... continued from above ...
Assuming we persist with the Westminster tradition of selecting Ministers from within Parliament, I have a suggestion for how government would be formed when Parliament is selected in the above way. Keep in mind that there would be no political parties and therefore, one hopes, little "bloody-minded" ideological influence of any flavour as the ideology is not continually reinforced and protected through the party system.
When the incoming parliamentarians first convene, before the start of their term, there would be a period of indoctrination in parliamentary processes and familiarisation with each other. Nominations would be taken for to key position: Prime Minister and Speaker of the House. I envisage nominees each presenting to the assembled members, making a case for their nominated post. MPs would vote - there may be a preliminary vote followed by a run-off vote if there are either too many nominees or the vote is too close for a clear majority. Thereafter, the "Prime Minister elect" would seek nominations for senior ministerial posts and select his/her Ministers to form a new Cabinet. There would be no vote for ministerial positions - the PM should have the opportunity to select the team he/she thinks will best do the job. If there are insufficient nominations, the PM will select a member - it would be understood as part of the election "contract" that an elected member may be called upon to perform a ministerial duty. Each senior Minister would then seek nominations for a junior minister ("Minister Assisting") and Parliamentary Secretary, if either/both are warranted. Further, a Minister may form a permanent advisory committee, if they so choose, though this is more likely to involve experts from outside Parliament.
The incoming PM, having formed a new Cabinet in the months leading up to the term, would then go to the Governor General to commission the Government on the date the term is due to start. If this process does not produce a Government (i.e. it is not commissioned by the GG - an extremely unlikely event - it's there to ensure that conventions have been followed and that the Government will be accepted as legitimate), the internal nomination and voting procedure would be repeated until it does, much the same way as several parliaments around the world currently operate with multiple, small parties adjusting their positions to form a coalition government. If the start date is missed, the Governor General would have the prerogative of dissolving parliament and calling a new election - this is a judgement call of the GG - some leeway would be expected, depending on circumstances. Note that although the PM chooses his/her Ministers, they are each officially appointed by the GG. The GG also officially accepts resignations of (dismisses) Ministers.
I see the "no confidence" system and the GG's reserve powers working pretty much as they do now, with slight amendment in convention only (I think, though, as I said, I'm no constitutional lawyer). If a scandal occurs, the PM would/should sack the offending Minister and choose a new one. If this does not happen, or if a Government failure is of sufficient scale, there should be a process of "internal government renewal". For example, a motion of no confidence in the House of Representatives, upheld by a majority vote, would/should force all Government Ministers to resign, force a return to the nomination and voting procedure to select a new Prime Minister and Speaker (each of whom could re-nominate), and then for the new PM to select a new Cabinet. Note that some Ministers could return to their roles if not involved in whatever scandal brought down the Government - that woud be a judgement call for the new PM as to whether the Parliament will accept some of the Ministers back into their roles. This "internal government renewal" is a change in convention as, previously, the GG would probably have dissolved the House of Reps entirely if a single no confidence motion were to be upheld. But the GG can still choose to exercise the power to dissolve the House of Reps, and force a new election - I see this happening if the motion of no confidence is repeated and again upheld, if a new Government is not formed within a suitable time (in the GG's judgement), or if a deadlock of some other kind occurs. There may be a useful additional role for the Senate here: it may be advantageous to distinguish between a no confidence motion in the House of Reps alone, which would initially force Ministers to resign and return to the nomination and internal voting process, and a no confidence motion in the House of Reps accompanied by a similar motion (upheld, of course) in the Senate. In the latter case, the GG would dissolve Parliament regardless of whether a suitable time has elapsed before formation of a new Government - this is closer to the current convention with the additional role of the Senate.
For reference, the GG's reserve powers are:
- The power to dissolve (or refuse to dissolve) the House of Representatives. (Section 5 of the Constitution)
- The power to dissolve Parliament on the occasion of a deadlock. (Section 57)
- The power to withhold assent to Bills. (Section 58)
- The power to appoint (or dismiss) Ministers. (Section 64)
Interestingly, our Constitution, like that of many other countries, makes no mention of political parties, party whips, lobbyists, private forums, fund raisers or indeed many other of the blights on democracy we currently endure. The constitutional change necessary to bring about this form of representative parliament is actually quite small (4-year fixed terms does at least require a minor constitutional change). Beyond that, there would be significant changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act (the main act that defines how elections are held and who can vote) and a couple of new Acts, or amendments to Acts, to protect the "juries" and the subsequently-elected parliamentarians from undue influence, to ban political donations, and so on.
On reviewing the above, it's striking how little the key points of this system differ from the
modified-Westminster system we currently employ - they're all pretty much retained - and I think it's therefore still right to refer to this system as modified-Westminster.
Now, we turn our attention to the function and constitution of an effective "opposition", but without the party-based political attacks in Parliament and the constant drip of vitriol to the media.
Since there are no political parties in this system, rather than form a traditional party-based "opposition" I suggest that the House of Representatives form non-Government portfolio-aligned discussion groups (which may involve nominations and voting for positions - I'm not fussed how they're formed) and each discussion group have a nominated spokesperson. Each discussion group would follow activities in their portfolio area and formulate pertinent questions for Question Time (either self-generated, or filtered submissions from other MPs or the public) and possibly to inject into committee deliberations, if thought relevant by committee member(s).
The spokesperson for the non-Government discussion group for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet would be a natural choice for a coordinator of spokespersons when it comes to Question Time, i.e. an opposition leader, and the runner up in the nomination for Prime Minister may be a good choice for that role - they could also take on the initial coordinating role of setting up the discussion groups.
With this arrangement, there should be no "Dorothy Dixers", no party-based attacks dressed up as questions and no dubious expulsions from the chamber. One hopes that Question Time would be far more civilised and productive as a result.
---------------------------------
Questions?
Please read the above completely and thoroughly before commenting and please
stay on topic.