'The Battle for Democracy -
The Secret Ballot vs The Party System

The Answer -
A Secret Ballot Parliament



Are we slip-sliding away from democracy? You be the judge.

Some time ago, the following question was put to a Liberal member in the Victorian parliament: 'What would be the effect of adopting secret voting for all the decisions of members in a house of parliament?' His immediate reply was: 'It would make MPs accountable!'

On another occasion the statement: 'Secret ballots are required in parliament to complete democracy.' was put to a Liberal member of the House of Representatives. He replied: 'Philosophically, I agree with you.'

Real democracy requires that the ballot must decide the issues, in parliament, after full, free and open debate.

Simple democracy demands that party power (the control of voting) be eliminated from parliament. Members must be freed from this control, so they can be direct representatives of their electorates, giving the people renewed hope for just and effective representation and genuine parliamentary government.

Open debate culminating in decisions by the ballot is the way the public can be best satisfied that decisions are made for the right reasons. The people, who must submit to those decisions, are entitled to that assurance. The people can then have the necessary confidence in government, and a growing respect for the nation's institutions. The ramifications and operation of this radical new way must now be fully examined.

Commenting on the Secret Ballots in Parliament proposal, in the Melbourne Age some time ago, Barry Jones, one-time MHR, asked sarcastically, 'Do we want secret debate as well?' Not brilliant! It is obvious that what we now have is secret debate; in the party rooms and in cabinet, where the actual decisions are made. The real debate should occur in the House. Only by cancelling the power of the ruling party to control the vote in the House can this be done. The wrong place for secrecy is the debate. The right, and vitally necessary place for secrecy is the vote in the House to free the members from the shackles of executive domination. In past days, Jeff Kennett (former Premier of Victoria) once described the proposal for a parliament based on the secret ballot for all decisions, as dangerously simplistic! Simply dangerous, rather, to his power under the party system; which so kindly cleared the way for his dictatorial government; until bundled out by another party. His rush to privatise all of our public assets in the name of economic rationalism was dangerously simplistic, rather than the ballot. We need rational change, not ideological blundering.

Members of parliament need this change to enable them to truly represent their electorates. Freed from party control, they can then freely respond to objective argument from other members. The operation of parliament will have a refreshingly democratic character; a new and effective life.

The present purposelessness of parliament was shown in stark relief on the ABC Seven Thirty Report, when Ian Sinclair stated: 'Parliament's function is politics'1 (i.e. a public stage for the jousting of the major parties; the rival management teams). The 1998 Constitutional Convention, which he chaired, was different. The reason is plain. The Convention existed to make a decision. Parliament does not. This was made clear in Mr. Sinclair's comments to ABC presenter, Kerry O'Brien. The Convention decisions, of course, were made by ballot, not by 'divisions'. Divisions in Parliament do not make decisions; they are merely a public declaration of decisions made elsewhere. Sadly enough, Ian Sinclair's high reputation gained as chairman of the Constitutional Convention, plummeted upon subsequently taking the Speaker's chair in the rowdy party politics of parliament.

The procedure of voting by divisions is archaic and a ridiculous waste of time. The waste of time is one thing but the open voting which sustains the party system and the supremacy of party executives over our representatives is far worse. Adoption of the secret ballot in parliament will one day enable all members to have a fully valid and equal opportunity to exercise their talents within the parliamentary process. This will be something quite new and valuable for the members and public alike.

With the secret ballot deciding all debatable issues the executive will not be able to dominate parliament, and the power and destructive clutch of pressure groups and sectional interests over our parliamentary process will be broken completely.

The secret ballot - by electronics

Voting by electronics can be very simple and reliable. It's simplicity is already amply demonstrated in the TV program: 'Who wants to be a millionaire'. The required system while not recording individual votes at all will be able to count all votes in a fraction of a second and will certainly be used liberally during each debate. Each speaker's contribution will be assessed by ballot on request, giving a clear affirmation (or otherwise) of his or her viewpoint. With the 'Ayes' and 'Noes' being frequently displayed during debate the evolving view of the whole parliament, on each issue, will become plain. Sensible motions will quickly gain the required majority, while others will, as quickly, fail. The live broadcast of parliament will soon prove to be classic public viewing.

An Australian democracy

The secret ballot, within parliament, will enable all members to directly affect the decisions of parliament during the debate; a new experience, very different from the present tirades in parliament that are quite ineffective, and are never expected, to change one member's vote. There will be no coalitions. These only occur because parties can discipline their members should they not vote on each issue according to party policy. Any disloyalty to the party is completely obvious with the open vote by divisions. Coalitions are the work of the wheelers and dealers gathering the numbers to win or regain government. The secret-ballot parliament will be devoted to the issues, to the exclusion of personal considerations. While members might lobby other members, they will have no power to ensure support other than by persuasive argument. Parliament will govern by laws: laws made by parliament, not by a powerful executive. Executive decree will be the sole prerogative of parliament itself, and its ministers elected from parliament as it's members become entirely responsible to the people, all the time, through the rule of the secret ballot in parliament.

Our parliaments will outdo Westminster and American democracy; governing with justice and an authority that will mute the cry for 'rights'. While the majority must prevail, minority concerns will not be suppressed, through fear, but will be fully heeded and receive fair consideration. The new ethics of parliament will quickly establish a new level of decisive government, with complete fairness and efficiency.

International interest will follow and the 'Australian Democracy' of the 21st century, will inspire emulation by other countries, following in the wake of the innovatory 'Australian Ballot' of the 19th century. Ambitious? Not a bit of it. We can do it. We should do it. We owe it to the world. We can be again the world leader in democratic practice. We have international standing in many things. Let us confirm our position as the world leader in democratic practice, as well.

The state of politics in many countries cries out for this advance in real democracy. We owe it to ourselves, to our children, to our country and to the world.

How will the secret ballot parliament work?

The first secret ballot parliament will commence with a spill of all executive positions. Following nominations, all ministers (including Prime Minister) will be elected by exhaustive secret electronic ballot, yielding the most appropriate member for each ministry. Nominations for positions are likely to be somewhat restrained by the embarrassment that would follow the rejection of an inappropriate self-nomination.

A small committee will be elected to allocate committee and administrative positions, subject to parliamentary review.

