Jim's model, and his insights, show his experience in Parliament, and his
experience of its problems.

Jim wrote, in response to Simon, regarding Wilson Tuckey :

> Simon's comments are true if you look at what Wilson Tuckey said.  This
> should not stop us from recognising his positive contribution to our
> public campaign.  Certain powers would be useful over police (eg.
> traffic, accountability health (eg.  work now done by local boards and
> local govt) and education (eg.  subject input related to local
> environment, social, industry and employment issues)- in my view if:

> 1.  Councils - or whatever they may be called - were larger and based on
> boundaries that permit full time membership (something like the size of
> Brisbane City, the ACT, Tasmania, the NT.  Otherwise they are
> corruptible, especially in developing areas.

> 2.  Local government were represented in the Senate in place of the
> states - otherwise local government would have too little power and
> therefore would be less responsible.  My idea is that each local
> government has a small proportion of Senators who serve at both local
> and national levels - no time for estimates committees but the House of
> Reps could handle estimates.

> 3.  The use of joint parliamentary sittings in the national parliament
> to deal with unresolved issues.  This would be better than the huge
> array of ministerial councils and legal battles now occurring.

Jim's principles are :

> 1. International and national pressures demand the existence of strong
> neighbourhoods
> 2. The lack of community involvement in decision making can be reversed
> through strengthening neighbourhoods.
> 3. If neighbourhoods are to be really strong we need one powerful local
> government system, with layers of elected persons from neighbourhood to the
> National Parliament.

> My model has an elected full time congress executive in each 'region' (a
> metropolis is one region and other regions are based on community of
> interest and catchment issues).  The size of the executive to be
> determined on a population basis.  The executive consists of persons
> elected as Senators (say one or two in the 25,000 areas and up to 8 for
> Sydney and Melbourne) and persons elected as members.

> The Senators attend both congress executive and the Senate in the
> National Parliament (not onerous).  The members attend both the congress
> executive and locality meetings with elected and honorary Mayors and
> deputies.  The deputies and/or wardens are elected by neighbourhoods (
> say 100 to 1000 households each) and the Mayor by the whole locality -
> eg.  Bundaberg, Ballarat, Berrigan,Broome.

> A Congress of the whole region can meet annually and the rules could
> oblige the executive to consider all congressional recommendations but
> the power must be with the full time executive.  Delegation of powers to
> localities may occur but must be subject to the Executive unless
> subject to something like citizen initiated referenda - initiated by
> ballot not signatures on paper.  

Jim notes he has a paper "shared government" detailing his model. Further,
Jim's model includes the notion of "functional representation". This is
discussed further on, for the moment we focus on Senate representation.

I now include a set of questions from Charles. Jim's replies are indicated
as >, Charles' background (where applicable) as >>

How many members from each region - apart from Senators?

> If the congress executive is run like a local council - which I prefer -
> I believe that a region of up to 100,000 could have 5 members and two
> senators on their executive.  Sydney may have about 40 members and 8
> senators each.  Tasmania may have 25 members and 3 senators.

> If the adversarial system is applied - 'government' and 'opposition'with
> ministers - the numbers in the smaller populated regions would need to
> be at least 17 and possibly 21 to work.  If the local council structure
> applies we would need to answer or deal with Senator John Cherry's
> problem with Brisbane City Council allegedly abusing the closed
> committee system and providing little constructive public debate but
> that can be done constitutionally.

What are the roles, powers and responsibilities of each of the National
Parl't, the Regional Executive, and the Localities?

> The localities would elect deputies and a Mayor and possibly a deputy
> Mayor.  The appointments are designed to show people that there is an
> elected local person who is a direct link to all of government.  There
> would be a requirement that congress executive members and senators,
> where appropriate, respond to all representations by the deputies.  The
> mayor and deputies form an advisory council which may be given and
> denied local responsibilities at the discretion of the executive -
> infrastructure, services, social and environmental.  Formal meetings of
> the advisory council must include executive members on roster - ie not
> all of them.  The Mayors and deputies also meet collectively with the
> entire executive, all of them as members of Congress, once or twice a
> year where decisions by Congress are to be considered by the executive
> at a later date and, if rejected, reconsidered by Congress once more.
> Large cities may need to be divided into planning divisions for some or
> all of these meetings (and for executive planning committee meetings).

> The executive of full time members and senators is the effective power
> of the 'region' (I like 'territory' better).  There should be an elected
> governor to chair the executive and Congress and a deputy - both of
> whom should be members of the executive.  Its powers should result from
> nationwide consultation and, if possible, consensus.  I suggest that
> present local government powers with increased planning powers plus
> certain powers over employment, industry, population, education, health,
> defence (civil defence and emergency services), in fact almost every
> area of government.  For example: education curricula should primarily
> be a national responsibility but must include an input - eg.  to a
> prescribed proportion of the curricula - relating to local issues eg.
> environment, industries, culture in some primarily Indigenous schools.
> The region should be able to make decisions on employment, unemployment
> expenditure and given responsibility to disperse funds.  A case can be
> made to allow areas like Tasmania to have certain population, including
> migration, powers within parameters set by the national parliament.

