To many levels of Government, duplicating, confusing and costly. Let's ditch the States.

18  out of 61 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply

In business, if a member of the board has a conflict of interest, then they abstain from voting (if they're ethical). The same should apply to voters. Recipients of government benefits, and members of the public service, should not be permitted to vote whilst receiving these benefits. This reduces conflict of interest, and might even stop politicians buying your vote (since if you accept, say, a first home-buyers grant, you'd be ineligible to vote during that electoral cycle).

This might sounds strange at first, but it makes sense the more you think about it, and is consistent with the views of John Stuart Mill. In his words: "as required by first principles, that the receipt of parish relief should be a peremptory disqualification for the franchise."

4  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply

My idea is to split the Federal House of Representatives into two sub-houses. One is the "money" house, the other the "moral" house.
The money house is responsible for taxation, federal spending (eg: welfare, health, military, federal public infrastructure, etc.), IR, corporations, banking, trade, etc.
The moral house is responsible for citizenship, marriage, human rights, personal property rights, general federal crimes (eg: treason), general international treaties and relations (it could override money house trade agreements on human rights grounds), etc.
A voter votes for a candidate for each sub-house at election time. Implementing this gives the voter more power and control by way of increased choice. It also allows for specialisation of politicians due to the new division of labour.
A moral house law overrides a money-house law for issues where the two houses share powers/powers overlap and they produce conflicting laws. Though the money house should be allowed to embrace and extend the spirit of the moral house law when creating law relevant to its responsibilities in areas of shared power.
The judicial system resolves questions of conflict of shared powers.

We could introduce a similar split into the lower state houses also: eg, at the state level- the moral house could pass legislation controlling which sort of medical procedures maybe performed (eg: euthanasia) while the money house would build and maintain the public hospitals.

In conclusion I would like to point out that the other branches of government are already specialised. The judicial system at both the federal and state level is split into different courts each with their distinct area of responsibility and the executive at both levels is split into many different departments. I believe that if we likewise allow for specialisation by splitting the legislative branch it would positively advance government in Australia.

2  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Centrelink needs something done with it.
Staff albeit telephone or over the counter need investigating and no doubt retraining.I am NEVER given the same advice twice.Waiting time at my local office is pathetic.There is staff constantly wandering aimlessly around doing very little while you wait.
Slow computers or phone lines are the excuse for incompetant staff that really don't give a damn.
Incorrect advice from staff means overpayment to many people who believe theyre doing the right thing.Then at tax time once the information tags over with the ATO makes YOU appear to be wroughting the system.This generally happens a year or 2 later which means there could be a substancial debt incurred.
As a fulltime carer to a disabled child I can only work parttime.I need to report this income.Fair enough.But why should I need to add travel to and from work into the hrs I work? Pathetic...Hence it looks like I am doing more than I am reporting.This is constantly questioned.
My child cannot go into hospital nor respite care without it affecting my benefit even though if its a hospital situation I stay at his bedside and aid the nursing staff with his day to day care.Please explain!
I am a tax payer and a voter.I shouldnt need to feel inferior by a government department that needs reform.

5  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

CIR has been used in Switzerland successfully for 120 years.
Such referenda nearly made it into the constitution in the 1890s. Labor supported the idea until 1963. They hate it now because the Labor Party has become totally elitist.

Many Australian governments since have made electoral promises for it to be discussed if they were elected (John Howard included ) but have not mentioned it again after they were elected.

CIR can be used at local government level and/or at State level (used by 26 states in the USA) or at Federal level.

In 1993 the residents of Gympie (Queensland) opposed council on the issue of council amalgamation. An unofficial, unsanctioned and strongly debated referendum was organised, paid for and conducted by local citizens. Over 26% of eligible voters took part, with 76% opposed to amalgamation. The referendum forced council to hold an official poll later that year. Over 90% of electors voted and the results reversed the council's earlier decision and stopped amalgamation from taking place.

Direct Democracy IS possible in Australia, as the examples above clearly indicate. We should all canvass our politicians to introduce enabling legislation for binding Citizen Initiated Referenda. We would then have the RIGHT to correct our elected representatives when they stray from what the majority of voters want on important matters. All the major Australian political parties have endorsed CIR at some time or other, but when in power they have not legislated it.

Citizens' Initiated Referenda (CIR) is not a political party, is not involved with any political party and espouses no political cause other than the rights of all of us to have a more direct say in what is happening in Government.

15  out of 20 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Ok, so you know the story: Taxpayers money to get them elected is a waste of money. And if they have to do there own funding then there's the
temptation of sucking up to those giving the money (i.e. unions or big-bussiness).

So how about clear legislation to make ELECTIONS CHEAPER?

Wouldn't it be a great thing if politicians didn't have to pander as much to all those who try to manipulate them (unions, big business,etc.) and be judged by us fairly and hopefully well-informed. I imagine it could actually be better for democracy if well designed. It seems to me that ethics and money are often in conflict (God vs. Mammon kinda and sorry to make the atheists puke over laptop over that one, I hope it wasn't curry, that stuffs the worst ha ha) .
Help with Ideas please? e.g. A system of forums, question and answer sessions and a set and limited no of adds (played only on the news, three adds each night)

2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply

In November 1999 the Australian people voted to retain the Monarchy. After the ALP won the 2007 elections republicans push again for "a" republic to have, what they call, a "truly independent Australia free of the British Monarch". They would get their way also by establishing an Australian Monarchy of our own with a Monarch residing in Government House in Canberra.
I have no problem with sharing our Monarch with other peoples, but having a residing Monarch could be pleasing all those who think Australia was not independent because our Monarch usually resides in another country.

1  out of 8 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply

Show Last Reply

How about we start by reducing the super that politicians get and put it where it is needed most, silly things like health.
While were at it why not get rid of the annual allowances for past prime ministers and premiers which is on top of their over paid supper.
What about getting rid of the allowances for politicians to get paid for overnight accommodation even though they do not stay away overnight.
Do away with this hypocrisy before looking at any other issue.

24  out of 32 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

• Post reply