With the announcement on Monday that the Greens are proposing a truth and justice commission on Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations in Australia, the writing of the great post-election shopping list has begun.
The Greens appear to be proposing this as a non-negotiable condition of supporting a minority Labor government. There’s going to be a lot more on the way — from them and the independents with even a chance of getting in.
Non-negotiable is nonsensical, of course; if Labor is within coo-ee of government after the election, the horse-trading will be monumental and leave everyone feeling burnt and disappointed, even if it’s only for confidence and supply support.
Everyone’s bluffing. Labor says it won’t deal and of course already is through back channels; the Greens and independents are preparing their real list behind the shopping list. Should that process continue, politics as usual will carry over past the election and into the new period.
That will be a wasted opportunity to change how things are done, and simply entrench cynicism and create a vacuum capable of being filled with a right-wing populism.
Instead the Greens and independents should be being public now about the priorities they would bring to the table, and the minimum they would want for any commitment above and beyond a vote-by-vote process. In so doing, I would argue, they should clear the decks of all content-based items, and have a slate that is purely about the form of government and Australian democracy. Without that, nothing will change.
That we need some, any, change in the structure of government and “actually existing” Australian democracy does not, I think, need to be argued to a Crikey audience in any detail. We can agree that our system is a smoking ruin. What was once a system which had some moral bounds by way of a mix of tradition and parochialism has become, as we got richer and worldier, a debauch, in banana republic style.
Our single member lower house has awarded government to the minority-voted party more than half-a-dozen times since Federation, often at crucial junctures. It magnifies some parties — the Nats — and minimises others — the Greens — in distorting fashion.
Preferentiality combined with compulsory voting and matched public funding funnels votes to the two major parties. A lack of control on donations has made the big three (including the Nats) clients of different sectors of capital as membership has plummeted. It makes possible the politics of plutocracy a la Clive Palmer and the UAP. There is virtually no control of the government-lobbying revolving door. There is no federal corruption oversight.
Without real change to this set-up, specific program gains from negotiation — even those on climate change — will be provisional and wobbly. In service to the climate emergency, it is far more important that the Greens and independents take any chance they get to change the structure of Australian democracy.
Were one to have a wish list on this, that would be a process in three stages:
Immediate
Establish a federal ICAC, with strong powers: Labor has already, finally, agreed to this, but it would have to be demanded as the first order of business for any supported Labor government, just to ensure its ardour.
Ban the lobbying revolving door: regulation and law banning former MPs registering as lobbyists for 10 years after they leave Parliament. It may well be difficult to ban informal lobbying work — as political “advisers” etc — but it my be possible to criminalise an ex-MP having a lobbying meeting with a current MP, something more than simply banning them from registering as a lobbyist.
The Voice to Parliament: through plebiscite and legislation, or legislation alone, as an interim measure ahead of a greater consideration of indigenous sovereignty (see below).
Mid-term (within a year)
From day one, there should be a consultation process to produce a political donations reform bill, most likely capping individual donations at something like $1000-$1500, attaching it to real individuals, banning “fronting” — distributing $100,000 in donations among employees or members — and capping spending on shadow campaigning (i.e. the super-rich running ads saying Labor eats babies, etc).
The latter is tricky, but doable. Laws penalising blatant and stark untruths in political campaigning should also be introduced. All donations should be immediately disclosed and published.
The formula for public funding should be changed, so that it is not simply a reinforcer of parties gaining the most primary votes, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Matched funding should be skewed, so that parties with fewer votes gain a larger amount per first preference vote. (They do a little, at the moment; but not enough.)
Mid- to long-term (over three years)
A sustained public debate and inquiry into voting systems should be inaugurated from day one — to lead to possible changes in time for the 2025 election — that can be achieved by parliamentary vote alone (such as optional exhaustive preferentiality).
Long-term (five years, to land in the next Parliament)
Something like two constitutional conventions, spaced two years apart, lasting for months and considering everything: the crown and the republic, Indigenous sovereignty, the states, electoral divisions, and the restoration of disjunctive rail gauges.
These would then emerge as either a package plebiscite and referendum, or a series of separate such to occur around 2027 for a chance at a true and comprehensive modernisation of Australian democracy.
Yes, the last of these is a thousand migraines, and the odds of it happening are low. Which is why the more achievable changes should be separated out and acted on immediately.
