There has been a lot of huffing
and blowing the last few years by politicians of all persuasions
over the issue of an Australian republic. Unlike Paul Keating,
I for one am not a minimalist when it comes to the matter of
constitutional reform for an AussieRepublic.
Minimalists are those who believe that we should call the
governor-general a president, dump the queen, and get a new flag,
and hey presto we magically have a republic. But in reality
many other factors need to be considered to become a republic.
Changing the name of the title of governor-general along with our
flag just isn't enough. If that's all there is to it, we might
just as well drop the queen, but otherwise stay as we
When I went to university in
the early 1980s my second year Economics lecturer told us, "When
the Australian constitution was put together, the founding
fathers attempted to take the best aspects of the English
constitution and combine them with the best aspects of the
United States's constitution to form the new Australian
constitution. Unfortunately they ended up taking the worst
aspects of the English constitution and combining them with the
worst aspects of the American constitution to form
Australia's constitution. Probably the worst
constitution in the free world."
Although this opinion was
expressed c.1981, I have seen nothing in the nearly three decades
since to make me think he was wrong. As a consequence, my
belief is that very extensive change is needed both to our
parliamentary system and to our constitution and legal system.
I propose the following system:
PART I: THE MODEL
I. THE PRESIDENT:
A. TERMS OF THE
1) The president to be elected
by a popular vote every two (2) years.
2) To run, a candidate must
produce a petition of 50,000 signatures of people saying they
think the candidate would make a suitable president. (Although
they do not need to guarantee to necessarily vote for the
2.1 The petition must include
names, addresses and phone numbers/email addresses (where
possible), to allow the testing of a random sample to assure they
are real people, eighteen or older, living in
Australia and legal Australian citizens.
3) Up to six candidates to
qualify get to run at each presidential election. The first six
to qualify naturally.
4) Candidates must place a
$1,000 deposit to run, after they qualify. The deposit to be
refunded if they get at least 100,000 people to vote for
5) Losing candidates who also
lose their deposit cannot run again for four years. (They must
miss one election.)
6) The President can serve two
consecutive terms (four years) before having to miss one term
(two years). But then may run again.
7) Electoral spending on each
presidential candidate will be restricted to an equal amount (so
the rich cannot have a monopoly on victory), with the funds to be
provided out of the public purse by the federal
7.1 Candidates cannot spend
their own funds on their campaign and to do so will mean
7.2 If a candidate wins and
then is found to have used private funds, this will be the only
circumstance where the prime minister can sack the president.
And only then with agreement of two thirds of a joint sitting of
the House of Representatives and the senate.
7.2.1 If this occurs, the
immediate runner up (the person who came second at the election)
takes over for the remainder of that election period, rather than
having the expense of another election.
8) Presidential candidates must
be Independents with no links within the last ten (10) years to
any political party in this country. And they must never have
been prime minister or leader of any political party in this
country, at either state or federal level prior to becoming
8.1 Political parties cannot
provide funds, or other assistance to any presidential
9) Each TV and Radio
network/station must provide each of the six candidates with an
equal amount of free air time (at least five minutes each), on
the same day, in peak viewing time, in the last week before the
presidential election. This need not, however, be on the same
B. POWERS OF THE
1) The President will nothave
the authority to sack the prime minister or the House of
Representatives, under any circumstances! Therefore there
cannot be the sort of power-grabs that occur under the
presidential system in Russia, where the Russian
president regularly sacks parliament.
2) The president will
have the authority to sack the senate, a half-senate, or
individual senators, only when they block supply by refusing to
pass the annual budget.
2.1 In future the
annual budget must be passed by the senate within ten (10) days
of being handed down.
2.1.1 If it is not, then the
president will call the dissenting senators before him/her and
demanded to know why.
2.1.2 The only reason allowable
for the senate to refuse to pass the budget, will be if the
government has tried to sneak through non-monetary bills in the
budget. As Gough Whitlam tried to do in 1975.
