Committees

 

Committees will be appointed by Parliament. Thus the best expertise in the House will be applied in each field, and party affinities will immediately be of no importance.  Specialised committees will be entrusted with the task of assessing the nature and impact of complex issues. Other committees will examine all proposed regulations, which do not, prima face; appear to warrant debate in parliament. The public will not be excluded from the deliberations and decisions of any committee. People in the relevant field, from the bureaucracy, the private sector, and academia, will be involved whenever necessary.

While Senate committees have often conducted their work in a non-party atmosphere, their recommendations have been at the mercy of party government. There will be a significant difference in that a committee, with members appointed by Parliament could expect to find a ready acceptance of its findings.   

 

A Parliamentary Agenda

 

A committee appointed by parliament will propose the agenda, the importance of any policy depending entirely on its merit. Determination by ballot will quickly confirm or rearrange the agenda, establishing the relative importance of policies, perhaps deferring decision on matters requiring further analysis. Matters before parliament will be widely publicised with the priorities   determined and items for debate set by the committee. The priorities could be challenged and altered by Parliament whenever necessary should controversy arise over a matter not listed for parliamentary debate. 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.

Some people in each electorate will certainly be closely following the performance of their Member in the House and keeping the local meetings informed accordingly - a new and important role for many retired people! The public will have a loud voice if matters important to them are neglected. With the keen interest in the published agenda, and the arousal of the public to the new possibilities of effective involvement in the political life of the country, we could see a new enhancement in the tangible and intangible quality of life of the community. This will be especially true for those groups, which see themselves as deprived or ignored by the system, at present, with resulting antisocial behaviour. A sharp drop could be expected in vandalism, graffiti and also, perhaps, aspects of community violence.

 

Open Government

 

The change to the non-partisan environment of the new Parliament will produce open government. Secrecy provisions will be amended and confined to their true role, the protection of citizens' legitimate privacy. 'Blowing the whistle', where justified, (now a crime, even in the public interest), will be commended, instead of being 'suicidal'. Inappropriate action at any level will be very quickly exposed, with prompt corrective action ensuing.

Without the pressures of party interests, image, and embarrassment to concern the Members, they will be able to work openly through the parliamentary process to achieve the legitimate results required by their electorates.    Party politics has entrenched an inappropriate ‘morality’ - party loyalty, with secrecy and cover-up accepted as normal. That will go.  .

In the new political climate engendered by the new democracy of the secret ballot, complete openness will be the norm. Any other approach will not be counterproductive - or dangerous. Any suppression of information will be liable to prompt exposure with its logical consequences and will be accordingly shunned.

It is considered that Members will not operate behind closed doors, either in the precincts of parliament or in the electorate. Any secret dealing would 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. There will be no 'back flips' by governments, scared by strident community annoyance as election time approaches. The ability for pressure groups to scare party leaders and candidates in 'marginal' electorates will vanish. There will be no marginal electorates in the existing sense. There may be marginal candidates, but not marginal seats. (Marginal seats are a feature of the party system, in that they can determine which party will govern.) 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 well threaten a candidate, but the appeal of the candidate to the public, through the local media, and in the increased numbers in public meeting, should keep undue pressure at bay. In any case they would be quite dependent on the wider support of the local community and of their local Member to take up their case in Parliament.  

The community will quickly notice if substantial unexplained campaign support appears for any election candidate and that will react against the candidate's image. Large expenditure will automatically raise suspicion, and that reaction will be even more noticeable in the local scene.

 

Longer Terms

 

With the implementation of Secret Ballots in Parliament, and the resulting freedom of Parliament from the electoral anxieties of present party governments, the length of parliamentary terms will wane in importance. There will be no more calls for the longer terms the parties would like to see. On the other hand increased and satisfactory representation are likely to lessen the need for the present frequency of elections. It could be that longer terms could be combined with a provision for by-elections on the basis of a substantial petition of voters in an electorate.

 

Elections

 

There will be electorates that will become 'safe' for a sitting Member. The reason for that will differ from that which now applies. The Member's safety will then depend, not on the political clout of a party, but on personal attributes and suitability, as judged by the electorate.

