partyless politics;  transition;   blueprint;  quotations in support;

The case for partyless politics

Say goodbye to the middle man

It is not a requirement of parliament for political parties to be in existence. The only thing that is necessary in parliament is that there is a representative from each electorate.  Political parties are an unnecessary intrusion and obstruction to the process of parliament. You don't need to rely on political parties as the only means by which policy can be created. 

In the simplest of terms, if there were no political parties, if something important needs to be done someone will think of it and inform their local (independent) MP, who, after then receiving a positive vote from their electorate on it, (via regular communications), will take it to parliament.  Then, if  the majority of the other (independent) MPs agree to it, they will vote it into legislation. Nothing different to how it is now, except without the 'middle men' - the political parties, which are too often controlled by powerful lobby groups that have their own agenda.

What voters believe

Most voters believe that it is more important to vote for someone attached to a political party than to vote for an independent person to represent their electorate. They think that the political party will 'get things done' for them. The trouble is, half of Australia think that one party is right, while the other half think that the other party is right. While still other voters opt for a smaller party, others again opt for an independent. These voters obviously don't see a problem with a sudden demise of major party control, which would happen if everyone voted the same way as they did, for smaller parties or independents.

Procedures for independents needed

What is needed is for many more to vote for independents, but in so doing, procedures should first be put into place whereby independents, as candidates, are first closley scrutinised and then voted upon by the electorate, and to be held accountable to their electorate, to represent only what they agreed to do. This does not happen at present, with MPs having a choice to chop and change their opinions according to the weather. This must stop. There is a better way. (See 'Blueprint for partyless politics - a summary', further below). In all of this it must be kept in mind that

because we are a CM, we already have the blueprint in place. The ARP does not advocate independents who do not wish to adhere to this blueprint.

No party gets everything right - elections have been lost on badly produced policy. Both - or all - parties, have policies that are written by a small handful of people, and are funded by self interested groups and individuals,  eg unions for Labor, big business for Liberal.  The reality is that the lowest echalon of the political spectrum - the general voting public - is robbed either way, while these groups and individuals benefit.

We advocate that the best way to benefit the voting public is for each MP to be free of the shackles of political parties, to be free instead, to vote in accordance with what their electorate wants - what the people want -  on any given issue.  And also, to be free to make a meaningful contribution on matters, speaking on behalf of their electorate (via the majority vote, ascertained through regular communications, utilising an AEC produced website).

Representatives (MPs)  v political parties

A representative is to reflect the wishes of the voters in their electorate. Voters, in giving their allegiance to a political party, short-change themselves, by accepting policies, some of which they do not necessarily agree with.  This 'blind' acceptance, generally based on family tradition, creates a political environment with a lack of clarity, with policies of social and economic focus within the party often changing with each changing party leader.

Then there is the division created within society, by having at least two major parties, both claiming to be the best party to represent the people, via differing policies.  It is a far better concept to have an MP voted in on his or her own merits, and platform, at the grass roots level, and for that person to then convey the electorate's wishes in Canberra.  So instead of blindly following a party, to instead have in place a simple system of voluntary communication with one's independent MP, made easy with the internet. When votes on issues are needed, people will have the satisfaction of being able to participate in politics at a grass roots level.  Regular public meetings in each electorate would be necessary, to maintain transparency.

In a partyless system an MP would need to hold regular meetings with the electorate, perhaps monthly, or every three months, following voluntary voting via the internet (AEC site) on any newly raised issues in Canberra, to ascertain the will of the electorate. Transparency in all aspects can be given on the AEC internet site, (see below), with votes being recorded, along with the name, or pen name, of the voter.

Political party failure - real issues not confronted

One only has to look at a range of political issues to see that they have not been appropriately, nor efficiently, nor effectively, nor satisfactorily resolved over the years, most if not all of them having been created amid the daily turmoil as seen in the media, created by having political parties.