2.1.3 For the benefit of people
uncertain what is a monetary bill or not, merely bringing in
money does not make it a monetary bill. Almost everything the
government does at least indirectly brings in money. Most
non-monetary bills bring in money.
2.1.4 A monetary bill is one
where the main emphasis is to raise funds.
2.1.5 A non-monetary bill is
one where the main aim is to reform or alter a government system,
procedure, or the powers of government.
2.1.6 An example of a
non-monetary bill would be the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
According to Prime Minister John Howard and treasurer Peter
Costello, "The aim of the GST is not to raise extra taxes. The
aim is to bring about a more equitable, fairer tax system". In
which case it was a reform bill, not a monetary bill according to
the prime minister and federal treasurer.
2.1.7 Therefore if Meg Lees,
the then Leader of the Australian Democrats, had had a little
more nous, instead of doing a deal to get the GST through before
July 1999, as she did, she not only would have kept the bill in
limbo until the start of July, but would have stalled it another
month. If the GST had not passed by August 1999, Prime Minister
Howard might have made the same mistake Gough Whitlam did in
1975, and may have tacked the GST onto the annual budget, or even
used it as the central platform of the budget.
2.1.8 Then, like Gough Whitlam
before him; John Howard would have been tacking a non-monetary
bill onto the budget. Then instead of debating the morality of
blocking supply versus the morality of a Goods and Services Tax,
the senate would have been both legally entitled and morally
obligated to block supply and reject the budget. The precedent
being set in 1975, when the senate at that time blocked supply
when non-monetary bills were tacked onto the annual
2.2 If the president agrees
non-monetary items are on the budget, the president will cross
them off the budget, initial the changes, and hand back the
budget and order the senate to now pass it.
2.2.1 The amended
budget will not go back to the treasurer or the House of
Representatives. They have already had a go at it and must be
discouraged from trying to sneak non-monetary items through on
2.3 Only if (I) dissenting
senators refuse to appear before the president, or (II) the
president disagrees that there are non-monetary items on the
budget and they continue to block it; or (III) after the
president amends the budget, the senate still refuses to pass the
budget, then the president will (1) sack all dissenting
senators, (2) call bye-elections for their seats for five weeks
time, (3) ban the sacked senators from taking any further part in
Australian federal, state, or municipal politics for ten (10)
years, and (4) act as the sacked senate him/herself until the
bye-elections, and will immediately pass the budget, thereby
3) The president will have the
power to call referendums (since both major parties have
studiously refused to call referendums over the few decades,
despite many public calls for referendums on many issues).
However, the prime minister will also still have the power to
3.1 The public will
have the right to order the president to call a referendum.
This will give true "power to the people" and prevent the
president from becoming as apathetic toward the will of the
people as the Liberals and Australian Labor Party (ALP) have both
become over the last twenty years.
3.1.1 To order the president to
call a referendum, any member of the public, who is an Australian
citizen living within Australia, must provide the president with
a petition with 100,000 signatures of people who support the
3.1.2 As well as their
signature, the people must provide their names, addresses and
phone numbers (where possible), to allow the testing of a random
sample to assure they are real people, eighteen or older, living
in Australia and legal Australian
3.1.3 The president will have
three (3) months to check the petition, then six months to call a
referendum or add the issue to an upcoming referendum.
3.2 Ideally the president
should call one (1) or two (2) referendums per year, with three
(3) or four (4) issues per referendum.
II. THE SENATE:
1) Under this proposal
senatorial terms are to be cut from six years to four (4) years,
with a half-senate election every two (2) years.
2) As stated I. THE
PRESIDENT: B. POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, 2) above, the senate will
not be able to block supply, and will have to pass the annual
budget within ten (10) days of it being read out in
3) Senate numbers to be cut to
exactly fifty (50).
4) As a means of
getting rid of the first of three (3) gerrymanders in our current
system, I propose to abolish state and territory boundaries for
all federal elections and referendums.
4.1 A federal election
is not six (6), seven (7), or eight (8) state or territory
elections combined together. It is one federal election.
