So, recently, there have been a few Forum members claiming that my ideas are shallow and that they have capacity to think deeply about the big issues, and challenge existing structures.

In the realm of politics, nothing is bigger or more deep than challenging our current political structure. So, for the purposes of those people who wish to prove to themselves that they are on par with me in terms of the capacity to think deeply and challenge existing structures...

I propose that we have a Constitutional Convention on OzPolitic, similar to the ones held in the 1890s in the Federal Constitutional Conventions.

I put my hand up to the be the President of the Convention, subject to approval by the members. We can have a Vice President etc. at the suggestion of other members of this Forum.
--
In order to the get the ball rolling, I will make the first proposal for change in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900:

Alteration 1 - House of Representatives

Section 24, paragraph 1. Repeal the paragraph, insert: -

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth,and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators..

Section 28 - Repeal the section; insert -

"Every House of Representatives shall continue for three five years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may sooner be dissolved by the Governor-General.

Section 31 - Repeal the section; insert -

"Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but subject to this Constitution, the laws in force in each State for the time being relating to elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State shall, as nearly as practicable, apply to elections in the State of members of the House of Representatives.

"The manner of choosing the members of the House of Representatives shall be in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of a mixed-member system."



Alteration 2 - The Senate

Section 7, paragraph 2 - repeal the section:

"But until the Parliament of the Commonwealth otherwise provides, the Parliament of the State of Queensland, if that State be an Original State, may make laws dividing the State into divisions and determining the number of senators to be chosen for each division, and in the absence of such provision the State shall be one electorate."

Section 7, paragraph 3, repeal the section; insert: -

"Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State,5 but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators." There shall be six senators for each State.

Section 13, repeal the section; insert: -

"As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall become vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.

The election to fill vacant places shall be made within one year before the places are to become vacant.

For the purposes of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election."

As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators into six classes (according to their States, to be chosen by lot); and the places of the first class of senators (the first State) shall be vacated at the expiration of one year; of the second State at the expiration of two years; of the third State at the expiration of three years; of the fourth State at the expiration of four years; of the fifth State at the expiration of five years; and of the final State at the expiration of six years; and thereafter each senator shall be chosen every six years according to their State.

Aussie wrote on May 26^th, 2017 at 2:57pm:


The member Aussie has proposed to retain '... shall continue for three years...' Please indicate yay or nay to MY change. Nay for 3 years, or Yay for 5 years; or you may propose an alternate alteration.

The measure adopted will be determined by a majority of the votes of those participating.

We should adopt voting by delegable proxy in the Senate. This would allow you to increase the lower house terms also. We could trial it by reintroducing the QLD state Senate.

I vote for the creation of a Republic with Her Maj as a figurehead, and for the abolition of slavery....

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth.

2. Every House of Representatives shall continue for THREE years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may sooner be dissolved by the Governor-General.

*Politicians are like nappies, they should be changed often and for the same reason.

3.  There will be no decision by the government of the day on which Senators will stand for re-election for a half-Senate election, the matter to be determined by lot.

4.  Provision shall be made for Citizen Provided Initiated Referenda. (ah - that's the word)...

5.  Politicians elect and their immediate families shall be forbidden from engaging in commercial activity in any venture that may arise from government policy, present or intended, and legal penalties shall apply for failure to refrain from doing so, up to and including loss of seat and pension rights plus other sanctions.

6.  No Party may proceed with a policy it has not aired before the electorate prior to election - i.e. there is no absolute mandate to do whatever any party wishes to do once installed in majority.  Exception may be made in cases of genuine emergency.

7.  Politicians past shall be forbidden from engaging in any lobbying or input activity to government for a period of ten years. 

*No commercial enterprise calls on the services of its past employees for a casual nod..... once you're out, you're out, and these d1cks remain party members and still have their local vote etc... we're not here to provide them with a little cash now and then.

8.  Compensation shall be made via fair compensation for proven costs of serving the people, on the basis of a fair accounting and within prescribed limits.

9.  Remuneration shall be reviewed on the basis of performance for the electorate annually, with a base salary of AWE, and any bonus accorded directly by the electorate.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


The issue is, Ye Grappler, is that 3 years isn't enough time to do anything substantial. You need to think of terms as 'budgets'. Each government has the chance to present 3 budgets (maximum) to the people. I think this is too short-term; five-year terms can ensure long-term policies.

Also, just because the House can continue for 5 years doesn't mean that it will. The UK has five-year terms, but they recently called an election; i.e. this Parliament has only continued for 2 years. The 5-year term means that the Government can go on for five years.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


Why not have fixed-term Parliaments?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


Yes, good idea.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


Yes, good idea.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


This is problematic. It would only result in the political parties making vague promises, with no concrete details.