Some examples of these are: homelessness, illiterate youth, domestic violence, out of control children, lack of government housing, unmanagable vandalism of public housing, street crime, unemployment, welfare dependency, child abuse, elder abuse, bankruptcy, credit card dependency, drug taking, alcoholism, loss of commonwealth ownership of natural resources, loss of manufacturing, foreign ownership of land, creation of underclass of over 48s with 'responsible banking' laws, all manner of moral decadence and inequality, and the state of the economy. 

Compulsive obsessive disorder in political parties

It is not an exaggeration to accuse some leaders of a party of COD, when we see a continuous putting down of the opposition's policies, especially regarding contentious issues, such as asylum seekers, mining and climate change. This serves no useful purpose and is destructive.  Likewise, the continuous abuse of time in parliament, with name calling and ridiculing of the opposing party leaders, made prevalent by leaders such as Paul Keating and even more so by Julia Gillard, is unacceptable. 

The legacy of political parties

One could write a book on the all consuming media frenzy that accompanies a lead up to an election, or, every day, 24/7, if there is at least one feisty leader or minister who constantly derides their opposition. Party leaders are expected to be alert every waking moment, providing solutions to an ever demanding populace while the leaders must constantly think up new policy in an effort to maintain or regain popularity. The leaders become the only people of interest, almost akin to presidential candidates in a dictatorship.

We thus end up with public money being spent in areas that are not of the most pressing concern, even unnecessary, with real issues being ignored, not to mention the huge wastage of money spent on political party advertising.  Sponsors of this would spend their money more effectively by contributing to charity. Repealing legislation made by the former party in power becomes a task, often not successfully done.  The direction of the country moves here and there, in fits and starts. 

We are left with damaging results of the decisions of party leaders, when prime ministers, such as Gough Whitlam with his big mistake, (see 'Summary of facts' page), cannot be easily rectified. We must bring to an end to this damaging political party madness. 

With Liberal now in power, perhaps this may happen, though Labor is already vowing to bring them to their knees in the next election. The merry-go-round goes on, to our detriment.  It is time to change it, and until someone comes forward with a better solution, the partyless system, under the umbrella of our CM, offers the means by which to do it.

In today's world, we cannot assume that the 'same old thing' will happily go on forever, amid global warming, the arctic pole melting, the Gulf Stream disintegrating, the oceans heating up, the South Pole breaking up at the edges, and third world countries under seige, their citizens seeking asylum elsewhere, including Australia.  It is time for unity, sensibility and humanity in decision making, not divisiveness, which results in second rate chopping and changing of  decisions.

The 2013 election - political parties galore

The notion of political parties has come full circle, with around fifty parties all having vied for a place in Canberra.  That two novice outsiders have become senators (through a flawed system of preferential and quota voting) is a reflection of a substantial degree of discontent within the electorates to the inhibiting effect of major parties.

The results of the 2013 election show that a large number of australians are willing to venture into unknown territory, in an effort to overcome the two party stalemate. Unless the newly elected coalition can provide long term solutions which the majority will be happy with, in other words, start fixing up all of the problems, a new solution will be necessary, or before long, we will have political parties running a country which does not belong to the people, but is instead owned by foreign interests.

The ARP advocates holding a referendum, to 'start the ball rolling', shown further below.

Labor has outgrown its original purpose

With the explosion in the number of new political parties in recent years, it is apparent that the original purpose of the first party formed, the Labor Party, is no longer of urgency, added to which its original purpose was to protect trade unions, but, seeing that so many people have lost their jobs due to the demise of many if not most of our manufacturing industries, this is of no longer of relevance to them, their main mission now being to look for a job. The Labor Party cannot help them with this, and nor can the Liberal Party, because manufacturing would take decades to restore, and no party ever lasts that long in government. We wonder if Tony Abbott and the Liberals can change this. Perhaps Labor will let them try.

Why are we losing our land?