Therefore there is no justification for counting federal votes by
4.2 Ergo, the fifty
(50) senators will not be linked to any particular state or
territory under this proposal. They will have an electorate of
one-fiftieth (1/50th) of the Australian population
4.2.1 So in future no more
fruit-loop senators from Tasmania or the Northern Territory will
be voted into power by a mere four or five thousand (4,000 to
5,000) people, as in the past.
5) The current six (6)
month lag-time between half-senate elections and new senators
taking power must be abolished.
5.1 New senators are to be
sworn in the next working day after an election, with no sittings
of the senate allowed between the election and the swearing in of
5.1.1 This will prevent the
gross manipulation of the system that John Howard engaged in to
bully the senate into approving the evil GST before the
Australian Democrats took control of the senate in July
III. THE PRIME MINISTER AND
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
1) The term for the prime
minister and House of Representatives under this proposal is to
be increased to four years.
1.1 This will allow the two (2)
year term for the president, the two (2) year term for
half-senate, and four (4) year term for the prime minister and
House of Representatives to be synchronised.
2) See I.
THE PRESIDENT: A. TERMS OF THE PRESIDENT 7.2 above. The only
circumstance whereby the prime minister can sack the president is
when the president has illegally spent excess funds during a
3) See I.
THE PRESIDENT: B. POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT 3) above. Although
the president can call referendums, so can the prime
4) As mentioned in II.
THE SENATE 4) above, there are three (3) gerrymanders in our
current system. The second (2nd) of these is in the House of
Representatives where governments can claim a mandate to rule,
despite having less than fifty (50) Percent of people in the
electorate vote for them. Under this proposed system
proportional voting will be introduced, so you must have at least
fifty point five (50.5) Percent of the electorate vote for you
before you can take power.
4.1 The number of MHRs is to be
reduced to exactly one hundred (100). So that with ten (10)
Percent of the vote, you get ten seats, with twenty (20) Percent
you get twenty seats, and so on.
4.1.1 If people feel one
hundred (100) is too many MHRs still; this number could be cut to
fifty (50) MHRs, in line with the numbers of the
5) Minority governments
are banned under this system.
5.1 To rule a party must
receive at least fifty-point-five (50.5) Percent of the vote, or
fifty-one (51) seats in the House of Representatives.
6) See point 3) above.
Abolishing preference voting in the House of Representatives
means people no longer have to vote for one of the two major
parties, which have become rotten through to the core in recent
6.1 Also the two major parties
can never again conspire against a third party as the Liberals
and ALP did in October 1998 to ensure Pauline Hanson's One Nation
Party got no seats in the House of Representatives despite having
nine (9) Percent of people vote for them. On this occasion the
conspiracy against decency by these two major parties kept down a
fruitcake politician. The next time it might be a potential
John F. Kennedy, George Washington, Winston Churchill, John
Curtin, just when we desperately need such a leader. (As we
desperately need such a leader right now.) It is not who they
conspired against that matters. But the fact that such an
undemocratic conspiracy is possible between the two major parties
at all, to keep a third party from establishing itself under our
7) Since it requires fifty
point five (50.5) Percent of votes to rule the House of
Representatives, new parties should be banned unless they can
field candidates for at least eighty-five (85) Percent of the
seats (eighty-five (85) seats if there are one hundred (100)
MHRs; forty-three (43) candidates if there are fifty (50) MHRs).
See points 4.1 and 4.1.1 above.
7.1 Minor parties, like the
DLP, who have no intention of winning power in their own right
are pariahs, parasites only wrecking our political system by
corruptly manipulating it to steal votes from one major party and
give them to the other. The DLP's sole intention was to trick
Labor voters into voting Liberal. This is the main reason the
Liberals ruled for twenty-three (23) years straight from 1949 to
1972. This is a form of corruption, which we must never allow
to happen again.
7.1.1 Independents should be
banned from the House of Representatives for the same reason.
With independents to be restricted to the senate and
8) Measures must be taken to
abolish rorts by politicians:
8.1 Politicians who
retire less than two (2) years after winning office for MHRs or
one (1) year for senators under this system are to lose all
retirement benefits and severance pay entitlements.