The new 'executive' will act under the supervision of parliament, restoring responsible government. Elected ministers will remain in office at the pleasure of parliament but, being elected by parliament, are likely to have stable tenure. Their executive authority will be freely exercised within the limits formally delegated or informally approved by parliament. Parliament may censure a non-performing minister or terminate tenure if necessary, but parliament will not indulge in capricious attack on a minister appointed by parliament. Each minister will report to parliament, submitting proposals via the finance and parliamentary business committees as appropriate to the matter involved. The latter committee will order the priority of matters for the attention of parliament, including private member concerns, the agenda being amended by parliament where necessary. Any matter, not already on the agenda, which is causing public anxiety, will be brought forward in parliament without delay and receive such immediate attention as parliament decides.

Standing committees will be renewed with positions filled by ballot. Temporary committees will be appointed by parliamentary election as needed while individual ministers may convene ad hoc committees and public hearings, feeding information and proposals back to parliament. The passage of bills will be determined by secret ballot of both Houses of parliament and presented to the Federal Executive Council for formal enactment as at present. This formality has its own particular value and may be retained by parliament.

Heads of public service departments will be responsible to each relevant minister, presenting departmental proposals and input to the minister. All such matters will run the gauntlet of finance committee and cabinet examination, to inform, but not to exclude parliament in any way from its decisive role.

Ministers will have no concern with party matters and, in the much more open climate in parliament, will work closely with their departments, for the administration of which they will be fully responsible to parliament. Any special appointments to a minister's staff from outside the parliament may occur but will be always subject to parliamentary approval. Accountability will be further enhanced as parliament amends the public service secrecy provisions to protect responsible whistleblowers, resulting in a new era of ordered and open government.

Debate in the House will be keen and progressive with the ballot showing the direction and progress of each motion before the House. Parliament may defer controversial matters for further consideration by committees and, often, members' consultation with constituents. Time wasting speeches with unworthy motives will be hissed out of parliament. The purposeful debate and the efficient work of ministers and committees will eliminate waste of parliamentary members' time.

The local scene

The public will be aware of debates on issues of public concern from the published parliamentary agenda. These debates will be televised live and repeated in prime time, acquiring high ratings. A concerned public will want to see the debate, and observe the result. Viewing the performance of their members in debate will be a key interest. Constituents might sometimes gather to view critical debates in local meetings arranged for that purpose, and to discuss outcomes. Constituents will be able to follow the proceedings of parliament on its web site and communicate with their members by email or live on chat line. The debate on matters of significance will be readily accessible to constituents, and a Member could find the local seat quite hot.

Members will consult with their constituents in well-publicized public meetings. These meetings will attract a substantial attendance of concerned people and in the case of controversy will overflow, and in these meetings constituents will soon be aware of potential rival candidates, where dissatisfied.

The print media will be very involved in analysis of difficult matters; and will be active in analysis and anticipation of the responses of parliament. Where decisions fail to meet expectations there will be much media and public scrutiny. The electorate will become quite politically and economically literate in a short time, with schools and adult education units being substantial consumers of the information flow. As young and old became avid participants in public forums the generation gap of misunderstanding will quickly diminish. Not only that, those in the community who are disconnected for one reason and another will be able to be more easily drawn into mainstream of political life.

Parliament and community, with a new sense of partnership, will quickly gain in political and social confidence, tackling the problems of unemployment, drugs and crime, environment and international policy with energy, ease and assurance. Australia will soon become the really lucky country.

A new parliament

Voting by secret ballot in parliament will soon achieve non-partisan parliamentary government-government able to govern strongly and with care, able to be accessible and accountable to the people, a much fairer and more real democracy.

With secret voting in our parliaments members will be deprived of party-clout, and will need to be responsive to their community, being entirely dependent on their community for re-election. Expensive campaigns will no longer be able to win seats. They will be more likely to raise pointed community questions about the source of the funds used. With all members effectively becoming 'independents', real representation and real democracy will be restored, strongly enhancing our parliamentary system of government. As John Craig (Senior Lecturer in Politics, Deakin University) once affirmed, it will change the face of politics as we know it. The parties and groups, which have manipulated parliament in pursuit of sectional interests for so long, will have serious difficulty. A Victorian Liberal Party 'whip' remarked: 'It (the ballot in parliament) would make my job very hard.' Not hard, impossible. Exit the whips! With the introduction of secret ballots into parliament the following changes will happen rapidly. We can expect to see:



These changes will interact with each other to enable our advance to a progressively reviving democracy. Roles of every participant in the political process will change dramatically.

A new representative

There will be a new and real independence for the local member. Party funds will wither away, destroying the overwhelming advantage of major party candidates, so election will depend on the personal attributes of each candidate in a level playing field.

Abandoned to the mercy of a reviving electorate, members will need to urgently cultivate their constituents' goodwill; and the missing link in the chain of participation, responsibility and representation will be complete.

Their logical (and economical) response will be to hold regular meetings in their electorates. In these meetings lively discussion and consultation will take place giving both constituents and members intimate knowledge of the views held by each and the importance and priority to be attached to the various local and national matters and policies arising. These meetings, linked with the reporting of the local press, will be significant factors in reaching and informing the electorate. In this climate life will become very torrid for any member who fails to obtain the acceptance and confidence of constituents.

These meetings will provide a new opportunity for significant involvement for many who at present have none. Think of any person who has never been involved in anything political, but being concerned about a public matter, goes to a meeting convened by the local member, makes a serious comment, complaint or suggestion to the meeting and then goes home. In the new environment it is likely that the concern and its expression will be sufficient to set some action in motion, with other people prodding, should the member not be disposed to act. That will be real democracy.

The advent of realistic public meetings convened by the member (who will be newly and acutely vulnerable to the electorate), will provide a forum for public awareness of others whose qualities suggest them as alternative candidates. They will be people with a constructive contribution in the meetings and judged to be motivated by an active interest and concern for local affairs. Their presence will be a considerable challenge to any member not showing adequate competence and integrity.

The ongoing retention of a seat will thus depend on the member being seen by constituents to be available and 'listening', and performing well in parliament on behalf of the electorate. On this basis the member need not fear a few vexatious constituents.

Parochial interests and concerns will sometimes have to be surrendered to the public interest, the wellbeing of the country as a whole, so a member may sometimes have to argue with the electorate to secure a less parochial, or shortsighted point of view.

