Reboot: A Democracy Makeover to Empower Australia's Voters
()
About this ebook
Reboot offers a tantalising glimpse of a better future, where politicians work directly and closely with those who voted for them.
Utopian? Disillusional? Richard Walsh makes a tour de force argument for doing away with the senate, embracing a republic and having a government where the prime minister and ministers are the best people in the country, not just chosen from the politicians who sit in the parliament.
Richard Walsh
An Adams Media author.
Read more from Richard Walsh
Start a Business for Less Than $2,000: From Airbrush Artist to Wellness Instructor, 75+ Profitable Business Startups for Under $2,000 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Time Management: Proven Techniques for Making Every Minute Count Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Bigger than Ben-Hur: The Book, Its Adaptations, and Their Audiences Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBards and Sages Quarterly (October 2015) Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Related to Reboot
Related ebooks
1,2,3, Representation by Enid Lakeman Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCommons and Lords: A Short Anthropology of Parliament Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsResistance Handbook: 45 Ways to Fight Trump Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Quarterly Essay 73 Australia Fair: Listening to the Nation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAustralian Political Essays: Parliamentary Reform, the Third Chamber Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMinority Policy: Rethinking governance when parliament matters Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsUnintended Consequence: Transforming America- How and Why We Came to This Place Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTaxation with Representation: A New Evil: The History of Dividing Our Nation through Class Warfare under the Guise of Fairness Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTurkeys Don’T Vote: Politics for Beginners Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOur Damaged Democracy: We the People Must Act Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The End of British Party Politics? Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBlacklash: How Obama and the Left Are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5A Letter to Generation Next: Why Labor Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Responsibilities of Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Guide to Winning Elections Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNo Truth, No Consequences: A Pathetic Demonstration Of The Perversion Of Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBecoming a Democracy: How We Can Fix the Electoral College, Gerrymandering, and Our Elections Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Political Conventions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAgainst Democracy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Our Political Paradox Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMessage in a Bottle: Thoughts on Classical Liberalism and Australian politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDemocracy’S Hypocrisies: Revelations of Society’S Incremental Erosions on Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitical and Scientific Articles: Volume 2 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings“Stand Up America!” Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsVoices of Reason: Calming the Conflicts in Political Discussions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitics for the Disinterested Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhat's Gone Wrong?: South Africa on the Brink of Failed Statehood Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Fourth International Theory Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPolitics: the Starter Kit: How to Succeed in Politics and Government Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsRon Paul's Wisdom, A Layman's Perspective. A Collection of Opinion Editorials Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Reviews for Reboot
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Reboot - Richard Walsh
Index
1
THIS IS TRULY RIDICULOUS
IT IS A COMMONPLACE to say that most Australians today, like most citizens in other Western democracies, are disillusioned with their politicians. Few voters identify with any political party; few people feel an urge to belong to any of the main political parties; most believe that the decisions reached by parliaments and political leaders ultimately reflect the narrow interests of those elites that currently finance the two major political parties—the trade unions and big business. But no one seems to be actively looking for a solution to this malaise.
The truth is, the system we presently operate under is ill conceived. Its weaknesses and internal contradictions are more obvious to us now than ever before.
In a true democracy the federal parliament needs only one house, and that house should represent accurately the will of the electors. But these days in any election for the Australian House of Representatives each seat ultimately, after the inevitable culling of sundry optimists, represents a battle between two main contenders, sometimes three. None of them accurately reflects the totality of any individual elector’s views. Basically we are forced to vote for the imperfect candidate who is kinda close to what we believe in—the one who is just that bit closer than the other, slightly more imperfect candidate.
Is this a recipe for voter satisfaction? When we go to the supermarket, we are typically faced with a mind-numbingly nuanced range of choices within our favourite household brands—gone are the days when Henry Ford magisterially pronounced we could have any colour, so long as it was black. So why are we being forced to make such a limited choice in such an important area of decision-making? Why is there a wider choice among the kinds of milk we can purchase than among the candidates who have a real chance of being elected?
How members of parliament vote on legislation is full of contradictions. The theory is that they should vote according to the wishes of those in their electorate, but the practice is that they fall in behind their party’s policies. When that policy is clearly at odds with what their own constituents want, they of course advocate passionately on behalf of their constituents in the privacy of the party room. Occasionally they will even make a speech in the chamber that is at odds with how they eventually vote.
There are other seductive theories about how MPs should vote. One is that they should ‘lead’ public opinion, which is a genteel way of saying that they should be allowed to vote against the will of the people if they deem their electors to be ignorant fools. This is actually more fascist than democratic. No matter how informed and enlightened we may feel on a particular issue—climate change, gun control or whatever—there is a mighty obligation on us to persuade others that we are right. The modern tendency is to ignore the persuasion bit and to simply attempt a bit of moral bullying; and it is this that is causing so much of the divisiveness and disillusionment in which we now find ourselves.
