Institutional Reform
by admin 10:26pm, 7 November 2007
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
A major issue raised by the 300 people attending the World Cafe event in May 2007 was the need for institutional reform - what sort of reform is required in the institutions of Government to strenghen our democracy?
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
Relates to
document: Final report on World Cafe May 2007
(83.5 KB)
dan28
Nov 11, 2007 08:40am
6
1 
Here are a few suggestions:
1. Get rid of compulsory voting (becasue it forces people with no interest or idea to vote and the politicians should have to motivate people to vote for them not just be slightly better than the other guys)
2. 5 year fixed terms state and federal with elections coinciding (to get rid of some of the buck passing and make sure that Government has long enough out of election mode to do its job)
3. Publicly funded campaigns with equal funding and no top ups allowed.
4. Ban all private contributions to political parties
5. Over time aim to hav two levels of Government - national and regional and to get rid of state and local (this would be more efficient and allow better representation).
maxwell
Nov 11, 2007 09:08am
6
2
I agree with the first 4 but I dont see how getting rid of local government can make the system better. It would reduce participation opportunities and make government less accountable.
fullobeans
Nov 13, 2007 06:21pm
6
2
1. Agree
2. Agree (perhaps longer)
3. No this would just be rorted anyway
4. No why shouldnt I give my money to my favourite party?
5. Yes yes yes
salvo
Nov 13, 2007 08:35pm
7
0
Sorry Dan I disagee with 1, 2 and 5 we need more accountability and input to the system not less. I think that perhaps the antidote to the silly electioneering we get now is to have more accountability so it becomes part of the every day and then politicians just wouldnt get away with the BS so much (excuse phrase)
greenade
Nov 21, 2007 09:57am
3
1
#3 would make the biggest difference.
#4 definitely!!!
#2 not sure about this. how do we get rid of a nasty government if they prove themselves a disaster. the current system really provides a safety net.
Disagree with non-compulsory voting. that is a road to apathy.. just look at the US!!
not sure about #5
James
Nov 21, 2007 10:53pm
2
1
Agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 - oh that's all of them. A point I would make is that we already have public campaign funding. What needs to happen is that this needs to provide more equity to smaller parties and the campaign spending allowed should be capped at the public funding levels
ballotsmith
Nov 30, 2007 10:58am
1
1
1. No. This would be going in the wring direction entirely. New Democracy is looking to involve the population more, with more meaningful opportunity to participate in a self educating way - not to discard the hoi poloi.
2. Dictators want long terms.
3. Prefer to see people knowing their MP personally, (as well as rivals if necessary) in regular public meetings, convened by their MP. Don't want to see parties, television advertising, or dodgers in letterboxes. Just a new democracy.
4, Agree entirely - (certainly not tax deductible.)
5. Possibly. But first solve the main problems.
Crispin
Nov 18, 2007 07:53am
5
1
Here's an alternative list of reform suggestions:
1. Introduce proportional representation at the Federal level so that parliament reflects the wishes of the electorate more accurately. Right now Labour and the Libs have nice little oligarchy going on to the detriment of the small parties. This disenfranchises the 20% of people who don't vote for either party as a first preference. Proportional Representation also forces parties to coalesce, creates a discursive space, and moderates out the extreme political views.
2. Get rid of the Senate.
3. As for #1 & #2 at the State level, or as per dan28's comment, get rid of the State Governments, and introduce Regional Governments. These would need to be either electorially based or have formalised "borough" committees to make recommendations to the Regional Council.
Otherwise I agree with #1, #2, and notionally #4 of dan28's list. Need to think a bit more about the others.
sal07
Nov 18, 2007 09:55pm
3
1
Proportional representation - isnt that the system that means Italy goes through about 3 governments a year? That sounds like a passage to mediocrity to me. I agree if you had PR you would not need the senate as you would be hard pushed to get any decision out of the lower House. Agree with regional government.
James
Nov 21, 2007 10:55pm
2
1
Agree with Sal on the PR issue. I would also stick up for the Senate who are important in accountability in Government
blakey
Nov 22, 2007 04:37pm
2
0
I think PR is a geat idea. Then you woldnt need the senate because there would always be accountability in the lower house. Parties would actually have to have good workable policies or they couldnt get them through - there would actually be real debates.
ballotsmith
Dec 02, 2007 03:45pm
1
0
blakey hi,
I think with PR you would more than likely have multi-party government, which would be less able to create stable government.
And you would still have party politics.
At one stage the PR Society were keen to support ballots in parliament, but it was felt that we would be better off without the parties altogether, with a single member bearing the responsibility to answer to the electorate for the actions of parliament.
And parliament itself would make the decisions, not a coalition of parties.