When I was up in Newcastle, I often listened to Karl Kruszelnicki's science show on JJJ . He is an obviously intelligent and knowledgeable man, who doesn't suffer from the arrogance that often comes with it. One of the features of his show was the ease by which he admitted he didn't know, and would either go off to research it so he had the answer next week; or people would ring in with the answer to the question which stumped him. I recall Karl saying once on the radio, after someone calling in helped him, "There is much wisdom in people".

The Federal and State governments are populated by professional politicians who are become more and more entrenched each year. They are managing the media in such a way, that they can make decisions with impunity, and only have to take notice of the electorate in a short period prior to elections. This is leaving us with inferior outcomes. Our government institutions lack vitality, vigour and relevance. This can be amended partly by greater participation of non-professional politicians in the government process. Basically tapping the profound wisdom that, as Karl commented, can be found in the people.

Non-elected Cabinet Ministers

The Imagining Australia folks in their book have a section on expanding eligibility for the Executive Cabinet. In the Westminster system the formal power of the Executive is spread across the Executive and Legislative. By the Constitution, the Executive is the Queen of England. Her representative in Australia is the Governor-General, who is constitutionally guided by Parliament.

The Governor-General heads the Executive Council. This contains the Governor-General and the Executive Cabinet. The Executive Cabinet is a collection of the Prime Minister and other Senior Ministers, such as the Treasurer, Foreign Minister, etc. The Prime Minister heads the Executive Cabinet and by convention guides the Governor-General. The real power of the executive lies in the hands of the Prime Minister, no matter how ambiguous and obtuse the Australian Constitution is in this area.

The Imagining Australia folks call Australian Government, "responsible cabinet government". Built as it is on the British tradition of responsible government. Even though self-government has survived in Australia since the 1850s to provide a relatively stable political structure, the Imagining Australia folks ask if it can be improved. They see one area of improvement being in opening up the Executive Cabinet to non-elected appointees.

There are two issues surrounding this. The Prime Minister through the wielding of absolute party discipline has become the dominant member in parliament, and has warped the cabinet system to a presidential style of singular executive. Another issue is that those that make up the numbers of the cabinet are often professional politicians with little experience of private industry, or of a non-political speciality. For instance, John Howard was last in private industry in 1974. Since then, a total of thirty-two years, he has been a professional politician.

The Imagining Australia folks write;

We propose broadening the pool from which ministers can be drawn. The prime minister should be able to appoint Cabinet ministers from outside of parliament. Any Australian with the appropriate expertise and experience should be eligible. These people need not be experts - after all, policy experts are often best situated in the public service. Rather they could simply be individuals who have been successful in relevant fields and who, by virtue of their political and managerial skills, would excel in a ministerial role.

As the authors note, it is not a radical idea. The US Executive Cabinet is entirely composed of appointments, rather than elected officials. The President and Vice-President are the only ones elected in the US cabinet. The danger in this system is that individuals who have been rejected in an election will still get appointed into powerful positions. A good example of this is former US Attorney-General John Ashcroft. He failed to win election in Mississippi, yet was appointed into a senior position in the cabinet despite being rejected by voters as unfit for public office.

Another issue that is not covered in the Imagining Australia book, is how the appointments would be approved. In the US system the Senate approves the Presidents appointments. This often means that those who appear unfit for an appointment are closely scrutinized. For instance Alberto Gonzalez, who had given legal opinion on Guantanamo Bay and the practices that were condoned there. Another is the current appointment of John Bolton. It would be in the interests of separation of powers that the Prime Minister puts any outside appointments to the Executive Cabinet through the Senate first, where they can be approved or rejected.

The Imagining Australia folks write;

Such people [those that may be suitable for an appointment to cabinet] could inject new life and ideas into policy-making, informed by sustained practical engagement with particular issues. In a nation of just 20 million people, governments should draw on talent from all walks of life - and should aim to produce a Cabinet that is representative of Australia in all its diversity.

While that is a nice sentiment, nowhere in their book do the Imagining Australia folks seek to draw on anything but specialists. The Imagining Australia book follows closely a doctrine of increasing the number of non-elected specialists into Australian government, economy, policy and culture - with a decreased level of accountability to the public. This is the weakness of the book in my opinion.