8.1.1 Seats for senators who
retire after one year are to be replaced by a member of the same
party, who serves up to one (1) year in parliament till the next
half-senate election. This will mean twenty-six (26) senators
voted at this half-senate election, and only twenty-four (24) at
the next, due to the "swap". However, since other senators will
retire at some stage in the future, this will be ironed out as
8.2 Parliamentary credit cards
to be abolished.
8.3 Politicians travelling
overnight to Canberra for sittings of parliament
are to use their gold pass to travel by train, tram, or bus, free
of charge. If they choose to take their own car, or rent a car,
they do so at their own expense.
8.4 Living away from
home allowances to be abolished. Living quarters should be
built attached to parliament house Canberra. In
the long run this will be cheaper than allowing politicians to
continue to rort the system.
8.5 Office space, private cars,
personal security, etc. for ex-prime ministers to be
8.5.1 Paul Keating alone costs
the taxpayer $900,000 a year for excess expenses on top of the
massive retirement package he already received.
9) Although we must prevent
rorts by politicians, conversely we must prevent witch-hunts
against politicians. Both the ALP and Liberal parties have
forced political opponents to stand down after accusations of one
sort or another were raised against them, only to have the
allegations disproven in court, once it was too late for the
ex-politician who had already lost his/her seat.
9.1 This happened to both David
Coombs and Graham Richardson, both of whom were forced to stand
down, then proven to be innocent of the charges after it was too
late for their political careers.
9.2 In a democracy we are
innocent till proven guilty, the same must apply to
9.2.1 When accused of any crime
politicians must have to stand trial (the same as the rest of
us). But must be allowed to retain their seat until such time
as they are proven guilty, and all right to appeal has been used
9.2.2 This way if they are
vindicated in the courts, there career will not have been ended
by snide rumours.
9.3 Another example of this
is Australia's "Watergate". This occurred in late
1994 when coalition adviser Chris Nicholls paid a private
investigator in the Netherlands to do a six-day
investigation of Paul Keating, in the hope of turning up some
dirt that could be used against him in the next federal
9.3.1 This must never be
allowed to happen again. Parties which bug or spy on other
parties must be forced to disband and their leaders must be
9.4 I am reluctant to give the
power to disband a party to the Supreme Court, because of the way
the Supreme Court has befouled itself by conspiring with the
Liberal and Labor parties against the majority of Australians on
issues like Affirmative Action.
9.4.1 This is what led so many
ordinary, decent Australians to become desperate enough to vote
for a fruit loop like Pauline Hanson. Despite what the yellow
news media wants you to believe, Hanson supporters are not all
rednecks and racists. Many of them are honest, decent people,
making a desperate cry for help after being conspired against by
the Liberals, Labor and the supreme court, creating a Catch-22
situation, where short of assassinating the entire parliament,
there is nothing they can do to get fair treatment in this
9.4.2 Perhaps the only solution
therefore is to have a sitting of the House of Representatives,
the full senate and full supreme court together to decide if a
party is guilty of bugging or spying on another party or
politician. With it requiring a two-thirds majority of the
joint sitting to force a party to disband and to indict its
10) Likewise I must question
the worldwide phenomenon of persecuting politicians over their
10.1 Unless they engage in some
illegal act like paedophilia a politician's sex life is his/her
own business, and politicians must not be able to be forced to
stand trial or stand down from parliament due to their sex
10.2 Insanely, in the USA, the
Congress (senate) spent forty million dollars ($40,000,000) of
taxpayer's money to force Bill Clinton to confess to adultery.
Who cares if he cheated on his wife? This has nothing to do
with his performance as a politician.
10.2.1 Since the Second World
War the USA has only had two outstanding presidents, John F.
Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Both sex-addicts, yet excellent
10.3 So in future a
politician's sex life must be his or her own business unless it
breaks the law.
IV. THE FEDERAL REFERENDUM
As stated above, we have three
(3) gerrymanders built into our current system. The third of
these is in our referendum system itself.
