracy still a Muddle

Michelle Grattan (Age 23/7) highlights the endemic problems of rolling issues and leadership together, with Abbott confusing IR direction and Gillard looking shaky on Asylum Seekers. Elections cannot resolve issues, nor can this debate.

Our system demands strong leadership, with the power to decide many issues, and we are stuck with that (for the time being, anyway). The debate this Sunday night will be an opportunity to judge the contestant's ability to lead - plus their intentions on a few issues (which can easily change).

But there will be many more controversial issues, requiring an intelligent, calm appraisal, individually. But without a system of secret ballots in parliament, to control the debate, the useless conflict of party loyalties will continue to defeat sound, prompt decisions by parliament, on issue after issue, to the frustration of both the members and the public.

The public must be involved!

A new (female) Prime Minister ! (Revision)

So, we have a new Prime Minister! May God bless her efforts, on behalf of us all.
Tony Abbott marked the event in Parliament, quoting: “A ‘Knock on the Door at Midnight’, saying this should not happen to any Australian Prime Minister”, a remark fraught with all the historical significance of the Holocaust. Was that empathy, or perhaps a judgement?
However, the true character of Kevin Rudd is evidenced by his humility and immediate willingness, with some understandable tears, to serve his party’s government, in any capacity that should be decided.

Psycho analysis of the new and the former PM will undoubtedly continue for some time, being not dissimilar to the reasons for the rise and fall of nations, empires and civilisations—and religion. In the big issues, the questions relate, of course, primarily to the characters of leaders, in which two mysterious factors work in parallel—the mind and its brilliance, and the heart and its compassion.

Oh, the heart, whatever is it? Decisions are made in the wisdom of both heart and mind. Our armies invade to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of intransigent peoples! How successful can that be—where is the compassion?

Although we don’t fully understand these things, we can still confidently say: ‘The heart has reasons that reason knows nothing about’. Surely this is the difference between a false religion and the true, which comes from the heart, with minds subservient. ‘Musick has charms to sooth a savage breast’, but real love ‘never fails’.

But back to prime ministers!
In a secret ballot parliament the prime minister, or premier, will always be the dear, respected mentor of all the colleagues, once able to be elected to that high office by all the members from their own ranks!

And with no authority, or power, beyond that of all the other members, by virtue of the honour conferred.

Concentrating our Minds

It has been said that hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully.
An election also concentrates the mind of the nation—as if there were such a thing!
But decisions have to be made, and thanks to (comparative) fairness of the secret ballot we are more able to accept the result, even though uncertainly, and for many in the population, with considerable reluctance That’s not a recipe for a happily united nation, is it?
We are all individuals, confused people, led by confused people with views emanating from past experiences and loyalties, and now, with the added complications of the enmities of past leaders thrown into the mix. May God help us!
The problem appears to be that we are all individuals, employing the ballot at elections, to appoint individuals to rule over our affairs, when we more and more want to have a say in our affairs, as a self-governing people, which, after all, is what a democracy is supposed to be. But to do that we need to catch up in understanding many things—i.e. we must be participating.
The Swiss employ the ballot to have the people decide things—a decided advance in popular participation, by Citizen Initiated Referenda—where topics arise from ‘the initiative’ of concerned people. Quite a few states in the US do likewise.

But this leaves the people’s choice to an unacceptable degree to the ‘mercy’ of the media. We need local meetings to enable the people to advance to an active self-governing role. This cannot happen without independent representatives creating such venues, which again cannot happen until we have parliament under their (and our) control.
This requires the ‘mechanics’ of the electronic secret ballot in our parliaments, to be established by referendum.
Then we can all concentrate our minds wonderfully, on issue after issue, as they are important to us, and see a new, constructive relationship, embracing everyone, which will lead to national unity and strength, to deal with all our problems, climactic and economic, national and international, ethics and health, rights and duties, public order and crime, and anything else which rears its head—efficiently and free of rancour.

Some say: ‘When a real crisis occurs the people will find an answer.’ Sorry, revolution and war cost far more than they resolve. We need intelligent reform now!

Bjelke-Petersen -

A (really) ODD SPOT

Bjelke-Petersen governed as Premier of a State in which his party received, in one election (1972), only 20% of the votes.

In 1984 Bjelke-Petersen was created a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (postnominal "KCMG") for "services to parliamentary democracy".



Thanks Peter

A Common Sense Democracy

.
.
Having established in Part I that a ballot provision for all decisions debated in parliament would make all members genuine independents, it remains for us to think of the impact on the executive. Clearly, all ministers forming the executive will be under the authority of parliament, emphasised by censure motions if not already obvious.

Each minister, having been established or confirmed in that role by parliamentary ballot, will soon acquire a very durable tenancy, and a greater accountability of the relative public service department to both minister and parliament. The strong relationship between parliament, ministers and public service departments will effectually dispense with the role of personal ‘ministerial advisers’.

Again, both parliament and ministers will be set free from the ‘political pressure’ that minority interests constantly exert on party governments and their politically vulnerable ministers. Minority interests will then have to take their place in the queue to receive appropriate consideration of parliament to their claims.

With parliament working cooperatively (in contrast to the inane conflict of the party dominated parliaments with which our society has been so long afflicted), and truly representative, statesmen-like independent members, in constant dialogue with their constituents in public meeting, we will have achieved a genuinely exportable democracy—without sending troops abroad!

This is a durable, effective, fair and just sample of what a democracy could, and should be; a prelude to a distant, democratic world government, without which injustice and wars will continue to dominate and ruin our planet.

A question you have may find its answer on our website at http://ballotsinparliament.info/faqs.html

Another Change of Government.

Another Change of Government!
Julia Gillard has replaced Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, in an upset typical of party politics—good for one and public pain for the other.
Now—let’s compare parliament when the ballot will rule all decisions.
Firstly, questions of loyalty, which triggered the current upset, will never occur as all power will belong to the ballot of all the parliament’s members, with parliament operating as a cooperative government team.
Next, there will never be a change of government as that role will be filled by the parliament itself, all ministers and other important positions being filled by a ballot of all the members. Thus each appointment, from PM down, will have been endorsed by a substantial majority of the members, choosing the best for each office, to act under the authority of the whole parliament.
Few and rare will be the occasions for any change – because all ministers will be under parliamentary authority with the ability to make decisions only within their area of responsibility, set by parliamentary decisions and policies, all of which can be reviewed whenever necessary.
Questions beyond a minister’s recognized responsibility and authority will naturally be referred to parliament, as in any well-run business—strength, stability and continuity of government as never seen before!
Can anyone disagree? No? Well, let’s just get to work on this change of government!

How will 'Ballots in Parliament' be better?

Frequently asked questions - from Secret Ballot Website FAQ

Q. We won't know how they vote, will we?
A. Yes, no doubt you wouldn't know which way your MP voted. But under the present system it isn't worth knowing anyway. Arguing with a party MP about the the merits or otherwise of a measure is a pointless exercise. The backbencher has no influence on policy.

Q. You refer to ex-party MPs but I don't think you have explained why an MP is, suddenly, no longer aligned to a party.
A. They can be. But when the party is no longer able to control it's MPs' votes the game will change. From that point the party's interest in endorsing that member will vanish, as no member can then be relied upon to vote according to the policy decided upon by the party.
The basis of the power and financial support for the party to win the next election and pass desired legislation rests on the foundation of the compliant voting team in parliament.
AS the financial support dries up, the power of the party hierarchy will vanish.
Existing and prospective party members will therefore have little option but to relate realistically with their electorate, literally.acting as independents.
Existing members, in safe seats, will find a subtle change in their security as many voters sniff a fresh wind of opportunity for change.

Q. You are proposing that votes be secret, but when they debate they indicate which way they are going to vote, so then their vote is publicly known. So, their vote is only secret if they don't participate in the debate?
A. Certainly they will disclose their attitude on the issue by debating, and their vote could be reasonably assumed. But any member will have the opportunity to succeed on behalf of the electorate point of view by persuading others who all have the free vote (whether in debate or in the lobbies!). That will be far more important than any single vote. Thus the electorate will judge by the debate and the ballot result. If favourable, the issue will be concluded favourably. If not, the matter is controversial and will be deferred, and become a hot topic in the electorate and subsequent meetings with the MP.
Participants in debate may well be few, if issues are clear. If not, many will feel the need to debate, and more time and progressive votes will be needed to clarify the position and obtain a sufficient majority.
NB, the days of fifty per cent plus one constituting a sufficient majority will be history. Large parliamentary majorities will become constitutionally required for serious, far- reaching issues, like war etc etc.
Thus, with all members free to respond, a majority of the whole parliament will be free to be won on any issue - by persuasive debate. Progressive ballots will clearly show the maturing view of parliament, substantially simplifying the task of forming and concluding decisions in parliament, based on responsible debate and genuine electorate representation, -- with an economy of parliamentary time and removal of useless frustration.
Members will act independently in achieving results desired by their electorate -- an attractive scenario for all worthwhile members.

