Political Reform -Ballots in Parliament

It has been said that a change in voting in parliament from open voting to an electronic ballot on all debated issue will change the face of politics as we know it. It certainly will. However such an assertion needs to be amplified by considering all the various aspects that now exist and that will change in such an event. Let’s start with:

1. The change that the ballot will make in the House.

At present party votes are counted as a block in almost all cases – unless some courageous member dares to ‘cross the floor’. With the ballot, party discipline will be impossible, so every vote will be a personal vote of the member – a conscience vote.

Each debate will probably commence with a preliminary ballot to indicate the view of members generally. In some cases that might end the matter. In most cases the first vote will lay the basis for an objective attack on the pros and cons of the issue, leading to an efficient use of parliamentary time – no personal attacks or time-wasting speeches.

With further votes taken from time to time the view of the House will mature on the issue until the likely result becomes clear, at which time the question will be officially ‘put’ to a final vote for the record in Hansard.

Where a clear majority fails to appear, there being some uncertainty, issues may be deferred for reference to members’ discussion with constituents or for technical analysis and advice.

Just as members are free to vote, they will be completely free to lead the debate or contest the views put forward by others. With members all voting freely it is obvious that no member will be assigned to ‘opposition’ for the term of parliament, but will be fully free to engage in leadership, as protagonist or antagonist on any issue.

Another aspect is that in course of time it may be desirable for different percentages to constitute passage of a bill, for more serious matters, to be set in the constitution – e.g. for sending troops out of the country – a 90% vote of the members.

Next - electing the ministers.

Electing the Ministers - A New Kind of Executive

We are familiar with the avoidance of accountability by ministers in party governments.

With the ballot operating in parliament, there will be a spill of the old executive, with all ministers elected individually by their colleagues and being completely non-partisan. The criterion for selection of each minister will, of course, be ‘the best for the job’, their colleagues being the best judges of that. Aspiring to office will surely disqualify.

The Prime Minister will be the most respected member of the House,

participating in debate, chairing executive meetings, facilitating ministerial coordination, being influential, but without an overriding executive authority

Elected ministers will be effective administrators and could enjoy secure tenure, being free from outside pressures, being answerable only to parliament.

They will be entirely responsible for all that happens in their jurisdiction, with parliament quite capable of censuring or dismissing them for unsatisfactory performance of parliament’s requirements.

They will be the efficient conduit for all relationships between parliament and the bureaucracy, providing a fluid and powerful administration of government, including a free flow of information and impartial advice to parliament by public servants.

Within approved parameters ministers will exercise a degree of executive authority.

Certain ministers will be appointed to committees; for example, a committee to propose the order of business before the House and a finance committee to establish budgets and coordinate revenue and expenditure.

There is another aspect which will affect relationships between parliament and the bureaucracy. It seems quite clear that the existing climate of public service secrecy provisions will be substantially modified, to ensure that bureaucratic malpractice at any level will have no chance of concealment.

It is likely that whistleblowers will not be hounded, as at present, but rewarded, where exposure in the public interest is identified.

It is quite clear that the introduction of the ballot for parliamentary voting will mean that any ducking of responsibility by a minister will be very quickly and completely exposed.

Next – Members and Constituents in a Working Relationship.

Members and Constituents in a Working Relationship.

The ballot in parliament, with a level playing field of independent members, will ensure for each member an important leadership role in parliament. As mentioned earlier this will open the door for high calibre election candidates who, under the party system do not care to be involved.

There will be a new role for them in the electorate as well, one which will be more demanding than that required of party politicians – a statesman role indeed, as the need to plead the national interest will conflict with parochial interests from time to time.

The people also will be intrigued by the new possibilities created by the representative’s keen interest in their concerns, which will result in a growing attendance at local meetings, ably abetted by the reports of the meetings in the local media.

It is envisaged that attendance in the representatives’ public meetings will grow quickly, especially where there are controversies, and prove to be a growth experience in political effectiveness, for both representative and people, as they work together in pursuit of electorate aspirations and interests, interacting face to face. The regularity of this mutual interaction, from meeting to meeting, will ensure a real transparency of all participants.

Should representatives be unable to establish their suitability as such there will inevitably be those who are visible in the meetings who would be judged worthy rivals at the next election. Should a representative prove unable to handle the problems, and be intransigent, the tenure would become intolerable and resignation the only option.

Following future elections, such a resignation might be met by the local meeting seeing fit to approve the runner up at the latest election to fill the vacancy, thus avoiding the necessity of a bi-election.

In some cases, there may be no contestant at the next election, where the representative’s performance has proved satisfactory to the constituents, there being no party interest to consolidate.

Elections could then be much reduced. In any case, the leadership hype, campaign expense, community and business tension, and uncertainty of present party system elections, producing frequent see-saw government, will be a thing of the past.

There will be no government as such to topple, and we can look forward to a really stable form of truly democratic government with the ballot operating in a strong and people-based parliamentary government.