1. In response to your submissions on Task Two, 'A Table of Contents', the tentative structure for the Section on 'Government' in our Constitution is as follows.

Part 4 - Government
General
The primacy of Parliament over the Executive
The Structure of Government and the Separation of Powers
Levels of Government (e-g, National, State, Regional, Local)
Powers and Responsibilities of different levels including taxing powers
Administration and Delivery of government services
Elections
Sittings, Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament

The Head of State
Powers, Role and Duties
Election and/or Appointment of the Head of State
Remuneration

The Executive Government
General
Relationship between Executive, Parliament and the People

The House of Representatives
Role
Election of Members
Sittings, Prorogation, Dissolution
Parliamentary Procedures
Remuneration

The Senate
Role
Election of Senators
Sittings, Prorogation, Dissolution
Senate Procedures
Remuneration

Statutes
General
Parliamentary Legislation
Citizen Initiated Referenda
Ratification and Legal Force of International Treaties

3. Obviously these headings could change as we work through various aspects of governance. They are listed here so that you can see the structure being used. This should allow us to concentrate on the particular issue under consideration in the knowledge that related issues will be considered later.

4. The framers of our Constitution made several attempts to create a unique parliamentary system but more by default rather than by plan, we adopted the British system with few variations.

5. At that time, the main concentration of effort was on persuading six independent Colonial Governments to give up some of their powers to a (yet to be formed) central or Federal Government so that the nation state of Australia could be created.

6. However, it is obvious that, from the very start, the will of the Australian people was to create an egalitarian parliamentary democracy. This idea of a parliamentary democracy free from any suggestion of an 'elite' has permeated Australian society from long before Federation. This principle is best illustrated by our adoption of a wholly elected upper house rather than following the British system of a 'House of Lords'.

7. Unfortunately, the aspiration of our forefathers that we be governed by elected representatives of the people has been steadily eroded over the years. We are now reduced to a situation in which we are governed by representatives of one of two major political parties the membership of which is less than 2% of the population.

8. Of even more concern is the fact that the leader of the political party gaining a majority of seats in the Lower House (the Prime Minister) enjoys almost dictatorial power with very few 'checks and balances'. He alone selects the Governor General for appointment by the Queen of England. He alone appoints all Ministers of State and his Cabinet. Under his powerful eye the cabinet decides government policy. A Cabinet member who opposes the Prime Minister can expect to be a short-lived member of Cabinet. The Cabinet directs the way in which party members (the majority of the Members of the House of Representatives) vote on any particular issue. To vote in any other way almost invariably results in disendorsement at the next election.

9. The only check on this inordinate power of the Prime Minister is the Senate. However, even that check is non-existent when the Government has a majority in the Senate. And as we have seen many times recently, even when the Opposition has the numbers in the Senate, that restraint on the power of the Prime Minister can be negated by 'politics' rather than for any higher aim for good governance.

10. This then is the situation that we must try and correct in the crafting of our 'Model Constitution'. The challenge we face is, can we devise a system of government that will;
a. Be stable, just, responsive and economically sustainable.
b. Include the necessary 'checks and balances'.
c. Ensure that we are governed by true representatives of the people.
d. Ensure that the will of the people guides the formulation of policy and laws?

11. Obviously, our first step must be to agree on a broad system of government and then to fill in the detail. However, in doing this, we must think from 'the bottom up'. The imposition of a grand design from the top down is unlikely to succeed. 

12. A study of the system of government in other countries gives us some ideas on good points we might like to adopt and some bad points we want to avoid. And we should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of our current system. From this we should be able to see not only what is practical but also what suits the Australian nation in terms of the characteristics of our society and the geography of our country. It is obvious that, to serve Australia well, the system we devise will probably be uniquely Australian.

13. This should not daunt us. Even though we are a small, young nation, Australia has led the world on many occasions on the question of good governance. As mentioned earlier, we have had a fully elected upper house since 1901. The USA only adopted this innovation a hundred years after independence. The upper house of Canada is still not elected and Great Britain is only now moving to elect some members to their upper house. We were the first to grant women the right to vote and the first to use a system of secret ballots. 

