MP accountability

A New Accountability

A Party MP’s response to the arrival of the secret ballot in parliament.

As a party MP I was identified by party policies, and accountable to the party.

Following the introduction of the secret ballot in parliament, to decide all debates, things will be vastly different in parliament and in my electorate.

In my electorate, I will now have to establish my identity personally, as an independent, on an equal footing with any rivals. I must convene public meetings regularly to ensure intensive consultation with my constituents, to establish the best policies to pursue on behalf of my electorate - and

I will become very well known personally by this intimate contact with my constituents, my motives and integrity (my bona fides), being thoroughly scrutinised.

I will now be able to be active in parliament on behalf of those policies preferred by my electorate. My vote will be private but I will be publicly active to achieve the desired outcomes of the electorate.

My strength will lie in the independence of the rest of the Members, who will be free to respond to the policies that I pursue on behalf of the electorate—conditional only on the intrinsic acceptability of those policies.

I will find the local media very interested in my activity in parliament and in the local meetings. So, between the media and the constituents attending these meetings, I will be under the closest scrutiny.

Should outcomes in parliament appear inconsistent with my public stance and efforts, I will come under considerable pressure to satisfy constituents that I have honestly done the best that is possible for them.

However, a failure to achieve a desired, and justifiable, outcome will not be allowed to be the end of the matter, regardless of the difficulty of pursuing it to a successful conclusion later.

Basically, constituents will expect an unremitting representation on their behalf.

Rivals could well emerge at any time if my performance fails to convince the constituents in the public meetings—a very real, and ongoing accountability.

Quick! Return to Democracy.

Democracy is about cooperation in society, in search of the best answers to the problems. We need to get away from the competitive divisions in politics (parties) each of which thinks they have the best answers. It is quite clear that durable policies need the considered input of the uninvolved thinking community, through a real independence of all representatives.
As we look towards the next Australian election in November there are many challenges.
In particular there is the escalating challenge of the strains of the federal system of government arising in the past from settlement of the states in separate colonies, from Britain.
The federal constitution retained the separate state governments as the price of setting up a national government in 1901.
The situation has become exacerbated because of the takeover of income tax powers from the states in WWII, due to the exigencies of war. Now the states have the jobs to do but the federal government has the money and criticises them for poor performance all the while sitting on a large surplus of tax revenue.
Party politics is a problem as all the states have Labor governments, ideologically opposed to the federal government.
It is obvious that in the context of hospitals that the federal government approach should be that of a 'good parent', with cooperation and responsibility. It seems that Kevin Rudd is more likely to go that way with a policy of 'cooperative federalism'.
There are some who think that the states should be replaced with regions. That may well be in the future. This would be a massive reorganisation of life in each state, but the dispersed regional population areas might well be better off with government closer and more responsive to their problems. (The principle of subsidiarity suggests that government should be always be as close to the areas of service as possible.)
But the problems of federalism, requiring a cooperative approach between the two levels of government would be no different.
Party politics is always likely to make the problems more difficult.
Let's hope for better things. We need good government and so does the world. If we can't learn to resolve these minor problems in a cooperative spirit what point is there in democracy? Or perhaps we haven't even tried it yet!
There can be little hope for a world government to secure peace and justice, if we can't even do it here, can there?
We've a long way to go, and all uphill!

Climate change, Will we be able to win?

Interesting times.
The frantic scrabbling for power - to hold or to get.
I once read that the investment in America is a by-product of a casino.
The national wellbeing is a bit like that too when government is entrusted to the
winner of a power contest.
A very interesting letter in today's Melbourne Age, the first one, pointing out
that AWA contracts are not necessary to give higher wages to individual employees, only to enable employerts to force down wages.
The main point I see here is that business does not flourish without excessive power and conversely labour is not happy without excessive power.
Our democracy has a case to answer, tolerating the cancer of party politics!
Another thing. Politicians seem intent on throwing money about. I see
little coming from government about solid, especially long term, projects to
deal with the real worries.
The ABC 'Difference of Opinion' program on climate change Monday nightlast was
excellent, a non-partisan attack on the problem.
One item of interest was the AGL Chief's quotation of the difference between gas and
coal with a carbon ratio of .4 to 1.5. Rather obvious really, as with
gas, hydrogen is the major component - in a 'mixture of gases made up mostly of methane (CH4) plus small amounts of ethane (C2H6), propane (C3H8) and butane (C4H10)'.
The AGL boss says we should use gas until we find other and better answers. Makes sense. Bad luck you coal companies! But being serious, answers to the climate
problem are going to take John Howard's 'tough decisions' - by which he means take no notice of their screams!