As I say, committing to these changes and possibilities is a vastly more important role for the minor parties and independents than gaining this or that concrete policy achievement — save for a few immediate executive decisions such as getting the damned souls out of the Park Hotel, and halting the cashless warfare card rollout, doable with the stroke of a pen.
But the moment of a hung Parliament, now, would be one to push for the structural changes required to knock our system into some sort of shape — still a long way from a democracy, but at least not a laughable client state.
If there is a will to do this, then it would be better announced sooner rather than later, by Greens and key independents together, with plenty of lead time.
Furthermore, if it is announced, it has to be genuinely committed to, should the occasion arise, and to leave Labor without any guarantee of confidence and supply if it will not commit to the whole “immediate” package (some, but not all, of which is Labor policy).
And should the crisis then arise for a Labor government that has failed to move on these vital matters, such a crossbench alliance would have to be willing to go all the way, and not give confidence. That would take some nerve; it would have to be committed to right from the start, because to threaten it and then back down would finish the power of the crossbench to offer any sort of deal.
The capacity for a reversal is high. Labor and the Coalition could briefly ally to squelch it, calculating that the inevitable hit in public regard was worth stabilising a system which guarantees them a separation from that very public in question.
And of course the very system we need to change — the triple lock of exhaustive preference, compulsory voting and public funding — may well deliver the fix it was designed to serve up, and the Greens will make no lower house gains, and the independents very few.
All the more reason to think about it, game it out, find out if the will is there for it, and be ready to act should it appear, because who knows when it will again?
Letting it pass through lassitude and lack of will for the possible means the only thing we will be reconciled to is failure.
Is there any chance the Greens and independents could be so principled? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
With you up to mid to long term. However long term strikes me as a receipe for destroying all interest in reform in Australia. I mean – two constitutional conventions!
Whatever the form of government it cannot just focus on political structures and integrity – worthy as that is. It also has to preside over/manage an economy. And there needs to be an approach to climate change that can bring in as many people as possible. For me this would best be done by having some principles/values that inform how the government responds to anything in these two areas. The idea is to avoid the knee jerk short term political responses that seem to be what we largely get these days.
On the economic front an overall philosophy to clean up markets by reviewing rules and ensuring they are in line with national objectives and best interests (eg decarbonisation) and are actually competitive and fair, rather than captives of special interests/deep pocketed donors to major parties would be a significant improvement. The energy market is a good example where a clear overriding objective backed by government support would clean up matters.
Climate and economics are inextricably linked. So maybe there is a need to step back and integrate at government level and have a policy approach around something like national resilience and improving people’s lives. Integrate creating new industries and jobs with adaptation to climate change and contributing to reduction of greenhouse effects. Prepare for and respond to the climate emergencies (for us mainly fires and floods, but also biodiversity, agricultural resilience and quality of housing).
The intention is not socialist central planning, but a broader consensus on where the country and its people are heading. A government that coherently articulated its values, where it was heading and what this meant for people would be a vast improvement on how our governments normally operate.
And no to Guy in any political position. He would not be able to restrain himself and would end on the receiving end of a US hit squad – or worse end up like Julian Assange.
Sheep won’t come to you if you’re shouting and waving your arms about.
Actually they will if they think that it means food – it takes all of 2 minutes over 2 days to train them.
A good list. W/r/t Constitutional changes, I would recommend consideration of a permanent way to make constitutional changes. If we’re to have constitutional conventions, then we should formalise them as a system of allowing for long-span incremental changes.
In other words, we should have constitutional conventions with the power to change things every ten or twenty years. It gives us a chance to shake off the dead hand of history.
Great idea for stable government and contract law.
Gets my vote
I don’t get this. Why on Earth do we want trains unable to cross state boundaries?
I too, am puzzled by this
I was hoping another commenter would enlighten us on this
As a member of the Greens I endorse all of these excellent suggestions. My only reservation is that it will be very difficult to interest the average punter in any of these issues. The cry “All politicians are corrupt” prevents much of the electorate from taking seriously these very important reforms. However, given the ALP’s lust for power and the integrity of some of its sitting members it may be accepted as a non-negotiable condition of support for a minority government. The full results of such worthy reforms would take some years to eventuate, but they are beyond necessary.
The greens are as lustfull and as myoginst as the rest.