The new powers and opportunities will enable worthwhile members to be statesmen, which is precisely what the electorate needs, emphasising the earlier quote from Edmund Burke. The decisions of parliament will no longer be stereotyped according to the rigidities of a party platform or changes in a ruling party's policy. Nor will the electorate any longer be certain of the member's vote on each issue. This new situation will attract the close attention of concerned people to the debate and resulting decisions in parliament. The member's performance in the House in pursuit of the electorate's point of view will be critical. Imagine the dynamics of the situation: the housewife at her ironing, the farmer on his tractor, or the bricklayer laying bricks, all following the member's debate in parliament on a worrying issue. In effect each member, with a new power to change the 'mind' of parliament, will become acutely accountable for parliament's decisions. The local member's views and aims will be known on a personal basis by a much larger number of constituents than heretofore, ushering in a new era of enhanced representation. Numbers in local meetings will become substantial when things are not going the electorate's way, and the people will be constant in their requirement for real representation.

The key issue will be the electorate's opinion of the member's performance in parliament, in regular public meetings and in personal relationship with constituents. A happy result in parliament on a specific issue will reflect credit on the sitting member while an unsatisfactory action of parliament will see the 'bees' swarming.

Difficult issues could be raised, resulting in the need for detailed examination. The member will judge the knowledge and integrity of the constituents raising the issue then form an opinion as to the significance of the issue and act accordingly. If agreeing the need to pursue the matter, expert help will be sort, to attend and address the constituents. It will certainly be a growing experience for members and constituents to tackle difficult issues in local meetings. It will closely involve those fit for the task-a growing proportion of the community. Others will look on and be judges, both of the issue and also of those who participate in discussion and debate according to their degree of understanding. It has been suggested that there will be people in each electorate who will want their member to express and argue a view on every issue. All viewpoints will be heard but anyone vexatious will incur a reaction from other constituents. Should a meeting be 'stacked', the member may choose to close the meeting, with the assistance of the police if necessary. A further meeting will be scheduled and the media report of the controversy will ensure the attendance of the numbers of constituents required to provide the necessary balance.

A new prime minister

The person elected to the office of Prime Minister will be the most highly regarded person in parliament. It will be a rank well deserved-a position of honour, but one that will not attract any special powers by virtue of office. The person so elected will be held in high regard by the community as well, and will be able to bring a substantial and new kind of leadership to a community growing in morale and maturity. The Prime Minister will lead the new executive as a respected elder. Having been chosen by ballot of parliament to a position without executive power the Prime Minister is quite likely to continue in that office for some years, as the nature of this office is likely to gain a very real and uncontested prestige.

The new executive

The elected ministers will form an executive team with each member acting on behalf of parliament and under its authority. The election of ministers and members of major committees could be of intense public interest. Thenceforth the fall of a government will be a logical impossibility as parliament itself will be 'the government'.

Ministers will contribute to policy but not have control over it. Their responsibility will be to administer the decisions of parliament, being also free to exercise effective leadership on any issue from the floor of the House. Clearly the position of a minister will be entirely different to that which now applies. An initial shake out will occur, the best people being quickly elected to the various offices regardless of previous affiliations.

Any member could be elected a minister. Each will then hold office at the pleasure of the parliament, as long as deemed by the members to be the most suitable person to administer the particular area of responsibility. As an able leader and administrator of a department, tenure of office will be much more secure-not being subject to the present unsettling requirements of party strategy and leader whims, or the uncertainties of party success at elections. An election will never result in a substantial change to the ministry-quite unlike the clean sweep of all appointments when a party government loses an election.

Ministers will be governed by the secret ballot in parliament and occupied with their responsibilities to parliament, to the exclusion of all other considerations, being thus fully accountable. Any Minister could face censure or even replacement, but there could never be a motion of no confidence in 'the government'. Instead, the individual performance of each minister will be closely monitored by parliament.

There will be no capricious, or personal attacks on ministers.

Election by parliament will confer a freedom of action on ministers and other officers, within the powers delegated in each case, circumscribed merely by the active supervision of parliament.

A party-based 'opposition' will no longer exist, but issues before the House are likely to have both protagonists and antagonists, forming separately on each issue, which will be treated purely on its merits, and ultimately decided by parliament.

Parliament being in full control, could appoint a minister from beyond parliament where other expertise is required. However, reversion to Public Service Board appointment of senior officers in the Public Service will restore the apolitical role of senior advisors to ministers-and parliament. More and varied talent is also likely to develop in parliamentary ranks, attracted by a better opportunity for public service-rather than ambition. Thus the new system will fill parliament with the best people available, instead seeing the premature retirement of good ministers, who are uncomfortable with the odious nature and undemocratic frustrations of party politics-like ex-Attorney General Darryl Williams.

All ministers will grow in self-fulfilment, public esteem and respect.

Committees

With committee appointments under parliamentary control the best expertise in the House will be applied in each field, and objective judgment will prevail. Specialised committees will be entrusted with the task of assessing the nature and impact of complex issues. Other committees will examine regulations that have been merely tabled in parliament not appearing, prima facie, to warrant debate. The public will not be excluded from the deliberations and decisions of committees, with the involvement of people with expertise beyond parliament being welcomed. While Senate committees have tended to conduct their work in an objective manner, party government has often rejected their recommendations. That will change.

With the ballot, there will be a growth of committees in the lower house. Their deliberations are likely to find substantial acceptance when presented to the parliament.

Leadership


Party-politics smothers initiative, but under the secret ballot, the stimulus for wise and necessary action could come from any member, parliament being able to rule out or modify any unwise courses of action. Efficient and sensible decision-making with a minimum of fuss and delay will result. Strong leadership will be able to arise in parliament at short notice with different protagonist and antagonist leadership on each issue, instead of the same recurring figures and pointless subjectivity of party politics. As Aneurin Bevan once said: 'politics is a blood-sport'2 . That will cease.

With this reform each member will have a much more vital and effective role to play in the House, being effectively freed from the strangle hold of party machines, lobbies, and pressure groups. Opinion polls will not be preoccupied with personality politics, but will seek to reflect community opinion on important issues. Radical proposals will not frighten the community, as the new procedures will be seen as appropriate to a real democracy and able to safely settle all controversial issues. The ballot will assist the growth and essential safeguards for the diversification and the blossoming of leadership in both community and parliament. With the new opportunity for all members to take effective action in parliament, a valuable, close relationship will develop between members and their constituents creating real self-government. In addition, private citizens, academics, interest groups, and the public service will lead initiatives, ultimately through private members and ministers. Regardless of source, initiatives will only succeed where they are sane and practical. One commentator has described the proposed system as a 'filter' with worthwhile policies passing through quite rapidly, while others may be deferred for further investigation, but bad policies will be quickly rejected. The new system will thus be efficient at rapidly sorting out the best policies, and its flexibility will enable valuable contributions to be welcomed without the institutionalised problems of blockages and hurdles.