If parliamentarians had adhered to the letter of the original requirements of the Australian Constitution, as Australia grew and developed, the best interests of the country would have been served, and most australians would right now be home owners.  Instead, we have great numbers of unemployed and renting australians, a situation that continues to increase, while foreigners buy up our properties, both rural and urban. The situation has evolved into this because of the oscillation of policies between political parties, of a few or even only one contentuous issue being debated with an inherant obsessionalism, as each party tries to outdo each other, to the detriment of wider and broader policies, which by their neglect have become victims of outside and unseen influences, based upon greed or an idealism not in accordance with our CM.

Had we always had in place the sobriety of independent representation, without political parties, honouring our Constitution, all matters and challenges would have received due attention, dealt with as the people saw fit.  But instead, political party mentality prevailed.

In all of this, over the years, the end result was that many farmers had to sell their farms, to the point, right now, where foreign interests are buying them up at an unprecedented rate, while overall farmers' debts and mortgages are around $66b.  This is a serious problem, and must surely be our main problem. Would this have happened if there had been no parties at all? The same can be said for our urban properties.

One wonders whether the Liberal-National coalition will take positive steps to eradicate this. It may well be that the overall economy is not strong enough to put matters right in this regard, having been damaged over the years precisely by this entrenched system of chopping and changing political parties with accompanying differing ways to govern the country.  In order to go forward we may need to first go backward domestically, or stand still in some respects, whilst 'political renovation' takes place. This is something that every australian needs to seriously consider.

Abandoned and competing policies make us go backwards

Abandoned policies of the 'opposition', by an incoming political party, lead to nothing short of going backwards, while foreign opportunists wedge their way in.  This is overlooked by us, and by the media, amid continuous and meaningless media fed political party frenzy, especially in election years. 

Currently, will Liberal be able to continue its new 'behind closed doors' policy of operation, and not give in to pressure from Labor to give a running commentary on every move made? We seem to be forever stuck in the triviality of 'who said what and why it is wrong' while our country continues to be taken over by outsiders. Strong identities within parties would be better to pool their individual resources - this can be achieved in a partyless government, with the CM as our source of inspiration, rather than trade unions or big business.

We may be in for some long term problems with Indonesia concerning illegal boats, caused by two party bickering. Such is the destructive nature of having competing parties, ever ready to chop one another down, in public, as though directionless, and thus inviting negativity from neighbouring countries, while in the meantime our country is being taken over and sliced up by foreign ownership.

Asylum seekers

Asylum seeking is an ever-growing wordwide problem.  The first step to solving it in Australia is to ensure that every new immigrant (whether legal or illegal) gives allegiance to our CM. With MP Ed Husic making this a farce, Mr Husic's allegiance must first be put right, or else he must be disqualified from office.  We have shown how (and why) this needs to be done. Once we restore the firm foundation with asylum seekers, when they give allegiance to our CM, and forfeit their previous religion, the concept of asylum seeking will cease to be a threat.

In the meantime, while we are still acting as though 'lost', international rules will play a larger part, via international cooperation, and this is not going to solve our problem. All it will lead to is increased islamic activity in Australia.  We must be firm about this - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" must prevail, and steps must be taken immediately, by the current government, to make this happen.  If not, the ARP is here to facilitate the process, but needs YOU to make the party become a meaningful entity.

'Bulk' policies, and policies 'on the run', are dysfunctional

Looking back historically, as the years went by, the disadvantages of the hindering effect of 'bulk' political party policies, coupled with the switching of direction each time a political party succeeded as the government, became firmly entrenched into the psyche of the public. It was inconceivable to think that the problems, which were growing larger with the years, due precisely to this, could be better fixed by a parliament of independent MPs. The prevailing thought was, (and still is), that only a political party was in a position to know what the problems were, or what new policy needed to be made.  But we are all capable of choosing our own mixed bag of lollies, via an independent MP, who honours our CM.