However, we have to use our best brains to face big societal changes, to minimise unavoidable trauma. Can the people possibly cope with these changes if the decisions are not governed, by fair democratic process. Reforming our democracy to eliminate the incubus of party politics becom9ing more essential as the problems multiply.

Chasing up carbon sequestration on the net did not encourage hope for
coal. I got the impression of a frantic effort to find some way to keep
using coal, like digging an 8000 feet hole in America to bury CO2.
Incidentally the website for a Bush major climate change project in 2003 is shut down.
A few stray thoughts! God bless and have a geat day!

Some months frantic tussle over power in Australia

The unconscionable defence of controversial Sydney radio broadcater Alan Jones by Prime Minister John Howard proves once more the aphorism: 'Those you love can do no wrong.'
To say that Jones merely 'articulates the opinions of many' means nothing.
Equally it could be argued that Mufti Hilali is merely doing the same.
A sane and orderly society does not benefit from these loose cannons.
Ours is a politically confrontationist society, the justification apparently being that the best government comes from competition. Neocon rubbish.
The best government comes from consensus, founded in open forum with free sharing of opinions.
Our parliaments do not reflect this objective as the hidden purpose in all debate is the contest for the role of government, with diverse opinions developed in isolation and fiercely promoted, ensuring that bi-partisan consensus is not sought and rarely occurs.

Our Stunted Democracy

Michelle Grattan (Melbourne Age 7/4) deplored the captivity of party politicians
to party policies. Today (Age 10) Natasha Cica responds, upbraiding
Labor for maintaining the members' pledge to abide by Caucus policy.
If then it is so desirable that party members should be free to speak,
and vote according to their best judgement, why do we persist with the
notion that democracy needs parties, to operate in the best interests of
the people (who are routinely excluded between elections, and seduced by
promises in the run up to elections).
Obviously, independents could better represent us, but Michelle opines
that all independents in parliament would mean chaos. Quite wrong - if
all decisions in parliament were to be decided by ballot - electronic of
course. There is nothing so decisive in the affairs of men as the
secret ballot. Why then be afraid of entrusting our representatives to
truly represent us in parliament?
Curiously, the argument of the opposers of the secret ballot for
elections in 1856 in Victoria was precisely the same - 'CHAOS' they cried. They were
proved monumentally wrong.
The world desperately needs the very best democratic representation and
leadership we can have to uncover the very best solutions to our serious
problems, and enable us to move forward without delay, in unity and
confidence.

A very interesting article by Michelle Grattan

My comments in yellow

The Age April 6, 2007

Too many team players make politics a dull game

KEN Henry is highly respected as Treasury secretary and no political innocent. Having been part of treasurer Paul Keating's inner circle didn't stop his rise under John Howard and Peter Costello.

But now Henry is being used for target practice by ministers and the PM, angry that he's embarrassed them with a private speech to his staff saying the Government's water and climate change policies would have been better if Treasury had been properly consulted over the years. In the (leaked) address, Henry also warned about the hazards of "bad" policies as the election approaches.

Henry has had to grovel, denying the obvious — that he'd been critical. The incident has been all negative for Henry, but there is a public benefit. Home truths (as he sees them) delivered by a top official have emerged into the light. Whether Henry's right or wrong is beside the point — we've got a glimpse of an insider's perspective.

The imperatives of our basically Westminster system require bureaucrats mostly not to speak out independently. But the rules bring costs. Henry's speech reminds how much we don't know about the debates bubbling within official circles.

Secrecy has become more oppressive under John Howard. Once, a good deal used to be in the marketplace about the attitudes of departments, especially those of a feisty Treasury.