This is where you and I disagree: when the people elect a government, I believe that government does have an absolute mandate to do what it wants, because it is subject to re-election by the people. The people can punish the government by not voting them back in. Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


Agreed.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 27^th, 2017 at 11:48am:


Question: how do you determine performance? What are the indicators?

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:


Thing is - based on past history - the public don't want them to do anything more substantial than they already do.  It's not as if politicians are actually managing the nation for us - they see their job as playing politics and making points in the house - not designing a full and proper restoration of the economy and overall standards of living, and actually working for the best outcomes for ALL, and not just their own selected groups.

Parties that make vague promises would be no different than the current lot - they studiously avoid pre-election discussion of their real intentions, then expect a gullible public to wait three years to kick them out for lying etc.  On top of that, they pretend that there are 'issues' for party ideological reasons, and then foist them on that same public, who essentially have no say in the matter, since their choices are few at any future election.

The reason for an offset half senate election is to ensure that no (unthinking) popular support for one party or the other will result in an absolute majority in both Houses - a good thing to keep the parties hones.

I'm afraid you would need to leave 'performance' up to the voters in the electorate specifically - if the incumbent was seen to be doing a good job for the electorate that voted him/her in AND the nation as a whole (the public are by no means stupid) - the representative would do well out of it.  If not - tough titties.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:


Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:


Actually, yes, they are. They determine the budget, and manage the day to day aspect of government. Am I missing something here?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:


That's part of democracy and party politics.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:


Isn't that the purpose of Medicare and other government benefits?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:


The reason why parties make vague promises is because the broader electorate doesn't have the time to understand the complexity of each policy and issue. Also, politics is about telling people what they want to hear. You think any politician would demonize single-mothers for making stupid choices about whom they slept with? Of course not. People get offended easily.

I don't understand what you mean by 'the public has no say on the matter.' We do vote for our local candidate, and determine who gets into government. We then re-elect them or not each time. The issue here is that if a government is re-elected then the public have approved of their agenda.

Quote:


Absolutely: you can't have social services system like we have in Australia without Government. The provision of adequate social services (to the extend we have them in Australia and many countries) requires coercive institutions; i.e. government.

Quote:


I'm sorry if I ever presented my beliefs in that way. I'm a Libertarian, not an Anarchist. I believe government is necessary to a certain point.

I think what you're referring to is my previous posts about having private entities provide social services to people. Allow me to elaborate here, if you will.

Some libertarians argue that all public social services should be abolished in favour of charities. For e.g. if a person is poor then they can go to Salvation Army or their local church and seek help. I don't necessarily support this manner of providing social services.

Second, the point I made specifically about my proposal was that private entities would provide social services on behalf of the Government and in compliance with the Government. I made this proposal because I was attempting to transplant a Swiss-style healthcare system to social services, which I conceded (later) probably wouldn't work for Social Services.

Basically, the Swiss healthcare system works by forcing people to buy insurance from private insurers, but those insurers must offer a specific package known as a 'universal healthcare package' at a fixed rate that offers government-defined benefits. All insurers have to offer this package and cannot discriminate against people. People could then purchase additional 'units' of healthcare according to their needs.

I was attempting to transplant this kind of system to a social services system whereby private entities such as Salvation Army, or Anglicare would offer unemployment insurance (or other type of insurances); but would need to offer a standard 'universal' package in which an adult would pay a monthly insurance rate. If the person lost his job, then he could apply for the benefit under the universal package - again, the rules for application would be the same. No private provider would be able to discriminate against a person for the 'universal' package, and everyone would have to charge the same. The consumer could purchase additional units of insurance to receive a bigger benefit, etc.

The reason why I would advocate this kind of private provision is because it would be more efficient. Companies would have room to compete with other companies, without at the same time being able to deny any person the right to receive a benefit. It would also save the government money, because people are personally responsible for their own insurance.

I hope this makes sense.

Aussie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:


I said that a social services system like the one we have in Australia is impossible without government. I never that a social services couldn't exist without government.

There is no need for me to labour the point.....you did take the position that government = social services.

That's it from me.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:


That's where.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:57pm:


So, you do equate Government with social services.  Isn't that where we began?

Okay.  Semantics play no part in drafting Constitutions.

Got it.

Not a snowflakes chance in Hell.  You need to be pedantic/semantic on issues like this....lest you have the High Court imposing and filling in gaps and that is another of your pet concerns.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 5:40pm:


In effect it is the opposite. It adds a layer of separation between voters and the house of parliament. My proposal is to remove a layer of separation. If there are 20 million people in the country, there are twenty million votes on each proposal before parliament.

Poor Caesar Augustus, he wants the dictatorship and defacto dissolution of the senate that his uncle achieved by coup d'etat by crossing the Rubicon in 49bc, he just can't see it, or can he? Are you seeking a principate?