1) As it stands now, people in
the Northern Territory and Tasmania get six (6) or seven (7)
votes each at our referendums; people in South Australia get four
(4) or five (5) votes; people in Western Australia get two (2) or
three (3) votes; people in Queensland, New South Wales, and
Victoria get one (1) vote each.
1.1 At present it is possible
for eighty-five (85) Percent of Australians to vote "Yes" at a
referendum, and have the remaining fifteen (15) Percent out-vote
2) To break this
gerrymander, state boundaries must no longer be considered at
2.1 Under our current system,
to pass a referendum needs a majority of Australian voters to
vote "Yes", plus a majority in at least four (4) separate states.
With the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory counting in the
national tally, but not regarded as states.
2.1.2 Under this proposed new
system, the majority of states would no longer be needed. All
you would need is a majority of Australian voters to vote
2.1.3 So the only tallies that
need to be kept would be, "Every single Australian Voter to vote
'Yes' for this referendum question", and "Every single Australian
Voter to vote 'No' for this referendum question".
2.1.4 There would be no need to
even keep the tally of donkey votes.
3) At the moment the referendum
system is also biased against the "Yes" vote, because the
government cannot spend public funds promoting the "Yes" case.
Yet every moron under the sun can (and does) promote the "No"
3.1 This is wrong and one of
three changes must be implemented:
3.1.1 To allow the federal
government to spend public funds promoting the "Yes"
3.1.2 Morons to be banned from
promoting the "No" case; or,
3.1.3 A limited amount of
public funds to be set aside for both the "Yes" case and the "No"
case, with no other funds allowed to be spent to promote either
3.2 Due to the gross number of
flagrant lies both sides (Liberal/Labor, Yes/No) told in the
run-up to the November 1999 Republican referendum, I am in favour
3.2.1 This means banning public
media discussions of referendums prior to the referendum, other
than the federal government produced "Yes/No" booklet.
3.2.2 Networks that defy this
ban will be taken off the air Australia-wide for two (2) years,
with no right to appeal this decision.
3.2.3 Individuals who defy this
ban to be gaoled for ten (10) years, with no right to appeal this
126.96.36.199 These two laws will
prevent stirring idiots from accepting a token penalty when they
defy and attempt to pervert the law.
1) Great Democrat, Theodore
Parker described democracy as being: "Government of all the
"By all the People,
"For all the
1.1 Clearly this means that
whatever basic political structure we adopt, before we can have a
democracy, every tier (level) of our parliament must be voted
into power by the people.
1.2 Thus you cannot have a
democratic monarchy, even though this form of perverted
terminology has become popular among monarchists. Democracy and
Monarchy are opposites!
1.3 This is one reason
that Australia currently is not a democracy!
2) The other reason
Australia is not currently a democracy is the three gerrymanders
currently corrupting our constitutional system.
2.1 In our senate.
2.1.1 Where some senators need
one hundred thousand (100,000) people to vote them into office,
others need only a few thousand.
2.2 In our House of
2.2.1 Where minority
governments can rule based on the number of seats they obtain,
not the Percentage of votes. Bob Menzies ruled for seventeen
(17) years, without the majority of Australians ever voting for
2.3 In our referendum
2.3.1 Where eighty-five (85)
Percent of people can be over-ruled by the vote of the remaining
fifteen (15) Percent.
3) Many people believe to get
the best politicians, we must pay them a fortune and turn a blind
eye to all their perks and rorts. I believe the
3.1 What this country (and the
world) needs, are more people prepared to enter politics for
patriotic reasons, not so they can retire after eight (8) years
in parliament with a million dollar pension.
3.2 I believe to get great
patriots in parliament, politicians should have to work for as
little as possible.
3.2.1 Possibly an ideal might
be even to pay politicians nothing and have them retire in five
years; with no pension plan, but rather to go back to whatever
job they did before serving their five years in parliament. The
law could even be changed to force their old employer to take
them back. But this is a theoretical system only.