With the radically changed environment it will not be impossible to see past members, even prime ministers or premiers rejoining the ranks of parliament to make their own unique contribution within the new level playing field. One can foresee the Senate becoming a house of elders, with wise council, and diminished executive powers.

Other notable people from industry, academia etc could also enter parliament to make their own particular and valuable long-term contribution. On the other hand such people could find an increasingly significant role while remaining on the periphery of the system. A united society is on the way.

A parliamentary agenda

A committee will set the priorities for parliamentary business under the direction of parliament. Where necessary the parliament will quickly confirm or rearrange the agenda. The priorities will be challenged and altered by parliament as necessary if controversy should arise over a matter not listed for parliamentary debate.

There will be a keen interest in the published agenda and many will see the new possibility of influencing outcomes without a 'political' involvement, enhancing the community's quality of life. This will be especially true for those groups that see themselves as deprived or ignored at present. A new unity and focus on an increasing wellbeing for the community might well include and involve those previously feeling deserted. It will be reasonable to expect a reduction in graffiti and other vandalism, and even community violence.

Public interest in the operation of parliament will become virtually continuous although it will fluctuate according to the controversial or otherwise nature of the matters on the parliamentary agenda at the time.

Debate and voting

With parliament making decisions on a fully democratic basis on each matter before it, its prestige as a governing body will be greatly enhanced. Decisions will be firm and parliament will achieve new levels of effectiveness and respect. As matters are considered in constituent meetings, community objectives will be quickly and accurately represented in parliament. The open debate and free vote in parliament will end its subjugation, and members will support or oppose specific bills, guided by their own considered opinions in the light of constituent contact and the progressive debate in the House.

There will probably be preliminary and progressive voting, absorbing little time with the simple electronic system. This will concentrate debate towards the soundest decision with great efficiency, enabling sound decisions to mature very rapidly. Members will change their vote if necessary during the course of the debate. As the progressive vote shows the trend towards the final result, pressure on members to take an unnecessary part in the debate will diminish rapidly, with a significant economy in parliamentary time. As the needed majority appears (perhaps early in the debate) parliament will be able to move on without further delay if a motion: 'that the question now be put' is passed. Should the time for parliamentary sittings be occasionally longer, it will certainly be for a good reason. Overall, parliament is likely to show a significant economy of time combined with a much greater efficiency and public approval of its achievements.

There will be a new flexibility and power in parliament with the progressive vote being crucial to all decisions and the considerably added vitality of debate will attract a far greater following in prime time TV broadcasts. The stature of members will be judged by the effectiveness of their performance in satisfying constituent aspirations. Wholehearted support for worthwhile causes and appropriate opposition to suspect proposals will be the way to win votes in the House and favour in the electorate. Any member will be able to have a substantial influence on the outcome of the debate. The member's aim will always be to win over sufficient swinging votes to carry the motion in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. A suggestion that a member might vote in a manner contrary to the member's public stance can be summarily dismissed. What could be gained? Fighting for votes one way and casting a single vote the other would be a nonsense. The opportunity (and responsibility) to sway the votes of other members by capable debate will dominate members' thinking. In addition, any devious ploy will be easily detected with disastrous personal results when the member faces the keen questioning of constituents in regular local meetings. Close contact with constituents will expel any tendency to deviousness.3

The constituents will rapidly lose interest in their representative's personal vote, in favour of successful outcomes in parliament. Energetic pursuit of electorate concerns in parliament will be the big issue for constituents. An evident sincerity, determination, and even passion on the part of their member in the House will be the important thing.

Personality attacks will be useless for winning votes on the issue before the House and will be assiduously avoided by members as destructive to both their causes and their careers. Point scoring and grandstanding will be entirely counterproductive in the new democracy.

Where the electorate's wishes initially fail, constituents will urge their member to continue the campaign-until they consider it unwinnable. Where the member fails to secure the wishes of the constituents their judgment will centre on the question of whether anyone else could have done a better job in parliament at the time, all aspects considered. If not, the member will be respected, and the member's seat will not be under threat.

Ideas, concepts and principles

We must see ideas reigning rather than people. These are the things that should be drawing us together in a powerful and prospering unity. Ideas must stand or fall on their merits alone. The whole parliament voting freely by conscience is the safest way for their validity to be established. With the people and political commentators as effective critics in the background parliaments will be intent on seeking the best answers to the country's problems.

When matters are thus objectively considered and vigorously pursued by a parliament set free from partisan conflict there will be a new frontier of encouragement to enterprise, both public and private; resulting in a long-lasting contribution to Australia's recovery and the growth of a proud and flourishing country.

Policy development

In parliament



Policy suggestions will be able to come from any source, channelling to parliament through any member and receive consideration by parliament according to merit. Formulation of public policy will take place in a rapidly forming non-partisan political climate, with ministers presenting policies developed with the assistance of the bureaucracy. The effectual leading of policies will be open to all members of parliament, responding to stimuli from any source. The present torrent of complex and often ineffectual legislation is likely to dwindle considerably because parliament will not pass any measure failing to qualify on its own merits. With the time previously wasted in party defence and attack becoming available parliament will be able to even review obsolete legislation with the help of input from an appointed committee.

In local meetings



Individual constituents and those representing interest groups will be able to originate significant initiatives with regard to concerning issues in local meetings. A much closer cooperation will arise between constituents and their members in the sifting and development of community views on various issues according to their importance in the local and national scene. With many more people in the community becoming involved in a face-to-face discussion of issues from time to time, it will become possible for the hardest issues to be widely canvassed and successfully tackled. Representatives will soon assume the role of statesmen, promoting the wider interests of the nation amongst the people.

Some people in each electorate will certainly be closely following the performance of their member in the House and keeping constituent meetings informed accordingly-a new and important role for retired people. The people will have a much stronger voice and matters important to them will not be neglected.

Cross-examination of proposals will increase within regular public meetings, knowledgeable people in appropriate fields being much in evidence-but if 'experts' attempt to fool the people they will receive 'short shrift'. Various points of view will receive appropriate hearing but undue favour to any particular point of view will be precluded by the open debate in the community. There will be one very significant factor missing-the clout and priority that at present attaches to certain privileged people, their groups and their interests. Policy development will be unified from the grass roots up by the new process rather than parties and groups developing conflicting policies in isolation, with an eye to the possibilities of attracting power. Many policy matters will then be able to be thoroughly researched, differences fully discussed in a calm manner, and consensus reached in the community, perhaps even before reaching parliament.

