The twitter post read. "The current two-party system is an epic fail." Suggesting what we need in Canberra is “100 good men and women." I would go one step further and say, they should ALL be good men and women, but that is another discussion.
The 100 good men and women comment is intriguing, because it implied 100 independents. And so the discussion, albeit somewhat constricted by the limitations of Twitter ensued, what was best; try and fix the current two-party system or flood the parliament with one hundred Independents.
I think many will agree the current system is deeply flawed. Only a rusted on fool would conclude that we have an over abundance of the best quality 'good' people in Canberra. We clearly don't and that goes for all parties, including Independents. Although it is fair to say there are many good people there, not all the apples are bad, we just don’t have enough of them.
I want to touch on the 100 Good men and Women (#100GMW) idea.
Some of the questions that spring to mind for me are.
Who determines what good actually looks like?
You can define what personal values look like, but that doesn't always mean the person can or will deliver what everyone demands. So does, that make them bad?
So is good based on personal values or doing what is best for the country, the electorate or us as individuals?
Even within the electorate people have different demands, different wants and needs. What is often in the best interests of the country isn't always in the best interest of individuals, particularly in the short term.
So in electing these people is ‘good’ based on the majority view of policies or personal attributes?
We could have the majority view now, if we eliminated preference voting as per the UK and got rid of the senate. Personal attributes are sometimes harder to determine.
How are #100GMW independents organised?
Hundred Independents governing, who leads? How are roles divided up? How are decisions reached? Because I think it would be a fair bet the #100GMW all have their pet projects and personal beliefs. We see this in the senate now with our current group of Independents. And before you scream, but they are not 'good', well sorry to disappoint, but some people actually think they are.
I consider a good person acts with integrity, honesty and fairness. But acting with fairness doesn't always mean you can be fair to everyone. Just consider the challenges the current government has battled in trying to address the budget deficit and welfare spending. Or the debates that erupt over mining. On one side the people who need jobs and on the other those who will not support mines because of their commitments to the green agenda.
I am naturally cautious about independents ruling. I've seen the negative side of that with councils and the potential for that to be the reality on a bigger scale in the ‘House of the Law Makers’ fills me with dread.
It also raises another question and that is, is the electorate mature enough to move to a more independent structure in Canberra. I'm sure this will get some peoples backs up, but I doubt that it is, but I'll save that for another day. The experiment of ‘self-managed’ work groups are rarely successful.
I also have a sneaky suspicion that the advocates for the #100GMW are really just like the rest of us. They have their personal agendas and they don't see either of the two major parties delivering on those personal wants, so they think a bunch of independents who think the same way as them will.
I'm squarely in the camp of, let's try and fix what we have, and then build on that to improve it. That comes from my natural tendency toward 'process improvement" leading to the creation of "Centres of Excellence". Yes I know it’s a motherhood statement, but it says what I think parliament should be. Anyone who is familiar with process improvement thinking knows, you have to identify the initial cause of the problem and work from there. So where to start.
For me there are glaring issues that should be looked at.
These are not necessarily in order:
No 1: Fix the initial selection process at the grassroots level. So often we hear the person who gets the jersey is the party pick not the members pick,
No 2: Eliminate political donations and that definitely includes Union donations,
No 3: Get rid of preference voting,
No 4: Get rid of the senate,
No 5: All political advertising to be subject to existing Truth in Advertising laws,
No 6: Any initiative that impacts on our sovereignty needs to explained very clearly and perhaps in some instances it should also to be subject to referenda,
No 7: Increase the house of reps term to four years and preferably five,
No 8: Have a robust feedback system so the the voice of the people is heard,
No 8: Improved auditing of politicians performance.
These are the key areas for me, but first and foremost it gets back to the independence of the selection process. We have to get the right people in the party to start with. We have too many career politicians who are using parliament as a stepping stone toward their next career move and certainly too many ex Union organisers and Union lawyers who are not representative of the majority of the electorate. Their experience in the real world is limited.