3.3 At the very least, I
propose cutting all federal political wages by fifty (50) to
seventy-five (75) Percent and tying the new levels to the
constitution. At the moment backbenchers have a starting wage
of $131,040, nearly four (4) times what most Australians earn,
and the prime minister earns $340,704; ten times what the average
3.3.1 There after politicians
will have to go to the people at referendum to ever get a pay
rise. No more just voting themselves fifty (50) Percent pay
rises whenever they feel like it.
3.3.2 That is the one occasion
when Liberal, Labor, National and Australian Democrats are in
complete agreement. Whenever they vote to give themselves a
forty (40), fifty (50), or sixty (60) Percent pay
3.3.3 If politicians do go to
referendum to ask for a pay rise, they must be made to give the
voters three (3) options: (1) Give us X Percent pay rise, (2)
Give us X Percent pay cut, (3) Keep our wages as they as. No
rise or cut.
3.3.4 Politicians are very smug
when it comes to saying the workforce should have performance
based pay rises, only getting more money for doing a good job.
But they are less fond of applying this criterion to their own
highly questionable performances. Under this system all
political wages are performance based, with the voters deciding
how the politicians have performed!
1) Under this system, there
will be bye-elections under only three circumstances:
1.1 When the president sacks
senators for blocking supply;
1.2 See III. THE PRIME
MINISTER AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 8.1 above. When
politicians die less than halfway through their elected
1.2.1 When politicians retire
less than halfway through their elected term, to save the cost of
a bye-election, whoever came second in their seat will take over
control for the remainder of the electoral term.
188.8.131.52 Unless the
second-placed candidate is in the same political party. In
which case the highest placed candidate in a different
party/independent will take over the seat for the remainder of
the electoral term.
184.108.40.206 Due to the tendency of
both the Liberal and Labor parties in this country to field
multiple candidates using ever-so-slightly different sounding
party names, it may be necessary for the president to decided who
the highest placed person from a different party was.
1.2.2 The exception will be if
politicians change party or become independents mid term. Then
they lose office and the party who won their seat retains it and
can appoint someone else to the seat.
220.127.116.11 In the event that an
independent joins a party mid term, they would lose their seat
and the next highest placed independent appointed to replace
1.2.3 In the event of there
being no other independent candidates the President would call a
bye-election with only independents being allowed to
1.2.4 Under my proposed system,
to change parties after an election means you are out of politics
until the next election.
1.3 If a politician dies less
than midway through a political term the president must call a
bye-election for this seat.
1.4 This should also prevent
the constant rorts both Liberal and Labor have engaged in down
the years, of having popular, long-time politicians win seats at
an election, then retire straight after an election.
2) With preference voting
abolished, if there are too many candidates for anyone to get
fifty (50) Percent of the vote, at a bye-election, whoever gets
the most seats wins, even if it is a small percentage.
2.1 Under our current
system, we rig the result by giving preference votes to one of
the top two polling politicians to pretend they have achieved a
majority. This is a gross manipulation of democracy, solely to
pretend someone has achieved a majority.
2.2 Also under our current
system the result of an election can be reversed by the
distribution of preference votes:
2.2.1 Ex. If Candidate A gets
forty (40) Percent of the votes; Candidate B gets thirty (30)
Percent of the votes; Candidate C gets twenty (20) Percent of the
votes; Candidate D gets ten (10) Percent of the votes; then
clearly more people have voted for Candidate A then any other,
and Candidate A has "won". But redistributing preference votes
from Candidates C and D could give the seat to Candidate
2.2.2 Which means we have
reversed the result of the election.
2.2.3 It would therefore be
much fairer to abolish preference voting altogether and call
Candidate A the winner with forty (40) Percent.
2.2.4 Another reason for
abolishing the preference system is because most people -
including political analysts - do not know how it
18.104.22.168 I remember in the early
2000s a number of political analysts, including forty-year man
Laurie Oakes, debating on air the possibility of an independent
winning the election if she finished third behind the ALP but
picked up most of the ALP's second-preferences. I could not
believe the rubbish I was hearing!