Open government

The change to a non-partisan parliament will produce more open government. Secrecy provisions will be amended and confined to their true role, the protection of citizens' legitimate privacy. Inappropriate action at any level will be very quickly exposed with prompt corrective action ensuing. 'Blowing the whistle' will be rewarded, where justified, instead of being 'suicidal'.

Without the pressures of party interests and concerns, members will be able to work openly through the parliamentary process to achieve the legitimate results desired by their constituents. Party politics has entrenched the specious 'morality' of party loyalty with secrecy and cover-up accepted as normal. Morality has been discounted in politics. One wonders if there is a flow-on connection with the low regard for truth in court cases, and in business-especially advertising perhaps.

The new openness in the operation of parliament will mean that suppression of information will be shunned, as it will be promptly exposed with logical consequences. Members will no longer operate behind closed doors, either in the precincts of parliament or in the electorate. Any secret dealing will soon arouse suspicion and quickly destroy a member's credibility.

Lobbies and pressure groups

All parliamentary decisions by ballot will remove the ability of any group or person of whatever standing to lean on the 'system' to obtain undue favour. No minister or anyone else will have the power to secure any advantage for lobbyists or pressure groups.

There will be no 'back flips' by governments any more. Parliament will not be scared by strident community annoyance as an election approaches. The ability for pressure groups to scare party leaders and candidates will vanish, along with the power of 'marginal' electorates to gain favours from, and to unduly influence party government. While single-issue groups may still be in evidence in the electorate, their present ability to threaten a party government will cease. There will be no party government to threaten. They could threaten candidates, but the appeal of a candidate to the public, through the local media and the increased numbers in public meeting, should keep any undue pressure at bay. In any case such a group will be quite dependent on the wider support of the local community, if their local member can be persuaded to take up their case in the new parliament, so they will behave circumspectly.

The community will quickly notice if substantial unexplained campaign support appears for any election candidate. That will suggest that the candidate has a private agenda at the expense of the electorate. Large expenditure will always raise suspicion and be even more noticeable in the local scene. A wealthy candidate or one with wealthy supporters might have difficulty in establishing community trust.

Fixed and longer terms

With the secret ballots system up and running, the present strategies of governments to meddle with election dates, to hold on to power, will no longer be possible. With party power abolished, fixed terms for parliament will certainly be adopted.

It is interesting to note that the Chartist log of claims in the 1850s included 'short' parliaments, of one year. While Britain has five-year terms, three-year terms were installed here, in the beginning, as a compromise by the British government.

As the close communication between parliament and public takes hold in MP's public meetings, there will be a very real accountability of the parliament to the members and of the members to the public. It is quite likely that longer terms will be seriously considered under a secret ballot regime.

Elections

Some electorates will become 'safe' for a sitting member but for a different reason. The member's safety will then depend, not on the political clout of a party's safe seat, but on personal attributes and suitability as judged by the electorate.

The party system frequently advances 'good' politicians and then discards them when defeated in a landslide that has nothing to do with their performance as representatives. In marginal seats, where 'swinging voters' are numerous, the loss of a seat can occur through no fault of the sitting member-creating pointless frustration and stress hindering the performance of participants, and a nonsensical loss of talent and experience to the community.

Under the present unstable system, the frequency of short tenures has made it necessary for members to have substantial pensions after terms of service that are brief compared with other occupations. The reason has been given (whether true or not) that members have sacrificed other careers for an uncertain stint in parliament. Such excessive compensatory provision will hardly be necessary with the re-election of members depending purely on their own efforts. With longer terms of MP service the incidence of new pensions could be reduced, as the numbers retiring and calling on superannuation provisions are likely to slow down. Members may become satisfied more with the honour of long and respected public service and have less concern for the financial rewards seen as necessary with the existing uncertainty of party careers.

Bearing in mind that a number of parliamentary seats are only contested for party strategy reasons, it will not be too surprising in the new environment if a number of sitting members are returned unopposed-no election being needed! For members, effectively 'divorced' by their political parties, and without their accustomed campaign support, re-election will require a different approach.

The electorate will see alternative potential candidates coming to the fore in the context of regular public meetings, in which the quality of those involved, both sitting member and potential rivals, will be visible on a continuing basis. It follows that all candidates for the following election will be well known in advance. Self-promotion of nominees would be counterproductive. The only acceptable election platform would be the ability and integrity already established in office or, as a candidate, being seen in local meetings as a potential rival.

The basis of nomination could be changed. Instead of nominating for a modest fee, candidates might be required to provide (say) a thousand voter signatures, eliminating non-serious contenders. At present many candidates stand without hope of election to raise public consciousness of an issue. These issues will be much more promptly and profitably raised in the new breed of public meetings that will ensue after the implementation of the new ballot procedure. This type of candidate will then disappear.

Casual vacancies

Casual vacancies might be handled differently in the new political climate of the secret ballot in parliament, with all members becoming independent. Should a member resign for any reason, the runner-up candidate at the last election might well be the next popular choice in a by election. It may then become reasonable for that person to automatically replace the discontinuing member until the next election-a matter for parliament to decide on the basis of relevant circumstances.

Thus, a by-election could sometimes be quite unnecessary. This simple solution contrasts starkly with the government panic that can presently be caused by a casual vacancy where the party-government and opposition are nearly in balance.

Political stability

As noted earlier, under the party system we have a basis for constant political conflict and uncertainty despite the claim that the party system gives stability. Such stability between elections is at times the same that exists under a dictatorship-democracy on ice.

Stability of government presently depends on the wisdom and character of a party leader. Usually, such leaders attract those who will not argue with them, which is why many leaders overreach themselves and lose public support, destabilising government.

On the other hand governments sometimes yield to noisy protestors when they should not, unsettling the public generally-for example, when George Bush Snr was helpless to insist that Israel remove its settlements from Palestinian lands because of the powerful Jewish lobby in America. There may be times when government must lead and not just follow public opinion, especially that of powerful lobbies. As Churchill said: 'The politician who cannot stand unpopularity is not worth his salt.'

The instability of party government stems from its partisan ideology and following-its lack of affinity with the people at large. The need for decision will press in on governments in times of crisis. Party government is cavalier, dismissive of criticism and, despite assertions to the contrary, the public interest. Arrogance is common. One well-known ex-state-premier's attitude to the public was well illustrated in his approach to a press conference, with the remark: 'It's time to feed the chooks.'