> The senators are members of the executive but the executive should not
> be able to direct the way they vote in the senate.  Doubtless they will
> recognise the interests of their regions unlike the present senators who
> do not have to confront state bodies, only their parties.

> In the national parliament the senate should exist as now - it could be
> about the same size.  The national parliament should be able to direct
> policy but rejection of regional actions, where legally made, should
> only be with agreement of the Senate, in my view.  Budgets should be
> agreed to by both the house of representatives and senate, using a joint
> sitting if necessary.

What voting systems would be used in the various elections?

> I believe the voting system for senators and congress executive members
> should be Hare Clarke, Robson rotation with one ballot paper for
> senators and one for members - except that separate elections for
> governor and and deputy governor should be by the preferential system.
> Mayors and deputies should be elected by preferential system for the
> areas they cover.

What about financing for the various levels?

> The regions may be financed either entirely by national parliamentary
> decision - as above with the Senate voting on the budget in joint
> sitting if necessary - or by giving the region certain taxing powers eg.
> GST, rates, land taxes.  Where the regional budgets are entirely
> dispersed from the national collection and where the 2 national chambers
> fail to agree, any necessary joint sittings making the final decision
> should consist of equal numbers of senators and of representatives
> members - eg.  2 committees, one consisting of all senators and one
> consisting of an equal number of representatives meeting together in the
> joint budget sitting.

Do your 'Localities' roughly equate to current Local Gov't Councils/Shires?  

> No.  My localities would be many more, eg.  in what is now Bega Valley
> Shire there may be Bermagui, Cobargo, Bega, Bemboka, Wolumla, Candelo,
> Merimbula, Pambula, Eden, Towamba and Wyndham localities or there may
> just be the 6 larger towns.  Some present city LG areas would be broken
> into many Mayors receive now.  I see nothing wrong with honorariums to
> the other local deputies as the savings from 'shared government' would
> be so great.

Do your 'Neighbourhoods' roughly equate to current Local Gov't Wards?

> Neighbourhoods would be close to local wards in city LG areas but would
> be smaller in country areas.  A neighbourhood must be optimum to enhance
> community power, responsibility in emergencies, responsibility towards
> the community and environment and small enough to encourage physical
> communication.

Would Senators be able to find the time to properly administer regions ?

>> I doubt whether 7 people (2 Senators and 5 Members) could cope with the
>> workload involved in administering 'almost every area of gov't' in a
>> region of 100,000 people; particularly as the two Senators are only part
>> time given that they must attend the Senate in Canberra.

> Having observed the machinations of the Senate I believe it would be
> easy for Senators to serve in the Senate and on a regional executive.
> When the late Lionel Murphy gave the Senate the Estimates Committees it
> was because life was too quiet and boring.  If the estimates committees
> were transfered to the house of reps that would be plenty of time for
> say 5 days a month on the regional body.  Keep in mind the senators
> would not be involved in the local area work.

Could the neighbourhoods be "strong" and attract people interested in
serving ?

>> A basic aim of your model seems to be to increase the involvement of
>> people through strong neighbourhoods and by having layers of elected
>> persons from neighbourhood to the National Parl't.

>> It seems to me that, if the role of the elected neighbourhood for a
>> nominal honorarium) and have no powers and no budget except as might be
>> handed out by the regional executive, the neighbourhoods will not be
>> regarded as 'strong' and very few will be interested in serving.

> I differ from Charles on the likely numbers who would take on
> neighbourhood representation with an honorarium.  I think interest would
> be as high as involvement in local government is now.  The neighbourhood
> representatives would also have an input into the regional congress
> meeting once or twice a year and if the executive members were bound to
> meet locality representatives they would have to listen to the locals.

Would proportional representation work effectively, particularly for regions
electing less than 5 Senators or members ?

> It's possible that Hare Clarke would not work for regions
> electing less than 5.  If that is so the Senate PR system could be used
> - as in the ACT and NT.

What about taxation and the financing of regions ?

>> The financing of regions needs to be the subject of a focused debate.
>> A reliance on the National Parl't will result in
>> squeezed regions and the buck passing we currently suffer.  On the other
>> hand, regional taxing seems to me to be a recipe for inequalities and
>> duplication of effort to the extent that there will be little if any,
>> saving in bureaucracy.  It seems to me that the national Parl't should
>> have sole taxing power (with the rate enshrined in the constitution) and
>> the regions should have an allocation of funds also enshrined in the
>> constitution.  Both of these could be changed of course, but it would
>> take a referendum to do it.