PM not to be a 'mini dictator'

Some leaders flaunted themselves as advocates of what was best for the country, and some still do. The leader should be the representative of the MPs, not seen as a 'mini dictator', with new policy being seen as originating in the mind of a leader. It should instead be coming from the combined efforts of MPs and the public.  Such non-sensical notions, born out of competition between parties, as Tony Abbott's 'buy the indonesian boats', or Julia Gillard's  'East Timor solution', would not get past 'base one' if such motions were put to independent MPs. This is time wasting, when real issues such as foreign ownership of land and loss of manufacturing and everything else (these problems being caused by having two main political parties in the first place), are overdue for being solved.

Freedom from the shackles of parties

The only way that the real issues can be righted is for MPs to be free of the shackles and time constraints of political party government, so that they can vote in accordance with the wishes of their electorates. This cannot happen satisfactorily when most MPs are committed to party lines, with voting on individual issues not reflecting the true wishes of the majority. In the meantime, the party-caused problems of the country continue to escalate.

More Bob Katters needed

Bob Katter realises this, and it must upset him to see the general obstinancy of voters, when Bob can give a long list of frightening figures and occurences which are not in the interests of Australia, that have come about due to various policies and non-policies of the major parties. The major parties overlook these important issues in favour of simplified and watered down policies that become meaningless slogans and bywords, such as 'moving forward' and 'it's time'.

The ship continues to sink

Amid all of this, foreigners continue to buy up our land - one in eight residential properties - perhaps  a lot more (if one were to view the records of city councils, even more so in Sydney, one would be in for a nasty heart wrenching shock). Not to mention vast tracts of rural land succumbing to foreign ownership.  This must stop.  We can LEASE the land to them instead - why don't our MPs start the ball rolling?  Too afraid to rock the boat? Want to keep the high MP income for an extra three years?  This is an example of the reason why MPs should not be highly paid - they become afraid to act on our behalf. WE - everyday australians - want to be able to buy farms, and houses.  Farmers want to be able to keep their farms. Instead, too many australians have lost hope.  Join the ARP and bring that hope back!

New ASIC rules of 'responsible lending' have created an underclass

The introduction of the NCCPA (National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009) in July 2010 has disadvantaged many australians from obtaining mortgages. This Act needs close scrutiny and modifying, to undo the unfairness of it, and is a prime example of one political party rushing through legislation to the detriment of the majority.  Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are responsible for it.  While some aspects of it help keep unscrupulous mortgagees out of the marketplace, overall it is a hindrance to many, which needs to be rectified. Why should some australians be made to miss out on capital gain when the already rich can continue to profit from it?

True and proper representation

With political parties having their own agendas, the Labor Party at time of writing currently trying to figure out what its main purpose now is, and the Liberal Party undoing work done regarding climate change, (this is not to say that they will not replace it with something else), the time is well overdue to seriously reflect on whether there is any real merit to political party allegiance. There has been so much change in the world in the last one hundred years, and even the last fifty years, that it cannot logically be said that the Labor Party is still there 'for the workers', (especially since Labor over the years has caused so many of them to become unemployed), and that Liberal is the tool of the rich.

What can be said in summary is that for all spectres of society to be fairly represented, with the overall good of the country in mind, true representation can only be made when each MP is put there by their own electorates.  If Australia in general does not want a mining boom, this will be made known.  If Australia in general wants to focus on renewable energy, this will be made known. If Australia in general wants full employment, this will be made known.  If Australia in general wants reduced population growth, this will be made known. And, in being made known, these issues will be acted upon, according to the wishes of the electorates, with no political party to hinder the progress.

The example of Vietnam

Who knows whether our young men would have been conscripted and sent to Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s if we had had a partyless system in place? A referendum could have been held instead.  As it was, other policies were seen as having more importance. Vietnam was not given adequate debate within the electorates, so that an educated vote could be made. The slogan "All the way with LBJ" prevailed.  Such a slogan could only come about via a mainstream political party, influenced by lobby groups and others with power and money, when it should have been the families of Australia who made the decision.