During the Fraser and early Hawke years, then-Treasury secretary John Stone frequented the bar of the National Press Club every Friday night with his departmental acolytes (including David Morgan, later of Westpac fame), and was free with his opinions. Officials from other departments went, too, attracted by Stone's presence. Ministers (including treasurer Howard) mightn't have liked Stone holding court but they tolerated it and, while the chat was "off the record", it informed journalists' reporting.

Progressively, things have been closed up. A few public servants take calls from journalists but most are highly nervous. This Government is particularly ferocious in its pursuit of "leaks". It will be interesting to see whether there is a serious witch-hunt this time.

As in much else in politics, it is a matter of balance. Obviously ministers will want confidentiality from their bureaucrats. There are good reasons why, as servants of the government of the day, they're supposed to keep frankness behind closed doors. But equally, when the departments' views are in inaccessible black holes, the public policy dialogue becomes more stunted. The cynics would say that's the way modern governments like it.

Party discipline also often makes hollow the notion of real and robust policy discussion. Again, it's easy to see the need — running a modern government free style would be impossible. Independents often do good work but a parliament of them would be chaos.

Not necessarily so.Adoption of the secret ballot to rule all decisions in parliament would improve parliamentary government - out of site.

And when people vote for a party, they want to know their local member will do what his or her leader is promising, not go off on separate frolics.

And when people vote for a party, they want to know their local member will do what his or her leader is promising, not go off on separate frolics. i.e. They vote for a party leader, not for a real representative.

The other side of the coin, however, is that individuals are forced often into saying what they don't believe, or letting the party do their thinking. Quite.

This is shown by the dilemma of Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett. Laurie Oakes on Sunday this week asked him, "Can you see why your former supporters think you've sold out? … You've clearly changed your view on forestry policy in a couple of years. You did a backflip on American bases. On uranium, you say you oppose it, but at the end of the month when the party decides extending uranium mining in Australia's OK, then you'll support it … It's a very elastic conscience, isn't it?"

Garrett replied: "I've taken a big step to join the Labor Party, and when I took that step … I accepted that I would be bound by the decisions that the party made."

It was about being a "team player", Garrett said. "It doesn't mean I don't have the care and concern for those issues that I did in the past. It's just that it's expressed in different forums and it sometimes has results which might not always be satisfactory for me but I accept that."

The logic is clear but consider the implications. Garrett argues to the conference Labor should keep its restrictive uranium mining policy, loses, then spruiks the new line or holds his tongue. Why would you bother listening to him on the subject at all post-conference?

Gagged representatives cannot freely represent their people.

Frankly, if this was only Garrett it would not be here nor there. We know his real attitudes and can build in a discount factor when he contradicts them. But thinking across the parties, the implications of people not being able to say what they believe become more serious. How many Liberals think WorkChoices goes too far? What proportion of Labor MPs believes the party should at least consider nuclear power?

The current party player who regularly tries to balance discipline and following his own beliefs is the Nationals' Barnaby Joyce. While he hasn't actually made things excessively difficult for the Coalition, many of his colleagues hate his way of operating.

Discipline is most necessary at cabinet level but it is also clearest there how farcical it can become. Ministers are wall-to-wall around the media; when they are asked about a current topic they often produce not just the same lines but the same phrases, as though they have received a song book from central casting. As, of course, they have.

So the political debate becomes stylised and stultified. All inevitable perhaps. But no wonder ordinary people turn off politics, feeling overwhelmed by the sheer quantity and underwhelmed by the often parlous quality.

There is an answer to the cursed bondage of party politics sabotaging our democracy. People, open your eyes and your minds - secret ballot rule in our parliaments will produce:
'Pure' democracy,
Real representation by Independents,
Regular community consultation with the Member,
Ministers appointed by, and responsible to, an authoritative parliament,
A Prime Minister first among equals,
Respected government,
Fewer elections,
Etc etc etc,

And the end of chaos (and frustration) in parliament!

Party discipline also often makes hollow the notion of real and robust policy discussion. Again, it's easy to see the need — running a modern government free style would be impossible. Independents often do good work but a parliament of them would be chaos. And when people vote for a party, they want to know their local member will do what his or her leader is promising, not go off on separate frolics.

