Australia Day and 'our flag' .

Our flag’s use-by date really stands out.

Founded in the nineteenth century, at the height of British Empire arrogance, Australia has long drifted away from all emotional and social, political and legal, ties to the ‘Motherland’ (how quaint is that word!). Certain similarities exist in our parliamentary and legal systems, but who is enthusiastic about their adversarial nature, apart from the lawyers? These too will come under scrutiny in their due time!

We are an independent nation, justifiably proud of our standing in the world.

The Union Jack, symbol of the expired British connection, still featured on our flag, has long been an offence to many, especially to the dispossessed original inhabitants’ descendants. Our flag, with its strange, foreign symbol, utterly fails the central purpose of a national flag—to inspire and unify all our citizens, so many of whom have come from many different countries, but are now real Australians in thought and deed. It’s time to shake our flag free from the Union Jack which in no way symbolises Australia’s unity.

What then? The answer is simple. We have a national symbol recognised the world over. We should just replace the Union Jack with the kangaroo, a move which can appeal to all Australians, including our Koori people.

There are many other important things which could well be changed, but one thing at a time will suffice, to get the ball rolling.

Constipated democracy

The release of another batch of leaked documents reveals the uselessness of the last ten years of negotiations to settle the Palestinian cause. The reasons for the inexorable annihilation of the Palestinian people’s hopes for the minimal justice of a separate state are quite evident, when any such state would have to be under Israeli army control—says Israel.

In the face of the unstated Israeli dream to control all of Palestine, the Palestinian negotiating position is hopelessly feeble and desperate, being entirely dependent on the effective support of the democratic international community—the UN.

But America has sabotaged the UN with its strongest-nation-in the-world stance, and proved itself a broken crutch to the Palestinians by its submission to Jewish influences within America. Thus Israel will have what it wants regardless, but without the entire security it has long craved. Only justice can entirely silence the restlessness of injustice.

Western democracy has a constipation problem. Imagine an American referendum on justice for Palestine! Is it possible that the American people, as a whole, would ignore the longstanding suffering of the Palestinians? I think not. But, like every other Western democracy, with the exception of Switzerland (and recently perhaps, New Zealand), the people are not invited to say. A pity—because the problems of the world, which linger on unfixed while the decades multiply, can only be peacefully resolved by good government—of the people.

Without the ballot solution of the present unrepresentative style of parliamentary governments, there remains only the (Swiss) Citizen Initiated Referenda initiative to have a chance to resolve the hiatus that exists between the feeble unrepresentative ‘democracy’ that the world is enduring, and the one which could bring the peace and prosperity the world so badly needs—good government at all levels—national and international.

Constipation! that’s the problem with our democracy.

Democracy - and social morality - at risk

As retired. Justice Jebhard, late of the Victorian Country court, said democracy is a moral influence in the community. I believe that is both true and a neglected truth.
It applies quite literally in the state, the nation and the world. The only reservation as to its validity is the degree to which democracy practise corresponds to the theory.

Thus we have a problem, as the theory of democracy has never been settled, with differing views proposed to suit the preferences of those to whom morality is less than a clear and urgent objective.

In fending off suggestions that the hate rhetoric of the tea party movement in America could be an underlying cause of the near death of the Arizona senator and the deaths of a judge, a nine year old girl (born as it happens on 9/11 2001) and others, Herald Sun correspondent Andrew Bolt sneeringly insisted that the rhetoric used in the clash of politics is a normal face of democracy. In so arguing, he unintentionally and ignorantly proved the Jebhard point.

We need an advance in democracy to lessen the conflict, with better attitudes than that prevailing in politics, remembering that politics also inevitably reaches out into the international sphere, either leading to peace or war.

To advance democracy will require a different approach, to encourage, and eventually even establish, mutual respect and cooperation as the normal attitudes of society to advance democracy, and enhance the moral life of our nation, and indeed, our world?

Democracy deficit

In a crisis of confidence in the American depression the ‘History Matters’ website reminds us that the “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”, the words of
FDR in his First Inaugural Address in the 1932 presidential election. The sun had not failed, the land was still productive but the ‘mechanics’ of the economy had collapsed in a crisis of financial and business confidence.

The (Melbourne) Age editorial in its last day of 2010, ‘Democracy deficit puts the world’s leaders on edge’, highlights the major governments around the world at loggerheads with their people, unable, in the context of many serious problems, to effectively govern – expressing a crisis of confidence in our ‘democratic’ institutions.

Fear is destructive and cruel, debasing instead of uplifting mankind to higher aspirations of cooperative achievement. We need the cooperation of courage and vision to lift us out of the fear and uncertainty caused by the evident flaws in the present modes of government.

Christmas - birth of the Saviour, and a New Era of Love and life

Do you understand Christmas and all its significance today for life with an L. It all goes back 2000 years but the message and its meaning are eternal. So here goes ...