Q. Why would a political party not still be relevant?
A. A party is a group specifically designed to seek political power - to win elections, establish an executive and rule without reference to other competing groups. The ballot in parliament will severely inhibit, even prevent, that kind of objective, with parliament-appointed ministers to be responsible for public service department business. Some of those executives may have been party executives, but will then be subject to parliamentary rule, or be deposed.

Q. People of similar mind (ideology?) will still meet to discuss how to win their objectives.
A. There is nothing to prevent that. But it will become evident that local meetings will present free, and preferable opportunities for protagonists to pursue any particular issue of merit more effectively.
All issues will then be better attended to with effective impact in local meetings. Ideology will give way to objective community assessment of the various issues which will each need to win the needed support on merit, and be launched in parliament by the local member. People acceptably active in local meetings will be possible rivals to a sitting member who proves inadequate.
But, as Abraham Lincoln said:'In this country public opinion is everything.' That is the democracy to which we aspire.

Q. Local members, or aspirants, may be amongst the smartest, most confident, most articulate, most charismatic etc . Would these not attract substantial following in respect of certain issues and overwhelm all opposition.
A. Possibly. But the local member, local media and other constituents are not likely to lie down under such an eventuality. The danger appears less than at first might be thought. With the ballot we are facing a new democratic system, growing in strength to combat undue influence.

Q. Perhaps a ghost-writer could write a novel that might throw light on the way it would work out in practice, outlining in detail the transition to ballots in parliament in a way people could relate to.
A. Sounds like a great idea! We'll just have to see if a writer might catch the vision and volunteer!

Common Sense - Decentrallisation of Power

I chanced to hear Professor Carson on ABC interview on Friday morning. I was very glad she is doing what she is, to foster community access to government. I have been long time interested in people access to government. It seems to be an active subject but substantial, effective change seems a long way off. At 87, will I see it?

We have a problem with two sides. People generally entertain no hope and are passive, although you can 'scratch' anyone any time and uncover a hostile view on the subject of politics and government, be they young or old - especially quiet ones. On the other side the parties are contemptuous of the people, effectively isolating us from involvement.

For example the government could have the Electoral Commission convene regular monthly Electoral Forums, round the country. Why not? Its cost would be much less than its value in steadying and improving the progress of government. But will it happen? I recently announced a local forum -- but for three meetings not one turned up. 'Little people' can't do it on their own.

I spoke to a Man. Dir. of a company involved in Aged Care, a man of quiet, submerged hostility on the subject of government. He said that we need decentralisation of power. He suggests a 'common sense party'. I couldn't agree more, having been pursuing the elimination of party power by secret ballots in parliament for 30 years,
I recently announced a local forum -- but for three meetings not one turned up.

Meanwhile party politics is proving more and more chaotic and hopeless. I honestly feel sorry for all of the politicians who are really trying, but especially the ones whose sincerity is uppermost. The system defeats and soon dispenses with the best. What costly nonsense! With half-baked, short-term decisions to 'fix' long term problems!

Until the system is changed to stop the centralisation of power in its party pyramids all the good efforts by the many concerned people are building steam but no motion.

A long time ago, on ABC, the presenter said we need an effective circuit-breaker to stop the merry-go-round of party politics. We do. But I know none other than the secret ballot in parliament, to reduce all MPs to independent status, truly dependent on, and intimately accountable to their constituents, (making statesmen/women of them) and able, in parliament, to choose the best as ministers, by ballot -- a parliamentary democracy. Is there a better answer anywhere? I would like to hear it.

A surge in active and effective community involvement, starting with the presently most concerned, would soon follow -- making a lightning rod for oppressed people around the world, and a democratic world government soon to follow, to deal with the crisis of factional and government oppression abounding in the world.

All we need is a flood of people to catch the vision and join the (no-fee) Secret-Ballot Party (or Common-Sense Party ) --- whose aim is its own early demise!

Fraser quits the Party

This is sad, not because he is leaving the party, but because it is revealed that, although a life member, he has been troubled for years about the party’s direction on various issues. What angst is caused by party loyalty to men of sincere character!
In leaving, he has fulfilled the words of Shakespeare from ‘Hamlet’:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
What a price is paid by men of conscience for ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises, and such-like spin! Many an honest man, and woman has had to leave politics, in frustration, leaving behind those more willing to compromise, selling their souls for political power—a ‘mess of pottage’.
In Winston Churchill's biography of his father, ‘Lord Randolph Churchill’, he wrote:
‘…in a clear reference to his own thinking, to an England 'of wise men' who gaze without self deception at the failings and follies of both political parties; of brave and earnest men who find in neither faction, fair scope for the effort that is in them; of 'poor men' who increasingly doubt the sincerity of party philosophy.’

It has been said that there can be no democracy without political parties. What a travesty of the truth! Why believe that, when the success of the secret ballot for elections, calmly, decisively settling who shall represent us in parliament, clearly indicates that ballots in parliament will replace party rivalry with calm, objective debate, leading straight to logical conclusions and action, making election platforms and promises totally irrelevant. May it soon be!

On the Way to Democracy

A funny thing happened on the way to democracy. We, in the South Seas, ran with the baton, but after 1900 we dropped it, when party politics loomed its head in 1911, with the formation of the Labor party, to combat the dominance of business and squatter interests.
As Ross Gittins observes (AGE comment 26/5), Australia and New Zealand have been serious innovators—Australia with the 1856 introduction of the ‘Australian’ secret ballot, and the Kiwis, first with the vote for women, 1893, each now widely adopted throughout the world. Then we believed in ourselves. Seeing clearly, we took bold steps and succeeded with worthwhile change.
As Gittins says: “Compulsory voting hasn’t caught on elsewhere, but why should we care? We don’t”. Now even the Brits are considering changing to the ‘Australian system’—preferential voting. Good luck Britain!
With growing problems, we are now confused and uncertain. Criticism of bold moves, such as, action to deal with climate change, and to return a fair return to the nation for the sale of mineral assets, is unnerving party government. It is said there should be much more consultation to get things right in the first place but, is that possible when the national interest is subservient to the vested conflicting interests of the political parties struggling over power. The parliament is supposed to be the authority for making the decisions needed to bring order out of chaos, but it can't.
As a nation we are therefore confused and weakened by the divisive nature of our party dominated political system.
We, the people, are baffled onlookers of the conflict, which has no legitimate part in a self-governing democracy. We are excluded from any informative process of participation in the making of decisions. We are, instead, landed with the impossible task, come the elections, of assessing which of the contenders will do us the least harm, let alone ‘advance Australia fair’.
Where are the forums which should take place in every electorate, to discuss and understand these issues, with the sitting member, and alternative candidates; participating with other constituents, in an educative process of freely sharing in the combined knowledge and wisdom of the people? Isn’t that what we need?

Mining Super tax.

They don't want the tax of course but, the miners are against the super tax on ‘pre-tax (net) profits’ I believe. These might come first (as a virtual cost) with income tax on the balance. First or last the money outcome remains the same. E.g 1000 less 40% = 600 less 30%= 420. Again 1000 less 30%= 700 less 40% = 420 – the same. Super tax on ‘pre-tax profits’ coming early on, suggests a cash flow reason. They want to have maximum funds available for immediate expansion while prices are high. That’s my guess.

A Democratic World Government

Tension mounts in many lands as political systems fail to bring order, with oppression and protests, guns and bombs, cruelty and terror, crime and murder. Is it at all likely that real political solutions will mature in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Currently reported troubles in Thailand and South Africa and the failure to resolve the Israel/Palestinian crisis are other prominent cases of political failure. What is the answer to a world full of problems, with the failure of democracy to take its rightful control of the world?
While there is no doubt that much good work is being done by the UN, it is also clear that the world situation demands some drastic change to enable and the UN as a world government to bring order out of chaos wherever it exists in the world.
The Israel/Palestinian situation has defied the efforts of various American presidents, who have been thwarted by strong internal opposition. Likewise the efforts of various European powers have been stymied by America’s veto Power in the Security Council.
The Security Council is a relic of the Cold War, along with its power of veto for the founding members. But it is high time that the nations of the world joined together to create a suitable form of democratic world government, which properly constructed, could dispense with the old Security Council. That would mean giving each nation voting rights in the Assembly to match the size of its population, (not too daunting a problem), giving all nations a voice but a varied voting power. (Further on, the large nation’s votes might be divided amongst multiple representatives.)
The Assembly’s executive functions would soon be determined by vote, and the present power of sovereign nations to ignore world opinion on abuses of individual rights etc. could not hold out against the authority of the UN Assembly and its police force. Fair, strong government would remove excuses for war, and any reason for the possession of destructive armaments. The future is just ahead of us. Reach for the stars!