Blueprint for partyless politics 

According to our blueprint for partyless politics,  (see further below), all independent candidate's platforms and policies would be made known by election day, having taken constituents' sugggestions into account.

It is not up to a small handful of people, or leaders, acting under the guise of the supposed wisdom or direction of a political party, to make each decision for us -  each decision must be made by the people. Once made, noone will want to undo it, unless by majority vote.

Australians to be more confident 

Australians are lacking in confidence as far as having a parliament full of independents goes, and this is where the focus should now be - to have parliamentary procedure in place, to be seen and understood by the public, to show how the voting process is carried through its various stages, beginning from choosing an MP.  If necessary, changes or amendments to parliamentary procedure may be required, as brought to light, and parliamentary administrators are the people to do this, after voting on any changes by the MPs.

Confidence can be gained by realising that because we are a CM, we already have the necessary foundation in place. The ARP does not advocate independents who do not wish to adhere to this foundation.

A better and more efficient way

In looking at the vast array of problems that now confront us, that were not in existence a hundred years ago, or even fifty years ago, it can be concluded that to rely on two political parties to intermittently hold the reins of government serves no useful or pressing purpose, but instead, obstructs the natural flow by the public service of the administration of the Constitution for the ultimate good of Australia.

An example to keep in mind 

Public servants and parliamentarians should have an attitude as shown by Lord Sydney, who, as home secretary, responsible for organising settlement in Australia,  in 1788, shaped the australian way of life from the start by including an independent judge with the first fleet, to allow for the convicts to have the benefit of our judicial system with civil matters. A quote regarding Lord Sydney is shown further below, and displays the spirit which ought to guide the decision making of all of us, including MPs and public servants.

The following is a suggested transition by which partyless politics can come about:

 

1.  ARP or like party must first be voted into office

 

The electorate in general must indicate that they would like to at least trial, for three years, having MPs who are all independent.  This can only come about by legislation, which in turn can only come about by having a new political party in office to create and pass the legislation.  The ARP proposes to be that party. We can only come into office if we are voted in by a majority of electorates, in both Houses, so that we can pass this legislation, which would come about after first having a referendum on the issue. 

 

2.  A referendum is then held

 

Example of  proposed wording for a referendum:

 

"I have read the plan for a transition into partyless politics, that this plan be implemented on an initial three year basis, to be followed in a further three years' time by another referendum for the same.

I agree that, should the partyless system prove to be, for some reason, unacceptable, or perceived to have failed, that voters will be given the opportunity to revert back to the current system, with a referendum to determine this to be held three months before the next election, to allow time for the adjustment.

I acknowledge that this referendum can apply to the three tiers of government, being federal, state and local

Tick one box:

I agree / do not agree to the following legislation:

1.  Political parties and lobby / pressure groups will not be permitted to fund any candidate for the upcoming election in (2016 etc).

2.  MPs will not be permitted to sit on any commercial boards for seven years after their resignation or retirement, but may sit on boards of not for profit or charitable organisations.

3.  All MPs, in both Houses, including those from the ARP, will disengage themselves from their political party mandates (if any) and any paid sponsors at the announcing that this referendum is successful. MPs will from then on consider themselves to be independent, and vote in accordance with the wishes of their electorate to the best of their ability.

4.  Should there be any contention on issues within an electorate, voluntary internet or postal voting will be held on that issue.  The MP must vote in accordance with the majority vote of the electorate.

5. The AEC website will be reconfigured to include provision for this and any other necessary interim measures until the election of candidates, being all independent,  is held at the next general election. 

6. There will be another referendum at the next general election to ascertain whether the same provision for party-less politics should be made in each state, for state elections, and for shire and city councils in each state.

7.  Point 6 (above) will be a permanent feature, so that there is always left open the choice to revert back to political party politics should the majority so desire.

8.  To revert back, each tier of government will hold its own referendum, the procedure having been incorporated into the relevant legislation of each tier of government.

