With Stephen Charles AO KC

The dire state of truth in Australia’s civic space crystalised in 2023. We had seen the waning influence of News Corp’s impact on our elections and assumed it meant that enough of us were becoming inoculated against the propaganda. The defeat of the notoriously mendacious Coalition government might have signalled a ceasefire, a moment for the ‘conservative’ parties to rediscover their integrity. We had underestimated, however, the strategising of vested interests. The year also revealed starkly what happens when the world’s instant communication platform, X (formerly Twitter), is owned by one malevolent billionaire. All these forces converged in a grim battle over the Voice to Parliament referendum.

The overwhelming rejection of Scott Morrison’s Coalition government in 2022 had been in large part an indictment of its lack of transparency and integrity. Revelation had followed revelation about the brazen pork-barrelling undertaken with the help of colour-coded spreadsheets kept in a ministerial office.1 The flood of deception, echoing Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, was such that Bernard Keane assembled a whole book on it.2 Solid gold Liberal seats were lost to community independents known as the ‘teals’ who were focused on climate action and integrity.

Anthony Albanese’s government was sworn in with the expectation that it would move efficiently to introduce the integrity platform it had promised, including an anti-corruption body and whistleblower protections. So, 2023 saw the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) enacted and its commencement. In the first months, it received over a thousand submissions, which it had to cull to the few it can investigate.3 Of course, Australia won’t know which claims of corruption are being tested because Labor was seduced by the Liberals into constraining public hearings: they will only take place in ‘exceptional circumstances’.4 Public hearings are vital for such bodies in fulfilling their primary object of exposing public sector corruption; they educate the sector about the nature of corruption and deter others from future misconduct. The fact that the NACC will only rarely exhibit its work causes Australians to be less confident that corruption is being pursued at all. Other reforms remain stalled. It is scandalous that whistleblowers Richard Boyle and David McBride continued to face court action for their heroic efforts to expose serious wrongdoing to the public. The 2023 Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme was a brilliant demonstration of the debasement of our public service; that the few bravest truthtellers among them should continue to be persecuted instead of celebrated is a blight on Labor’s record.

This year, Peter Dutton’s Opposition could have chosen to build itself up as a more electable proposition by developing policy directions and proudly declaring that corruption was in the past. Instead, Dutton put all the Opposition’s chips on the culture wars: the Albanese government was to be made a one-term proposition by defeating the Voice referendum using whatever weapons were available. Dutton’s party worked alongside activist groups and News Corp to foster chaos and confusion.

The fact that disinformation and misinformation around the referendum seemed so often to tie back to the mining sector was revealing. Clive Palmer spent $2 million of his own money on swaying South Australia and Tasmania in the final weeks of the campaign.5 Gina Rinehart attended the glamorous ‘No’ team victory party at the Hyatt Regency in Brisbane.6 While some of the mining sector supported the Voice as part of their environment, social and corporate governance goals, behind the scenes the fossil fuel sector continued to play its long-term wrecking game.

The war on the Voice – and the chance it might strengthen First Peoples’ protection of their Country – is emblematic of the long game of alliances of sector interests, big donors and canny strategists. The battle against the regulation of tobacco from the 1950s became the campaign to disrupt certainty about the science of climate change.7 The goal was public confusion. Now, epistemological chaos is set to damn us all. Information has been weaponised to divide the public and steal victories for vested interests. The damage done to democracy by cyclones of disinformation tearing through social media is only compounded by the leaders who legitimise it.

Just as US Republicans tried to ride the tiger of populist nativist fury to power over the Obama years, the Coalition in Australia is hoping to regain power by fuelling suburban and rural anger at the so-called ‘inner-city elites’. Conspiracists enraged by pandemic health measures united with culture warriors against ‘woke’ to fight any project that signals empathy, justice, expertise or inclusion. This year also brought to public attention the growing Christian right takeover of ‘conservative’ party branches that has infused Pentecostal cultish ideas into that mixture.8

The Voice to Parliament referendum hijacked by lies

The shame of 2023 was the No campaign against a Voice to Parliament becoming enshrined in the Australian constitution alongside an acknowledgement of First Peoples’ existence in the country before European settlement. The plan to place the Voice in the constitution rather than merely legislate it emerged from the long consultation that formed the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart. First Peoples representatives asked Australians to grant them a permanent body to advise on matters relating to them. By placing it in the constitution, the body could be reformed over and again, but not axed without another referendum.

