I am an active self-funded retiree like others fed up with the sort of events you have portrayed. We got tired of hearing, 'What can we do about it'. You have to start somewhere.

We feel that every sitting member of the government needs to be accountable to a non-party local electorate committee which constantly monitors his/her performance and gives feedback as to voters' feelings. We feel he should regard us as the boss, not the prime minister. We feel the average government pollie is just there to distribute funds in his electorate in response to every request in the expectation that they will vote for him next time. Our bloke boasts of distributing $29 million since elected less than 3 years ago. Is this various grant money from assorted federal and state departmental accounts? Could it possibly be a local slush fund budgeted by the government specifically for his purpose, in the guise of meeting local electorate needs?

Pollies seem only to reflect back to their party what their Party functionaries, vested interests and happy grant recipients reflect. They never canvass non-party, ordinary electors to get their views on real issues. I can't for the life of me see why a Federal politician should be mucking around with grants to local schools, etc. unless it is for the kudos he think it brings him. Surely there are bigger federal issues for him to be involved with? Don't we have State departments and local government to hand out grants for local affairs? Our member's proud boast on his website is of the number of grants he has handed out. This is obviously his and the Party's measure of success. There is nothing about the real concerns of the electorate and no opportunity for feedback.

We see Democracy as an evolving thing and at present it has strayed off path to a dangerous extent where we risk becoming a closed society. We see continuing scrutiny, accountability and exposure as being the only way to get it back on track. Each government member must be made accountable to his/her electors, just as any employee has to be accountable to someone. It appears that opposition alone can no longer fill this role. We would like to see every federal and state electorate with a sitting government member do the same thing.

NHJ! (JR): This is an interesting concept that I can't recall having heard put forward before, Doug. (Anyone else?) My first thoughts would be practical ones - how exactly would the 'electoral scrutiny committees' be selected/constituted/established/run in such a way that they would avoid developing along the 'same old' partisan/political grounds? Would they be voluntary? Elected? Formally incorporated with/into/alongside the AEC electoral-watchdogging role (which, as NHJ! indicates, is hardly in great nick just now!). And what about local Party members, local government structures and even otherwise politically 'active' types (environmental groups, local issue activists, etc)? Would they be excluded from participation in the committee? Is there a risk of simply adding another 'politicised layer' to an already crowded local-state-federal scene?

I'm not trying to be negative, Doug, I'm genuinely curious about how you'd see the practicals of your idea eventuating, because I can't agree more with you that, once they're safely elected, too many local Reps tend to wander off happily to Canberra (or wherever) and forget about their electorate's real needs and priorities...until, of course, they need to be re-elected. Which is about when - as JWH's lot is doing now with a vengeance! - their Party strategists raid the national wallet and start flinging grants about the electorates like Santa Claus; especially if it's a marginal seat.

Perhaps another, less cumbersome way to ensure better local accountability and responsiveness from our Reps is to do as MK argues in the last chapter of NHJ! (Idea 5), and elect ourselves a good, solid, local Independent. Reps like Peter Andren, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter - whatever you reckon of their bigger-picture 'politics', as such - are all united in their capacity to truly listen TO, and act FOR, their grass-roots constituents as a number one priority. It's no surprise that, free of the Party system restraints, these guys have developed a relatively high level of trust among their voters.

Hell, maybe you should even consider standing as an Independent yourself this election, Doug!?