14. The system of governance we adopt must suit our Nation and our unique Country. Although the majority of our people live in cities, our society of less than 20 million is spread over a vast continent. We must devise a system that guarantees appropriate if not equal representation and one that is capable of delivering government services to a wide variety of people spread over a huge, sparsely populated countryside.

15. One of the reasons for the dominance of the major political parties is the size of our electorates. Currently, electorates have an average of 80,000 voters and cover anything from 63 square kms (Sydney) to 2,300,000 square kms (Kalgoorlie). This size electorate makes it almost impossible for an independent candidate of moderate means to have any chance of being elected when he or she has to compete with the resources available to the major political parties. For example, because he usually cannot afford TV or even print advertising, an independent candidate is restricted to door knocking, public speaking and letter writing. Furthermore, because an independent candidate spends relatively little on advertising in the media, he or she is unlikely to benefit from much editorial coverage.

16. Even if it were possible to physically knock on every door, it would take two and half years for a candidate to spend just five minutes with each voter in an electorate. And this time would be multiplied many times when travelling time is included. With a meagre advertising budget, independent candidates have found it impossible to attract any more than a handful of voters to public speaking venues. To send just one letter to his potential constituents costs a minimum of $35,000 in postage alone. These problems are exacerbated twenty times in Senate elections where each whole State becomes the electorate.

17. To reduce the size of Lower House electorates to, say, 30,000 voters under current rules would increase the number of MPs to 600. This is obviously ridiculous for a population of less than 20 million. Currently, there are 224 Federal politicians; 148 Members of the House of Representatives and 76 Senators. This number is generally regarded as workable although there are a large number of 'back-benchers' who have very little influence on the governance of our Nation.

18. A partial solution to this dilemma might be to have each electorate represented by EITHER a Member of the H of Reps OR a Senator. For example, if each electorate was to be reduced to 30,000 voters, giving a total of 400 MPs, 250 could be Members and 150 could be Senators. Some system of determining who would be Senators and who would be Members would then have to be devised. However, it is considered that 30,000 voters in each electorate is still far too many to allow appropriate access and adequate representation.

19. A more appropriate electorate would be 5,000 voters. This would provide much better representation and would allow real representatives of the people to be elected. Unfortunately, this would increase the number of Federal politicians to 3600! 

20. These facts indicate the need for a totally new approach. One option is a two tiered system. That is, a system in which voters elect representatives to a Regional or Provincial Parliament and those parliaments elect representatives to serve in the Federal Parliament.

21. Such a system could be configured as follows. Currently, there are 12,500,000 electors. The basic electorate would be approximately 5,000 voters. Each basic electorate would elect a representative to a Regional or Provincial Government. There could be 50 electorates in each Region or Province resulting in 50 Members of the Regional Parliament. There could be 50 Regional or Provincial parliaments and each of those would elect, say, two Members to the Federal House of Representatives and one Senator. That would create a H of Reps of 100 and a Senate of 50 Senators.

22. Under such a system, the Federal Parliament would be the only law making body. That would eliminate the 10 sets of often-conflicting laws we now have. The Regional or Provincial Parliaments would be responsible for the delivery of government services and for Regional by-laws and ordinances. Obviously, under such a system, there would be no requirement for State Governments and no requirement for Local Governments or Councils.

23. Currently we have 224 Federal politicians, 598 State and Territory politicians and approximately 6500 councillors making a total of 7322. We have a huge bureaucracy in Canberra, equally huge bureaucracies in each of the States and Territories and smaller bureaucracies in each of 687 councils or local government areas.

24. Under the proposed two-tiered system, we would have 150 Federal politicians and 2400 Regional politicians - a total of 2550 politicians. There would be a much-reduced bureaucracy in Canberra (policy, law making, treasury and overall supervision; but implementation in only a few areas such as Defence). And 50 relatively small regional bureaucracies responsible only for local government and the implementation and delivery of Federal Government services such as welfare, health, education and so on.

25. Each community of just 5000 voters would have an elected representative who would be accountable to those constituents for all aspects of governance whether it be genetic modification, international terrorism or pot-holes in their streets. To enhance the power of Regional Parliaments over their representatives in Canberra, the Regional Parliaments would have the power to recall and replace a representative if they considered he was consistently voting inappropriately.

Task Seven

Devise an Appropriate Broad System of Government

What we need to start with is an indication of what you think is right and wrong with our current system of government. Please indicate this on the following table.