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:


Aussie kindly posted a link earlier:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:25pm:


Ah, but that doesn't stop me from talking about it... A bit like you.

Setanta wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:32pm:


My goal isn't to implement a dictatorship; it's to improve our political system. I believe in Federalism, and because I believe in Federalism, I believe that the States should have input into the Commonwealth.

If you don't believe in Federalism, then you won't support this measure.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:08pm:


You are suggesting that providing essential services is not the role of government?  (rather than its prmoting ideologies and cronies etc)...

Quote:


It is the role of government to provide necessities for people. I also think that people need to have the tools to thrive in society, and that the government has intervened too much to prevent this.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


There you go with the old 'privatisation' concept - privatisation has been proven time and again NOT to deliver the services it is supposed to replace when run by government.

Your agenda is clear.... more 'privatisation' of everything, regardless of cost to the end user, who always pays for the extra layers of administration etc.

You've been around her long enough to realise and understand that privatisation is a failed policy that has rendered no real benefit to society as a whole - but only to the insiders who get in on it.  Everybody else pays more for the same service.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:52pm:


No need for you to apologise.  That post was not yours.  I was Effendi's. 

Effendi....who is 'he' and how did 'he' get to be 'he' in the first place?

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:


Like you want to give politicians carte blanche with extended periods of power and no redress for 5 years? Sounds like time limited dictatorship to me, what if they choose to extend their term? Let them do it and see how it works out? Seek redress later, if you can?

Your ideas, while good thought experiments, are not that good.

Auggie wrote on May 28^th, 2017 at 10:48pm:


Anxiety about losing their seat is a good thing. It's what makes them represent the people. You can't have it both ways. You can't have apathetic voters who are too lazy to change their delegation and politicians who are too fearful of people changing their delegation. This will actually make politicians work harder to get people's attention and get engaged, because you can longer simply get a free ride on the back of a partisan institution.

If every single person is lazy and apathetic, the result would be identical to what we already have, where people just vote for the same party every election, state, federal and local. It could only improve on that. It will give people more options. If there are 80 members of parliament, there are 80 different competing platforms. People are far more likely to find someone who agrees with them on a range of issues.

It will improve it in several fundamental ways:
* It will give people more options to choose from when they vote.
* It will allow them to have a say, if they choose to, on every bill before parliament.
* It will force every single MP to work for every single vote, rather than just towing the party line. They will actually have to engage the public and convince them to vote for them personally.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 11:37am:


So, what about issues to do with recall of delegates? Can a person be elected as a delegate and then three months later be recalled? If so, wouldn't this cause more instability for the delegate?

When will someone, anyone, tell me who 'he' is and how 'he' gets to be.....'he?'

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 7:16pm:


Well, that's not really what we want. We want MPs to be able to do their jobs properly, otherwise no one will want to be an MP.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 7:16pm:


After thinking about this, I think you're on to something, and I'm willing to support it. If I may offer my own two-cents, I think the system could be beneficial in the following fashion:

1) the country would need to be divided into small electorates, thereby allowing for closeness to the elector. Say the Senate has 76 seats, then there would need to be 76 constituencies (of equal population - say, 100,000 approx.): this would ensure that each delegate's vote is equal. The number of senators could potentially be more in order to ensure 'closeness' to the electorate.

2) delegates would be in their position for a minimum time of six months; this would ensure at least some degree of stability for the delegate (one could increase to a year, possibly).

3) the delegate would his/her office so long as they are recalled - after the first six-month period. This is a kind of 'negative' power. Instead of having people go to polls every six months, it would be assumed that the delegate has the support of the electorate until there is a recall by the electors in that electorate - a process would have to be developed to facilitate this.

4) prescribe term limits as a stop-gap measure in case of abuse: no person can be a delegate for more than 6 years in his/her lifetime; or they can't serve more than 3 terms in a row (or a combination of either). This would ensure frequent rotation in office; although depending on the rules, existing delegates may be able to re-serve.
--
The questions that remain in my mind are the following:

1) can the Senate (consisting of such delegates) propose laws to the Parliament; or do they only debate and vote on proposals by the Government? If the latter, then we should consider instituting MMP proportional representation in the House of Reps (as they do in NZ currently) to ensure that a diversity of ideas are considered in policy (due to a greater likelihood of coalition governments - not the Coalition).

2) does the electorate vote on the budget every year? In theory this is good, but the issue with this is that what the people want may not be what is fiscally responsible. Sometimes though choices have to made and people may not be willing to vote on those choices - this is one of the benefits of representative democracy: sometimes the Government has to think about running the country.

3) can the Senate (consisting of such delegates) amend the budget? Or do we retain the current rules where the Senate cannot amend appropriation and supply?