3.  Pre-selection of local MP

Procedures to be put into place to ascertain what the will of the majority within each electorate is with regards to each policy put forward by the winning candidate. The winning candidate will present the viewpoint of the majority in Canberra, as ascertained via voluntary voting on policy within the electorates.  The winning candidate to be elected on their own platform, to be made known in the pre-selection process, following voters having had the opportunity to voice their policy concerns on their electorate's AEC internet page, so that candidates can first refer to these.

Internet to be used in pre-selection process

The AEC internet site to provide for this, to facilitate the procedure.  The voter would click on the AEC site, register, go to 'candidates', ''state', 'electorate', and view a list of names of candidates,  and a paragraph or two about themselves. The voter can include their concerns on their electorate's section on the site, prior to the candidates having to state their policies. Dates and venues would be given where candidates will speak for no more than ten minutes.  Preliminary voting is voluntary, and done via post or on the internet, with voters registering to vote.  Sausage sizzles for outside venues, or tea, coffee and biscuits for inside venues, will draw the people to hear the candidates.  Security to be provided at all venues. Social media and other outside assistance not to be employed during the election campaign, to maintain simplicity, fairness and equality amongst candidates.

4.  Election day

The second round of voting will be the actual elections, where everyone votes.  This would follow further prior speeches and question time at venues, where final candidates can make themselves further known, and mingle with the voters. No candidates will be allowed to run their own campaign, to prevent inequality in presentation.  All campaign signs will be made by the AEC, with candidates choosing their own design, slogan etc.  Because legislation will state that political parties and lobby groups cannot fund candidates or MPs, everyone will be independent.  An application fee for candidates, of around say $250, will discourage those who are not genuinely interested in becoming an MP.

5.  When in Canberra - where will the 'opposition' sit?

Who will be the opposition?

The Opposition will be a term used at the end of every bill presentation, at voting time.  Seating arrangements for the opposition can be one of two ways:

a)  those who oppose a given issue, during debate, can sit at the far end of each side, moving towards the front, OR

b) each backbench seat, and Cabinet seat, to have two lights -  green for agreeance, and  red for opposition. When it comes to the vote, the MP presses the light of their (electorate's) choice. Each MP has their own seat, and / or password, and votes are recorded electronically, each MP's choices being aggregated for future reference, and to inform the electorates, via the AEC site.

6.  Selection of Cabinet 

Cabinet would come into existence via a procedure of voting amongst MPs, following the general election, via numerous and varied parliamentary sessions whereby nominees for positions have the opportunity to attend the specialist areas (being the portfolios of their interest), and from which voting will occur. Experience, knowledge and leadership potential for these roles would be taken into account when voting, so that the end result would be the same as if the prime minister had chosen the cabinet - the 'cream would rise to the surface'. There may need to be a pre-selection process within all of this, to narrow the final numbers to be voted upon. In the initial transition process to partyless politics, existing or former cabinet ministers of any party, who are already known to the MPs may well be voted in again.

7.  Choosing the prime minister

The prime minister would be voted in by the MPs, following the choosing of Cabinet. The prime minister would be the leader in the sense that he or she would represent Cabinet in general, and be the spokesperson for the Cabinet as well as for the country.  This is the opposite of the current situation, where the prime minister has evolved, in recent times, to become a person (some would liken the current power to that of a dictator), who calls the shots and thinks up the policies, in a concerted effort to win the election.  This will no longer be the case.

Nominees for prime minister would come only from those who nominated for a position in Cabinet, including a minister already voted in.  If the prime minister has already been voted into Cabinet, that Cabinet position can then be either re-voted on, from the pre-existing candidates, or the new prime minister can choose the new minister from the pre-existing candidates.  (The former would be better, so that the prime minister remains detached from any personal preferences in the Cabinet).  Likewise, the prime minister can choose the deputy leader in the same way, and if that person was voted in as a member of the cabinet, then the same procedure applies. With the position of Speaker, the prime minister can choose that person.  Cabinet members (including the prime and deputy ministers),  choose the parliamentary secretaries according to their portfolios and duties, and any extra secretaries can be chosen via voting within the MPs.

