Do we need to improve the behaviour and accountability of our politicians. If so how?
A major issue raised by the 300 people attending the World Cafe event in May 2007 was the behaviour and accountability of our politicians. Does this switch people off politics and block participation? If so what steps should we take to change the status quo?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Relates to
document:
Final report on World Cafe May 2007 (83.5 KB)
fullobeans Comment 1 13 Nov 2007, 6:24 PM
I think they are pretty well behaved as a sample of our society. The media just needs to calm down a bit and stop demanding perfection
salvo Comment 1.1 13 Nov 2007, 8:31 PM
I'd agree with that - I think that our society is too intolerant of weakness. It was a positive thing when Senator Bartlett seemed to be forgiven for his alcohol problems. Weakness is inherent in the human spirit we should expect it in some of our politicians too. It is how they respond to their weaknesses that is a mark of courage
Queen Bee Comment 1.2 16 Nov 2007, 9:14 PM
What they do/did in the personal life should not be our concern.
I do think they are well paid enough to be fully accountable for there every working hour. I like to see every meeting they are in up on YouTube.
blakey Comment 1.2.1 22 Nov 2007, 4:44 PM
That really would be boring but it would serve a purpose. Other than meetings involving national security issues - though I expect the number of those would proliferate if this became law. We would also get a whole new archive of Rudd Earwax type moments.
ballotsmith Comment 1.3 23 Nov 2007, 3:14 PM
Accountability to the people is required, but first they must be divorced - liberated - from party politics.
Crispin Comment 2 18 Nov 2007, 8:02 AM
Yes we do. When John Howard was first elected he introduced the Charter of Ministerial Responsibility. This set clear and not overly onerous expectations particularly regarding the financial dealings of each MP and Minister. The introduction of the Charter was a great move electorally and sent of clear message that the snout in the trough days of the long standing Labour Government were over.
Well not for long... After Howard was forced to sack a handfull of Minister for contravening the Charter he realised that not all of his Ministers live by his standards. This was electorally disastrous. So what did he do? Did he hang in there and purge the party of members on ly in it for their own gain? You bet he didn't. He gradually started weakening the role of the Chart or ignoring it completely.
The Charter should be reintroduced as a Statute. It should be overseen by the Auditor Generals Office. And any decisions relating to offences should be taken independently by the DPP.
It was a disaster elector
Yes we do. When John Howard was first elected he introduced the Charter of Ministerial Responsibility. This set clear and not overly onerous expectations particularly regarding the financial dealings of each MP and Minister. The introduction of the Charter was a great move electorally and sent of clear
more…
Luther Comment 2.1 23 Nov 2007, 12:02 PM
Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely John Howard is a perfect example of this.At the last election John Howard swore that he would not abuse his unexpected majority in the Senate. What followed , legislation was forced through without Senate scrutiny, Senate committees were emasculated and we now have "Workchoices" and the powers of ASIO to question and detain citizens have been dramatically increased. Are we living in a democracy or a dictatorship?
Peter Cunningham Comment 3 10 Feb 2008, 8:40 AM
Flippant comment: How to improve?
Threaten them with death!
Perhaps the answer lies in the following thread of discussion "How can we improve political awareness and education?"