> I acknowledge the advantages of the national parliament having sole
> taxing power and prefer that - as long as the regions are represented in
> the Senate and joint meetings are used to decide disputed budgets.

Should regional representatives influence the voting of Senators ?

>> It seems your regional representatives cannot dictate the voting of
>> their Senators and have no power of recall.  This seems to go across
>> your aim, Jim, of having 'layers of elected persons from neighbourhood
>> to National Parliament' and seems to undermine the reasons for having
>> them as members of the regional executive.

> There is no way regions can dictate the vote of Senators as new
> information may have to be considered.  Constitutionally, now, it is
> illegal for those outside the parliament to dictate the way
> parliamentarians vote and legal cases have been mounted which verify
> this.  Those elected are still accountable to their parties as well as
> their electorates.  Under Shared Government the Senators will be
> accountable at executive meetings where they will have to answer in a
> much more public way for their votes than happens now.  The parties will
> be less of a consideration and the messages from localities and the
> region much more of a consideration.

Jim also made the following elaborations in response to Peter. C :

> Whether it is 'precinct' or 'locality' or 'neighbourhood' we need an
> avenue for local activity.

> The ACT system is a good arrangement - for Canberra.  Self-government
> was minimum of government was given to them.  As a result we have
> problems such as a recent complaint from Tuggeranong Community
> Association that the Chief Minister when asked to talk to them on any
> date and time in July was alleged like to talk to that group either
> there should be a mechanism whereby elected assembly members must
> routinely hear local views.  Also, Canberra is a natural regional centre
> for the Snowy Mountains, Southern Tablelands and South Coast.  If they
> were included in its jurisdiction - as they should be - places like
> Jindabyne, Braidwood, Bermagui and Gunning would need to feel part of
> the arrangements.  Hence my local approach via a Congress with local
> representation.

> The concept of the Australian Assistance plan of the 1970's linked
> neighbourhoods to government.  As secretary of our regional council for
> social development I saw plenty of excellent initiatives come to
> fruition - regionally, in Queanbeyan city and in neighbourhoods.  The
> abandonment of the plan could have been prevented by formal and
> permanent links to government - as 'Shared government' seeks to do.

> Small towns and districts are important and the message of people in
> non-metropolitan local government must be heard.  Their constituents
> represent a very large proportion of our economy - a higher proportion
> than their population numbers show.  We neglect rural, as distinct from
> large 'regional', towns and areas at our peril.  Hence the
> constitutional recognition of localities - which is more than we have
> now.

Max :

>> I am finding that the only democratic right we have in Australia, is to
>> elect into, a system of government that takes away our democratic
>> rights.

Jim :

> If our democratic rights are taken away by change then it is to our
> detriment.  We can enhance democracy (improve the power of the people)
> while seeking economic, social and environmental viability and while
> ensuring efficient and honest administration.

> Step 1; remove that unnecessary and centralist level of government - the
> States.  Step 2; upgrade local governments making them large enough to
> improve scrutiny by elected representatives, small enough - and
> connected enough -to understand what is going on in local towns, suburbs
> and districts, powerful enough to have a say in national decision making
> and flexible enough to form cooperative, linked partnerships with other
> LGAs.

> Those partnerships may relate to the Murray Darling Basin or to
> transport issues or to health services.  Distances are less important
> these days and in 20 or 30 years people - most of whom will be far ahead
> of us in communications - will wonder why we were so infinitely
> preferable to what we have now.  --

# Functional Representation

Jim also spoke of "functional representation", with the house of 
representatives being elected based on profession :

> Max quite rightly questioned the value of two houses of parliament with
> geographic representation.  I felt for some time only one house was
> needed until I realized that what we do (our functions or pursuits) are
> more important than where we live.

> The Shared Government model does not have a House of Representatives
> from regions but from functional constituencies.  Thus we have one house
> - the Senate - with representation from where we live and the other -
> the House of Representatives - from what we do.  What we do is becoming
> increasingly more important than where we live and is more logical for
> representation.  It would straighten out the H of Reps occupational bias
> towards law and the professions and would better represent where things
> are happening - the economy, industry, peoples' pursuits.  It would also
> put representatives into parliament to represent the under-represented
> (eg.  construction, home duties) in place of lobbyists whose
> effectiveness depends on the wealth of the sector they represent.

> Academics in Canada, where the nation was told that over half of their
> parliament were teachers and lawyers, are working on the concept.
> Admittedly functional representation has been tried, rarely with
> acceptance, but the problems are easily discerned and easily remedied in
> this day of modern technology.

