"naturally there'd be a lot of details". ..... and imo these...

"naturally there'd be a lot of details". ..... and imo these would be sorted out by the members.

there would need to be total rethink of how govt is structured. would MPs decide to maintain the status quo, or would they move toward a panel of experts in the area of the departmental criteria of responsibility?

the key problem with the current system is that elected MPs, who have little knowledge of the department or area of responsibility, are placed in charge. This enables departments to be run by ideological beliefs and this is where most of the damage is done, eg. AG Porter and Taylor on Energy. in terms of Labs, Farrell in Trade and Shorten in NDIS. no bloomin' wonder we get so many ***kups in so many departments when such dolts are in charge.

the good thing is that the Constitution doesn't specify how departments are managed. so changes would be a matter for MPs to decide.

as to the Senate, states, under the constitution, must have representation and the right to review and hold Inquiries. imo this is a good thing. the Constitution dictates the representation, but doesn't state that political parties should be the representatives. imo this is where sortition would be best used.