The other side of the coin, however, is that individuals are forced often into saying what they don't believe, or letting the party do their thinking.

This is shown by the dilemma of Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett. Laurie Oakes on Sunday this week asked him, "Can you see why your former supporters think you've sold out? … You've clearly changed your view on forestry policy in a couple of years. You did a backflip on American bases. On uranium, you say you oppose it, but at the end of the month when the party decides extending uranium mining in Australia's OK, then you'll support it … It's a very elastic conscience, isn't it?"

Garrett replied: "I've taken a big step to join the Labor Party, and when I took that step … I accepted that I would be bound by the decisions that the party made."

It was about being a "team player", Garrett said. "It doesn't mean I don't have the care and concern for those issues that I did in the past. It's just that it's expressed in different forums and it sometimes has results which might not always be satisfactory for me but I accept that."

The logic is clear but consider the implications. Garrett argues to the conference Labor should keep its restrictive uranium mining policy, loses, then spruiks the new line or holds his tongue. Why would you bother listening to him on the subject at all post-conference?

Frankly, if this was only Garrett it would not be here nor there. We know his real attitudes and can build in a discount factor when he contradicts them. But thinking across the parties, the implications of people not being able to say what they believe become more serious. How many Liberals think WorkChoices goes too far? What proportion of Labor MPs believes the party should at least consider nuclear power?

The current party player who regularly tries to balance discipline and following his own beliefs is the Nationals' Barnaby Joyce. While he hasn't actually made things excessively difficult for the Coalition, many of his colleagues hate his way of operating.

Discipline is most necessary at cabinet level but it is also clearest there how farcical it can become. Ministers are wall-to-wall around the media; when they are asked about a current topic they often produce not just the same lines but the same phrases, as though they have received a song book from central casting. As, of course, they have.

So the political debate becomes stylised and stultified. All inevitable perhaps. But no wonder ordinary people turn off politics, feeling overwhelmed by the sheer quantity and underwhelmed by the often parlous quality.

Michelle Grattan is political editor.

Another the Age didn't want to print

Julie Szego (Melbourne Age 25/1) bemoans the world poll condemning America. Sure,
its not all bad. But the problem with American (and Australian)
democracy is that leaders are allowed to rule the roost unchecked, until
disaster sets in - an acute lack of accountability. (Fancy wanting to
export it!)
Congress could not stop Bush. Can it even now?
With parliaments failing, on behalf of the people, to restrain impetuous
leadership, dissident opinion, also lacking the intellectual restraint
that public face-to-face discussion forums could provide, fires
unchecked its missiles of hate in print or the net.
A democratic nation cannot avoid the repercussions or responsibility for
its actions, and those of its leader. Otherwise our democracy stands
condemned. Just so - and perhaps our much-vaunted democracy needs a
drastic overhaul.

Basil J Smith

Chipp failed democracy

Chipp (and his Democrats) have failed because they rejected the goal of
eliminating party ideological politics through secret ballots in
parliament. Had they done so their success would have stunned the major
parties.
But all AD leaders have preferred the temporary success of pursuing
political power, despite the name they adopted.
Meanwhile, our democracy continues to stumble.
Only ballots in parliament can free all our representatives to truly
represent us in government, by discussing the problems with their
constituents in regular public meetings, and voting independently for us
in parliament.
A partnership of parliament and people is absolutely essential to any
successful resolution of the difficult problems ahead of us.

Shrinking Democracy - re Age article

To Professor George Williams
Good to see your article in today's Age. The question is - what can be done about it?

This party has done a little bit but, despite the wealth of critism and unhappiness at the deterioration of our politics toward authoritarian government, there is little real response, with so many hoodwinked, believing the propaganda about our low unemployment and our 'healthy' economy.
(What happens when the family jewels run out in a generation of so. Who
really cares?)

The introduction of 'our democracy' to other countries is a joke. Is it a blessing to the people in America? Here in Australia? No way.

Has it worked in New Guinea? It's a mess. Is it working in East Timor? That's a mess too. Is it working out in Iraq? No that's a mess too.