4) what about the State Governments? Do they get an input into Federal legislation, or do you advocate abolishing the States?

Aussie wrote on May 29^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:


Nobody?

Auggie wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:21pm:


Okay, when will someone, anyone, tell me who 'she/he' is and how 'she/he' gets to be.....'she/he?'

Auggie wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:24pm:


And how, and how often can 'he' be booted by the electorate as their delegate.

Quote:

And what mechanism is he proposing.

Put some meaningful flesh on this esoteric stuff, please, Effendi!

Auggie wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 2:43pm:


Okay, let's see what Effendi says.

Quote:


That is what we have now. 1 MP from each electorate, who is somehow meant to represent all those people at the same time, even though they were lumped together fairly arbitrarily. My proposal is a single electorate and all 76 MPs compete for vote amongst the entire state or nation. MPs do not vote in the house with one vote each. Each person on the country votes in the house of parliament, and the MPs are their to vote on behalf of whoever delegates to them. People can delegate to a local if that is what they want. Or they can delegate to someone on the other side of the country who agrees with them.

As far as I can tell the only change you are proposing is that people can turf out their local MP at any time.

Read the link Aussie provided.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2017 at 6:53pm:


Ok, first of all, your proposal to have 76 senators to represent the entire country has one main problem: the votes of people living in smaller States won't count, and therefore their interests won't be considered. For e.g. all you would need is NSW and VIC and that's it. Now, sure, that's majority-rules, but there are people who live in other parts of the country whose views need to be considered.

The same would be if the senators represented the States, because the MPs will vote on behalf of the entire State population.
--
What you're essentially advocating is 'tyranny of the majority'.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 7:14pm:


Mmm, I don't think we need more States. 6 States is quite enough.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 8:08pm:


From your perspective, yes, but from a Tasmanian's perspective their vote is equal. That was and is the point of the Senate - everyone's vote is equal because their vote counts for the same. If the Greens get 50% of the vote in Tasmania they get 3 senators; in NSW they get 3 senators.
--
I suppose if you implemented it on a State level, it would be all right.
--
Personally, I prefer to strengthen representative democracy.

As I've mentioned previously, I like in theory the idea of an appointed Senate/Legislative Council who serve for life. The reason for this is because I think having such a House would shield it from partisanship because a senator's re-election isn't dependent on the party; once they're in, they're in; they can do support any bill they want without repercussions.

Of course, this would never fly with the public. It's hard to from voting back to 'not voting'.

Aussie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 8:54pm:


Even if it's the right thing? Let's assume that it produces better political outcomes, should I abandon it because people would never buy it?

Auggie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 9:20pm:


Correct.  No point in doing this, is there?

No, I am not.  I am saying this:

Carry on then, but.....I'll stay out of the wind.

Has Effendi said how 's/he' gets to be 's/he' and gets booted from being 's/he' yet?

I'd stone myself to death.

Auggie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 9:52pm:


It might have been a reference to a "Marla" stoning to death.  I'm sneaky like that.

Auggie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 9:55pm:


Link.

Quote:


Whoops, I did it again! Assuming what other people think.... This is very bad habit of mine...

Quote:


Because that was the initial intention of the Senate in the Constitutional Conventions. If you read the debates from that time, you'll see this is quite clear.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:05pm:


No, it doesn't need to. But, you were talking about the existing Senate.

Do you have any alternative proposals for the Senate?

Auggie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:08pm:


Yes he does.....some ill defined delegate proxy thing he wants trialled in Qld, but he still will not say how that proxy gets to be the proxy, what that proxy represents and from where, whose interests they are meant to represent and protect, and how they can be gotten rid of, if at all.

Gee, I wonder when he'll do that?  Anytime soon, do you think?

Auggie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:27pm:


I have no idea what those are.

Yes.  Status quo.  It ain't broke.

Quote:


No. 

I am opposed to giving politicians time to get smug.  Have a look at Newmann......went ballistic in the three years he had!  How much more damage could he have caused if he had an extra year?

Yes, I came second in that vote.

So, just to clarify, Aussie. You support 8-year terms in the SA and NSW LegCos?

Aussie wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 10:20am:


How do you determine what is tolerable? Answer = what people are used to.

On the one hand, you're saying that you don't support 8-year terms, but on the other, you don't want to do anything to change it?

Here's another question: would voters flock to the party that proposed such reforms? Probably not, because at the end of the day, most people don't care about those sorts of things; what they want is economic benefit.

Aussie wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 4:20pm:


Australia can NOT EVER have a "House of Lords ...........  that's the Pommy thing.

Question:  How many LORDS do we have in the Australian Parliament?

Tolerate is something people need to do when reading what absolute rubbish you post.