22.214.171.124 The way Australia's
preference system works is this: (I) after the primary votes are
counted you draw a line under the second (2nd) placed
candidate. (II) The people below this line have lost! (III)
The votes of the people from third (3rd) place downwards are
redistributed to the top two. (IV) The preferences of the top
two finishers are not redistributed. (V) No preferences are
ever redistributed downwards! They can only go up, to the top
two finishers on primaries!
126.96.36.199 So if you do not finish
in the top two on primary votes you cannot get any preference
votes and have lost!
B. ELECTIONS IN
1) I propose the abolition of
all political lag-times in this country.
1.1 Currently there is
a six (6) month period between senators winning office and taking
power. This allows prime ministers to grossly manipulate the
political system, as outlined in II. THE SENATE, 5)
2) Under this system all
elections are frozen to exact terms to the nearest Saturday.
Either two years or four years to the nearest
2.1 Since voting remains
mandatory, we cannot force people to vote mid-week, therefore the
"exact" terms are to the nearest Saturday.
2.1.1 Many people argue we need
to make voting optional to be a democracy. But you only have to
look at the U.S.A. to see the lie behind this.
2.1.2 In America voting is
non-compulsory and only forty-five (45) to forty-eight (48)
Percent of eligible Americans bother to vote.
2.1.3 As a consequence most
Americans have no representation in parliament, and most
Americans spend a lot of time complaining about having no
representation in parliament.
2.1.4 If they would only stop
sitting on their brains, get off their backsides and vote, they
would have some say in the running of parliament.
2.1.5 In this country
traditionally the Liberals have supported non-compulsory
elections, while the Labor have supported compulsory elections.
However, both parties hold these opposing views for the same
corrupt reason. They both believe that if voting were optional
the working class would be too lazy to vote, while the upper
class would still vote. Since the working class traditionally
votes Labor and the upper class Liberal, according to this theory
the Liberals would win every election. This theory shows the
complete, utter contempt both parties have for the working
2.2 Fixed terms prevent
electoral terms from being manipulated forward or back to rig
elections, as Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and John
Howard all did, by calling elections when opinion polls suggested
their government was more popular than the opposition.
2.2.1 And which Kevin Rudd
tried doing in 2009/2010, trying to set-up a double-dissolution
election so that he could corruptly take absolute power of both
2.2.2 And so that by calling an
election in less than three years he would guarantee himself a
second (2nd) term.
2.2.3 Regrettably Australian
voters are slow learners and most have virtually no knowledge of
how our electoral system works, so Kevin Rudd looked like getting
away with this rort, until his fundamentally obnoxious nature led
to the ALP's approval rating plummeting until they had to sack
him and replace him recently with Julia Gillard.
2.3 Having a set term also
prevents politicians from trying to "hide" elections as Jeff
Kennett tried to do in the September 1999 Victorian state
election by running it during the Australian Football League
(AFL) final series.
2.4 Under this system you have
a House of Representatives, half-senate and presidential election
together. Then two years later you have another half senate
election and presidential election. And so on, in two-year
2.4.1 This should actually save
money on elections.
2.4.2 Under our current system,
the theoretical election term is three years.
2.4.3 However, four prime
ministers, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, and Howard all manipulated the
system by calling early elections whenever the opinion polls said
they were more popular than the opposition.
2.4.4 As a consequence we have
actually had one federal election on average every eighteen (18)
months since 1972.
2.4.5 Under this system, the
electoral terms are frozen at two (2) years, so there would be
one third (1/3) less federal elections than at
3) Since all elections under
this system have frozen terms, the anti-democratic procedure of
the Double-Dissolution election, which John Howard wielded out
like an axe throughout his first term in office (just as Kevin
Rudd did throughout his only term), is abolished under this
4) Perhaps the president should
be restricted to two (2) consecutive terms in power before having
to step down for one term. This means no more than four (4)
years in office, followed by at least two (2) years out of
5) See III. THE PRIME
MINISTER AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 7) above. There is a need
to abolish minor party chaos, whereby fruit loop parties create
chaos by running in just ultra-marginal seats. Insisting that
to run at all, parties must compete in at least eighty-five (85)
Percent of all seats can do this.