Christmas has for 2000 years been the celebration of the birth of Jesus, the Jewish promised Messiah who was to set them free, but the freedom He offered was spiritual, but they could not believe in Him so they killed Him on a cross.

But to those who received Him He gave (and gives) the power to belong to God and live a life of selfless love with joy, free from the clinging tendrils of false religion, based on rules, laws and doing of dead works.

He gives, to those who receive Him, the freedom from sin and self, that can give life real meaning, even to the slaves and those in physical prison - the freedom of the love of God and His creation including all of us, together with the real joy of finding the real meaning of life - LOVE!

'He drew me with the chords of love and thus He bound me to Him ...' Bound to Him is the perfection of liberty.

The Lord, Jesus, now rules forever, in blessing, to those who believe and receive His Spirit, to live in love and joy. But to those who refuse the blessings of belonging remain only the curse of a life unblest, with pain and regret - for ever.

A Conscience Vote in Parliament

Can there be such a thing? Really?

Not if it is a public vote. Because there will inevitably be some Members who will be persuaded by various pressures and political considerations steering their vote away from a pure conscience response. A genuine conscience vote demands the secret ballot in parliament.

Think about it. We have a secret (conscience vote) ballot at each election. As a result politicians must be careful to avoid hubris and other offensiveness in their stance for election. But, what happens in parliament? Push comes to shove and the votes are regimented on party lines, and the House is notorious for its worse than schoolboy behaviour and, let’s face it, less than complete honesty. With a secret ballot in parliament, the behaviour in the House would equal MPs civility during elections.

The resulting equality of voting with the secret ballot would not hinder passionate advocacy on each issue as necessary, but give each decision to the whole parliament. Thus each issue, no matter how serious, would be fully and honestly canvassed without any undue delay, with all the final voting clear, as all the arguments would have already been heard. In any event, in such a freely arguing and voting parliament, any issue could be revived if some change indicates that should be considered some time later.

Our democracy gained international respect because of the secret (Australian) ballot.
Its only shortfall is the need for ballots in parliament to govern all our decisions and enable our parliaments to decide—not parties leaders.

Activism is democracy's failure. Ballot NOW!

So many problems there are that governments (and we) face and so long do they take to decide, and how often the decisions are so unsatisfactory, for the simple reason that the people are far from involved in preliminary discussions.

On Monday Age/Voice 8/11, reports 2010 John Barry Memorial Lecture on 11th Nov. 'The role of activism in criminal justice reform' by the Vice Chancellor's Fellow Peter Norton AO.

My problem is this. It is calmly assumed that 'activism' is the important necessity to get such a problem duly attended to (along with dozens of other government problems).

Under the existing circumstances one could not be surprised but, isn't that a terrible indictment on the state of democratic government and the disconnect between a caring people and their government. So we have to rely on loud noise in the streets for harassed government to be pushed to act.

It is the isolation of the people from government by the party system - and their dis-empowerment, that produces a defeatist despair in the face of so many problems which cannot be truly solved without the widespread concurrence of the community. Retired Judge Gebhardt once said that democracy is a moralising force in the community. But it is plain that aspect of democracy is working feebly and incompetently at best, when we consider the crime among youth, the irresponsible, and often fatal, manner in which cars are seen (or just heard in the wee small hours) hurtling through our streets.

Moreover, law abiding citizens are now less inclined to be involved in incidents for safety sake. Gebhardt's viewpoint is underlined by the comment of Al Smith, Governor of New York in 1923: 'The solution to problems of democracy is (simply) more democracy!'

The point is plain. Our democracy's intimate connection between people and government has never materialised to bring the community unity that can extend the moralising process community wide. Gangs and murderers should be terrified, not law abiding citizens.

Stress, stress and more stress.

Higher interest rates add to the consumers’ burden.

Yes, they will, and may dampen Christmas sales, which is why this comment heads the business Age commentary by Lucy Battersby on the Cup Day interest rate rise.

Heavy advertising and consumer/borrower debt, urge the economy to ever higher dependence on credit living, with all its wants. Heavy advertising of things new and expensive drives the excessive consumer demand that endangers the calm and confidence of the modern community, with a heavy mix of need and greed. We need the feverish economic activity to make the jobs to fuel the demand—and the faster the better, because slowing down is dangerous.

The constant competitive demand for lower prices drives high powered production with cost cutting and across-the-board tension in our ‘affluent’ society, whose affluence is a basic myth. We are a ‘wantitnow’ society which cannot save nor wait because without spiritual fulfilment immediate material satisfaction is the urgent need.
It gets me when I hear so often, a child asked: ‘What do you want? Instead of “what would you like”’. Do we really want to see our children caught in this wellbeing-destructive mindset? Twiggy Forrest made an interesting comment on QANDA last night: ‘I know many rich people who are no happier than you who are here’. He thus gave his vote for the satisfaction of doing—contributing, rather than ‘wanting’ and ‘having’.