The party system frequently advances 'good' politicians and then discards them altogether, when defeated in a landslide that has little or nothing to do with their performance as representatives. This can be particularly rife in the marginal seats, where 'swinging voters' are more numerous. The present rate of discard of Members, in many cases a real loss to the community, is a matter of concern. In addition, under the present unstable system the frequency of short tenures has made it necessary for MPs to have rights to substantial pensions, after terms of service that are brief compared with other occupations. The reason has been given (whether true or not) that candidates have sacrificed other careers for an uncertain stint in parliament. Such compensatory provision will hardly be necessary with the re-election of Members depending purely on their own efforts. With the resulting longer terms of MP service the incidence of new pensions and the generous provisions could logically be expected to change  as the numbers retiring and calling on superannuation provisions will assuredly slow down.  

Bearing in mind that a number of parliamentary seats are usually contested for reasons of party strategy only, it will not be too surprising, in the new environment, if a number of sitting Members, or replacements for a retiring Member, are returned unopposed.

The attention of the electorate will be on the election of ‘real’ representatives, alternative potential candidates coming to the fore in the context of regular public meetings. For some sitting Members,  'divorced'   by their political parties with consequent loss of campaign assistance, re-election will be difficult. In the local meetings, the quality of those involved, Members and potential rivals, will be visible on a continuous basis. It follows that the candidates for the following election will be well known in advance. Self-promotion of nominees might well be considered counterproductive!

The basis of nomination could possibly be changed. Instead of   nomination with a modest fee, candidates might be required to provide (say) a thousand signatures.  This would eliminate other than serious contenders and might even free some electorates from the need for an election. At present many candidates stand, without hope of election, to raise public consciousness of an issue. This will be much more promptly and effectively done in the new breed of public meetings that will ensue after the implementation of the new ballot procedure.  This type of candidate may then disappear.

 

Casual Vacancies.

 

It could become feasible to dispense with bi-elections. Considering the new climate of elections will effectively be a run-off between Independents, the runner-up would be the next popular choice and so automatically replace the sitting Member unable to continue. The easy and fair solution contrasts starkly with the panic that can presently be caused by a casual vacancy where the parties are in near balance. 

 

Political Stability

 

As noted earlier, under the party system we have a constant basis for political and social aggression and instability, despite the claim that the party system gives stability. Such stability between elections is same that exists under a dictatorship.   Unmoved by a restless electorate the government ploughs on with its 'mandate', ignoring the protests, unless an election looms. Under the Secret Ballot, government will be responsive and responsible to the public at all times and therefore secure. The present cause of instability will go.

Stability of government (and community life) depends on an in-depth consensus, based on a respect for the wishes and the intelligence of the people - a respect for their wishes which will enable the people to be heard and well understood - and a respect for their intelligence; so that information will be freely available, and persuasion will be relied on regarding measures not, at first, well appreciated by the electorate. That may not always be easy, but in the new environment of greater community understanding, and respect for the political process, harmony will be possible much more simply. In any case measures, which the broad community do not support, should never be pushed through. Differences will be sorted out more easily with the increased community dialogue that can certainly be expected to occur.

Stability of government will be readily obtained by the new style of parliament, by the open debating of the issues, by the manifestation of sound and cooperative leadership, and by the responsiveness that Members will show to the people in an ongoing way. Stability of government and community life will be considerably enhanced. Business will barely hesitate in its stride with a looming election. Compare the present anxiety of business about government, not forgetting the dislocations experienced in the USA through changes of government. The smooth operation of parliament here will be hardly touched by the (comparatively rare) replacement of a Minister, or the loss of an election by a few Members found 'unsatisfactory' by the electorate.

 

The New Accountability

 

Democracy requires accountability. And that is precisely what the employment of the secret ballot in our parliaments will deliver - accountability of Parliament to the people by the establishment of the new and independent character of all Members of Parliament. With its new authority, Parliament will exercise control over all arms of government, including the Executive; thus overturning the pyramid of authority and making Parliament itself the higher authority to which all arms of government must answer.