However I am comfortable with appointed cabinet ministers as long as the appointments are known well in advance of an election, and that they have to be approved by the Senate - and maybe Ratifiers and a People's Chamber too.

A People's Cabinet

Nicholas Gruen in a recent post to troppo armadillo, advocated a People's Chamber . Nicholas based it upon the shallowness, and homogeneity of political culture - the same base from which the Imagining Australia folks worked from in proposing appointed Cabinet members. In proposing a People's Chamber Nicholas instead saw inspiration in the original democracy itself, Athens . Athenian democracy incorporated aspects of sortition and direct democracy. Sortition is the process whereby officials are chosen through lottery, rather than election or appointment. Unlike post-enlightenment democracy, the Athenian model did not incorporate the principle of separation of powers, nor universal franchise.

The People's Chamber would be a third house in the parliamentary system. One where its representative would be chosen by sortition from the population to participate in government. The chamber would be approximately one hundred people. From a later thread, Ken Parish tentatively agreed with the principle once he determined it didn't require physical presence in Canberra to be effective. It should be noted Nicholas made no determination on any requirements in the physical presence of the chamber in his post, or subsequent comments, but Ken thought small periods of face to face meeting for the chamber were acceptable;

Maybe it could work if the People's House met for (say) 3 or 4 fortnight blocks each year. Any more than that and too many people would be precluded from membership, not only people in my position but single parents, most small businesspeople (including trades), and anyone who is still carving out a career where 3 years absence would adversely impact promotion prospects. That sort of length of time ought to be enough to work, although any shorter wouldn't. And I guess you could turn over the membership every year rather than every 3 years.

The important aspect of this proposal is that there is wider recognition that there is no legitimate voice of the people despite Australia's reliance on proportional voting. Pluralism has largely been destroyed by the parties, absolute party discipline and professional politicians.

Citizen's Representatives and Citizens Auditors

Scrymarch in the past has proposed sortitionists being injected directly into parliament. Chosen by lottery, and serving alongside elected politicians to be involved in forming government, opposition and independents. I cannot find a link for it, as much of Scrymarch's political philosophy is spread across comments rather than articles, but IIRC a considerable percentage was proposed - in the order of twenty-five percent.

Again this was to inject the people directly into the process and take advantage of their wisdom, ability to excel, and their non-political experiences while they are fresh. From a comment ;

I like indirect democracy, and community representatives; but the current mob are not representative. Which is where sortition and ratification comes in. Sortition puts people representative of the population in Parliament. Ratification ensures the consensus reality of the parliamentary village does not become too detached from the people. I see the process of ratification as a final referee, similar to a presidential veto, but with a clearer and less factional mandate.

I think the pace and detail of legislation is inherently too great to be sensibly weighed by a large electorate. Some delegation is required, by sheer division of labour. Mencius made the same point 2300 years ago.

Direct democracy mechanisms can be used well. The Swiss use Citizen Initiated Referenda to great effect. I'm a fan of that system. But the Swiss are pretty civic minded, and that takes time to cultivate. The number of proposals are also an order of magnitude less than legislation.

Another proposal of Scrymarch's was Citizen Auditors. These are spontaneous citizen groups which rise up to audit government - a kind of flash-mob for government auditing. I think this would bring superior solutions, not in government waste, but in identifying expensive, ineffective and impractical policy - which ultimately has to be funded to be implemented. This would definitely take advantage of the wisdom and application of the people and in my opinion would bring some of the fastest returns and improvements.

This proposal would require supporting legislation, which I doubt parliament would implement - government prefers acting privately and avoiding the public space as much as possible. This is also used to avoid criticism. Given the slow oscillication of the Australian system in the change over of government, the incumbent needs to be exposed to more pressure and criticism so that they take responsibility for their actions.

A Ratification Model

In an article titled, "The Fourth Estate" , I proposed a ratification model of parliament for an Australian Republic. In this model the Ratifiers exist mainly to kill repugnant legislation and bills that are not in the public interest. A good example of this would be the US Patriot Act, or Copyright extensions and DMCA like clauses that came with the Au-US FTA.