The decision of the National Party to oppose the Voice took place before the wording was finalised. The Liberal Party, in the wake of Peter Dutton’s embarrassing loss in the Aston by-election, declared its intent to follow and campaign against the body. These choices were not surprising. The fossil fuel sector has a decades-old architecture of influence working assiduously to muddy debates; one of its targets is Indigenous communities taking environmental action to obstruct resource- extraction projects. The Coalition has acted for decades to deter genuine climate action in Australia, and its attack on the Voice was, in part, another gift to the fossil fuel sector.

The right’s lies about the Voice began when the Uluṟu Statement was first issued in 2017. It was almost immediately labelled a ‘third chamber of Parliament’, a ridiculous mischaracterisation.9 In 2023, the Opposition’s parliamentary leaders depicted it as an inchoate power grab with ‘insufficient detail’. Experienced politicians know that the constitution only provides the barest outline: the working consequences of a constitutional amendment are forged by legislators, which would have happened in negotiation with First Peoples representatives. The inaugural legislation could be renegotiated as limitations or problems became apparent.

The Voice had approximately 60% support before the referendum campaign began. By the end of the campaign, the No majority stood at roughly 60%. A percentage of that No contingent was a ‘progressive No’ that believed Treaty should come first or that no cooperation with the coloniser could be helpful. The Voice was to have no ability to compel action; the very modesty of the proposal – likened to a school student representative council – drove these voters to campaign against it. The Yes campaign faced the typical challenge of Australia’s hesitancy regarding constitutional change. Moreover, it would have inescapably faced social media disinformation about the body, but the decision of political leaders around the country to fight – and fight dirty – was disastrous. What should have been a campaign above politics was dragged into the culture wars, with First Peoples as the most damaged casualties.

News Corp was at the centre of the media campaign against the Voice. While the organisation claimed to be explaining both sides…

The essay continues at Meanjin, where a digital subscription is only $5 per month or $50 for a year.

Continued from Significant changes to a worn-out Australian democracy require some positivity from Peter Dutton

Let’s envision a future where everyone has equal opportunities for growth and success. The key to achieving this noble goal is to let go of outdated social objectives and invest in a broader social and philosophical common good that benefits everyone. By embracing ideas, imagination and positivity, “we can reduce inequality and create a brighter future for all“. Together, let’s significantly impact society and work towards a better tomorrow.

The major parties have become fragmented, with Labor losing a large segment of its supporters to the Greens or independents.

Both parties have pre-selection processes rooted in factional power struggles that often see the best candidates miss out. Both need to select people with broader life experience. Not just people who have come out of the union movement or, in the case of the LNP, staffers who have come up through the party.

Our Parliament, its institutions and conventions have been trashed by Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison, and if he gets the chance, Peter Dutton will do the same.

Ministerial responsibility has at least been restored.

Political donations are out of control and should be recorded in real-time.

Question Time is just an excuse for mediocre minds who cannot win an argument with factual intellect, charm or debating skills to act deplorably toward each other. The public might be forgiven for thinking that the chamber has descended into a chamber of hate where respect for the other’s view is seen as a weakness. Where light frivolity and wit have been replaced with smut and sarcasm. And in doing so, they debase the Parliament and themselves as moronic imbecilic individuals.

Recent times have demonstrated just how corrupt our democracy has become. We have witnessed a plethora of inquiries and Royal Commissions, all focusing on illegal sickening behaviour.