Election Hysteria

As the elections inexorably approach, we can see all the warts of the party system, even more clearly. On the 730 report, Kerry O'Brien gets aggressive and rude to the PM. Then Rudd's ‘warm’ response becomes a big talking point, judged by some to mean he is out of control! But Leunig’s cartoon is a jeering response. Do we want our politicians, elected by the people, to just be doormats for any Tom, Dick or Harry?

Again, a change in policy by a party government is criticised as a ‘back flip’, without substantive consideration as to whether it is justified or not. Brumby rethinks ‘suspended sentencing’ – a policy of the opposition, and the opposition becomes upset. Which is the first priority, the interest of a political party or the public interest that is constantly hindered by the shenanigans of the political parties, as they grasp for power?

Again, the mining resource tax will add to the federal pre-election bun-fight, controlled by emotions rather than facts. To the claim of some that the resources tax on mining will drive mining offshore, it has been pointed out that that will not happen unless the mineral resources themselves go offshore!
Thank goodness there are still some sensible people around!

Will ballots in parliament eliminate some, or even all, of this rubbish? You bet! The people will be in charge. How, you say?

With parliament controlled by electronic ballot, all MPs will be independent and have the power to together elect, and sometimes sack, each and every minister, including the Prime Minister although the PM, being already elected as the most respected member of parliament, will not be likely to ever be a target.

And all MPs themselves will be under the regular, direct scrutiny of their constituents in public meetings, as they caucus to examine together the best way to tackle each issue.The net result of this is that controversial issues will be thrashed out at the local level and the representation of the electorate in parliament will substantially reflect considered public opinion.

In parliament the electronic ballot will enable precise polling of every variation of opinion during debate and thus enable the real public (educated) view to reach conclusions with substantial (unarguable) majorities, which might well vary constitutionally where a decision once made cannot be amended - e.g.war. In that kind of decision the constitution might demand a 90% majority!

Stable, intelligent decision-making in our democracy can be confidently anticipated from converting the operation of all our parliaments to electronic secret voting.

Share markets chaos

Friends
Today we have bad news on the share market front. Two adverse situations
could be working together here to create chaos. In Greece, the
government and people have fallen down on the job. And despite the large
Euro loan on offer, Greek government deficits are set to worsen, while
there are wild public protests against government attempts to bring
order and chaos. The public is not ready and willing for additional
taxes and cuts to public services, which might gradually resolve the
problem.
At home, we are looking at a new era of share trading at lightning
speeds, by high-speed Internet, using algorithms, mathematical formulae
which simulate a human being making financial share trading decisions,
the difference being that with the high-speed computers and Internet,
the decisions can be multiplied in fractions of a second. Share market
regulators are obviously at a loss to be able to comprehend the problems
occurring and take satisfactory action. It makes one think again of the
old Greek quote: “Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”
These complex situations obviously present horrendous problems for
government to maintain order in society, while human intellectual
ability and financial activity escalate at an enormous rate. Can our
government system, which was settled in the horse and buggy age of 1901,
cope satisfactorily with these problems, in a manner conducive to peace
and harmony in the world today?
When our manner of government and constitution were set in 1901, three
months was allowed for certain actions of the Senate, because senators
coming from Perth and Brisbane were coming by sailing ship! What a
contrast to present day flights by plane! We have a big problem ahead of
us to bring our government style and operation up to operational speed,
in line with the complexity of modern technology and social practices..
In the face of such problems, it has been said that when a crisis
occurs, change will be made. However, history demonstrates that when
crisis occurs changes can be made, but they are rarely for the better,
and often much worse. Crises are not capable of producing intelligent
change to complex situations.
In Britain, we have an interesting but tricky situation with the Liberal
Democrats in a minority situation, but with the power to do deals with
the other parties. The electoral system is antique with
first-past-the-post voting, which has produced the present situation.
Will one of the parties accede to the Liberal Democrat wish for
electoral reform.
What might happen? Would Britain be likely to adopt preferential voting,
as we have in the House of Representatives, or perhaps a ‘proportional
representational’ system, as we have in the Senate, with large multiple
electorates? Either of these changes would profoundly change the face of
British politics.

Henry tax review

The critical reception of the government’s response to the Henry tax review highlights once more the inherent popular dissatisfaction with, and distrust of, government by rival political management teams—left and right, see-saw government.
Especially in an election year the rivalry between our major political parties produces unhelpful public and business angst, not entirely free of bitterness.
Problems are endemic and decisions to resolve them have to be made at each level of government in the context of a struggle for power.
Publically, opinions are myriad, but there is no way for them to bear on the ultimate decisions, to give assurance to various interests in the community that at least the process is fair—which of course it isn’t to the people at large.
Can party governments, with the pressures of vested interests, ever provide fairness of legislation, to give the whole community confidence in government, in today’s climate of problems? The incumbent having the major power to decide the whole range of issues of foreign ownership, business and workplace interests, tax and public services, poverty and distribution of wealth, hospitals and health, law and order, high housing costs and excessive private debt causing family problems and bankruptcies, etc.etc— not to mention the rising problems of aging population, climate change, future resource exhaustion, population explosion and Islamic Shariah law, isn’t it patently obvious that only a non-partisan parliament of independent MPs, drawing on the effective involvement and wisdom of a participating people, will be able to rally the people to face the future with confidence. Only parliamentary voting by ballot can do this.
Citizens must have the opportunity to be involved on the fringe of government, as economic, social and political problems crowd our future.

Switzerland, that so-stable country, has answered the problem by giving access to the community to achieve legislation for neglected issues by their process of public petition for Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR), while New Zealand has adopted a similar CIR provision, effectively providing a plebiscite, which can powerfully influence government , but falls short of mandating law.

Islam and Dress Sense

Last night on ABC1 Emma Alberici interviewed a Muslim woman clad in a
burka, only gradually allowing her eyes to be seen. Her primary reason
for wearing the burka was that as a child, and in her teens, she was
sexually harassed. Her husband said that it was her choice.

France proposes a new law banning the face covering burka as intimidatory to others. Perhaps they
also need a law to ban sexual harassment!

In a democratic society, minority groups’ concerns are entitled to be
heard—'the love of democracy is the love of others'. Thus the arrival of
substantial numbers of Muslims, with a wide spectrum of beliefs
challenges the strength and wisdom of our society—of us as a people—of
our democracy.

When freedom (of dress) becomes license, as it has, we have a serious problem. Laws
can be made, but they are only successful if society's values and
principles do in fact support them. As a door-to-door salesman once, I was advised that one's mode of dress
should be good but not such as to draw undue attention. I am sure that
was a good rule - for both male and female - in any age.

Government can only make really good laws for a better society if there
is a much greater opportunity for popular participation in public
affairs. I believe that, in community face to face discussion, our best
values and principles will prevail, leading to better representation and
good (parliamentary) government, away from conflict, to a consensus
which strongly represents us at our best—a real democracy—where ‘the
love of others’ prevails.

Islam and Freedom of Speech

THIS IS WHAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS TO THEM. (Extract from email)

Pictures from London -- this is beyond scary...
Pictures of Muslims marching through the STREETS OF LONDON during their recent 'Religion of Peace Demonstration.'
Makes you wonder doesn't it...can you imagine having a Christian demonstration against Islam in downtown Baghdad !

These were the placards:
‘Slay those that don't believe in Islam.
Europe, you will pay. Demolition is on its way will stop
Butcher those who mock Islam
Islam will dominate the world
Behead those who insult Islam
Freedom go to hell
Europe take some lessons from 9/11
Europe, you will pay 9/11 is on its way]
Be prepared for the real Holocaust
Massacre those who insult Islam’

I don’t think we want to insult Islam any more than they should insult Christianity. We think of the gentleness of Jesus, in whom we believe, who said on the Cross, “Father forgive them they don’t know what they do”.


Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!

Immigration and the Boat People

‘Getup’ describes Australia’s suspension of processing of the boat people as a return to the ‘Howard years’ with refugees’ frustration and rejection, (www.getup.org.au/).

But many here resent the problem. And the exclusion of the public from active participation in politics means that party governments live in fear of the public reaction at the next election. Moral leadership in government is thus made difficult and fear dictates decisions which can be cruel, instead of compassionate.

Engraved upon the pedestal of the American Statue of Liberty is a poem by Emma Lazarus, ‘The New Colossus’, (http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm) from which comes the quote: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. In those days refugees were offered freedom, not wealth, and they built America—and Australia—as we are today. New countries were then able to offer large potential for economic growth through massive natural wealth, (although the respective Indigenes suffered enormously).

But today, as well as the fear of persecution, world television offers the dream of a much better standard of living in Western societies. So there are two forces driving the poor of the world to emigrate. But, there are also two strands of public thinking with regard to refugees. And only one of them is compassion.

There again, increasing world population demands an urgent answer. But what is it?