What can be wrong? Simple. The basis of our notion of democracy has a fundamental flaw - party politics.
It is common in political writings to recognise that there is a serious problem, but no acknowledgement that our politics, structured around a party system is not real democracy at all - a hybrid - and disastrous.
Some have even said that there can be no democracy without parties.
'Blind leaders of the blind'! The tragedy of this view is that political parties have proved the death of democracy.

Let's not be deceived. If the rot were not slow people might wake up but, like the frog on the stove, we are being gradually boiled helpless.
We are being carefully conditioned for authoritarian government.
To compare our drift to prewar Germany might seem passe, but the trend is very clear. Our concept of democracy is a house of cards, collapsing where it is most needed.

Our devotion to 'democracy' is in name only. The Eureka miners would be horrified. Their deaths gave us a start in the right direction - with the ballot for elections. This revolutionary idea was bitterly resisted, as threatening chaos. Wrong. It opened the way for a period of real progress and prosperity which made Victoria the leading state, able to handle well the turmoil of the gold rush and the wealth of the people.
There is much turmoil ahead for us and we need the connection of the disconnected public, with real representation, not by parties but by representatives. Only the ballot in parliament can recreate the power of a politically connected people.
Basil Smith
03 9800 2561

East Timor & Iraq, and Democracy

The breakdown of struggling ‘democracy’ in East Timor (and Iraq) prompts the question whether ‘European’ democracy is actually suitable for less developed countries.

The object of government, and the measure of its success, is the combined achievement of the community through popular cooperation.

The cooperation of the people may be achieved in:
1. Dictatorship, by leadership, propaganda and coercion – clearly a no-no.
2. A two-or-more-party state by leadership, propaganda and by appeal to the acquisitive instincts of the people. However, the problems engendered by the escalating consumption of (and competition for) global resources and the resulting environmental problems must soon force a revision of this basis of government.
3. A non-party state (e.g. Britain in wartime) by leadership and the willing sacrifices of the people – clearly the ideal in view of the damage to our environment by our self-centred consumerism. However, we willing need to use our intelligence to find the secret of non-party government without waiting for crisis, which might indeed be international chaos.
In A.A.Milne’s classic tale of Winnie-The-Pooh, ‘Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs … bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head … It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it.’
Party politics to a T. There is another way for us – ballots in our parliaments.

We need better democracy, but few are listening. Especially do we need to be aware that a future crisis, quite on the ‘cards’, is more likely to produce a to dictatorship than a better democracy. Machiavelli mentioned the need for concentration of power in government in time of war. Britain’s monarchy enabled the smooth wartime transition from party government to Grand Coalition. This cannot be regarded as a normal to democracies generally.
We need to stop ‘bumping down the stairs and think’. This is not an option.

Who will bell the cat?

Joo-Cheong Tham, (Melbourne Age 26/5), in your excellent article 'Party Funds threaten democracy', you recommend that we 'institute limits on the amount the parties can spend, to ... promote a level-playing field and...stanch the demand for private funds' for elections.'

But, who is going to do it?

I am reminded of the Aesop's Fable, about the little mice forming the plan to solve their problems by putting a bell on kitty's neck.
However Grandma mouse sees a flaw in the plan. 'Who shall bell the
cat?'.

Many and varied are the problems caused by the power of party governments to ignore public opinion, thus destroying democracy.

But where is the political will to put an end to it. The only answer lies with ballots in our parliaments - for every decision.

The fable concludes with the MOTAL: 'Many a plan has just one flaw: No one has the courage to try it.'

The Secret Ballot Party plans to 'bell the cat'.

Basil Smith 111/100 Harold St. Wantirna. 3152. 9800 2561

Convenor
Secret Ballot Party

Unpublished Letter to the Age (Melbourne) 23/5/06

'A Call to Arms',(The Age 22/5).
Anne Mancini calls for a 'united effort from the thousands of angry Australians who want to hand on a respected democracy to their descendants'. She has a point! What's wrong, you ask?

The domination of our democracy by party executives has progressively destroyed the fundamental element of a genuine democracy - real representation, and accountability of MPs to their constituents - not to party heirarchies or minority interests.