Our Current System of Government

Statement Agree / Disagree

(1) I feel like I have too little say in what happens in our society.

(2) It is good that Citizens have no right to initiate referenda to 
change our laws.

(3) In our current system, Government is responsive enough to 
the needs of the People.

(4) Our system appears to be more stable than some others.

(5) Our Constitutional Monarchy is better than a dictatorship.

(6) By concentrating all power in the hands of politicians, we 
encourage apathy in Australian citizens about matters of governance.

(7) In the main, only major party candidates get elected.

(8) Unless they happen to hold the 'balance of power', independents
and minor parties have very little effect on government.

(9) Our current system of government is better than that of USA.

(10) Having a house of review in addition to the House of 
Representatives is better than a uni-cameral system.

(11) An elected Senate is better than a non-elected Senate.

(12) The Senate was devised to protect 'States' Rights'.

(13) The Senate votes along party lines.

(14) The Senate is not an effective house of review.

(15) My electorate is so large, I have little hope of knowing my 
local MP.

(16) I feel that the only political power I have is to throw one major
party out of government and put the other party in power.

Agree / Disagree

(17) Compulsory registration on the electoral roll is desirable.

(18) Compulsory voting is a desirable attribute.

(19) Preferential voting is better than 'first past the post' systems.

(20) Preferential voting is the best system.

(21) I think both major parties have very similar policies.

(22) We should not have different laws in different States.

(23) We should have a common policy on education in all States.

(24) We should have a common policy on health in all States.

(25) Different police forces in each State with jurisdiction only 
within State borders is an inefficient way of fighting crime.

(26) We have too many politicians.

(27) We have too little control over the pay and conditions of 
politicians.

(28) We have too many public servants.

(29) The bureaucracies are out of touch with the needs of the 
People and the politicians seem incapable of fixing the problem.

(30) The Governor General is appointed by the politicians 
provides no check on political excesses and is therefore little more 
than an expensive ceremonial figurehead.

(31) State rivalry is undermining Australia's capacity to present a 
united voice in the world both politically and economically.

(32) State rivalry results in duplication and waste.

(33) State borders hamper the development of effective 
environmental policies.

(34) The current division of jurisdiction between Federal and State Governments hampers the development and implementation of effective policies on issues such as corporations law, the environment, exports, tourism, national infrastructure, etc.

(35) Under the current system with elections every three years, we get;
a. one year of the Government ramming through legislation without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, 
b. one year of stagnation, and 
c. one year of government driven solely by the desire to win 
Agree / Disagree
the next election.

(34) Those areas of government over which State Governments have jurisdiction such as hospitals, schools, law enforcement, railways, environment, etc are the areas in which we seem to have most problems.

27. In addition to the issues covered in the Table, it would be a help to have your views on a desirable broad structure of government. What we are looking for is your ideas but, failing that, your opinion, expressed by placing a number from 1 to 6 against the following options to show your preference from most preferred (1) to least preferred (6) would be of assistance.

My Preference
a. The current system of three levels (national, state and local) in which jurisdiction over most aspects of government is vested in State Governments but, by default, most political and revenue raising power rests with the Federal Government and in which Local Governments have little power and even less resources. 
b. A system similar to what we have now but with a rationalisation of responsibilities and revenue raising powers. For example, a Federal Government with sole revenue raising powers and responsibility for such things as health and education, and a national police service to enforce a national set of laws. State governments responsible for very little. And local governments with more power and more money than they have now. 
c. A system with three levels but in which the allocation of responsibilities is rationalised between a strong Federal government and somewhere between 30 and 50 Regional governments and with local governments much the same as at present.
d. A totally revamped system in which a strong Federal Government has total revenue raising, law making and policy making power supported by 50 Regional parliaments responsible for local government issues, implementation of government policy and the delivery of government services (a system as outlined in paras 24 and 25 on Page 4).
e. A two-tiered system, National and Local, in which Local Government operates under the National Constitution.
f. One level (National) in which all revenue raising, law making and policy making power is vested in a Federal Parliament and in which federal instrumentalities are responsible for the delivery of government services.

28. Obviously, even these broad parameters may change as we debate the issues in more detail.

29. The remainder of this page and the one following are left blank for you to make additional comments and to express your ideas.