> Apparently Britain's early experimentation with parliamentary democracy
> had a component of functional representation but it was based on wealth
> rather than involvement in the function.  Under Shared Government all
> workers, including bosses, in their function (or chosen function if they
> have more than one) have one vote and the number of elected reps of each
> function is proportionate to the people involved in it.

> The Soviet Union also set up functional representation.  The idea is
> well explained by Wilhelm Reich: 'The mass psychology of fascism',
> Touchstone, SBN 671-21790-9.  'Elections were not according to districts
> but according to productive units'.

> The weaknesses were:

> 1.  Having come from czarist dictatorship the people knew nothing of
> participatory democracy and were unable to become effectively involved.
> Stalin understandably saw this as rejection and gave them rule from the
> top.  This gives credence to the original view of Marx that capitalism
> had to come before communism if the latter were to really succeed.
> Australians are much more used to participatory democracy.

> 2.  'Productive units' does not involve everyone including those on home
> duties and those in pursuits not regarded as productive.  Under Shared
> government all functional sectors are represented.

> Currently the Hong Kong legislature has functional representation.
> Former system was an 'abomination' but goes on to say that
> 'constituencies representing large groups were reasonably open and
> clean'.  His problem was that there were some very small constituencies
> which were easily corrupted companies each with a trade organisation
> could caste 20 votes'.  Under Shared Government the smallest
> constituency may be 160,000 with 2 elected members and each elector
> would have only one vote.  Everyone in an industry or pursuit would have
> a vote.

> Finally functional representation would be easy to administer and hard
> to corrupt with proper use of IT.  People could enrol, if necessary, by
> a fixed time before an election indicating their pursuit or, if they
> have more than one, their chosen pursuit.  It would also be hard to
> stack electorates, a phenomena sometimes suspected in single member
> constituencies.

Max :

>> Very interesting concept but is it not the reverse of what we have now,
>> where if all the people in the car industry got their act together could
>> elect a senator to represent them in the senate.  This does not happen
>> because the vast majority of Australians have no interest in the
>> political system.  While we continue to have compulsory democracy as
>> opposed to participatory democracy it will be hard to change anything.

> It is true that the car industry is unlikely to elect people of like
> mind, nor would the people of Adelaide.  The people of Adelaide are
> focused on where they live, who would best represent them and which is
> their political party of choice.  With functional representation the
> people in the car industry - from management to the painter - would be
> focused on what they do, who would better represent them and which is
> their party of choice.  Under Shared Government they would elect
> Senators to represent where they live and Representatives to represent
> what they do.  What they do is becoming more important - hence the
> proliferation of lobbyists hanging around the parliament representing
> the car industry - many more than 30 years ago.  Direct representation
> is better than lobbyists and puts the onus on elected representatives to
> make their point to other functional representatives.

> Second, with greater communications opportunities between workers there
> would be much more discussion and interest in how a workplace is
> represented if, as in the case of the car industry, all those involved
> in secondary manufacturing knew that collectively they were a
> constituency.

>> Why not have one house of parliament with half elected by each format?

> One house with half elected by each format might work but my view is
> that the government should not be formed from those representing the
> local sector to minimise interference with local sector input into
> decision making - the parties do enough interfering without also
> involving other pressures such as responsibility towards cabinet
> solidarity.  The Senate would preserve that degree of independence and
> keep the local sector at arms length from the executive or cabinet.

>> When I get elected into this parliament representing the mechanic
>> industry what is my likely role ?

> If you were elected from the combined service industries you would be
> answerable - along with others elected from those industries - to
> workplaces either collectively or to a type of workplace, eg.  car
> mechanics.  Tasmania and New Zealand can teach us the various ways of
> representing multi-member constituencies.  You may visit workplaces, set
> up a chat line to your electorate office for workplace participants, you
> may build up contacts in relevant unions (which would become more
> effective) and/or employer groups (which would also become more
> effective).  In the parliament your vote would, as now, not be legally
> tied to outside direction and you would enter debate as an elected
> politician, perhaps with a party loyalty.

>> Two elected members from a constituency, if they vote for and against
>> then they are of no value and if they both vote the same then only one
>> is needed?

> I don't see anything wrong with two in a constituency - we have it now
> in the Senate from the NT and ACT.  First, the two vote the same way 70%
> of the time.  The second and important thing is in the committee work
> including the government and opposition policy committees where those
> two often ensure their territory is heard.  In other words both
> independently contribute to eventual decisions where it really matters,
> in the committee work.  Both territories are well and effectively
> represented by 2 Senators each.  Non-compulsory voting would be neither
> more nor less relevant with a system of functional and geographic
> representation.  I agree that it is hard to change anything but after 40
> years of recognising the achievable I am now giving myself the freedom
> of recognising the desirable.