 

Accountability of Ministers

 

It should be borne in mind that the existing facility of Question Time was intended to enable the Parliament to hold Ministers accountable. It has been a dismal failure in Australian parliaments, being used for grandstanding on television by members of the government, with party trumpeting and questions determinedly sidestepped; effectively subverting its purpose.

Administrative faults, while well known within a Ministry, can remain hidden for years at present, because of the secrecy provisions. These have been retained in their present draconian form to suit the parties' paranoid fear of public exposure of their administration.

With a secret balloting parliament Ministers will have an immediate responsibility to Parliament, uncomplicated by party responsibilities and political sniping, and will thus be likely to have a considerably greater stability of tenure than is the case at present. The role of each Minister should be very effective and rewarding. In any case of diminished suitability however, there will be no delay by parliament in taking appropriate action.

As already noted, with the likely modification of Public Service secrecy provisions, the Service would virtually have an open line to Parliament itself. To distinguish the honest motive from the malicious, in the case of a disclosure by a Public Servant, should provide little difficulty. Any cover-up by a Minister will be a logical impossibility.

 

Accountability of Members

 

A clear view was expressed very promptly, by one serving Member of Parliament, that the introduction of the secret ballot into our parliaments would have the immediate effect of making politicians immediately accountable to the people with a progressive improvement as the new parliamentary climate places the relationship between Members and constituents on an entirely different footing.

It will also cause them to be fully accountable in a realistic way because of the constituents' new and keen following of the performance of their Members. With the newfound freedom and powers in Parliament, Members will become acutely conscious, of their new opportunities, and there will be a new climate of challenge in the public meetings. People in the electorate will be looking for results; much more than being interested in how the Member votes.

One Liberal Whip said (as mentioned earlier) that such a move will make his job hard.    That function will certainly 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 provision should certainly be added to ours, and the Whip's job would then be also illegal.

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  if any doubts arise as to their representation, and when controversial issues are at stake.

It will be up to each Member to convince the people in the electorate that their interests are being totally supported and 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 may care to afford, and will have to react accordingly.

It has been truly said that 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. Those time-spans will be considerably narrowed by the new 'face-to-face' responsibilities of the local Member.

Accountability of the Bureaucracy

 

With a move to secret ballots in parliament the disclosure of matters of public concern within the Public Service will be the wish of the Minister and the Parliament. The secrecy provisions will certainly be modified With these provisions clarified   there will certainly be protection of citizens' essential privacy, but there will be no protection for any cover-up of bureaucratic maladministration. There will thus be greater control over the bureaucracy by the responsible Minister, being in turn under the rigorous scrutiny of Parliament where necessary.

A New Media Role?

 

A substantial part of the media’s traditional role of preoccupation with political power plays will become redundant. The media has failed dismally to give the people democratic leadership, avoiding the problem and concentrating on the conflict.  With real political reform the media will become more important. Attention will centre on the process of policy development, the trend of parliamentary debate, the acceptability of balloted decisions, estimates of public and minority reaction.

The debate will become public, and media and people will quickly pounce upon any hint of a hidden agenda, dictating the content or style of any Member’s debating. Political journalists and commentators will be particularly involved in analyses of matters on the agenda, before the debate in parliament. These analyses will be of prime public interest and will be followed through until the outcome of the parliamentary ballot. There will be real opportunity for significant input from the people, who will quickly sense the new ability to affect the process leading to the ultimate decision by the ballot in parliament. Many   with a special interest in the subject being debated will follow the broadcasts assiduously, and any aberrant arguing or behaviour will incur prompt and voluminous criticism from all sides.

People will be much better informed with regard to both the issues and the performance and quality of Members and other candidates at election times. In addition to the parliamentary broadcasts, and local meetings, various current-affairs programmes on television will be important in focusing attention on the issues on the agenda. 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.

Any attempt at manipulation of public opinion will become rapidly obvious. One aspect, which will come to the fore, is the question of media ownership. Media monopolies will watch their step. There should be no problem, with a balloting parliament, in dealing with these problems; including the matter of foreign ownership and control.