The Ratifiers would be a flash-mob chosen by sortition for each bill that passes the Senate. They are like jurors for legislation, and only exist for a single bill, in the same way jurors only exist as a group for one case before disbanding. Each group of Ratifiers will consist of approximately one percent of the population. I wrote;

The Ratifiers;

• will have its members chosen by sortition.
• will consist of at least 1% of the population to vote on a bill or a judicial nominee.
• will not be allowed to excuse themselves from the process, however an abstinence will be counted as no.
• will require a greater than 50% no vote on a bill to send it back to the Senate.

Note that the Ratifiers are intended to be anonymous - a secret ballot for each bill. They are also not intended to meet face to face, nor to offer policy suggestions as Ratifiers on a bill. Though they may comment as citizens or affected individuals as part of the normal political discourse. I constantly write on the inability of Australian Government to adhere to legislation that respects our rights and liberties. This would address that issue.

Conclusion

The above article contains four different innovations on the parliamentary model, but all come from the same standpoint; tapping the profound wisdom of the people, and the knowledge that the people know what is best for them - consequently injecting them directly into the political process will only benefit the country above and beyond the current system.

cam

Parliament has tabulated in amongst others, a bill to have the Eureka Flag added to the Flags Act 1953 , and recognized as an official Flag of Australia.

Eureka!

I do not think it will pass, it appears to be a bill from the Senate, and written by Victorian Labor Senator Gavin Marshall , so it probably has a chance of buckleys and none, being up against the increasingly conservative and authoritarian Liberal Party dominated parliament.

The legislation is interesting as in the past the Governor-General has used Section 5 to appoint Flags of Australia.

The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit.

And the monarchists claim the Governor-General has no political roll? Bill Hayden appointed the Aboriginal Flag as an official Flag of Australia through this section. If that is not political, I do not know what is. Other proclaimed flags include the Torres Strait Islander Flag, the Red Ensign, the Naval Ensign, the Governor's flags etc.

The Imagining Australia folks have advocated that Australian nationalism align itself with the Eureka Stockade narrative. They also advocate the Eureka Flag being the Australian National Flag;

We strongly believe that Australia should adopt the Eureka Flag as our new national flag. Described by the Age in the 1850s as the 'Australian Flag of Independence', the Eureka Flag is uniquely Australian, aesthetically beautiful and rich in symbolism.

We can probably thank Raffaelo Carboni for capturing Peter Lalor's speech on the unveiling of the Eureka flag. It successfully, and forever entwined Australian liberty with the imagery of the Southern Cross;

Peter Lalor, our Commander-in-chief, was on the stump, holding with his left hand the muzzle of his rifle, butt-end rested on his foot. A gesture of his right hand, signified what he meant when he said; "It is my duty now to swear you in, and to take with you the oath to be faithful to the Southern Cross. Hear me with attention. The man who, after this solemn oath does not stand by our standard, is a coward at heart."

"I order all persons who do not intend to take the oath, to leave the meeting at once."

"Let all divisions under arms 'fall in' in their round the flag-staff"

The movement was made accordingly. Some five hundred armed diggers advanced in real sober earnestness, the captains of each division making the military salute to Lalor, who now knelt down, the head uncovered, and with the right hand pointing to the standard exclaimed in a firm measured tone:-

"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other, and fight to defend our rights and liberties."

An universal well rounded amen, was the determined reply, some five hundred right hands stretched towards our flag.

Though in terms of rich symbolism, Eureka is aided by the Ballaraat Reform League's chartist goals , which included liberty, democracy and the defeat of tyranny.

Citizen Flags

I made a Citizen's Bill in the past , which would add language to the Flags Act enabling citizens to petition the Governor-General to add flags as Australian Flags under Section 5. The purpose of this is to expose the Australian national Flag to competition and popular opinion. Those that like the Blue Ensign can continue to fly it as the Australian National Flag, and those that don't, can fly something else that is also appointed as the Australian National Flag.

This is a way of satiating both camps, those that want the Blue Ensign to remain, and those that would prefer something else to represent them as Australians. Our flag is weak as a unifying symbol anyway. It is unthinkable for an American to use anything other than the Star Spangled banner when identifying themselves as American. Same for Canadians and their distinctive Maple Leaf flag. Australians however use multiple flags, Boxing Matilda, Eureka, the Aboriginal Flag and the Blue Ensign. The Australian National Flag is not a universal, nor unifying force - it needs to be exposed to the competition of popular opinion.