And then there is democracy’s Get Out of Gaol Free card—the theory that MPs can under certain circumstances follow their own conscience, rather than the wishes of their electors. This is the grossly undemocratic argument that has led us to the impasse on euthanasia and same-sex marriage, two issues on which the will of a clear majority of people is currently being thwarted.
Politics has become a debased and brutal business, totally unsuitable as a calling for anyone who possesses a skerrick of idealism. Of course there are some decent people in the federal and state parliaments, but I have no idea how they got there and remain—the stink in which they are mired is so great that they must be suffering from anosmia.
Within the two major political parties factionalism is dominant, which means that loyalty to the factional warlords—they are mainly men—is more important than anything else. Malcolm Turnbull once straight-facedly told a NSW State Liberal Conference that, unlike the Labor Party, ‘We are not run by factions’; he was then forced to grin sheepishly when some in his audience laughed out loud and he realised that every single party loyalist in that room believed he was cracking a joke. He is now so humiliated in his obeisance to the most reactionary members of his own party that, if he had a shred of pride left, he would have resigned a while ago.
In Western Australia, there was the instructive saga of the alarmingly conservative Joe Bullock, state secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA, ‘the shoppies’) and a significant power broker in the ALP. He first gained preselection for a state by-election, where he proved so unattractive as a candidate that he lost a seat that should have been a gimme. He later gained the number 1 position on the Senate ticket at the 2013 elections, pushing aside a sitting senator, Louise Pratt, who happened to be left aligned. Bullock ultimately proved himself so wildly unsuitable and so utterly at odds with core Labor values that he was left with no option than to resign.
At the last elections in Tasmania, there was an equally instructive saga involving Eric Abetz, who dominates the Liberal Party in that state. As an act of petty vengeance against his Prime Minister, Abetz forced the most senior Tasmanian member in the Turnbull Government, Tourism Minister Richard Colbeck, down to the unwinnable fifth position on his party’s Senate ticket. Colbeck failed to get returned, given his impossible position on the ticket, but in protest 15 per cent of Liberal voters gave him their number 1 vote. Abetz’s custodianship of his party in his home state proved so astutely attuned to the electorate’s wishes that the Liberals at those elections lost all the seats they then held in the House of Representatives.
Not that the ALP can gloat too much over all this. Their own factional bosses in Tasmania, in the lead-up to the same election, relegated sitting Senator Lisa Singh to the seemingly unwinnable sixth position on their Senate ticket, allegedly because she was unaligned to any faction—these things always seem to befall women. However, Singh fought back hard and was re-elected, obtaining the first preference of more than 20 per cent of ALP voters—an act of protest by ordinary Labor supporters that had not been seen for more than half a century.
This is factional politics at its most bloody-minded, but evidence of branch stacking by both major parties continues to emerge and neither party wholeheartedly supports the establishment of a federal Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a policy these days being pushed hard by the Greens. For Labor, if the party was not so obviously under the thumb of its power brokers, supporting a federal ICAC would be a terrific vote winner. The best that Bill Shorten can offer is the inevitable committee of inquiry into this matter.
That’s the kind of tough action you call for when you don’t want anything much to happen. Years ago, in my days as a fighting journalist, I was made to stand before federal parliament and, as punishment for my sins, to be publicly reprimanded. Vince Gair, who had been a former Labor Premier of Queensland but then sat in the Senate as the leader of the Democratic Labor Party, wanted me imprisoned. Clearly disappointed by the leniency shown to me, he described my reprimand as being ‘thrashed with a feather’, a memorable phrase that could now be used to describe Shorten’s efforts to urge forward the establishment of a federal ICAC. His feeble effort tells us what we fear: that the politics of this country is so compromised by large and small acts of corruption that no self-respecting citizen would want to devote much of their time to it.
The three major parties are in a downward spiral. They cannot attract ordinary idealistic rank-and-file members in the numbers they did in the past. As is typical of the double-talk in which politicians babble these days, these frontline soldiers for transparency and freedom of information are particularly secretive about how many party members stand behind them. The best guess seems to be that both Labor and the Liberal Party have about 50,000 members each nationally, and that the ALP once had 100,000 and the Libs may have once had 200,000. According to Nicholas Reece, who is an academic at Melbourne University, Australia has the lowest level of political party participation in the advanced world.
That fact alone should send a loud signal that our political system demands a radical overhaul. Essentially, only the hyper-ambitious and factional stooges are prepared to give up their valuable time to attend branch meetings. Anyone with half a brain knows that these organisations are breathtakingly undemocratic—the important decisions are top-down, not bottom-up. The lack of dedicated rank-and-file members means that the parties simply grow more and more dependent on their power bases—the trade union elite and wealthy business people—to provide financial assistance and to conscript those beholden to them to provide the grunt needed by these parties at election time.
We need a political system that faces up to these dilemmas and solves them. We need a political system in which ordinary people can become engaged. We need an electoral system that can operate at such a low cost that we can blunt the impact of political donations—the source