 

Leadership

 

Party government hinders wise and necessary action but with the secret ballot in parliament the stimulus for action could come from any Member without limit, the whole parliament being able to rule out or modify any unwise course of action. The emerging picture reveals efficient and sensible decision-making, with minimum delay and fuss – a contrast to the instability of party government. Fixed terms could be a distinct possibility.      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 the boring, pointless, slanging at each other that we see at present. What a change from now, when 'politics' serves mainly to provide a 'blood-sport' for political journalists and satirical cartoonists, and earns something akin to contempt from people generally!

With decision-making by a responsible, conscience-voting parliament, anyone may propose change without creating panic; for change will only proceed when accepted by the populace, and is seen as rightly decided by procedures appropriate to a real democracy.   Secret Ballots in Parliament will provide both the opportunity and the essential safeguards for such an upgrade and diversification of the vital function of leadership in our community. With this reform, each Member will have a much more vital and effective role to play in the House, being effectively freed from the pressure of lobbies, pressure groups, and opinion polls.

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 a real self-government system. In addition, private citizens, academics, interest groups, and the Public Service will lead initiatives, ultimately through private Members and Ministers. But regardless of source, initiatives will only succeed where they are sane and practical. The ballot’s  'filter' effect will attend to that. The new system will thus be efficient at sorting out the best policies, and its flexibility will enable valuable contributions to be made, without the problems of institutionalised blockages and hurdles.

With the radically changed environment it will even be possible to see past Prime Ministers or Premiers and other notable people from industry, academia etc., etc., enter Parliament to make their own particular and valuable long-term contribution.

 

Ideas, Concepts and Principles

 

We must see ideas reigning, not people. These are the things that should lead us. These are the things that should be drawing us together, in a prospering unity. A political system must provide complete freedom for the leading of new ideas, to be sifted and appraised, in local forums, in the media, and in Parliament. In such a truly democratic context, with an equalisation of power, new ideas can be freely ventilated and reach their legitimate fruition, without the interference of personal fears and ambition.

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. And 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.

 

Local discussion groups

 

Are there any of these at present, without an axe to grind or a barrow to push? Those with such agendas are essentially power groups.  We don’t need more of them! Our real need is for forums majoring on non-partisan discussion. Completion of our democracy with the extension of the Ballot into our Parliament will stimulate   this trend. 

 

A New Independent!

 

With the secret ballot procedure operating in parliament, there will be a new, and real, independence for the local Member. Party funds will wither away, destroying the present overwhelming advantage of major party candidates through large-scale campaign support and the reflected aura (?) of the party leader. Without these advantages victory will depend on the personal attributes of each candidate - a level playing field!

When there is satisfaction with parliamentary decisions, the Member will be held in high regard, but otherwise there could be continuous and pointed reminders, personally and in public meeting, of the constituents' disappointment and dissatisfaction. 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.

By all Members becoming genuine Independents, chances of reelection will depend very heavily on their local performance in the realms of accessibility, integrity, and intelligent, strong, representation of constituents' interests. Their logical response will be to hold regular meetings in their electorates.

 

Public Meetings

 

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. In this climate, life will become very torrid for any Member who fails to obtain the acceptance and confidence of the constituents. These local meetings and the reporting of the local press will be significant factors in reaching and informing the electorate.

These meetings will provide a new opportunity for significant involvement for many who at present have none. Think of an elderly 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 succinct suggestion to the meeting, and then goes home. Such a person will be able to rest, content in the knowledge that the worthwhile thought has been noted, and will be acted upon, with no less certainty because that person has no particular status, nor personally pursues the matter further. In a secret ballot system it is likely that the concern and its expression will be sufficient to set any necessary action in motion, with other people prodding, should the Member not be disposed to act. That will be real democracy.

Is that too much to expect? There is really nothing to prevent this kind of outcome. It merely needs the openness of the public to see the need for this important reform and the will to follow it up. For many members of the public, necessary response need not be considerable  

The advent of realistic public meetings convened by Members, newly and acutely vulnerable to the electorate, will also prove an immediate forum for public awareness of people whose qualities commend them for support as alternative candidates   who could be seen well in advance of an election.  Their presence will be a considerable challenge to the Member for quality representation. The ongoing retention of a seat will thus depend on the Member being seen by the constituents as doing everything possible, including forceful debate and advocacy in parliament, for furthering the proper interests of the electorate.