Parliament must prevail, not the might of the party executive. Under the ballot, parliament will be free to decide all issues without fear or favour. There will be no leadership monopoly. Leadership will be separated from the question of power, which will belong to the parliament itself, through the different majorities maturing on each issue. With its roots in local public meetings in the community there will be an unhindered flow of communication between parliament and people. In these meetings members' will interact with the public. Differences of opinion in the community will be sorted out more readily with the increased community dialogue that will occur. The growth of this process will enable the members to better represent their constituents and strengthen parliament to govern appropriately, with trust developing rapidly between parliament and people.

Stability of government will be readily obtained by the new style of parliament, openly debating the issues, displaying a spread of sound, cooperative leadership, and members showing a steady responsiveness to constituents, eliminating pointless conflict and chaos. Business will be quite unaffected by a looming election. Compare the present uncertainty of business, near elections. Much time and expense is involved in lobbying government with uncertain and perhaps unsatisfactory outcomes. With the ballot the smooth operation of parliament will be hardly touched by a change of a minister, or the replacement of a few members in an election.

It is interesting to note that Papua New Guinea's unstable government, under a 'first-past-the-post' system of voting, will soon become somewhat more stable with the planned change to the preferential system-the effect being a trend towards a two-party system of government. This parallels the trend in Australia in the early years of federation. The reason lies in the chaos in parliaments where independents are free to 'wheel and deal'. We now look to a much stronger discipline-the secret ballot in parliament that will bring a remarkably steady order. The purposes of parliament will take precedence over the plans of any member or group. A separate majority will prevail on each issue, according to its merit, and a dependable sanity will return with parliamentary government.

The following estimates the comparative stability of different systems of government:



A new accountability

Democracy requires accountability. That is precisely what will happen when the ballot secures members' votes from party, or other, interference. Parliaments and members will become independent of all influence except the influence of the constituents on each member, and each member on parliament.

With this new independence, parliaments will exercise control over all areas of government, overturning the party pyramids of power, and resuming its rightful control over the executive.

Accountability of ministers

The existing facility of question time, intended to enable parliament to hold ministers accountable, has become a farce. With shameless party trumpeting and grandstanding by party members, questions directed to the executive are determinedly, and routinely, sidestepped. Administrative faults can remain hidden for years because of secrecy provisions, which have been retained in their present draconian form to suit the parties' paranoid fear of public exposure of faults in their administration.

In the new environment, ministers will be directly responsible to parliament. Free from pasty politics, ministers will be servants of parliament resulting in a much greater stability of tenure than at present. Each minister will find the assignment very effective and fully rewarding, but in any case of diminished suitability parliament will take appropriate action without delay.

As already noted, with the likely modification of public service secrecy provisions, there will be a virtual open line to parliament, with any cover-up a logical impossibility. Where there is a public disclosure by a public servant, recognition of a malicious or improper motive should present little difficulty.

Accountability of members

We have already noted the terse assertion of one serving member of parliament that the introduction of the secret ballot into our parliaments would make politicians accountable. A progressive improvement in accountability can be confidently expected as the new parliamentary climate places the relationship between members and constituents on an entirely different footing. Constituents will keenly follow the performance of their newly liberated members. With their newfound freedom and powers in parliament members will become acutely conscious of their new opportunities and quickly respond to the challenge of their constituents in the new local climate of public meetings. People in the electorate will be looking for results; much more than being interested in how the member might vote. Only results will please. The function of party whip will disappear. The Swiss, it is understood, have it written into their constitution, that no one may interfere with the independence of a member's vote. Such a formal provision will, no doubt, be added to ours and the whip's job will then be illegal as well.

The new and close contact with constituents will make the member much more accountable when demands for information and action become importunate as they surely will from time to time. The immediate impression is of constituents literally swarming around local members when controversial issues arise and where real representation is in doubt. While all goes to plan members will be busy with effective action, without undue stress.

Each member will need to demonstrate that the people's interests are being well represented in parliament by able debate and evident sincerity. A member will have no expectation of future support other than that which the electorate itself affords and will have to react accordingly. As Abraham Lincoln said: 'You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all the people all of the time.'4 Those time-spans will be considerably narrowed by the new 'face-to-face' responsibilities of the local member.

A greater media role

A substantial part of the media's traditional role of preoccupation with political power plays will become redundant. The media has always been important, but has not always presented the people with clear-cut, objective leadership, even profiting from the conflict. With the ballot in parliament though, the media will become more objective and valuable. Attention will centre on the process of policy development, the trend of parliamentary debate, the public acceptability of balloted decisions, and estimates of public reaction. Through the media public attention will focus rapidly on any hint of a hidden agenda.

Political journalists and commentators will be particularly involved in objective analyses of matters on the parliamentary agenda. These analyses will be of prime public interest and will be followed throughout the parliamentary process.

People will be much more aware of the issues, even those which are difficult. In addition to parliamentary broadcasts and local meetings, current affairs programs on television will be important in focusing detailed attention on matters before parliament. The print media's in-depth analysis of the issues will fill an even more effectual role, adding considerably to the active discussion of issues in public meetings. The people will be much better informed on all issues and will closely watch the performance and quality of members and other possible election candidates.

One aspect that will come to the fore is the question of media ownership. Monopoly of media outlets will decrease rather than increase. There should be no difficulty for the balloting parliament to deal with these problems; including the matter of foreign ownership and control. Just decisions will be made without delay in all areas of public life.

The local scene

The following influences created by the introduction of the secret ballot into our parliaments will bear on the relationship between constituents and the local member:



Clearly, the secret ballot reform will affect all relationships of parliament with the public, lobby groups, the unions, and the public service. To visualise one isolated aspect of this change in an artificial, imaginary context in which only that aspect has changed would be entirely misleading. In fact nothing will be the same. The changes in each area of our political system will interact increasingly-resulting in a new and vital democracy, with much public benefit.

Constituents will be advantaged by the new and realistic relationship with their representative through local meetings. Their member's performance in parliament will be followed with the assistance of the media, and public confidence will follow as constituents see their members working strongly for them, being no longer subservient to other interests; and never ever spending years in powerless opposition.

The present bankrupt privilege of knowing the member's vote will be mourned by a few perhaps, but most will recognise that such knowledge does not procure any significant accountability and certainly not 'government by the people'.

Not knowing how the member votes will be no loss compared with the vastly greater benefit of real representation by a real representative.