5.1 We do need a system where a
legitimate third party can emerge to take over from the Liberals
and Labor, both of whom have lost complete touch with the will of
5.2 However, we do not need
fruit loop parties competing in just a handful of seats with the
sole intention of screwing up our political system.
5.2.1 We do not need the
ridiculous system where sixteen or seventeen fruit loop
independents and minor parties all compete for the same
5.3 Therefore independents
should be kept out of the house of representative; allowing them,
however, to compete in the senate, where they can actually do
some good, by stopping either major party from controlling the
senate. And therefore seeing that the senate acts as a watchdog
as it was intended, but has rarely if ever functioned
5.3.1 To run for parliament at
any level, a new party should have to produce a petition of fifty
thousand (50,000) signatures of people stating they think this
arty is a worthwhile addition to the Australian political
5.3.2 Then to run for the House
of Representatives, they should be able to compete as a big
5.3.3 However, to run in the
senate should only have to field one or more
5.4 Ideally the house of
representative should be the province of big parties (Liberal,
Labor, etc.) and the senate should be the province entirely of
the minor parties (greens, Nationals, Aussie Democrats) and
5.4.1 An issue here is the
Nationals. Outside of Queensland the National Country Party has
never stood on its own two feet as a real party. It has always
been just the poor man's branch of the Liberal Party.
5.4.2 It is time for the
Liberal and National Parties to merge as one party. Or for the
Nationals to be locked into the senate and out of the house of
representative as a minor party. Which is all they have ever
been outside of Queensland.
6) See III. THE PRIME
MINISTER AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 7.1.1 above. Likewise, to
prevent independents screwing up the House of Representatives I
propose independents should be restricted to the senate and
presidency. See 5.3 above.
7) Another issue that needs
considering, is the fate of coalition parties. A. Pre-election
coalitions, B. Post-election coalitions.
7.1 Should two parties be
allowed to run as separate parties then form a post-election
coalition? Morality would seem to say no. If they cannot win
office separately, let them merge as one party or go out of
7.2 Should two parties be
allowed to run as separate parties, but announce pre-election
that they will run as a coalition if they win? Possibly, but if
so, the leaders of both parties must publicly announce the
coalition during the run-up period to the election.
7.2.1 If two parties announce a
coalition prior to an election, then one of them picks up a
majority in its own right, the coalition should have to
8) Under the current Australian
political system we do not vote for the prime minister, deputy
prime minister, our state premier or deputy premier, our lord
mayor, or local mayor. We only vote for the ruling party. The
ruling party then appoints their leader and deputy leader, who
are automatically prime minister and deputy prime
8.1 The Liberals don't
seem to understand this basic system. When the ALP changed
leaders and elected Joan Kirner as Victorian Premier, Jeff
Kennett continually disrupted state parliament crying, "You have
no mandate to rule!" Of course she did! Under the Australian
system the people do not vote for the prime minister, or state
premiers, the ruling party appoints them.
8.1.1 Interestingly, when
Liberal premier, John Fahey came to power in mid-term in New
South Wales, the Liberals conveniently forgot their spiel of,
"You weren't voted in as leader, so you don't have a mandate to
8.1.2 At one stage Jeff Kennet
even attempted to blackmail ALP ministers into resigning before
an election, threatening to cut off their retirement perks if
they lost the election then retired.
8.1.3 It is frightening to
think a man who does not understand the first principal of
Australian and Victorian politics went on to control Victoria
with an iron fist for seven years!
8.2 This idea of not voting for
the leaders (other than the president) might seem like a strange
system, but it makes a lot more sense than the U.S.
system. In the U.S.A. they vote for the president and
vice president, but no one else in the lower house. The
"ministers" are simply appointed by the president.
8.2.1 This led to the strange
situation where no one in the general public voted for Gerald
Ford when he became president.
8.2.2 They had voted for Nixon
as president and Spiro Agn