The Secret Ballot Party has the sole objective of a referendum to free our representatives to decide all debates in parliament (and elect all ministers) by secret ballot.

Some object that: 'But you wouldn't know how they vote', ignoring how bankrupt is that privilege, when we, as unorganised individuals, are helpless to influence outcomes on any specific matter at all, even at elections.

With the ballot in parliament, representatives will no longer be controlled, or endorsed, by parties. They will therefore need to hold regular public meetings to win constituent support.

In such local meetings a 'respected democracy' will certainly reappear, as we take hold on the new opportunity for effective participation.
Then the 'anger of thousands' will be dissipated in a confident, purposeful community life, with stable, accountable parliamentary government.

BasilSmith

Convenor
Secret Ballot Party
03 9800 2561

Christians - Our Democracy needs YOU !

The situation with regard to our democracy is really quite serious.
Ongoing concerns with the local, and international drift away from democracy go back many years. Control of our representatives votes by party leaders is destroying democratic government, and the wellbeing of the people. That is why we are establishing the Secret Ballot Party, to pursue the only real solution - the rule of the ballot in our parliaments.
The party's main need at this early stage is a few hundred members - no money or further involvement - to gain the attention of the people to this reform, the merit of which will make its own momentum amongst 'non-political' people, and arrest the slide away from the rule of the people, and the pernicious doctrine that neither we, nor our opinions are needed.

People often say: "I'm not politically inclined." This fairly common view, leaving it to the politicians, is causing a drift away from democratic government. (Let's never forget the Reich.)
Leaving it all to the 'government' is not democracy; nor is being merely content to vent our spleen at an election. As someone has said: However you vote, all you get is the 'government' - which is not 'by the people'.

To counter this drift we need the change in the operation of parliament so that all decisions are made by ballot so that representatives, as a body, decide the laws and courses of action, not a Prime Minister, or ministers exercising control of party members' votes.

The question of accountability worries some. There is no cause. All party politicians will be effectively dis-endorsed, reducing them to independent status, entirely dependent upon their constituents for re-election. Their logical, and only feasible response will be to conduct regular monthly meetings of, and for, the people, who will quickly sense their vulnerability, and not be backward in making their
views known, with all the insistence deemed necessary.
Woe betide that representative who treats the constituents lightly. Any deviousness will quickly bring down the wrath of the people on the representative. And suitable rivals for the seat will always be close at hand.
It is obvious that cultivation of the constituents will be a first priority for all representatives.

Turmoil? No. Both representatives and constituents will quickly see the way to cooperate, to further their mutually dependent interests.

The Secret Ballot Party offers to the uninvolved the opportunity, with an absolute minimum of action, to anyone to arrest this downward slide into dictatorial government.

Meanwhile, what of the operation of parliament? Obviously the ministers will behave, or be displaced by ballot. They will each be required to give undivided and serious attention to the administration of their departments, as delegated by parliament. And, without the distraction of party conflict, they will be without excuse for any inadequacy of administration. And, public servants will replace party appointments of
ministerial staff.

Cabinet? Elected ministers will be required by parliament to pull together in an orderly and constructive team, carrying out the decisions of parliament.

'Thy will be done on earth, as in heaven.'

Now about us Christians. We are witnesses, in life and word. Are we not 'the light of the world'? So, we must 'Let our light so shine before men, that they may see our good works, and glorify our Father which is in heaven'.
We, along with others of sincerity and goodwill, will always have a significant role in the community - not by preaching, and having no authority beyond the wisdom which God may afford.

I am reminded of the dream of the English poet William Blake, and the words so often sung in schools.

Jerusalem
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold,
Bring me my arrows of desire,
Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold,
Bring me my Chariot of Fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England's green and pleasant land.

It is the dream of Abraham: "A city without foundations whose builder and maker is God."

I am further reminded of a saying on the wall of my old Presbyterian
Church.

We believe in a Christlike world.
We know of nothing better.
We can be content with noting less.

May God bless and encourage us all.