Conclusion

The Eureka Stockade flag is not my Australian National Flag of choice, but far be it for me to deny it being elevated to an official Australian Flag for those that want it there. I would prefer it was done through Section 5 by the Governor-General, as I can see a strong tradition arising from that. Increased choice is good, so I am for the elevation of the Eureka Flag, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the Blue Ensign, or any other flag.

The Flag Issue

• Modernising the NSW Flag
• (Citizen) Flags Amendment Bill 2005
• Australian Vexillology

A deliberation poll is an opinion poll for consensus decision making. An advocate on metafilter of this technique essentially described it to be used in the same manner as the Ratification model which has been proposed on South Sea Republic.

From the metafilter thread;

... one of the really good ideas for governmental reform is the deliberative opinion poll, it would essentially be a trial by jury for every law passed by a legislature, congress, parliament, etc.

This would serve the same function as the ratification model. Ratifiers are chosen by sortition (lottery) and would serve as an anonymous jury for each bill that passes parliament. A ratifier would not be able to vote yes on a bill, but can only abstain or vote no. The purpose of the ratifiers is to stop truly repugnant legislation getting through to the Governor-general. Essentially it would be a citizens secret ballot on every bill, with approximately 1% of the population taking part in each ratification of a bill.

Deliberation Day

The Imagining Australia folks have borrowed from the deliberative democracy principle and advocated a Deliberation Day . This would be a national holiday before an election where the citizens can meet to discuss issues amongst themselves, or with representatives and candidates. They propose consuming the Queens Birthday holiday for this purpose.

They foresee these meeting places between voters to be community locations, for instance schools, churches, community centres. They propose that voters break off into small groups and discuss issues, with each voter having a timed period to talk.

While Imagining Australia shows empirical data to back up how even one day of focus on politics increases the knowledge of the surrounding issues. I really don't see this as being feasible. But if people want to do it, or try it, then I don't have a problem with the Queens Birthday being co-opted and renamed for this purpose.

I think that adopting a ratification model would be a better method for citizen participation in the political process and in political issues.

More on Ratification

• Ratification Model
• Tapping The Wisdom Of The People
• Ratification, Sortition and Crowd Wisdom
• Packet Sniffing Ratifiers
• Wiping Muddy Boots On The Senate

cam

Political power in a market-state system comes through economic power; and the latter is heavily dependent upon population. Australia has twenty one million, and if it is to rival the political power of nations such as the UK, Germany and France it is going to have to increase its population. The Imagining Australia folks argue that forty million is easily achievable by 2050.

Russia and China are good examples of autocratic nations who have chosen different paths to achieve political power on the international stage. Russia has chosen military power backed by government controlled oil and gas resources. On the international stage they are treated more as an annoyance than a genuine political threat.

China, on the other hand, has chosen economic power as the fastest means to international power, and as a result are out-stripping Russia in international influence. (Would the IOC give Moscow the olympics in today's environment?) This is the difference between a market-state approach and a martial-state approach.

Australia has adopted the market-state with the economic rationalist policies from the 1980s and we have now maxed out our economy; it is genuinely limited by its labor output. Productivity and immigration are the main means for it to grow now.

Nation-states remain the dominant political entity on the international stage for bartering over local or regional interests. In this area Australia needs to assert itself more and back it with the economic power of the market-state. For instance the 'great and powerful friends' doctrine of foreign policy must go now, and that independence backed with the economic output of forty million (I have argued for sixty million in the past).

The Imagining Australia folks argue for an immigration flow of approximately 1% of the population each year up to 2050. This would double our existing immigration intake each year.

This would make our immigration intake about the same as what it was post-WWII. This level of immigration is not historically scary, nor is it that much of an increase on present levels of population growth:

It would lead to population growth of around 1.5%, which is only marginally more than the population growth of 1.25% that Australia has experienced for most of the last twenty years.

The Imagining Australia book (which is a policy book) has policy recommendations for achieving the target of forty million Australians by 2050.