Democracy shortchanged

The Age today (5/4) editorialises pathetically:
‘In our democracy, majority doesn’t always rule’, drawing attention to the fact that votes cast for parties in ‘safe’ and ‘marginal’ seats can so vary the result that often the party achieving the less overall votes gains the greater number of seats, while the role of ‘opposition’ falls to the major winner of actual votes. Is there really no way out of this crazy and socially destructive mockery of democracy?
It is patently clear Abraham Lincoln’s three specific requirements of a satisfactory democracy—‘government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people’—are far from being realised.

Stability and Minority Power

Following the American War of Independence, President Washington sent John Adams (who followed Washington’s presidentcy) as America’s first Ambassador to the English throne—a conciliatory gesture after a bitter war. As he was retiring from the audience with King George III, the King commented: ‘I pray Mr Adams that the United States will not suffer from the want of a monarchy.’ This is a knotty point for both Monarchists and Republicans to ponder. Stability primarily depends on strength with fairness, even benevolence in government, whatever its form. What success has America enjoyed?

The US White House is currently being pressured by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which wants the US administration to settle their differences ‘behind closed doors …quietly, in trust and confidence’—of course, when clever manipulation of congressmen has so far stymied the best efforts of each US administration, and the UN, to achieve a free and separate state for the Palestinians. We certainly hope Obama can be strong and pull off a settlement of this ancient tussle.

Tasmania now has a hung parliament, following an inconclusive election, due to the public’s problem with the government’s ‘unhealthy relationship’ with the all-powerful Gunn’s forestry company. In a recent public meeting, Getup reports, a timber consultant asked a pertinent question which was answered with the threatening comment, accompanied by a fist in her face: ‘don’t you ever ask a question like that in a public meeting.’ Questioned as to a complaint to the police, her reply was that next morning there was a box of matches in her letter box, with the implication that her house could easily be set on fire. What madness is this? ‘Whom God wishes to destroy He first makes mad.’ Seneca. A society ignoring God will certainly unravel.

Saving our System - CIR

Friends,
Seeing government, here and around the world, is in such a horrendous state, I think we should examine some of the current options to improve it.
The US state of Arizona, apparently has a constitutional provision that, after the government has passed a law, there is a period in which the population can object by petition. If the required number of signatures is reached, the matter must be resolved by referendum, possibly at the next election.
There are other American states, perhaps twenty or so out of the forty nine, which have adopted similar provisions, possibly with variations. It is not unusual to see car stickers – e.g. ‘Vote NO for number 5’, referring to a referendum to be held based on CIR
The notion of CIR springs from the Swiss ‘Initiative’ which has been in vogue there for many years. Considering that they have three major ethnic groups, German, French and Italian and have managed to stay calm and clear while two world wars raged around them, their government has worked very well with this very real involvement of the people.
New Zealand has also recently adopted CIR. It is usual that a matter passed by a CIR becomes law automatically - only alterable by referendum, but in this case enactment is not mandatory! Nevertheless, a government taking no notice of such a widely expressed popular viewpoint would be foolish to ignore it. Thus the power of the people through CIR can usefully constrain rash government even if it is but rarely used. CIR requires a degree of responsibility on the part of the people not to misuse its power – e.g. to cut taxes. It is recently reported that California has financial problems, with its law, (passed by CIR), preventing any increase in tax without a two thirds majority in the legislature.
One problem with CIR is that it makes no provision for discussion in local forums to deepen the peoples understanding of the issue, leaving the media to be too influential. But it does give some involvement of the people.
What do you think?

President Netanyahu’s visit to President Obama

The reports of this visit indicate that President Obama is not inclined to give Israel just what it happens to want. Good for him! This is plainly upsetting to Israel, and some of its friends in the West. Israel has become accustomed to getting whatever it wants.

At particular issue at the moment is the area of East Jerusalem which Palestine sees as essential for its eventual capital. Israel sees it as just another bit of their land, pretty much the same as any other, e.g. Tel Aviv they say— nothing special to Israel just another part of their land—but very important to the Palestinians. To Israel it is plainly ‘dog-in-the-manger’ stuff.

What is very plain is that the reasonable Palestinian desire for a sovereign state will never be possible without refusing some of the Israeli demands. It is hoped that President Obama will be able to stand fast on a just solution. That is a tall order as there are far too many ‘friends of Israel’, not only in the US, but here as well. I was startled to hear Rudd say: ‘I’ve been a friend of Israel all my life!’ Exactly, why is that?

Do the sufferings of the Palestinians from the invasion of their land sixty years ago mean nothing to us? Sure, the UN was justified in helping the Jews. But the UN has quite reasonably sought to help the Palestinians too over many years, but has been consistently blocked from doing so. Why can that be?

Unproductive conflict

Friends,
The state of the world and the incompetence of the present standard of democracy—based on competition and conflict—here and worldwide sadden me. With politicians doing to each other ‘whatever it takes’ to gain or retain power, ethics, morality go out the window. And the last resort is guns and bombs.

Leaders in conflict achieve far less than a cooperative team in our parliament would be able to do—with far less personal angst and far more positive outcomes.

Ballots in parliaments can cure all this, by opening up the decision-making processes to the people. Non-party government based on a secret-ballot system of voting in parliament will certainly be much stronger, much wiser, and longer sighted than all current democracies.

Ministers would be free to devote their full attention to their departments, having been elected thereto by their fellow members. Parliamentary debate would be free of invective, very objective, and swiftly arrive at the best solutions to difficult problems, gaining the respect of the people; including many members of the population, at various levels, who are in practical revolt against authority, requiring an escalation of laws and increased problems and responsibilities for law-enforcement agencies.

This vision awakens hope for representation by independents, chosen by the people, each in a practical partnership with constituents in regular local forums, involving significant numbers of concerned citizens, and a much better informed electorate.

The Secret Ballot Party seeks members from among responsible citizens to pursue this vision of open, sensible, and effective government. Membership is presently free. Apply by email or telephone 61 03 9800 2561.

Israel hardens stance against US demands

There are two fallacies in the above heading (The Age 18/3).
Firstly, Israel’s hard-nosed insistence that it was chosen by God to possess all of Palestine has never changed in sixty years. What has changed is that the Obama administration is putting a new pressure on them to agree to a two state solution, and

Secondly, ’Demands’ suggests that the US will be able to insist on a satisfactory solution. Let’s face it; the idea of a Palestinian sovereign state terrifies Israel. A sovereign Palestine would have an army and exclude the IDF, leaving the settlers at the mercy of the new state. But successive American presidents (and the UN) have tried their best to turn around Israel’s refusal of a two-state solution and the tide of aggressive settlement in the West Bank, to no avail. So Hilary Clinton’s claim ‘that the two nations “shared common values and a commitment to a democratic future for the world”’ is ridiculous!

The majority of Americans would certainly want to see a just solution, but why is it that ‘the most powerful democracy on earth’ can do nothing? Do these ‘shared values’ include a religious conviction that God did indeed promise the descendants of Abraham all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates? God's promises have never have been unconditional. So,let’s remember the times God directed their expulsion for ignoring the conditions of the promise – godliness.

The outcome of the ‘US demands’ will be informative.

‘Power but no passion’

‘Power but no passion’ Shaun Carney writes (The Age 17/3), about our fearless leader, Kevin Rudd. But power and passion are the hallmarks of those in history responsible for the most mess—and carnage—Napoleon, Hitler etc. Lesser people have to pick up the pieces and start again.

Tony Abbott, criticised on all sides over his ‘paid-parental-leave’ extravagance, insists that ‘the government’ is the main issue—i.e. the policies are not so important—the real policy being to attack, disrupt, and dislodge the government—and take power, banking on the help of a fickle electorate

Presumably, passion is all you need to win the ‘hearts and minds’.
Is it any wonder that governments never have the political capital necessary to successfully conquer the hard problems? Charismatic leaders may (temporally) win our hearts and minds, but intelligence; drive and ethics would surely be preferable qualities for leadership.. However, our present system of government does not lean that way.

In fact, although politics is a mess, and generally regarded with something like contempt—sometimes amused, sometimes angry—the ‘politics industry’, whether in media or academia, studiously avoids any question of a need for change— in contrast to every other field of human endeavour.

Democracy needs revision from time to time, to keep up with changed social and economic conditions. Well, this has always been the responsibility of the people or, shall we say, of responsible people.

Knives at School

With the government proposing random search for knives etc, the opposition cries foul, for stealing its policy. How ridiculous, and childish! Moreover, it makes plain that the parties‘competition for political success and power takes preference over the serious need for good governance. Will the politicians ever pull together, short of the country being invaded?
We live in a world with a desperate need for good governance, but the best we have come up with so far is a tainted and corrupt democracy.
The Secret Ballot Party is a call for the reformation of parliament, for a much Better Democracy, which alone can, with a significant opportunity for involvement of the people, provide the good governance we need, and can proudly show the world how strong government and ‘the fair go’ are compatible goals - (having resolved the plight of our indigenes of course). ‘The love of democracy is the love of others', refusing power for the wellbeing of all.
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will finally know peace. Jimi Hendrix US rock musician & singer (1942 - 1970)

Taxation + Climate change

Taxation
In an intriguing article, Chris Middendorp (The Age 22/2/10) claims that taxation is a privilege of membership in our society, because of all the services undertaken by government to enhance our quality of life.
Despite the elaborate efforts of many to reduce their tax bill, what he says is quite true. The problem of course, boils down to this - what does the government do with the money it collects. As has been said, people would be happier about taxation if they were more confident about the way governments spend it.