Basil Smith
for the Secret Ballot Party.
(the party to end party politics)
Email: secretballotparty@fastmail.net
03 9800 2561

MP Accountability

A common error by those opposed to the 'secret ballots in parliament reform' is that, without knowing how the Mp votes, there could be no accountability. Quite wrong!

Some years ago senior Victorian Liberal MP James Guest was quizzed on this very point. His succinct answer: "It would make MPs accountable".

Strange isn't it?

Let's consider.

In a parliament that ballots every issue, all MPs will be supported by party clout and funds no longer. Entirely free to do as they please in parliament, they will need to use that freedom to work for their constituents' best interests.

Awakened to the MP's vulnerablity in the new, and regular, public meetings, convened by the MP (in the MP's own best interests), constituents will rally there, especially on controversial issues.

If their MP is not entirely honest, constituents, ably assisted by a salivating media, will swarm like angry bees.

But any MP who is honest and competent, will graduate quickly to the changed role, and find it much more fulfilling and highly respected.

This reform has the capacity to change everything - for the better - for all.

By the way - 'the love of democracy is the love of others' - while 'the love of power is the love of self'.

Democracy will flourish under the ballot in our parliaments.

America - tramping the world.

One would think an avowed Christian like George Bush would have picked up a few tips from his Bible on how to get on with your enemies. How about "Love your enemies". Or maybe "Resist not evil but overcome evil with good".
It is arrogance that makes wars. The trouble is that arrogant people are slow to recognise their arrogance.
How many nuclear states do we have now? Quite a few.
Why is Iran considered to be such a threat?
Israel? There's a lot of hatred for Israel. That goes back 3000 years or so; to the days when Ismael got kicked out of Abraham's house because Sarah was jealous of Hagar, Ismael's mother, for beating her to have Abraham's child.
Spurned by Abraham's religion and descendants over the centuries, it's no wonder the Arabs found another religion to get upsides with the Jews. So we have religious enmity as well.
The UN kindly responded to the Holocuast survivors by allowing their settlement in Palestine, to have their own land in some security. But they roughly evicted 600,000 of the inhabitants who finished up in surrounding refugee camps their hearts filled with hatred for the invaders. It's quite unsurprising that some of them at least want those invaders out, hopeless cause though it be.
Only suicide bombers stand between them and their complete subjugation, with the creeping absorption of the remainder of Palestine by Jewish settlers and their protecting military, complete with tanks, gunships and every modern military surveillance equipment, with which they casually assassinate whom they will with impunity.
Every attempt to find a peaceful solution has been foiled by the constant Israeli demand that the Palestinians surrender everything first, completely , despite the fact that their land is constantly overrun with Israeli tanks and troops.
One would think that Israel's previous Holocaust experience would have produced some feelings of compassion for the Palestinians. But apparently not.
America's continual weak surrender to the Israeli point of view, with financial and full military assistance (without prevention of it's secretive nuclear capability) has prolonged the conflict interminably with insult adding to injury. A Tragedy in our time.
The solution lies with America - if ever it can regain its Christian perspective and moral character. Oh, when will their people rise up to rule??

What do you think?

The times they are achangin’!

An article by Australia’s New South Wales Ex Premier, Bob Carr, in his recently published book, ‘Thoughtlines’, on the future of our planet is quite alarming. He details many worrying facts illustrating that the world is heading for serious trouble.

The populations of many countries are on the rise, not just a little, but a lot, and many are pursuing higher and higher standards of living.

Our planet will be quite unable to sustain the resulting pressure on its resources - especially of fuel (for heating, power, agriculture and manufacture) and water. Developed nations have been for some time consuming much more than their share, on a population basis, while demand from poorer nations is accelerating. Moreover, there is no sign of any wealthy country restraining its demand for more and more, much less intending to cut its consumption to world sustainable levels for all – if that were a realistic possibility, even with drastic, across-the-board change.

It cannot be merely alarmist to warn of the future political and international confrontations and conflicts that are likely to occur as world stocks of vital supplies dwindle at an accelerating rate.

For a start, a drastic change in the manner of living of developed countries is clearly necessary, without delay. While the inhabitants of the wealthy countries must face that challenge now, it is debatable whether the rising industrial giants of Asia (and South America?) will be able to accept the challenge to hold back when their standards of living are already far behind. Need we mention as well the poverty of Africa?