You are, I guess, hoping to prove Bailey’s point by speaking as an average punter. The semi-literate quality of your comment is a particularly neat touch.
As is your pretentiously patronising post.
The fact is everyone knows the greens are better than any one else, at least that’s what they keep telling us, probably because they have never been a part of a federal government and never will. Hence, their lily-white hands (exempting “barbecue Bartlett” of course.
Their very brief disastrous foray into Tasmanian state politics has proven that they are a self righteous protest group whose only ambition is a snout in the trough. We won’t make that mistake again.
You really seem quite disturbed.
Anyway, you are certainly confused. A party might be “a self righteous protest group”. Another party’s only ambition might be “a snout in the trough”. But it is not possible for one party to be both, because protest groups, by definition, get nowhere near the trough. That’s what makes them protest groups.
Ad hominem seems to be your one trick.
Anyone in parliament has their snout in the trough.
Your arguments lack rigour, and are quite nonsensical.
Aww, you are using fancy words now! What happened to the bogan pose you were on yesterday?
You need to learn some basics about politics and the constitution because you are making a big fool of yourself. Being in parliament gives access to no trough. Being in power is the essence. In power, ministers and the ruling the party can do favours for money and can raid the tax-payers mercilessly to fund their party and its campaigns without any accountability. That’s the trough. Being in parliament without power only gets you into parliament.
Still the one trick pony.
Given the way that Greens have conducted themselves in councils in Victoria, you can’t really expect the average person to have any respect for them. I certainly don’t. They are a party of inner city gentrifiers and soft cock left witterers. They have proven themselves incapable of governing and incapable of coming up with meaningful policies. I really dislike the descriptor of inner city latter drinkers, but seriously, they have earned it.
I agree with you that the Greens are just as lustful for power, hence pull down Labor’s chances, hence cut their own throats. But I’ve yet to see any evidence of misogyny anywhere as bad as in the LNP.
You seem as confused as Bombacloth. You are saying the Green Party’s lust for power causes it to destroy its chances of power. How does that work? And how exactly is anyone supposed to take seriously the idea that seeking power is an improper ambition for a political party? WTF?
Labor goes to amazing lengths to fight the Green Party despite the obvious areas of common interest, including working with or preferencing the Liberals. Who’s doing the throat cutting with this self-defeating nonsense?
So everyone but the rat is confused? Most people realise that it’s the greens who fight Labor as their ridiculous, patronising and futile convoy showed. Thankfully the electric cars failed to make it.
You and your fellow apparatchiks who’ve popped up here in the last couple of weeks exemplify the Iron Duke’s comment about his troops.
With enemies like you, Scummo needs no friends.
Whith enemies like you, scummo needs no friends.
That could only make less sense if you used the word ‘enemas’ for comic effect.
Obviously you and the rat see yourselves as the wise elders of the crikeyverse and will brook no dissension.
That’s my impression too. Rundle’s propositions make sense, and without doubt the staged approach has more chance than trying to do everything at once. But these issues only resonate with a minority that is seriously interested in politics. It’s not enough. Far too many voters believe all politicians are corrupt and at the same time refuse to consider or support measures that would tackle corruption. On that basis they deserve all the crap they get. They are literally asking for it.
But reform is not impossible. For example the WA government has just carried out a reform of the state’s electoral system. Eliminating the malapportionment of seats in the upper house corrected an appalling distortion of representation. Although it was certainly the right thing to do it is obvious McGowan’s government would not have bothered if the change was not also very likely to be politically advantageous to WA Labor. It’s not as though huge numbers of West Australians were marching in the streets demanding this reform and so leaving McGowan with no choice. Political parties are only motivated to reform by self-interest.
SSR, I’m with you, Greg – and of course Guy.
But in this case, we don’t need the average punter on board. (Which they never will be until another party with an “It’s time” approach chooses to boldly appeal to their better selves).
All we need is enough disaffected people in a few key seats and we get the chance at what Guy proposes. Zoe Daniel in Goldstein has the seat won; maybe Allegra Spender in Wentworth. Sonya Semmens is a good chance to replace Katie Allen in Higgins, to become a second Greens MHR. It is a real possibility – and Labor, for all their bluster, must surely know it.
How goods a crystal ball? Or is it tea leaves?
Even better is the occasional, properly used, apostrophe – try it some time.
Scraping ones barrel, phryne?
ALL Liberal! Not independents!