Here we see the age-old problem of our dissatisfaction with our democracy. Good though it is, there is still far too much room for our politicians to push ahead with their own ideas without listening to the public point of view.
Our democracy is badly in need of revision, to enable the people at large to have some real say in government, during the period between elections, making government far more accountable - all the time.

This,of course, as we have said so many times, requires a radical revision of the voting system in parliament to make all representatives independent, and the ministers all answerable to the vote of all the members.

To indulge in a little fantasy, people might then be proud to have their tax contribution to society open to the public gaze, their contribution to society being just as honourable as large charitable donations.

Climate change
'Political power plays deliver short-sighted policy stand-offs’ (the Age 22/2 p 10). How can we get good government, with good long-term policies being embraced and implemented, while we still have the nonsense of party politics? Isn't it about time to wake up Australia, and deal with this nonsense?

Where is the trumpet blast calling us to national revival?

Our future problems – population etc.

Our future problems – population etc.
Kerry O’Brien quite reasonably tackled Kevin Rudd on the 7.30 Report tonight over the government’s acceptance of a high level of population in coming years.
There are many concerns over water sufficiency, land use and food, urban planning, schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure, not to mention green house gases, and pressures on social cohesion, all of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of allowing the increases in population mooted -35m by 2050.
Such an increase means sustained migration levels are likely, but economic benefits can also follow, including a mitigation of skills shortages and the economic effects of population aging.
Then again we have an important role to play internationally as a leading, stable democracy, which will benefit from such increases in population.
With regard to social cohesion Rudd was able to draw attention to the number of times we have received waves of migrants from various countries but difficulties have generally vanished in the next generation. This reflects our solid social stability which manifests itself through the schooling of the young.
However, what really stands out is that there are a mammoth number of problems to be resolved in the coming years and raises the question of how these had best be faced. The style of our politics is reflected in the aggressive nature of the questioning of the Prime Minister on the 7.30 Report. The business of holding the government to account, which is the nature of our adversarial system, prompts the question: can we afford the hindrances and distractions created by having two sources of political power, in what appears to be a useless competition for the privileges of power.
We hear good reports of Singapore and its government, tackling the modern problems of youth disorientation, having long ago resolved the problem of rubbish in the streets!
What can we do to have a more efficient mode of governance, to successfully deal with the many problems looming – without conflict or resort to limiting the freedoms we hold dear. There must be a way – surely.

A Moral Issue

Saturday 20/2/10

Friends

The media today are having a ball with the shambles in our democracy. The prospect of a real democracy reminds me of the challenge that Hercules (Heracles) faced in cleaning out thirty years of dung in the Augean stables, in one day.

Strange as it may seem, the mess in our democracy can also all be swept away in one day - were we to eliminate the present system of open voting in our parliaments, which produces and supports every objectionable feature of our governmental system.

For example, ministers are answerable to the Prime Minister only. So Conroy can arrogantly refuse to disclose details of conversation with Murdoch. How come he is even talking to him. And Garrett is too busy to heed letters warning about the dangers of the rushed insulation program.


The point is that all communication should be through parliament with minsters serving and satisfying the parliament (of freely voting independents) or be sacked by vote of parliament. None of the present news furore would then occur, with all problems long settled by ministers' diligent attention to their responsibilities. And media turning from sensational stuff to in-depth analysis of the real problems. Do I really need to say more?

The rottenness at the top leaves the rest of society demoralised, and every evil unchecked.

Why do we, the people, not act to 'clean out the 'stables'? Good men are corrupted by the immorality of party politics. Where is the strong moral leadership - to put an end to it? We can't be bothered? After all, it is only necessary to agree that change must happen, and take the tiny step of membership for the New Democracy - a moral challenge if ever there was one.

Cockfighting in parliaments

Friends,
In a constructive comment on the party political scene, in this election year, Tim Colebatch (Age 16/2) has upstaged all the political commentators with his insightful comment headed: 'The Climate of division hurts us all. The cockfight mentality of Australian politics fails to deliver when hard decisions with long term effects need to be taken.' Absolutely.

Leaders with power and brains are common. So are leaders with riches and popularity. But a competent leader full of integrity and skill, coupled with sincerity, is rare indeed. (Charles Swindoll in ‘Insight for ‘Living’.)

Left to themselves, leaders so often get it wrong. Why? Because they go their own way. And we let them! Blame the system? Well, why not change it?

We forget to our hurt that democracy means 'people' share in ruling, not just politicians.
Where is the infrastructure for the practical input of the people?

William Lederer, in ‘The Anguished American’ writes, page 227: (italics amending)
‘If many of us actively discuss the subjects which trouble us, if many of us scratch and dig for ideas and solutions, then we can hope to move ahead. Even if our individual solutions are not perfect, still, the continued efforts and expressed ideas of several million citizens cannot help but have a cumulative result. The effect— and there is no doubt about this—will nourish and vitalise the nation. Such is the strength of a democracy. It is only apathy, lack of interest, and fear which can destroy us.'

Democracy means participation is a privilege and responsibility of us all. It cannot get it right, and flourish, without the care of the people.

What sort of people are we?

Do we courageously accept, or supinely avoid, the serious challenge of our time?

Our parliamentary democracy is among the best in the world, but it is badly flawed, like them all, with the inevitable corruption of institutionalised power, beyond the ability of the people to keep in check.

While there are many who care, there are very few who take action - for fear of change. Why do we, the people, passively accept being governed erratically, corruptly, by self-serving parties, instead of exercising the right of intelligent self-government through a parliament filled with independent representatives, answerable to us – alone?

Change demands vision of what should be, the courage to accept the challenge, and the integrity to accept the cost, the fear of which paralyses logical action. It has been truly said that change, even for the better, is never accomplished without difficulty.

The change required, to return government to people and parliament, is simple – a change of the voting system in parliament, to the secret ballot, to put a stop to the control of MPs votes by group interests, both in and out of parliament.

Until political power is returned to the people, the threat of politicians waging war will always be on the cards and, as Helen Thomas, veteran White House journalist says: ‘If we care about the children, the grandchildren, the future generations, we need to make sure that they do not become the cannon fodder of the future’.

Another Approach!

The Melbourne Age, 8/1, is adamant that “Military ‘shock and awe’ won’t overcome terrorism”, which clearly requires a ‘smarter approach’. The US response to terrorism in the eight years since 9/11 has proved singularly ineffective, with its destruction and carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the exposure of Al Qaida involvement in Yemen and the growing political ambiguity in Pakistan would indicate an increasing possibility of US failure to contain the terrorist danger, let alone to succeed in punishing ‘the terrorist base’, which is basically guerrilla in its operation and not susceptible to defeat by armies. Bearing in mind the debacle of Vietnam, the obvious conclusion is that the US approach has only made its position worse, and the hope that Obama might have better success with the planned increase in troops in Afghanistan, is far from convincing.

It is not surprising that there is now considerable public doubt about the value, or the virtue, if any, in maintaining the policy of a military solution to achieve the answers sort. What is becoming odd is that our politicians, of both sides, are determined to continue military support for the US when most Australians are opposed. This is shaky ground.

Another approach is long overdue. Edward de Bono’s concept of ‘lateral thinking’ must come to the rescue!

Western democracy has not bothered to win the hearts and minds in the world. The US especially has misused its power, interfering militarily in the politics of many countries, in support of trading interests. Furthermore, and importantly, it has consistently favoured Israel and failed the Palestinians in their quest for a separate state. While many Muslims may be troubled by Islamic terrorism, there is no hope of militant jihadists losing substantial Muslim support while these things remain.

Both our democracy, and Christianity, are shamed.

God in control ?

God in Control ! ?


Friends,
I sometimes hear, from time, God is in control and I wonder how, exactly.. What about Hitler? Was he under God’s control? And what about Stalin – and Pol Pot. Eventually they were brought to book, but were not noticeably hindered in their murderous sprees.

And in our society, do sense and a cooperative spirit prevail; in our homes, on our streets, in our public institutions, and especially in our political world.
Is the Golden Rule regarded? Are our streets safe from violence? Do the ‘meek inherit’, or just get pushed around? So, is God in control, and if so in what sense?

I have sometimes answered that question by saying God rules in blessing and cursing.
A selfish, self-centred life has a payoff – the curse of a troubled spirit and bad outcomes – especially if the troubled spirit is ignored.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting,
With exactness grinds He all. Longfellow

But, for those who live unselfish lives, fulfilling the needs of others less fortunate, there is a spiritual reward – as it is said ‘virtue is its own reward’. There is truth in that, the blessing of fulfilment and inner peace. But only if there is no dwelling on the thought of reward in the doing of it - and a patience which is based on an assurance which springs from the reserves from the spirit of love within, which is of God by a living faith.
We see in the carol, ‘Joy to the world’:
‘He rules the world with truth and grace,
And makes the nations prove
The glories of His righteousness,
And wonders of His love.’