8.  Incidentals

a)  AEC to implement the above via revised processes, such as creation and integration of webpages for electorates and pre-selection of candidates, and for communication between MP and electorate. 

b)  Parliamentary administration to reflect these changes, so that there is a smooth flow from the old way to the new way. eg:

i)  forums to be held on issues, with guest expert speakers

ii)  major issues could be segmented, to provide for greater understanding when voting by MPs

c)  MPs to have the same timetables, eg public meeting every three months in electorate public hall / community centre, with refreshments, paid for by the AEC.  Could also have some local entertainment, such as a local choir or two. The general population must have plenty of opportunity to be involved, in an attractive way.

Blueprint to partyless politics - a summary

How to select candidates

1.  'AEC national candidates' website to be established.

a)   The AEC establishes a national website with separate sections for each electorate.

b)  Alternatively, each electorate can have its own website, though all websites would have the same format.

c)  Voters are invited to submit topics of both national and local electoral concern, by a certain date. These topics are put in order of popularity, to be utilised later on.

2.  Initial nominations by candidates.

There will be elimination rounds, should there be more than (say) seven candidates.

a)  Online nominations are called for. Nominees pay (say) $100 admission fee. Candidates write no more than a page telling what they would do, and including up to five topics for debate, from the AEC topic list, and /or their own concerns. (No need for photos, age or personal history at this stage)

b)  A community sausage sizzle / afternoon tea should then occur, where candidates speak for no more than five minutes, and meet and mingle with everyone.  

c)  Voluntary online voting then occurs, by a certain date. It is straight voting, with no preferential voting between candidates.

d)   No more than (say) seven finalists then become the candidates for the electorate.

3.  Candidate familiarisation.

a)  The AEC organises a series of debates amongst the finalists, to be held in Community Arts Centres or local / school halls. Topics come from the most voted on in the AEC topic list.

b)  Finalists choose one or two of their own, or local, topics, in a separate discussion forum.

4.  Voting then takes place as per usual, on voting day.

 

5.  Any procedural changes in Canberra, to adapt to this 'new way', to be fine-tuned as they become apparent.

Quotations in favour of partyless politics:

The quote below, about Lord Sydney, is significant in that it indicates what the true character of decision making should be - that it should rise above party politics, to reflect instead the true nature of the best within the spirit and the soul of mankind, which, in all Commonwealth of Nations countries, is represented by a CM upon which the reigning monarch takes an oath on the Bible.

Quotation 1:

From the book  "Lord Sydney: The Life and Times of Tommy Townshend",  by Andrew Tink, Australian Scholarly Publishing p. 208:

"Sydney's dilemma throughout the 1780's was best summed up by a Times letter-writer 'Hampden' whose nom de plume celebrated John Hampden, a parliamentary hero who had been killed during the English civil war. On 17 May 1785 Hampden wrote:

The character of Lord Sydney.....flows from the purest principles of the constitution.....When in opposition.....it did not arise from party motives or personal considerations but from a constitutional spirit of opposing whatever.....was dangerous to that just equilibrium of power which preserves alike the prerogative and dignity of the Crown and the authority and interest of a free people. And in power his Lordship is acting from the same principles.

Hampden contrasted this with the glaring defects in penal administration where 'darkness and terror seize the imagination and convey the horrid ideas of a county prison'.  He hoped that 'the accomplishments of Lord Sydney will rectify the defects of office which discredit his Department and disgrace the nation'".

Quotation 2:

From George Washington, the first president of the USA:

An excerpt from George Washington's farewell address, 1796: 

[The following, approximately halfway through the address, addresses party spirit and encroachment]

".. the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate (ease) and assuage (calm) it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield". 

Hit Counter by Digits  

Website Development - Webdesign By Vicky