Objections and FAQs

Objections need to be considered in the light of all the changes that will logically result from the one major change-to a secret voting parliament. The operation of parliament will be entirely different because every matter will arrive on the agenda without a decision having already been made. Obviously the aim of every member will be to pursue a decision satisfactory to the constituents by winning votes through the debate. With the media drawing considerable public attention, constituents will closely follow the broadcasts of parliament relevant to their interests. Print media analysis will increase in objective analysis and importance. We must now examine the reaction of both politicians and constituents to this change in the parliamentary voting system.

We wouldn't know how they vote

This is a common objection, but is really based on the undemocratic anomalies of the present system. The only power of the people in our non-participatory democracy is to punish the government at the election. It is a very limited, very poor power, which contributes virtually nothing to the concept of government by the people. The pressures of the party system govern party politicians, which is why they are not accountable to us in any practical sense. They cannot be. They are their party's representatives-not ours; but they will be! How, you ask?

Firstly, all party organisations will suffer the loss of the key to their power-the knowledge and control of their members' votes. The party will no longer be able to guarantee the support of their members' votes in parliament, so no party will have the power to guarantee to their supporters a result on any issue. These people whoever they are, will reemploy their efforts and funds in alternate ways for their own benefit, e.g. by public advertising.

The party teams will be shattered and scattered, with members all urgently looking for support in their electorates for the next election and ignoring their previous leaders.

Constituents worried about outcomes, and not knowing how their representative votes on an issue critical for them, will quickly latch on to their representative's new vulnerability. Available action will be to:



The mood of constituents generally will be much determined by the success or otherwise of their representative in securing their desired objectives in parliament. Constituents will become considerably more interested in their representative's activity in parliament and all members will become acutely aware of that new interest. This in turn will feed the demand for public meetings in each electorate. This new and keen interest will quickly translate into public anger in these meetings should the people feel short-changed. Not only will a non-performing representative fail to be re-elected but also each passing day in the meantime will become even more intolerable.

With the powerful influences unleashed by this reform worthwhile members will become independents-dependant on their constituents, with whom they will be free to enjoy the challenge of a close and very productive relationship.

Beside these advantages knowing how your MP votes in parliament is nothing-a bankrupt privilege.

A vote to abstain

We will be entering a new era in which decisions will be made by parliament-not the executive. The ballot will rule and only deliver adequate majorities based on the actual conviction of all the freely voting members.

Mr. Ernest Rodeck AM has suggested that a vote to abstain should be available with the secret ballot in parliament. It is true that matters vary considerably in complexity, and that more time to enquire and consider would often be highly desirable. While the 'yes' vote clearly signifies the degree of agreement, a vote to abstain, would enable the degree of rejection and uncertainty to be more clearly recognised, and clarify more easily the next step for parliament to take in a complex situation.

A further option, to 'defer', could be worth considering, especially where an abstain vote showed significant uncertainty. Consider a case won by a fifty five percent majority. A motion to defer (for further investigation) might be carried with a substantial majority-the thinking being that stability of decision is worth the delay to gain greater public support for a critical action.

These proposals introduce a new era of sophistication in parliamentary procedure, which could greatly enhance the integrity of the parliamentary process, increasing the stability of decisions made through stimulation of local involvement of the members and community in public debate. A greater public understanding of the issues, through participation of the people in the practical aspects of the government process, could only enhance our democracy.

Interest groups will remain

People like to form groups, debate within those groups and arrive at joint views. Just so. This was recognised earlier. The ballot proposal has no jurisdiction at all over private thought or activity; but this radical change will result in a new phenomenon-the rise of the common forum-the local meetings conducted by representatives in response to the community's demand for effective consultation. Community participation in these meetings will form the backbone of an entirely new system of MP accountability.

Interest groups may meet to discuss their concerns in isolation, but will then raise those concerns in the public meetings, to seek the wider support of the community and their MP, with a view to representation in parliament. Minority concerns will depend on persuasion of the community, not on political manipulation. So, only the justice of a cause will prevail. Confidence in the effectiveness of the local meetings will soon find matters being raised and evaluated there, decreasing the need for private strategies, as the new common forum in each electorate is seen to be a more direct and effective way to further just causes.

The Member will find an antidote for any undue pressure in the local meeting with the help of the media. With the attention of the public drawn to any undue pressure, other constituents will flood into the meetings.

Ballot everything?

Should the House ballot every question? Reference was made to the original Greek practice in which the public debated only controversial questions. The point is valid. The issue then is really: what should be debated in the House and what not?

A system of public tabling of all matters not included in the agenda for debate in the House will enable protest to be made where necessary, ensuring that any matter could be added to the parliamentary agenda to satisfy public concern. On the other hand should a demand for debate on a tabled matter be found to be merely vexatious, the matter could be simply disposed of in short order by the electronic secret vote when the House is sitting.

Instability?

One serious question raised is, whether a parliament of independent members will lead to instability? This was certainly the case before the formation of the major parties and the reason they came into being. There was nothing to stop different opinions being fiercely maintained and, by wheeling and dealing, sufficient numbers obtained to gain success on pet issues. Without the party system that could happen again, but certainly not with the secret ballot controlling all decisions in parliament.

Wheeling and dealing will become impossible; and would certainly be despised in the new environment. Any remaining wheelers and dealers will be hissed out of the House and ostracized in the corridors of parliament, where Members will need to be very open in their conversations. The ballot will be a stern disciplinarian, with the plain message: 'Win the majority by persuasive argument or fail'. Every view that cannot acquire the necessary majority of secretly voting members will fail.

The ballot will drive parliament toward a majority decision on each issue without unnecessary delay. As the arguments are put and the progressive, instantaneous votes taken, the view of the house will consolidate around the best answers through the active participation of the members, with different leaders in each debated issue. A large number of speakers may not prove necessary, as the outcome will become evident as the debate proceeds with progressive votes being taken.

The developing familiarity with the process could introduce a new custom of requiring a more significant majority for some issues of greater moment than others, e.g. war. Parliament will be able to freely decide such matters in the new non-partisan environment.

Rather than instability, one can envisage the result of the introduction of the ballot will be short-term and long-term stability, and public concerns resolved without undue delay. Some may argue that in time of crisis strong leadership is needed to make urgent decisions. This is the mentality that gives a president constitutional control of the army and the right to send the troops in to battle-with decisions based on secret information and personally conceived plans.

We will now have a plainly better way. With the secret vote in control, the debate will settle urgent issues without delay, and the rightness of the process will always mean the confidence and support of the public for the decisions made by this truly democratic process.

How can politicians be trusted?

In all important and vulnerable areas of public life an audit function is essential. The public will respond strongly to this new and living democracy, and perform a much better audit than often prevails in public companies.