There is, and always will be, a cost for those who are part of the solution instead of being part of the problem, but love does not even know about, let alone count, the cost.
A safe, happy Christmas to all!

A New Slant on NO States

{My friend Charles Mollison, of the Foundation for National Revival has a somewhat different take on how to get rid of party politics. His proposal reduces electorates to five thousand with representatives all meeting in local regional assemblies. Reading between his lines, they would become the obvious choice of the people in local meetings, not personally seek office.
They would obviously have no need for airline travel, or absence from family life, and would probably be unpaid – just honoured as ‘Our Members’.
Quite a thought.
What do you think? The idea of regional parliaments (instead of state parliaments) has quite a long history, but this is a new slant!

Ballots in Parliament.

This subject must never be off the agenda, because party politics is a corruption of democracy and creates more problems than it can ever solve. Democracy, as it stands, endangers the world and all its countries with its corruption and injustice, leading inevitably to the wars which constantly afflict the world.

Party politics is about power and dominance - ‘whatever it takes’ - but democracy is about intelligence and persuasion, which cannot prevail in the absence of the sobering control of the ballot, in our parliaments.

The people must determine the issues, not political party leaders. Ballots in parliament alone will make all MPs independent and give them a sincere, intense interest in all their relationships with the constituents. This will rectify what is a most important element of public concern today - the deliberate exclusion of the people from effective access to the decision-making process. All decisions by ballot in parliament will also quickly stimulate the involvement of the people. This is why the Secret Ballot Party stands for ballots in parliament - and nothing else.

Interest Rates - the 'Cure all'!

The cosseted big-four banks rarely have a bad year – while farmers have suffered many drought years!
The Reserve Bank (RBA) is steadily setting new rates, for fear of inflation as increases in demand outstrip economic capacity, bringing pain to business, farmers and householders on mortgages.
The Western world has demonstrated its preference for consumption rather than savings which accentuates the problem for the RBA – how to keep inflation at bay.
An aging population drives concern over the future cost of pensions together with the likely inadequacy of superannuation funds to provide adequacy of funding for retirement lifestyles.
A recent suggestion demands government attention. Since savings for future retirement and aged care are unlikely to be adequate and there is the need to dampen consumer consumption, it has been suggested that this is just the time to increase the compulsory level of contribution to super funds – from, I think, around nine percent to something like twelve percent.

The Putdown

From time to time we all suffer the pain of unappreciative, uncaring, disrespectful attitudes with which we are treated.

The worst case scenario, where someone is so evilly treated that they give up on life, is so highly regrettable and shocking to us all, as in the case of the death of Brodie Rae Constance Panlock, where workplace safety laws so deplorably failed her.

That we even need workplace safety laws is a terrible indictment on our society, and the fact that they are unable to protect a young life such as hers demonstrates how feeble are ever-expanding laws to achieve acceptable levels of morality in the community.

Depleted morality is reflected where the strong lack compassion and the weak lack the inner reserves of an experience of unconditional love – the only real anchor of the soul. We all need it. We all owe it.

That which divides (or unites) us.

The Age (3rd Dec.) quotes Family first Senator, Steve Fielding, speaking in the Senate yesterday. He brilliantly summarised our country’s (and the world’s) problem, saying “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is very difficult … because it polarises people”! Can we name an issue that does not?

The comment of Tony Abbott (The Age 2nd Dec. p 4), on his succession to the role of leader of the Federal Liberal Party is revealing. He ‘was confident few Liberal senators, if any, would split from the party’s new stance. “They owe their careers to the party and they will not lightly do that.”’ (My italics) Strong glue!

We note that the secret ballot for elections regularly, and quietly, succeeds in uniting the people behind the political parties they favour, even though they have little idea of the ultimate actions of those for whom they vote!

Just consider; the secret ballot in parliament would unite the members freely behind each specific issue worthy of majority support, being accountable, as independents, to their electorates alone.

Issues of religion have certainly manifested the divisiveness of doctrines. At present The Parliament of the World’s religions has convened in Melbourne. Are the participants here to unite behind peaceful social policies? A real synthesis of views, especially leading to the freedom of individual choice, would be very welcome.

But Jesus said: "I come not to bring peace, but … a sword". Now there’s a conundrum for the many that look for ‘peace on earth and goodwill to men’ (or is it to men of goodwill?). The cross of Jesus calls us to a life of self-denial and love for others. If that life is an offence to some, who feel condemned by it, it is because they have never known God; which explains the division of which ‘the sword’ is emblematic only. The Spirit calls us to a new freedom - a life of love ‘against which there is no law’.

Privacy Laws

A hospital visit to a neighbour proved interesting. When we got to the ward we found and an empty bed. Enquiring of the nursing staff where the patient might be we were informed that disclosure of the patient’s whereabouts was forbidden by the privacy laws. What could we do?

We were lucky. Down the corridor we examined the trinkets for sale and taking advantage of another browser we voiced our complaint about the nonsensical application of privacy laws. As we voiced our frustration an older staff member overheard and furtively murmured the name of another hospital, to which we gratefully repaired and completed our visit.

The blind obedience of the ward staff to obligatory rules and our complete inability to challenge the senseless of it, is just part of a much wider problem. No matter what our frustration and helplessness with the actions of government and the powerlessness of ‘representatives’, nothing can be done unless public anger swells to the point of exasperation and people take to the streets in protest on one troubling issue. But to deal with all our dissatisfactions we would all have to be fulltime activists!

A serving politician in the Victorian Parliament was asked the question: ‘What would happen if parliaments made all decisions by a ballot of the members?’ The terse reply – ‘It would make MPs accountable’. A young government whip once said: ‘It would make my job hard’. No, impossible!

Picture this! Each MP (after the adoption of the ballot) would have no party feathers to fly with. (I recently asked my (party) representative, if he would have been elected if he stood as an independent. He instantly acknowledged: ‘NO’!) It is quite evident that MPs would then be vulnerable (and accountable) because they would have to convene regular local meetings, and face frequent penetrating questions from the gathering of citizens. Certainly, an early question would highlight the public dissatisfaction with the excessive restrictive powers of the privacy laws, and a demand for their amelioration.

With parties excluded from parliament by the ballot, the people would be free to press for immediate action, and every MP would have the power to take personal and prompt responsibility for the woes of his/her electorate. !

A Republic? Once more!

Someone has pressed the button again. Fair enough, it had to come. But are we simply seeing a rerun of the blame game and empty clichés?

The monarchy is favoured by conservative interests and the ‘It ain't broke’ syndrome, while the republican advocates merely insist that we must have a popular election model and that a president’s powers could be well codified to protect our parliamentary system. That must be explained - in the detail that we need to know.

The desire for an elected president evolves, I suspect, from the dissatisfaction of the people with the power and confusion of party politics. But this will not be changed by an elected president who is isolated from political power.

Anyway, the need for a figure head rather smacks of introspection and nationalism, which is really getting to be dated, in view of our growing involvement with global problems, reluctant though we may be.

The world, is riddled with problems, from the top (corruption) to the bottom (poverty and despair), despite one hundred and fifty years of Western democracy, because the people are too isolated from the process, without the power to move governments to effect change, and (consequently) a diminished sense of responsibility.

John Pilger, 2009 recipient of the Sydney Peace prize, in his speech, ’Breaking the Australian Silence’ (The Age, 6/11) laments the ‘carefully calibrated illusion’ of national pride in "flags and war’" while we look at injustice with the "silence" of the uninvolved.'

I suspect that our isolation from the decision-making process is at the root of our silence, and the impression that politics has nothing to do with morality.

Palestine - fond hopes dashed.

Any fond hopes, we might have had, that Barack Obama’s America could set to rights the ‘peace process’ in Palestine, have been swiftly dashed today by Jason Katsoukis’ Analysis. (The Age 5/10, p11).

Katsoukis comments that ‘Netanyahu is emerging as the region’s most skilled political player’, ‘outfoxing Obama on settlements (they will not cease), and forcing ‘the US to adopt his own approach of emphasising improved ... security conditions’, (no doubt continued freedom of operation of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank) instead of peace talks without preconditions, as President Obama had called for, before the United Nations.

Israel has already made it clear that it will never agree to a sovereign state of Palestine - with a military capacity.

Meanwhile, President Abbas, refusing talks without a freeze of new settlements (on US advice), has been comprehensively humiliated, causing understandable Arab 'outrage'.

Israeli defiance, and American weakness, with respect to spreading settlements in the West Bank, goes far back. No US president has succeeded in attempts to persuade Israel to desist due, perhaps, to concern over the Holocaust, and the power of the Jewish lobby. Nor has the UN any useful handle on power to successfully intervene -- with its rulings ignored.

