Hi all,

I think one of the things we don't often talk about in Australian politics is political reform. Politicians expect us to follow rules, so it's only fair that they follow rules as well. The only way to do this is via the Constitution. Don't forget that the Constitution is a legal document, and is the supreme law of the land; if it says that something is not allowed, then it's not allowed and no law passed by the Parliament can conflict with it.

For e.g. I think there should be term limits for members of Parliament; no senator or member should serve more than 12 years in his or her lifetime. This would help with constant rotation, and prevent the 'career-politician' that we hate so much.

I also wonder what you guys think about adopting an American-style separation of powers system for Australia? I'm happy to go into details if anyone is interested.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2016 at 4:34pm:




Hi augcaesarustus,

What do you think about introducing a reform to give citizens/electors the right to 'recall' politicians [mid term] if it can be demonstrated that they made promises at election time, and then reneged on those promises in office [and for the right of citizens to 'recall' a pollie for any other 'miscreant'/offensive behaviour] ?

Google;
right of citizens to recall in u.s. states


e.g.

Recall election - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_election
A recall election is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office ... 30,000 signatures (4% of all adult citizens) are required to trigger a recall ... Several states proposed adopting a recall for US senators in the years .... (wrote in Brazilian Portuguese) English Title: The right of recall elected officials.

Valkie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2016 at 4:50pm:


Your response indicates that you don't deserve to have an opinion.

Some of the proposed changes would be to:

1) increase House terms to 4 years (fixed-terms);
2) introduce mixed-member PR voting system in the House;
3) reconstitute the Senate so that the State Legislatures elect senators, so that they can still serve 6 years;
4) restrict the total number of Ministers to no more than 9 in number;
5) implement 12 year term limits for members and senators;
6) reduce the power of the Senate so that it may only delay passage of legislation for nine months, after which the House of Reps has the final decision.

Auggie wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2016 at 4:34pm:



I think 8 years is more than sufficient, total. They can't do 8 yrs local govt, 8 yrs state and then 8 yrs federal.

John Smith wrote on Aug 28^th, 2016 at 7:39pm:


So, generally, it would be 12 years in either House or in both, in any combination of terms. I think 12 years is the right balance. This is the standard in the USA in States where term limits are implemented.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 28^th, 2016 at 7:16pm:


3 years is too short.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 29^th, 2016 at 7:28am:


What on earth are you talking about?

Constitutional amendments are difficult enough. A new Constitution is a huge national project with so many groups to be consulted and appeased. The only people who can do it are Parliamentarians, and they can't even agree on a budget. The republic debate founders on the legalities of Constitutional change and it has a lot of support. The stumbling blocks add up to inertia.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 29^th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

I recognize the challenges in project. I also don't buy the fact that it's impossible or unimportant. The Framers of the current Constitution didn't consult women or indigenous people; and given that suffrage was restricted (even among men), the Constitution didn't even have the support of the majority of the population.

I think it's high time we had a new Constitution. Of course, politicians are weary of a new Constitution: anything that constrains their power is bad; and this is what the new Constitution would aim to do. I think the public would lifetime term limits; and I think they'd even support a presidential system of government.

juliar wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 7:24pm:


There's a particular way to do political and constitutional reform, and what you've suggested isn't it. The Constitutional reforms are purely political and procedural in nature.

Its time wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 8:02pm:


That's just ridiculous. I'm trying to have a serious discussion here. If you don't have anything to positive to say, then don't.

Aussie wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 8:07pm:


This is exactly what the establishment wants: they want these sorts of debates shut down with comments like 'it's ridiculous; it's impossible...'

Aussie wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:


Ok, if you're so clever and pragmatic, then you bust this High School 'Assignment' by presenting your argument. What proposal have I said that is a 'utopia' or 'fantasy'?

Aussie wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 8:26pm:

You claimed a high ground on pragmatism when you criticized me for not being pragmatic.

I would like to state for the record that Aussie has failed to refute my argument and proposals. He is criticizing the ideas of this topic without even understanding what it is about. He is making baseless arguments based on emotion, without any logic or reasoning behind his comments. Therefore, I urge you, reader, to ignore Aussie's comments and disregard them as the ramblings of an ill-informed member of this Forum. He has lost the argument.

Aussie wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 8:37pm:


Quote:


Really? Pray tell? When was the last time we had a discussion about increasing House terms to 4 years; or when was the last time we had a discussion about reforming the powers of the Senate? I think your definition of political reform is very shallow indeed.

Quote:



Quote:


Joshing you? Is the Constitution not a legal document?

Quote:


Quote:


You might like career politicians; but there's a bigger issue here: the frequent rotation of members of Parliament is more democratic and increases accountability. Incumbents have huge advantages over their opponents due to their ability to fund-raise, and due to the fact that they are in Parliament and can pass laws that benefit their constituents. Also, public office is better served by being an office of 'public service' where people spend a short-time in office, contribute and then move on to private life.

Quote:


Quote:


The American system is known as a 'separation of powers' system, where the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are separate. The Legislature makes the laws; the Executive executes them; and the Judiciary interprets the law.

What you cited is a bunch of links making references to 4-year terms in the House that have made passing references to it; but there hasn't been an actual proper discussion of it in the Parliament. No political party has made that reform, nor any other reform part of their platform. What about Senate reform? What about reforms to curb the powers of the Commonwealth? What about reforms to institute term-limits?

Quote:



Quote:


Joshing you? Is the Constitution not a legal document?

Quote:


Are you serious? Clearly, you don't know anything about the Constitution. Let me give you a history lesson. The Constitution is actually called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901, which is an Act of the UK Parliament and of the Commonwealth Parliament. E.g., when the High Court strikes down same-sex marriage legislation by States, it's because the States don't have the power to legislate for marriage, which is a power conferred on the Commonwealth under section 51 of the Constitution. If the Constitution wasn't a legal document, then why would it be unconstitutional for the State to legislate on marriage?

Anyone will tell you that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is problem: we have people, who supposedly consider themselves well-informed about politics, who don't even realize that our Constitution is a legal document. Looks like you need to get back to the real world.

Quote:


Quote:


You might like career politicians; but there's a bigger issue here: the frequent rotation of members of Parliament is more democratic and increases accountability. Incumbents have huge advantages over their opponents due to their ability to fund-raise, and due to the fact that they are in Parliament and can pass laws that benefit their constituents. Also, public office is better served by being an office of 'public service' where people spend a short-time in office, contribute and then move on to private life.

Quote:


No, I'm not. And unless that's your argument about what I said....

Quote:


Quote:


The American system is known as a 'separation of powers' system, where the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are separate. The Legislature makes the laws; the Executive executes them; and the Judiciary interprets the law.

Quote:


Again, you are clearly ill-informed about our own political system and America's. Ours is, in theory, a separation of powers; but in practice, it is not. In reality, it is a fusion of powers, hence why members of the Executive are members of Parliament. In America, a member of Congress can't be a member of the Executive and vice-versa.

Gosh, you need to know your facts before you shoot your mouth off...!

[/quote]
[/quote]

Aussie wrote on Aug 30^th, 2016 at 9:25pm:


So, there it is! An attempt to try and salvage yourself from your own stupidity and ignorance.

Here, observe, reader, that Aussie claims that the American system is based on the Westminster system. Surely, there is nothing more laughable in the realm of intellectual stupidity than this assertion.

I wish you all the best, Aussie. You are an ignorant simpleton, and it's because of people like you that that the word stupidity exists. I actually pity you.