Monday, May 7, 2012

Non-partisan government.


  1. Long-term planning (not just to next election)
  2. All inclusive parliament (not them and us)
  3. Fixed terms (?4 or 5 years)
  4. Better electorate representation (no "safe seats")
  5. Higher quality of nation management (no distraction by inter party fighting)
  6. Conscience voting across the board (don't have to "toe the party line")
  7. Role of opposition performed by bureaucrats - "Dept. of Due Diligence"
  8. No inordinate power to small "balance-of-power" group
  9. No witch hunts to score political points eg Craig Thomson affair
  10. Less susceptibility to pressure from lobbyists and vested interests.
Associated issues
  1. ? need of House of Review (or is that another role for the bureaucrats?) (Qld doesn't have one)
  2. Major savings with one less tier of govt.? Just National and Local
  3. Feds do Defence, Foreign Affairs, Finance,  Health, Education,  et al
  4. Local govts do Utilities, Infrastructure and locally appropriate Health and Education etc
  5. Internet allows candidates to gain wide exposure, so electioneering expense should be borne by candidates (ie no big donations from vested interests), giving a level playing field
  6. Pay rates will be much better, commensurate with more highly qualified politicians (eg $1m+ for PM) 
  7. Candidates a level of (tertiary) education, commensurate with the importance of the job of running a country 
  8. Committees will continue as at present
  9. Citizen-initiated referenda facilitated via internet
  10. PM (?president) and ministers elected by their colleagues


  1. Hi Col Found this blog via Business Spectator. Good on you for having a go. I am a member of the Liberal Party Port Macquarie branch NSW for my sins and I agree things need to change a lot re how our reps are funded and allowed to assume such control over the parliament and society. I think you are being unrealistic when it comes to what you are working with. Democracies I feel are destined to flail and fail to produce ideal results as my fellow citizens are really wilfully ignorant of all political matters and do not have much motivation to try and look at how the current system can be changed for all our benefits.People are not all that introspective and are not prepared to be honest when it comes to making changes or sacrifices for the here and now let alone future generations. I am wary of your statement which would mandate a minimum level of education. I also disagree with you re our involvement in Afghanistan.WE should probably be intervening even if Sept 11 had not occurred as what these Taliban do to women alone justify military action of some type. I think the first step is to make for more proper transparency with political parties unions corporations etc. Yes I like your observations re this new IT age and how this may affect democratic expression. WE are fast getting to the situation where people can switch on and give their representatives their ideas on all manner of legislation and effectively vote on any matter before parliament. Our reps now do not have any way of dealing with the correspondence that comes via emails etc. Ironically you may have to start a party to develop and disseminate your ideas. Good people are staying away from the mainstream parties further entrenching our lowest common denominator type of operation.

  2. Col, Macca I found this link via the climate spectator. Interesting point. I guess I'm from the other end of the political spectrum and clearly see plenty of common ground. As a volunteer with the greens I would approach the issue you have outlined through a multi-party system perhaps a New Zealand MMP arrangement would be worth investigating. All systems have good and bad plus, some limitations that are cultural that are not the fault of the system itself.