We should ask ourselves: Can the threat of ‘terrorism’ ever be resolved by force of arms, without a solution to this outstanding injustice, causing the hatred at its root?

'United we stand, divided we fall'

'United we stand, divided we fall'*. The government is now tied in knots
over its endeavour to treat the Sri Lanka asylum seekers with
compassion. It will probably have to revise its stance, to the delight
of its critics.
Clearly, our adversarial system of government is stupid.
The ballot solves elections with a minimum of fuss. Applied in
parliament, the ballot would repeat that success with all issues,
improving decisions at all levels, calming useless conflict and
eliciting respect for our government here and across the world. Just do
it.
'United we stand, divided we fall'.

*Aesop, of Aesop's Fables

Decisions, decisions!!!

Decisions, decisions, representing both the problem and the opportunity of mankind, are the unavoidable precursors to effective action, in both personal and communal life, to produce the results desired and guard against the troubles to be avoided.
That’s politics in all its dimensions, from the curse of bad decisions to the euphoria of sweet success. But, do the sufferings and the rewards descend equally on all. That too is politics. Is it good enough?

I have just finished reading Taylor Branch’s masterly coverage of the Negro search for freedom and dignity in America, from the Civil War to the march on Washington that concluded a long series of struggles against the political segregation which, along with the deeply manifested hate, lay so disastrously heavy on the Negroes, in the South especially.

But this detailed history covering some nine hundred pages also revealed the dysfunction of the separate government institutions which so effectively stood in the way of righting widespread, severe wrongs. Clearly, America is still in turmoil today, with high aims for itself and the world, but enormous dissent. Has the ‘democracy’, which she seeks to implant in the East, real credibility?

But where do we stand? We are quite different and it has been said that our Prime Minister has more power than an American President. But both are at odds with the varied manifestations of representative government – small parties and state powers. Difficulties abound and critically question the reality of the democracy so often claimed. There are many who are worried – how can the many problems of the present – and the future - be resolved in a desirable climate of peace? Our democracy needs reform. The ballot in parliament is sound but has appealed to few. Where else can we look?

A Queensland group, The Foundation for National Renewal, have conceived an entirely new basis of democratic government, in which fifty representatives of quite small electorates (5000) would meet in regional parliaments (covering 250000), which would each send a representative to the National Parliament. These representatives would rejoin their regional parliaments on the Friday of each sitting week, thus enabling cross conferencing and integrating government of all levels automatically. So, what do you think of that?
Check http://www.national-renewal.org.au/ for more detail.

Symposium again!

A VIP at the Symposium (self-defined 'Very Irish Person'), complained volubly about 'Compulsory Voting'.
1. Barry Jones explained that it is not compulsory voting, only compulsory attendance at the polling booth, (with your use of the secret vote or not being up to you). The aim is to make parliament, as much as possible, truly representative of the whole secretly-voting population. But does this democratic correctness maximise popular support of the government?
2. By a further requirement, all squares on the voting paper must be correctly completed, enabling the two leading contenders to share all transferred preferences, giving the winner over 50% of the vote, invulnerability in the Lower House, and the Prime Minister nearly dictatorial power - to the frustration of the Opposition and many of the people!
3. In other countries the percentage of people voting is often quite low. Britain, for example, has first-past-the-post voting, and government is won without preferences, and less than 50% of the vote. There the party government's rule is more flexible, except where a policy is determined by a 'three-line whip' making member conformance mandatory.
4. The real point of course is that the ruling party power derives its undemocratic power by its control of parliamentary voting in the absence of secret voting in the House. The cure is dead easy for a populace which might become inclined to take an elementary interest in the government of their country.

Democracy’s Failure

As I ‘look’ around the world, I see nothing but trouble, and the more trouble I see the more I think to myself: ‘Wouldn’t it be good if only we had democracy – instead of power politics from shire councils up. At every level, from local to global, policies and decisions are determined in the adversarial context created by the virtually unhindered acquisition of political power and consequent advantage – the so frequent failing of mankind in matching greed and a disrespect for the second commandment – ‘to love thy neighbour as thyself.’.

While experimental models abound, serious flaws prevail. Democracy suffers from the lack of a true model anywhere, in place or time. Even the Athenian democracy from whence the dream of democracy sprang, is picked over by the cynics, to ‘prove’ that it can never be achieved, so why bother. Certainly, slaves had no vote but, throughout the people generally there must have been a remarkable generosity of spirit amongst the people, even for the dream to be born, and also lived for a time.
Their decisions were simply reached in open meetings of the people, with opinions of all freely expressed, until desirable solutions became obvious, and no longer challenged. Thus the people made the rules by which they were governed. Quaker meetings today betray a similar principle of operation, reflecting the regard that they have for each other. It is apparent that mutual respect is encouraged in this context and tends towards becoming the norm in a climate of trust.

Thus the genius of theoretical democracy lies in its design that no one might dominate another. But, what has happened to sabotage the theory, to the serious disadvantage, and risk, to us all?
Principles of peaceful governance fail us from the local level, to the state, nation and the world. Leaders are treated with contumely and even their lives sometimes threatened by individuals and groups who are dissatisfied with current trends in policy. It is reported that the net is alive with threats to the life of President Obama, in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’.

At present I am reading the story of Afghan independent MP, Malalai Joya whose life is under continual threat, and before her expulsion from parliament her microphone was cut off if she dared to speak, because she would not refrain from exposing the criminality of the warlords who control Afghanistan with the support of America and its allies, including Australia.

The world is struggling uphill with mounting problems, with its peoples’ ideal of self-government wrecked on the rocky shores of ideology and religion. Democracy, which belongs to the people, is secular, standing for the public interest, the wellbeing of the people, but it has lost the battle with the self-interest of the people. Is that the way we really want it to be? There are some ‘stirrings in the tree tops’, but a national revival of the will of the people is essential.

‘Israel, US toil to break impasse.’

This Age heading (16/9) implies that both are agreed on a desired outcome. That could be true were it a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians they were seeking together. However, the ‘impasse’ referred to, concerns the basic stumbling block in the long-running attempts at peace negotiations between Israel and the leaders of the Palestinians, whose aspiration for a national identity has being steadily demolished, by the settler ‘invasion’ of the West Bank.
The article clearly indicates that: ‘Israeli president, Mr. Netanyahu, told members of the Israeli parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that he had defied American requests to stop construction completely’. US presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, acting on behalf of an ineffective UN, have been unable to secure the necessary cooperation of Israeli governments.
Settlement continues unabated, with Israeli settlers in the West bank constantly growing in numbers supported by the IDF.
The whole tenor of the article denies the impression given by the article’s headline, which I find puzzling, to say the least. The world has waited since 1948 for this standoff to be resolved and the plight of the Palestinians to be respected.

Palestinian peace talks

The Age today (27/8) published an article: 'Truth
is the way to peace' by Jonathan Freedland from the English 'Guardian',
in which he writes: 'Peace may have stayed out of reach because for too
long we refused to confront the true causes of this war', which are more
than a century old, even then ignoring such reasons for hatred as the
favoured son dispute between Ishmael and Isaac the favoured son and
ancestor of a 'chosen' people. It is worth noting that both Judaism and
Islam have long rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, Prince of Peace,
as well as rejecting the second commandment: 'to love thy neighbour'at.

For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.

While Palestinians, and Israelis generally, want to live in peace, the
sticking points are numerous.
Most Palestinians would accept Israel just as Israelis generally would
accept a Palestinian state, but Israel will not accept a Palestine with
any military capacity, which would seem to mean they would live under
Israeli rule - hardly a happy result for Palestinians.

On a different tack, Israel has the serious demographic problem of the
Israeli Arabs, with their large families, fearing Jewish minority
status. Israel proposes to make these Arabs swear allegiance to a Jewish
state, or have no vote. Palestinian prospects of freedom look dim.

In fact, the very strength of the Palestinian resistance, the
willingness of martyrs to die, now proves a substantial hindrance to an
honourable outcome to the peace process. Arab aggression, in war or
with rockets and suicide bombers, has solved nothing, only prolonging
the agony, with Palestinian losses, whether fighters or civilians,
always being far in excess of the enemy losses; as for example in the
recent Gaza Strip conflict, where rockets killed hundreds, but the IDF
killed some 3 1/2 thousand.

However, the major problem may turn out to be, again, that American
presidents' power to secure an answer to this problem is seriously
compromised by the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. The
Spooner cartoon accompanying the above article shows an uncertain Barack
Obama, with a huge 'rock' to roll away. The rock is labelled MIDDLE
EATERN/ ANTI - SEMITISM. That's wierd! In 1948 most of the Arab
population fled in terror to refugee camps. Is that any basis for
believing in a satisfactory answer at this stage without a truly
powerful peacemaker - and a really fair answer?