Parochial interests and concerns will sometimes have to be surrendered to the public interest - the well-being of the country as a whole - which, in the long run, is likely to be enlightened self-interest. So the Member may sometimes have to argue with the electorate; to secure a less parochial viewpoint. The new powers and opportunities will enable worthwhile Members to be statesmen; and they will accordingly receive a new respect if they can qualify.

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. The new situation will attract the close attention of concerned people to the debate and resulting decisions in parliament; especially to the Member's performance in the House in pursuit of the electorate's point of view. Imagine the dynamics of the situation: the housewife at her ironing, the farmer on his tractor, or the brick-layer laying bricks, all following the broadcast of the Member's debating 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 what the parliament does, or fails to do. 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 well for the electorate, and there will be the constant demand by the people 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!

 

Single Issues

 

Single issues, which are often of a complex nature, will be able to be readily, and effectively, raised and analysed in the new local meetings, receiving a more detailed and immediate consideration than heretofore. Difficult issues will be likely to be resolved quickly, in the new non-partisan style of politics - not easily perhaps, but with a community satisfying involvement.

 

Summary

 

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

1.             Broadcasts will display the new quality of objective, purposeful parliamentary debate. These will acquire a regular following of concerned constituents, a variable number, depending on the importance or controversial nature of the issues that arise. There will be detailed reports and analyses by mainline and local media when important and local concerns are being debated,

2.             The public meetings that will result, offering worthwhile opportunities for anyone to participate and have an influence on outcomes,

3.             The likely awareness of suitable alternative candidates in the public meetings, during the term of parliament, by virtue of their concern, talents, and integrity.

It must be emphasised that, as a consequence of the secret ballot reform, no aspect of parliamentary procedure or conduct, or relations with the public, lobby groups, the unions, or the Public Service, will remain unchanged. It is a common error to visualise one isolated aspect of the change, in an imaginary and artificial context in which only that aspect has changed. That is a totally wrong way to examine the matter. In fact nothing will be the same. This must be realised. The changes in each area of our political system will have an accumulating interaction, with very significant public benefit to be derived from this move to a genuine democracy.

There are some who believe that a politician could not be trusted with a secret vote in parliament. But party politicians, governed by the forces and pressures of the party system, do not vote for us in parliament at present. They are their party's representatives - not ours. They cannot be. This anomaly will be eliminated by this reform. In the changed environment, those who remain will quickly become our trusted representatives through the powerful influences for a close involvement with their constituents.

For the public, the new emphasis will be on a personal knowledge of the Representative through the new public meetings, the fresh media coverage of their Member’s performance in Parliament. Beside this, the secrecy of the Member’s vote will not be important - a small sacrifice (if any) for a much more significant gain - a Real Representative working strongly for the electorate, no longer subservient to other interests; and never spending years, powerless in Opposition.

 

Objections.

 

Mr. Ernest Rodeck AM, while generally in agreement with the principle enunciated in 'A CHARIOT OF FIRE', has raised some issues with regard to the effective operation of a secret-ballot parliament. These need to be considered.

 

A Vote to Abstain?

 It is suggested that, rather than providing for a vote for a Member to abstain, where a matter is of the significance to warrant debate each MP has a responsibility to respond on behalf of the electorate. It is quite true that matters vary considerably in complexity and it is clear that the understanding and expertise of some exceeds that of others. However in matters political, everyone has to make judgments based on their own understanding, but when that is limited we assess the integrity and clarity of understanding of those who lead in debate. We thus reach a conclusion and make a decision to the best of our ability on all those facts before us.  An MP is no different. Decisions have to be made on available facts and to have no opinion at all about a matter under debate would be a shirking of responsibility. It is therefore concluded that there should be no departure from the existing practice of requiring MPs to choose YES or NO in every vote.

 

 

Interest Groups will remain?

People ‘like to form groups, debate within those groups and arrive at joint views'. Just so. This was already recognised earlier. The ballot proposal has no jurisdiction at all over private activity. However it is predicted that this radical change will result in a new phenomenon - the rise of the common forum - the local meetings conducted by MPs in response to the community's demand for effective consultation and input. Such meetings will form the backbone of a system of MP accountability, which does not currently exist. The past habit of local parties and groups meeting to discuss and debate in isolation will be less profitable and will yield in importance to the new common forum.

