InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Your views: on an SA Health inquiry, and electoral boundaries

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on the State Government’s ruling out into an independent corruption inquiry into SA Health, and electoral fairness.

Print article

Commenting on the story: “No need” for independent inquiry into SA Health: Marshall

You’re wrong, Premier.

You can’t respond to preliminary evidence of possible corruption and maladministration with nothing more than a “committee of elders” to change the culture of SA Health over time.

Did you not notice recent events at Westpac? 

You can ignore Labor’s bleating on this. We know its hands were on the tiller for 16 years. In any case, this shouldn’t be a question of politics.

But there must be accountability. Those responsible for this state of affairs cannot be left in place. Alleged corruption and other wrongdoing must be investigated, and where identified, acted upon.

Guilty heads must roll. Taxpayers expect nothing less for their enormous investment in the public health system. 

And accountability will change the culture of the place, Premier, to be sure. – Stephen Trenowden

Of course the Government doesn’t want an independent inquiry; that would further prove corruption and maladministration, and likely not just in SA Health.  

Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents, but do any of them even care what their constituents want?

As a member of the public who is concerned about the level of corruption in all areas of government, I request an independent inquiry into the whole circus. – Melissa Jones

Commenting on the story: Constitutional shake-up “makes it tougher for Marshall to win”, party elder warns

Electoral boundaries should be a numbers game and about ensuring that as much as possible there is ‘one vote, one value’.

The fairness clause so beloved by Minchin is a highly subjective part of the boundary commission remit and should – as the courts have decided – be consigned to the bin.

Past voting cannot and should not be a determinant of any boundary commission’s terms of reference.

It’d be interesting to hear Minchin’s take on the gerrymandering of South Australia that for so long kept the ALP out of office.

Although that has gone, the same cannot be said for the Liberal malapportioning in WA. Would he care to comment on that? Paul Byrne

I doubt that it is possible to create an electoral system that will universally be regarded as fair. 

Irrespective of what system is adopted, political parties with the resources will seek to ‘game’ the system to ensure that they win government.

The present brouhaha about electoral fairness is not about fairness but about both parties seeking a competitive advantage.

But perhaps one way to even out the ledger is for giving the electoral commission the task of thoroughly overhauling the system on  a regular basis. 

For example, there is no good reason to oppose proportional representation – it is as flawed as the present system but it will challenge the hegemony of the two party system. 

We could introduce a requirement that the demographics of the parliament should reflect the population. 

To discourage politics as a career we could limit the number of terms members could serve.  We could even use the jury system: select people at random to serve in parliament. 

No doubt these ideas will be viewed as crazy but that is probably the real problem – we tend to invest far too much authority in people who have simply been very good at making the sort of back room deals that get them elected; with the inevitable result we end up with people who may or may not be qualified or capable to actually govern.  – John Töns  

One cannot help wonder whether the current hierarchy are way out of their depth to govern our State. 

As I watch these “leaders” on TV, listen to them on radio and read their statements and plans in the local papers there seems to be a vagueness, a bumbling, almost as if these leaders in the ruling party do not fully comprehend the words they are speaking.

In addition their facial features are so stony, impassive, and that, along with their controlled voices does not raise any feeling confidence in me.  

Come on people, get some life into yourselves and really know and understand what you are spruiking. 

I am sick and tired of some of the idiotic facial expressions we see.  Put some of the newer members into leadership and retire those who are not performing well and are possibly past their use by dates.

You are there to lead: to make our State great.  It is my to great sorrow that,  in my opinion, you are failing miserably. – Pamela Judge

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

Help our journalists uncover the facts

In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.

Donate here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article