Are we planning for the future? Are we aware of the future danger? Perhaps it is already far too late to see an outcome that could be acceptable to future generations. We may not see these outcomes but, even if our children don’t, our grand children certainly will.

Have we the nous and structures to seriously tackle this political tsunami, or is the battle already lost?

Where is democracy???

Where is the cry for democracy? Where are those who are concerned???
Many are seriously disturbed at the increasing trend to autocratic party government, but can't see the answer. When John Faine Melbourne 774, was speaking to Mark Latham on ABC radio, about the corruption of the political process, neither had any answer to the mess we are in.
We need a referendum of the people for the installation of the ballot in parliament for all debates and elections. There is no other answer.
Since the parties are not interested in real democracy we need a new initiative. We need leadership which actually believes in democracy - government by the people -
through freely voting parliamentary representatives, and an executive in submission to parliament. This is something from which we have strayed a long way - ministerial responsibility. Or should we say rather, accountability, since irresponsibility has become so blatant.

Where can this kind of leadership be found ???
The Secret Ballot Party is still in its infancy but it stands for the real democracy which only the ballot in parliament can attain to.
Our membership is slowly building, with concerned people who are not afraid to think outside the square.

Secret Ballot Party: secretballotparty.fastmail.net
Convenor: basilsmith@fastmail.net

An Australian Persona

Is there such a thing? Of course not. We are a collection of many different kinds of people. Of course. We are multi-cultural. We are diverse.
There are many different layers of difference.
Wealth, education, religion, ethnicity,emotional type, age etc etc.
Many are hard at work - some can't be bothered. Many are patient in adversity - some impatient.
Some get angry at injustice and do something - some just stay angry. Some are happy & glad - some are not.
Are there common factors. Yes we are human.
We can be patient - and work things out. We can be inventive - finding solutions.
We can help others - and find satisfaction.
We can be optimists - and see the donut - not the hole.
We can be a part of the solution - not part of the problem.
Yes, we are human - with a limitless capacity for doing good - happily.
We are human - with a limitless capacity for destroying the wellbeing of others (and ourselves).
We are human. We have the capacity to choose. But without faith it is difficult and for many can prove impossible. Faith enables us to be what we want to be - ourselves - productively and happily for ourselves and those around us.
We are not all alike, and will never be. But that doesn't matter as long as we have goodwill towards each other. Then we can be at peace - and proudly Australian.

Muslim & Australian Attitudes

from Ian Johnstone

Dear Basil,
Thanks for your thoughts on the Cronulla clashes.
I agree with your two points, which I see this way:

1. It is difficult for Muslims, used to obeying religious authority, to
submit to a secular government. That is what will make it hard for
Democracy to "take" in Iraq.

2. Muslims see our western culture as decadent; how we run on, covetting, consuming, greedy, self-seeking, polluting, self-indulgent with alcohol and sex.
Muslims perhaps feel self-righteously better than we are, and morally superior.
Add some male rivalry, our indignation at how they treat their women and rape some of ours, and a dash of racial intolerance, and the violence erupts.

There is no one simple remedy, as the origins, and of it and fuel for it continuing, are a combination of deep differences about religion, sex and race. It will take generations for these to subside, as did catholic/protestant differences forty years ago.

Cheers, Ian Johnstone

Good stuff Ian, But we do hope to speed it up by the healthy process of people involvement when we achieve the ballot in parliament. This which will force our representatives to consult with the people in public meetings.
As Latham says (Latham Diaries) our sick politics and sick society feed off each other.
Conversely, healthier politics, through the ballot in parliament, should feed, and be fed off, a healthier society, through this greater public participation.

Basil Smith
Convenor
secretballotparty@fastmail.net

MPs must be set free by parliamentary ballot.

Why is that so important?
Well, why do we value the ballot for elections? Because we want to be free to exercise our vote without interference from ANYBODY.
Well, why should the ones we want to represent us be forced to vote for us without that freedom?
Those who don't want that freedom must surely not be interested in representing us, but rather the interests which finance their campaigns. True or false?
What do you think??????