 

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 should enable protest to be made where necessary. This will ensure that any matter can be added to the agenda if justified by public concern. On the other hand, should a demand for debate be vexatious, the matter could be simply disposed of in seconds by electronic secret vote when the House is sitting.

 

Instability?

A serious reservation is that the notion of a House of Independent MPs would lead to instability. This was 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 a pet issue. That would certainly happen again without the ballot in parliament. But with the ballot, every view that cannot acquire the necessary majority of secretly voting Members will fail. Wheeling and dealing will become virtually impossible, and in any case, will be unacceptable in the new environment. Any remaining wheelers and dealers’ will be hissed, and ostracized in the corridors of Parliament. The ballot will be a stern disciplinarian, with its plain message: win the majority over by persuasive argument; or fail. Parties may persist for a time but the ballot will diminish their utility progressively in the new surge toward the blossoming power of a non-partisan parliament. The secret ballot will force Parliament toward cohesive decision on each issue. As the arguments are put, and the progressive votes instantaneously taken, the view of the House will consolidate around the best answers, through the active participation of the Members, not necessarily all debating, but all voting. Clearly there are only two options, the bringing in or the throwing out of any motion. It may happen that the debate does not resolve the issue at first - no clear majority. The matter will then be deferred for research. It may be that the developing familiarity with the process could introduce a 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. A motion to defer could then override a narrow majority in cases where a substantial majority would be preferable.

 

How can politicians be trusted?

With every politician becoming uniquely accountable to the electorate, they will no longer be ‘politicians’ but Representatives. Accountability therefore will revolve around the diligent follow up work of the people in the electorate. This will not require the involvement of everyone, just the concerned; a body of constituents varying considerably from time to time, depending on the issues arising. The local meetings will balloon where there is dissatisfaction or serious concerns. The local media will be a very significant help to the public by keeping all informed. 

 

 Corruption?

 Any thinking person knows that corruption is already rife under the anti-democratic party system. Party loyalty is obligatory for politicians by virtue of the privilege of endorsement. They are compelled to put the party first, ahead of the wishes of the electorate. Just who does the Representative represent? Members aspiring to Cabinet rank, to what, and to whom, are their efforts and energies directed? The party! Is that not bribery?

  We have also seen investigations launched over cases of alleged bribery and corruption in four States, so what protection is the party system against such things? None at all, in fact the party system is a prime cause.  It is obvious that our political/legal system has no significant ability to prevent corruption. And there is a real worry 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 the law.

The power of party Ministers to make decisions conceding benefits to selected groups helps the party image and election chances. It is well known that the party in power has the advantage at an election through its access to knowledge and facilities This is the direct result of elevating particular politicians to positions of power without reference to parliament or people.  The powers and privileges arranged by the party system are a corrupting influence.  We should not forget that the problem of the failure of accountability of government is not because of the public not knowing, but that, even though knowing, ordinary people are unable to do anything at all about it. Hence cynicism prevails.

The Australian attitude is quite ambivalent. On the one hand there is the desire for strong leaders. On the other hand is the desire to cut down the 'tall poppies'. Perhaps it is an intellectual laziness on our part which wants to shed the responsibilities of self-government, shunting them onto 'good' leaders; then taking up a position of anger, and self-righteous disgust, when they turn out to be no better than we are, and not equal to the responsibility. It is the system under which they labour which ruins the representative capacity of 'good' people.

Secret Bribery of Members?

As to the ability of Parliament to deal with any danger of bribery, we might compare the likelihood of such actions passing undetected, following a change to the secret ballot in our parliaments. In Tasmania a Member was approached with a view to bribery. The person making the approach made a bad mistake, as the Member promptly reported the matter.

