1. Most of the actions of government which are not in the best interests of the people, are due to the fact that their success at the polls is based on the financial support of large investors. These investors feel entitled to make demands on the government and, the government feels obliged to accede to them.
2. It is my opinion, therefore, that free enterprise capitalism, which underpins our democratic systems, cannot be controlled by making laws to limit the influence of investors on the outcome of elections. The rich and powerful will find a way to subvert any law which seeks to curtail their influence.
3. I was not in favor of an elected Senate, because the people will choose the same party in both House and Senate and they will vote for the party which they favour for the time being.
4. It has since been pointed out to me that there is a strong likelihood that the Senate would be composed of a majority of members of the Opposition, if the Senate elections were held in the middle of the term of the sitting government, because after two years of the government’s term of office, the people may become disaffected with it. Also, an elected Senator with a fixed term of office would be independent of the body that elected him (assuming that there would be no change in the present composition of the Senate) and could use his best judgement at decision time. Taken altogether, the arguments in favor of the elected principle should carry the day.
5. Once the people elect representatives to form a government and they are given the power to act on the people’s behalf, this power is limited only by the Constitution and the laws. The government can change the laws, and, even the Constitution can be changed, if the majority party has the numbers, as it does now. Therefore, any reform which seeks, in the interest of the people, to restrain or constrain the government in the exercise of that power may be desirable. There is danger to our democracy if the majority party has the numbers to change the Constitution to suit itself or its financial backers. So. Our most important objective should be that a proposed change in the Constitution be put to the people in a referendum.
6. I think that our most serious problem is the term of office. Once the government is formed, whether they become unpopular or ineffective, or they become a lame duck government or, even if they are actually detested, they are entitled to remain in office for five years, three months longer, if they choose. Our people now understand that they cannot remove a government and, they cannot force early elections. That is why I am in favor of a reduced term of office and a fixed date of elections. Experience has shown that, if there was a four-year term and a fixed date for general elections, the past government would have been out of office by March 2007, and the present government would have almost completed its first year in office by now.
7. I am considering the question, how large should our Cabinet be. To begin with, there are 31 members of the House of Representatives. Assuming that only the candidates of the two major political parties are worthy of serious consideration by the electorate, the ideal outcome of a general election would be a majority of five for the government. That is, 18 government to 13 Opposition members of the House. This is the kind of division the framers of the Constitution saw in their vision. In that proportion, government would have a comfortable majority to function relatively smoothly and, the Opposition would have enough muscle to safeguard the people’s interests. In such a situation and, in fact, in any other situation, there is no good reason why Cabinet should have more than 12 members. The practice of having an executive larger than the number of backbenchers and Opposition members combined may be good for the party, but bad for our democracy.
8. Finally, I think that we will get a better caliber of candidates to run for public office, if there was a limit put on the ad hominem attacks, on the airwaves and in print, on candidates and their families. The practice succeeds in having only candidates with the thickest skins and the least sensibilities. Besides, there are better ways to achieve the same objectives, as will be shown in the future, hopefully.