Underdogs – Part I

Football

Martin Flanagan (The Age 31/8) gives a history of the fluctuating fortunes of Melbourne’s various football teams over the last seventy five years. In all sports there are winners and losers. The question: ‘Which team will be premiers?’ occupies many minds over the football season, not least those of the players themselves, and not forgetting those who tip the weekly.
However, in competitive sports, what makes some winners, and others losers, is not easy to assess the possible outcome attracts much interest, analysis – and guesswork. For many, quite a bit is at stake, and consequently the interest of the public is presently heading for the crescendo of a close final game
Captains, coaches, and of course the players, are all important but, often teams are favoured with the support of backers, wealthy or otherwise influential, which can tip the balance with an important moral support, rescuing the team from its underdog status.

Palestine – ‘Farmers’ struggle to harvest beset by a faceless menace’ (The Age 31/8).
There are places where the unfairness of the ‘competition’ is so entrenched that the underdogs have so little chance of escape that there is virtually no hope for a reasonable future. The above story – on page eight – does not appear in the Online Age, which means that, as papers disappear, underdogs’ troubles will be less and less visible for a concerned public to see.
The fact is that there are Palestinian farmers who suffer attacks form masked settlers whose homes adjoin their farms, with crops and buildings burnt, orchards surrounded by encroaching settler homes and poisoned, without any chance of protection or redress. Put simply, the Israeli settlers do as they please, with a mere token response from the IDF (Israel Defence Force, apparently there to defend the settlers!) and no settler in danger of being punished.
The settlements, without official approval, but the effective support of the Israeli government, occupy much of the Palestinian West Bank, making it virtually impossible for there ever to be a Palestinian homeland, despite the repeated efforts of America, and others over many years to make this happen.
The Palestinians are truly underdogs - a case of a religion creating a virtually insoluble problem and democracy not finding a solution.

History

For the history of this conflict, reference may be made to:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html and
http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm.

Political shambles.

'With governments like this in charge'. So runs the heading over the Age letter of 7/8 by John Gemmell,
as he fumes about government approaches to political campaign funding, stumbling water policy, public fear mongering, secrecy, and dismissal of expert opinion. (continue at http://secretballot.blogspot.com/)

Indeed, as we see the fruitless confrontation in Canberra over climate change, with personal pride being the dominant factor hindering the kind of intelligent interaction that a believer in democracy might hope for, is it any wonder that we see discouragement rampant in the community?
We are assured in the Bible that 'the powers that be are ordained by God'. Well, that leaves us in a bit of a quandary. The comment: 'Why do we do it?' rings a tiny bell somewhere. Yes, why? In fact we do do it - we vote them in and we vote them out. That's it! That's the extent of our political engagement!
Shaun Carney writes, (The Age 12/8): 'What we're seeing is the failure of the established political parties and the political system itself to generate a discussion, a revolt - anything at all - on one of the great issues of our time.' Where is the public engagement? Indeed, where is it? That is apart from the media, which does nothing to bring opposed view together where a synthesis can operate.
The same thing applies to the experts. We get scattered views but no resolution, enabling one 'expert' (The Age 13/8) such as Dr Gordon Cheyne (Dr. of what?) to assert confidently that there is no such thing as dangerous climate change.
We need a political process that resolves problems, quickly, securely, eliminating political heat (which achieves nothing at all).
Meanwhile, suggestions are made that party campaigns should be publicly funded, so the totally corrupt practice of allowing the flow of vested interest funds to the parties (cash for a chat to a minister), can be arrested. Isn't it quite ludicrous that we should even consider lavishing public money on the parties to enlarge the very campaigns they use to fight for power, while doing nothing to increase opportunities for our involvement as intelligent participants? They just don't care about political reform, do they?
Our political process needs modernising, but not in a manner that might suit the powers-that-be. As Alfred E. Smith (a former governor of New York) once said: 'All the evils of democracy can be cured by more democracy'.

Human Beings are created equal !

Human Beings are indeed created equal Vincent Zankin (The Age 7/8), but in another sense, are made equal, before the law, by the law of the land.

Thus the refusal of terrorism suspect Nayef El Sayed to stand before the magistrate, in court, constitutes a punishable charge of contempt of court - a breach of the rule of law.

Australian law prevails throughout this land with no ifs or buts. Minority views or beliefs, religious or otherwise, contrary to existing law, cannot prevail against the Australian law.
The beliefs and practises of religions are individual but, ideally, have a separate, public role to play, assisting and encouraging believers in the growth of citizen and leadership qualities, as an outcome of their faith.

Two Kinds of People

There are two kinds of people in this world - the strong and the weak. Democracy, the brainchild of the Athenians, was conceived as a way for the latter to keep the former in order.
How is it working out? It’s not.

Our media is full of the struggles of minorities for justice, or even a real hearing. This is the constant story, throughout the whole spectrum of society, both national and international. Examples are legion.
Take economics. In 2006 Nouriel Roubini was contemptuously labelled Dr. Doom for predicting in detail the process which resulted in the global financial crisis. He is now (for a brief time) famous, with David Hirst (The Age 6/8) noting his Australian visit ‘from Cassandra to super star’. His fame will, no doubt, soon be brushed aside by the ‘wisdom’ of the gung-ho ‘experts’, whose hubris caused the problem in the first place.

The work of Jimmy Carter in easing US relations with North Korea was wrecked by the aggressive George Bush, resulting in the acute nuclear weapons stand-off, which was behind the arrest of two US journalists. Now we see Bill Clinton, after a ‘soft’ independent visit to North Korea, returning with both of them.

A very real issue is that party governments of all kinds are practically impervious to the wisdom of the people amongst whom are very often those who can see the imminent danger, but live with the frustration (and helpless fury?) of being steadfastly ignored. (The policies on ‘water’ and climate change come immediately to mind.) Meanwhile the juggernaut of partisan government rolls on, arrogant, tone deaf, too weak to do what is necessary, but strong enough to juggle experimental responses to vital issues, afraid to listen.

The Godwin Grech affair is another casualty of our partisan style power structure. As a public servant, his responsibility was unquestionably to serve the new government, but the length of stay of the coalition government made him a Liberal convert with an attitude which should have disqualified him as a public servant.
(That Turnbull was willing to take advantage of his inappropriate illegal loyalties casts a long shadow over his democratic character.) None of this would have been remotely possible within a ballot parliament.

The home-birth issue is another case of threatening government dismissal of the importance of minority values. It maybe that the risks to mother and child are too great to accept. But where is the forum for all sides to be adequately heard. For a minority to lose the argument can be accepted if the process fully and fairly canvasses all the facts, without government or other dominance, and the process will permit a rerun of the issue, after an interval, if fresh facts indicate that it should be.

As I write, i have a visit from a builder. He tells me of nine months delay to get the building permits from the Council for three verandah roofs (for which he already has the deposits).

The point is that minorities make a lot of noise because they fear that without that they will never be heard. Then governments resist with more or less force out of fear.


Nothing can really be final in the affairs of the nation, other than declaring war – in which case a very large percentage free vote (90%?) ) in parliament would be essential.

We are not children, or sheep. We are not ignorant, we can think, although, by having the opportunity available to take part in active participation, we could think better and more deeply.

When will we learn that pure democracy is needed to dissipate all this fear, frustration, and anger. In view of government resistance to reasonable change, many are convinced that we should have a ‘bill of rights’ to let the courts have the government on a leash. But control could be, and should be, by the people - not the courts. Rights merely set the people against government, whereas government should be in a realistic way answerable to a confident people, with a confident voice.

Without this advance (to non-partisan government (via the ballot in parliaments), there is no chance of a successful world government. If we don’t wake up to the absolute need for change, Armageddon is a very real possibility. We are the best people to get this ball rolling, if we will only believe - and take appropriate action. Join the Secret Ballot Party - for free.
basilsmith@sfastmail.fm

Ethics etc

Dr. Lindy Edwards writes (The Age 3/ 8) ‘Ethical behaviour, it seems, is a core input for thriving economies.' In other words, community ethics must replace greed and self-interest as the foundation for economic efficiency and progress. This is not exactly surprising. The need for right living or, in other words, the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would that they should do unto you), obviously has universal application, whether in the home, at work, or, surprise surprise! - in the world of politics.
There is no doubt that private enterprise, as an important aspect of individual liberty, has an important role in the vitality of business, and society generally. But to equate greed and self-interest with 'private enterprise' is a serious mistake. They can, in no wise, be regarded as synonymous or congruent, and this misunderstanding has obviously been at the root of the recent global financial crisis, with rash investment strategies encouraged by governments, by deregulation of the financial markets.
There can be no doubt that appropriate regulation is an essential safeguard for the liberty and well-being of all, within the framework of a democracy. But parliaments are pretty much infected by partisan interests, absorbing and adopting some of their less than desirable principles and beliefs.
It is certainly clear that the behaviour in our parliaments would also benefit considerably by a more diligent understanding and application of the Golden Rule.