Compare also the words of David in Ps 23: ‘The Lord is my shepherd, I will not want. Some may think that means ‘I’ll never be in want’. It doesn’t. He meant that knowing and serving God satisfied his deepest needs. He therefore refused to want. His refusal to grab the kingdom after being anointed king was entirely in that character. It’s a good read—1 Sam. On.

In the early days of America, Europeans complained of the ‘damned wantlessness’ of the Indians. And once upon a time it was said that if you invented a better mousetrap the world would beat a path to your door.
How things have changed! There must be a better way than stress, stress and more stress.

Nil desperandum!

Despite all, never despair!
Some pertinent remarks in the Age today (2/11/10), point to the basic problem the world faces in the future of governance, at every level, and the world.
Above all, the world looks and hopes for peace but, there can be no peace without order and there can be no order anywhere in the world without good government.
While we ardently subscribe, in theory, to the principles of democracy, we are still like children at play. Refusing to accept our participatory role, we prefer the ease of trusting in strong leaders. We are fools and blind!
Andrew Norton (p17) makes the simple point with regard to university allocation of places: ‘we should trust the wisdom of the crowd’, noting that enrollments in various disciplines tend to follow the needs that ‘the crowd’ sees in the economic trends of the time. Fair enough!
Tim Colebatch (p15) headlines his report on the Gillard visit to Indonesia with: ‘Indonesian reforms hit a roadblock’, commenting that Julia Gillard and President Susilo Bangbang Yudhoyono: ‘both began as reformers but gradually have shelved the big changes to keep interest groups happy. Both are no longer rocking the boat. Both are drifting.’
Similarly, Tom Switzer, research associate at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney and editor of The Spectator Australia, determines that ‘the roots of US despair stem from expectations about America’s right to economic prosperity and world leadership that no administration or congress may be able to meet. …They (Americans) are in a foul mood, suffering from a lack of confidence and overwhelmingly believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction … (giving) rise to rapid mood swings within the electorate.’
Although the world’s people all long for the sanity of good government, and peace, the democratic dream of ‘government by the people’ is denied by the dominance of interest groups.
The parliamentary rule which will ensure that all MPs are independent and connect with the people, can never come other than by the adoption of the electronic ballot for all parliamentary decisions.
There is light at the end of the tunnel!

The Murray – Darling Basin

This Authority overlaps at least four states which is odd from a political point of view. Too many governments are involved while the environmentalists have their oar in too. The farmers are deeply worried. It is said there has been far too much water allocated to irrigation. Particularly excruciating to food growers must be the extensive allocation to cotton farmers on the Darling, with big properties, but above all they are irrigating with huge arrays of water sprays. Surely evaporation must result in huge water waste in that warmer climate— and as they say on the Murray—cotton ain’t food.
The basin authority reminds one of the Tennessee Valley Authority in America which also extends over several states through the catchment area of the Tennessee River.
It was ‘created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression.’. A comprehensive development tool, ‘TVA was envisioned not only as a provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee Valley Authority) .
But for the Murray - Darling Basin the driving force is environmental—the water-starved condition of the river system itself. The question is: does the authority have the same comprehensive development agenda as the TVA. It seems not—hence the substantial worry for farmers’ and their business infrastructure communities.
Authoritarian control is likely to lead to serious financial loss and community discouragement throughout the basin.
All residents in the catchment area have a real stake in the decisions to be made and need to have a voice, to allay their fears of unjust outcomes. The answer, to give coherent policies and stakeholder confidence would be for the basin to have its own democratic regional government possibly one hundred electorates, overlapping the several states involved, with independent representation throughout.

Afghanistan confusion

Here in Australia the parliamentary debate on Afghanistan is very welcome, not least because it opens the door to a future pattern of government openness in matters of 'defence'. The fact that differences of opinion have appeared there is equally welcome for the same reason, for which we have the Independents to thank, especially Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor. A conscience vote would seem to have been eminently appropriate as well- short of a secret ballot.

The ‘view of the PM that we will need to be involved militarily for a further two to four years, beyond the nine already spent, illustrates the very vagueness of an expected outcome, as outlined by the two years, or possibly four, and maybe up to ten years of unspecified involvement! That would indeed be a record of incompetent interference in the affairs of other nations!

Talks with the Taliban, already under way, underline NATO’s uncertainty, with echoes of the Russian failure there, American failure in both Vietnam, and Iraq now closer to Iran then ever. We haven’t won any of the changing objectives after nine years, so our exit strategy is dead, and the only remaining option is to negotiate with the Taliban.