Every politician will become uniquely accountable to the electorate. They will be 'politicians' no longer, but representatives in the true sense, because the new power of the people in each electorate will quickly persuade their member to be on their side.

The numbers of those actively concerned will vary considerably from time to time, depending on the issues arising, so the member's local meeting will balloon where community concerns arise. The local and national media will no longer stoop to report the old 'party politics', preferring to report and analyse the more important matters of public interest and concern. With the ballot, accountability will at last be achieved, because public opinion will be much stronger and more penetrating than is possible while party power dominates parliament. Imagine a politician designing to deceive the electorate with fine speeches, but when the secret vote is cast the result goes the other way. If the ballot result does not please the people, constituents won't care about the quality of the speech but will rather hound their representative to fight on for the desired outcome. In the accumulating tension, vagueness and shifty eyes will not escape the keen gaze of unsatisfied constituents in the recurring public meetings.

The people will be fooled no longer as the secret ballot in parliament comes on line, making all representatives fully accountable, and restoring the people's control of their affairs, and their destiny.

Corruption

Any thinking person knows that corruption is already rife under the anti-democratic party system. Party loyalty is obligatory for party politicians by virtue of the privilege of endorsement, and the hope of career advancement. Party candidates are known to not necessarily agree one hundred percent with the party about all its policies. If they did there would be no arguments in cabinet. But they will vote the way the party dictates, being quite willing to ignore the electorate-between elections.

The party holds a mortgage over all they do, including their vote in parliament, which means they must put party interests first, ahead of the wishes of the electorate. The electorate does not 'own' them. The public interest of the electorate is buried under the member's personal ambition and the party's objectives-democracy defrauded! . Isn't that bribery?

We have seen investigations launched over cases of alleged bribery and corruption in four States, so what protection is the party system against such things? It is obvious that our political/legal system has no significant ability to prevent corruption. There is also a real worry these days over the way leaders of investigations into corruption and other matters of public concern have been hounded and vilified. One wonders sometimes just what priority justice has under our system of governance.

Presently ministers can make decisions that concede undue benefits to selected groups, helping the party's image and election chances. It is well known that the party in power has the advantage at an election through its access to inside knowledge, facilities and public funds. Politicians take as much advantage of it as they can-considering it a 'moral' duty to their own supporting interests. This is the direct result of elevating particular politicians to positions of power without reference to parliament or people. The powers and privileges created by the party system are the corrupting influence. The failure of accountability of government is not due to public ignorance so much as the negligible power of ordinary people to do anything about what they do know.

Australian attitudes are quite ambivalent. On the one hand there is the desire for strong leaders. But of course they must be 'good'-a tall order in a corrupt system without serious accountability. Perhaps it is an intellectual laziness on our part which wants to shed the responsibilities of self-government, shunting them onto leaders-then being self-righteously indignant, when they turn out to be no better than we are, and not equal to the moral responsibility. Each party lure its members with its personal rewards, actively corrupting their capacity to be true representatives of the community.

Secret bribery of members?

Will a secret-ballot parliament be able to deal with bribery? We must compare the likelihood of such actions passing undetected following such a change to our parliaments.

Under the party system it may only require a private approach to one politician to make a very great change in the political situation. A party government may stand or fall on the acquisition or loss of one supporting member. This was the case at one time in Tasmania, when a member was approached with a view to bribery. Fortunately the member promptly reported the matter.

With regard to a particular issue, no one will be able to predict the outcome under a secret ballot system. How then will some misguided person know how to carry out a plan of bribery? It is certain that nothing could be achieved except by corrupting a large number of members. Enforcing compliance would obviously be impossible, and the escalating risk of discovery for such little and uncertain gain would be horrendous.

Someone has suggested that promises of secret rewards could be made depending on the result of the ballot on a specific issue. Now how many members would have to be bribed to change their votes to ensure success, bearing in mind that there could be no guarantee that the 'bought' votes could be relied upon? Exposure would be certain.

The microscope of media and public attention will focus on the parliamentary process much more intently as a result of the secrecy of the ballot process. There will be an acute sensitivity to any 'scent' of undue influence affecting decisions and the public ire will be easily aroused in place of the current helpless apathy.

It seems quite clear that illegal plans will have no certainty, except failure and prosecution. It is quite ridiculous to suppose that the introduction of the secret ballot will increase the incidence of corruption. It obviously will not. Instead, such problems will be very largely, or altogether eliminated as significant open debate and public scrutiny revive in the community, and the members are divorced from party politics and its corrupting privileges and conflicting obligations.

Britain, in wartime

The question has been asked, 'How did the British all-party government operate during the World War II?' Does this throw light on the manner in which a secret ballot parliament will work? Winston Churchill, maverick politician, was not a rebel against the Westminster system. He was frustrated by the restrictions of the system until, months after the commencement of the 1939-45 war, the King asked him to form a new government. He did, and his 'Grand Coalition' exemplifies the tenor of a non-party ministry-everyone busy as bees with the best person for each job, and party affiliations ignored.

With a ballot operating in the House of Commons, it would not have been necessary to wait for Chamberlain to quit, as the parliament would have been making the decisions, sidestepping the inertia of party government. Churchill's plans for strengthening the armed forces could have been agreed by the Commons at a much earlier date, if the final say had been with the Commons instead of the Prime Minister.

This points up the unrealised parliamentary resources of flexibility and the strength of diverse, issue-based leadership that will follow the introduction of the secret ballot in parliament. Pressure of circumstance will be quite sufficient to concentrate the mind of the newly dynamic parliament. While reaching necessary consensus, decisions may be slow at times, but when a changed situation as in war demands prompt decision and action, a balloting parliament will be electrified by the danger and act just as quickly.

The discipline of the ballot can be counted on to find the right answers, without waste of time, in time of peace or war. The genuine, conscience votes of members will quickly produce the desirable majorities in each case, with more appropriate time available for controversial issues.

Which is better?

To know that our member will debate and vote in parliament as the party wishes, but ignoring the following problems:



Or, instead of knowing precisely how our member has voted on each issue, being freed from party obligation, we can have far better representation, because:



We will have an improved access via our member to a newly authoritative kind of parliament with:



Elections will occur without:



Parliament itself has the power to make this change in its procedures, with its provision for:



Only the people can bring this about though. Since existing powerful interests will seek to destroy it, this kind of change can only be secured by amendment of the constitution, by referendum.

Genuine representative parliamentary government is essential to our ongoing progress as a nation. The Secret Ballot in Parliament is the vital step that must be taken to revive:



Contents