When it comes to political donations, there is no such thing as a free lunch and we are seeing all too clearly the negative impact of political donations. The level of corruption and manipulation that is being exposed in the Union Royal commission is testament in case as were the ICAC investigations. And independents are not immune, just look at the mess the Palmer experiment has delivered to us in the senate. Money buys favours and those favours rarely benefit us.
How anyone can support preference voting is beyond me. It never ceases to amaze me how a candidate can achieve the highest number of votes in an electorate and not gain a seat in parliament because of preferences. That's like an Olympic javelin thrower ‘winning’ the gold medal, and losing out because the officials combined the distance thrown by the silver medalist with the bronze medalist and awarding the gold the second place getter. The senate is even worse. People sitting in judgement who achieved less than a 1000 votes, but who got there because someone did deals with umpteen other micro parties; lunacy.
We elect a party to govern and to deliver on the policies we voted for. Far too often they are thwarted in that endeavour by a hostile or feral senate. I know many of us were stunned when we heard a bunch of independents supported the opposition to vote down the reintroduction of legislation to place better controls over Unions. Hence, increase penalties for misuse of members' funds and stamp out legal practices.
The best example I know of a one house parliament is New Zealand. They don’t have a senate, they function perfectly well without one and they get things done in half the time.
It's insane that political advertising is exempt from the laws governing truth in advertising. In essence, anyone with a grievance can run an ad based on lies and fear and get away with it!!! And worse still, people believe it. The most recent proof is the Union ad lying about foreign workers and the China FTA. It simply shouldn't be allowed. Trust me, we will be swamped with Union ads like this leading leading up to the next election. It's frankly criminal behaviour in my opinion.
Our sovereignty concerns many in the electorate. I’m one of them. There are two issues that come up with regularity because they do have the potential to impact on our future. One is foreign investment; what, who and the basis of (sale or lease of assets). Two immigration; who, what and why.
I think all parties need to be more open about this. They need to make it very clear exactly what are they taking to the electorate and why. They certainly aren't as clear as they should be and this creates concern and suspicion. They must address this.
The question of the term in office needs to be looked at. Three years is not enough time to address many of the problems we face today. As an example, the Labor government left a minefield for the new government to deal with. Addressing the economic challenges created as a result of a Labor's out of control spending and unfunded initiatives, coupled with the significant decline in our resources market was never going to be fixed in three years. If we have the right people in Canberra then four to five years shouldn't be an issue.
Lastly, those we elect need to spend more time listening to their supporters and we have to have a much better process to assess performance. If we do get it wrong and vote in the wrong people or as recently discovered end up with people who abuse, taxpayer funds waiting for an election to get rid of them isn’t acceptable. Elected members need to be accountable to their local party members and that means greater disclosure of personal spending, achievements etc. If our representative isn’t performing them we should be able to remove him or her.
Whether we like it or not, we are an island, but we can't operate as an island. Some people out there would like us to just close the doors to investment, immigration and being a global citizen. Nice idea but we wouldn't last long. That said, we have to ensure we do the best for our country, our people and our security and that means getting the fundamentals right. It starts with who we elect to represent us. That's where we need to start. Fix the basics and build on that.
I think we have a man in Tony Abbott, who is trying to do that, at least in some areas. He gets little thanks for it, but he tries. Yes, he has many faults, but he is the only one who is endeavouring to clean up Union corruption, fix parliamentary benefits rorting and get the best deals on our free trade agreements. Let's not forget he also told the UN he would stop illegals flooding in on boats and he wouldn't buy into their green climate scams. As for the leader of the opposition, just rate him on these five key points and you come up with a big fat zero. Same applies to the Greens leader and independents. So my efforts leading up to the election will be helping the best of the two major parties get back into office.
Let’s not create a bigger mess voting in a heap of independents that will achieve nothing. It’s the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and it diverts our attention from the most important challenge that we face. Keeping Labor out and that includes their partners, The Greens.