But that won’t answer our fears for the mistreatment of women under that regime.
We are slow to realise that the day for interference in sovereign nations to impose other values by force is gone.

We must turn our attention to international moral influence through the UN to see human rights improved everywhere. The UN has the role, and its power and authority, savaged by the US over Iraq, must be enhanced by the loyal endorsement and support of all nations. The UN needs every one of them. That must be our hope - politically.

Respect for retiring politicians ?

Mary Delahunty (Age 12/10/10) asks why the public is so ungenerous that we can’t say thanks to retiring politicians (of either party—as she adds John Howard and Peter Costello to the present retirement of Peter Batchelor and Bob Cameron).

In her excellent article she ponders why we are ‘weary’ of the contest, when it is the politicians who do the hard work (trying to please everyone), and so ‘grumpy’ and ‘surly about politics’ ‘or in a sort of civic amnesia‘.

Why do we hate politicians? With Multiple portfolios to watch (and inspire?) are they really deserving of the near contempt that we accord them, relishing every public attack, by a ferocious media—‘a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits’ (quoting a remark of Tony Blair).

Why the near contempt, particularly for the member of the unsupported party?
There are good reasons. Some give politicians a bad name because they are ambitious with their self interest sticking out, and obnoxious to their opponents, though often just for public consumption. But the odour is bad.

Elections choose governments (rarely representatives). We need objective, cooperative, parliamentary government, alert and fiercely attacking the problems, not each other. But parliaments do not rule, they can’t, being more about providing a Colosseum for the entertainment of a jaded electorate. And with this we come to the bad reasons for having a ‘down’ on politicians.

Do we realise the depth and breadth of the responsibilities they have to undertake? Ministers often wear several hats, looking after several portfolios. There is an immense amount involved in government (apart even from the nonsense and waste of time of party politics), including in state governments. But we often see a light-hearted comment about abandoning state governments! Do we then simply add all those responsibilities to our central government—and then, predictably, whinge about centralism.

We are supposed, as a democracy, to be a self governing people, whatever that might mean, but in fact we would not really want to spend any of our precious private time being involved (although a few could and would). We’d be scared stiff to have all that responsibility. So it always devolves to the few who will.

But there is light ahead. Recent events in our Federal parliament give some hope, with independents coming out of the dark, but the real solution is in a working relationship in every electorate between people and their representative conditioned by ‘ballots in parliament’ to be an independent. Not all could or would be involved, but the door to a monthly meeting for their participation would always be open.

And as previously noted, parliament itself would then govern with a direct line of communication and responsibility from the grass roots to parliament—actual democracy. Many changes—all good— would follow, including a well-deserved respect for politicians, even, if only, because their re-election would be entirely in our hands.

The enemy of life - Self Absorption!

*
Jim white, a Telegraph columnist, in his article 'Misery of impending doom strikes early for midlife males'(Age 5/10), with his key phrase ‘what’s-the-point- self absorption’, aptly identifies the vulnerability of the midlife crisis, now coming earlier according to relational analyst ‘Relate’, because of ‘job insecurity, emotional uncertainty and the grim assumption that things aren’t going to get any better’. A downward spiraling of the hopes of many human lives is the depressing outcome of the 'self-absorption’ syndrome.
Contrast that scenario with the words of the Lord, Jesus Christ: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” . And that is the experience of all who can believe, and receive, the promised Spirit – the Holy Spirit. Why, you might impatiently exclaim? Because it is only natural to want a serious answer to the all-important question, which lies at the very heart of our life on earth—not to mention the hereafter (the eternal mystery).
The answer lies, very clearly, in the life and death of Jesus our Lord—a life marked by a sacrifice and humility beyond any human experience, as He lived and died for us all, that we might all know the secret life of God, who created us in His own image. Yes, it’s our created nature to love our fellow human beings, with the humility of self-forgetfulness—the exact opposite of the self-absorption, which is so destructive of life. Various religions have shown a search for this answer right down through history, with the Greek discovery of the principle of democracy also reflecting this search for the real meaning of life.
As a professing democracy we should not fall for the lure of power and the self interest that lies behind it, but we do. Our politics is so confused by selfish loyalties we cannot attain to the unity, and the harmony of government based on the morality of a real democracy—e.g. the equality expressed in the Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others, as you would have them to do unto you’. Self-absorption is the endemic factor at the root of all human conflict.
Religious people, call it sIn the centrality of the 'ego', the self absorption which ruins the good life we, and others around us might have. That’s why Jesus came, why He died—to show us how. He simply said: “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."Matt. 11:28. To understand calls us to believe, to choose, and to follow—to participate in the blessings of a new kind of life, which God intended and which never ends.

World Movements of Tectonic Proportions

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

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

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

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

A New Kind of Parliament

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

Euthanasia – A Conscience Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyranny - a better way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fragile government is formed

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