Under the party system, it may only require an approach to one person to make a very great change in the political situation, when a party government may stand or fall on the acquisition or loss of one supporting Member. This was the case in Tasmania. But under a secret ballot system, no one will be able to predict the outcome of any particular ballot. 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 number of Members; and that on a single issue, not the formation of a government with power to decide all the issues! It is obvious that the escalating risk of discovery, for little and uncertain gain would be horrendous.  In any case with the secrecy of the ballot it would be useless to depend on any Member to vote as required by a bribe anyway.

Someone has suggested that promises of secret reward could be made depending on the result of the ballot on a specific issue. But how many would have to change their votes to succeed? How many secret votes could be relied on to carry out the criminal conspiracy? There is also the microscope of attention by media and public, which will fasten on to the parliamentary process, 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 public ire will be easily aroused in place of the current helpless apathy.    So attempting to carry out the illegal plan would have no certainty apart from failure and prosecution! It is ridiculous to suppose that the introduction of the secret ballot will increase the incidence of corruption. It obviously won't - it will eradicate it.  Such problems will be very largely, or altogether, eliminated, as significant open debate and public scrutiny revive in the community and Members are freed from party politics and its corrupting responsibilities.

 

Britain, in Wartime.

The question has been asked, 'How did the British all-party government operate during the second world war'? Does this throw light on the manner in which a secret ballot parliament would work?

Winston Churchill, maverick politician, was not a rebel against the Westminster system.  He tolerated the restrictions of the system until, months after commencement of the war, the King asked him to form a new government. He did and his 'Grand Coalition' exemplifies the tenor of a Cabinet elected by secret ballot - the best person for each job. He was no dictator but the war demanded strong government. It was no doubt the seriousness of the crisis and the stature of the man that enabled the Commons to work as one, and with the support of the country, to do the necessary miracles they did.

It seems reasonable to suppose that had government decisions been put to a ballot of the Commons the answer would have been the same. Which seems to indicate that pressure of circumstance can 'concentrate the mind wonderfully' so that reaching the right answer may be slow in peace, but cannot in war. But there is no doubt that the discipline of the ballot will give the right answers by genuine majority decision of conscience votes of Members; and with a minimum of waste of time.

It would not have been necessary for Chamberlain to be deposed for the required action to be undertaken, as the parliament would have been making the decisions, sidestepping the inertia of party government. Churchill's drive for war preparation could well have been agreed to by the Commons at a much earlier date, the Prime Minister not having the final say as to what could or could not be done. A resounding confidence in the Commons would have resulted, with Churchill a key figure but not requiring Cabinet office to achieve necessary action. This points up the leadership flexibility, and parliamentary strength that will follow introduction of the secret ballot in Parliament as well as for elections.

 

Now which is better?

To have a Member:

1.      Who must debate and vote in Parliament as the party wishes, and because the party controls the vote,

2.      You could find out the Member's vote on each issue;

 

But ignoring the following problems:

1.      The party not being in power but in Opposition, the vote achieves nothing,

2.      Election promises being shelved as being difficult or infeasible even though the party is in power,

3.      The  party in government claims a mandate for an unpopular measure,

4.      The party having, or adopting, policies with which one cannot agree;

5.      In all this having no power whatsoever to intervene.

 

Or,

Instead of knowing precisely how your Member has voted on each issue, because of a secret ballot in the House:

1.      Having a genuine, independent representative, accessible and realistically responsive, who can follow up each issue freely and with an ability, equal to any other in the House, to influence the result of the vote taken on an issue about which you are concerned,

2.      Having a community-dependent representative, who holds regular public meetings in which anyone can have a real hearing, and who must take real notice of the feelings of the meeting on each matter raised,

3.      Being able to meet and talk to viable rival candidates showing up in such meetings throughout the term of parliament, in the event that the sitting Member's performance in the House proves to be wanting,

4.      Having fixed terms of parliament, because there is a realistic accountability of the Member on a continuous basis and no party government to be 'toppled',

5.      Having a government consisting of the Parliament itself with all the Cabinet, and Prime Minister (or Premier), elected by  the parliament, and

6.      Seeing the (new style) 'executive' at the beck and call of Parliament, instead of a parliament dominated by the ruling party Cabinet.

Chapter 8

Contents

[1]  Functions of Parliament, House of Representatives, The official statements. J131.

[3] Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1976. Vo 8, p121