We now have a National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), but after almost a decade of Conservative government, when corruption flourished, no one has been punished. The NACC has to date:

• received 2561 referrals
• excluded 1984 referrals at the triage stage because they did not involve a Commonwealth public official or did not raise a corruption issue
• 159 referrals awaiting triage
• 212 triaged referrals under assessment including 13 under preliminary investigation
• assessed 232 referrals

I cannot remember when my country was so devoid of political leadership. In recent times, we have had potential, but it was lost in power struggles, undignified self-interest and narcissistic personality. Under Albanese, it has stabilised. 

The pursuit of power for power’s sake by an Opposition devoid of any ideas has so engulfed the political thinking on the right that the common good is forgotten and takes away the capacity for bi-partisan public policy that achieves social equity.

Then there is a ludicrous Senate situation where people are elected on virtually no primary votes, just preferences. It is also a system that allows the election of people with vested business interests without public disclosure.

One cannot begin to discuss the decline of Australian democracy without aligning it to the collapse of journalistic standards and its conversion from reporting to opinion. Murdoch and his majority-owned newspapers, with blatant support for right-wing politics, have done nothing to advance Australia as a modern, enlightened, democratic society. On the contrary, it has damaged it, perhaps irreparably.

The advent of social media has pushed mainstream media into free fall. Declining newspaper sales have resulted in lost revenue and profits. It is losing its authority, real or imagined. Bloggers reflect on the feelings of grassroots society. Social media writers with whom they can agree or differ but at least have the luxury of doing so. As a result, newspapers, in particular, have degenerated into gutter political trash, hoping they might survive. Shock jocks shout the most outrageous lies and vilify people’s character with impunity and, in the process, do nothing to promote decent democratic illumination. They even promote free speech as if they are the sole custodian of it.

A number of people/ideologies have contributed to the decline in our democracy.

For starters, the Abbott factor and the death of truth as a principle of democratic necessity. I am convinced Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton believe that the effect of lying diminishes over time and, therefore, is a legitimate political tool. 

Mr Abbott has long set a high standard for not keeping promises. On August 22, 2011, he said:

“It is an absolute principle of Democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring our Democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.”

On the eve of that election, after crucifying Prime Minister Julia Gillard daily for three years, Abbott made this solemn promise:

“There will be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”

This was an unambiguous statement that cannot be interpreted differently than what the words mean. To do so is to tell one lie in defence of another.

When you throw mud in politics, some of it inevitably sticks, but there is a residue that adheres to the chucker. That was Abbott’s and, in turn, a conservative dilemma, but the real loser was our democracy. In Australian political history, Abbott’s and Morrison’s legacy will be that they empowered a period emblematic of a nasty and ugly period in our politics.

Our democracy is nothing more or less than what the people make of it. The power is with the people, and it is incumbent on the people to voice with unmistakable anger the decline in our democracy.

People need to wake up to the fact that the government affects every part of their lives (other than what they do in bed) and should be more concerned. But there is a deep-seated political malaise. 

Good democracies can only deliver good governments and outcomes if the electorate demands it.

“You get what you vote for” rings true.

An enlightened democracy, through its Constitution, must give its citizens a clear sense of purposeful participation. It must remain perpetually open to improvement in both its methodology and implementation. Importantly, its constitutional framework must be subject to regular revision, renewal, and compromise whenever everyday life demands it. There can be no room for complacency or stagnation in a genuinely effective democracy. Only through constant evolution and adaptation can a democracy truly serve the needs and aspirations of its people.

Unfortunately, without Peter Dutton’s cooperation, we can expect more of the same. Without it, constitutional changes and an Australian Head of State are just fantasies.

Continued from Is Australian democracy at risk from an authoritarian leader?

One day on a tranquil Sunday, I found myself lost in thought as the rain gently tapped on the rooftop, prompting me with profound questions. The word ‘democracy’ keeps coming back to me, and though I have written about it before, my inner political self urges me to revisit the topic. Our democracy is in dire straits, but I hope it can be saved from its current state of decay. May my passion for this cause not falter.

Before presenting any ideas for rehabilitating a democracy on its knees, one must first acknowledge the difficulty. When Anthony Albanese was elected Prime Minister on May 21 2022, he was expected to clean up the current state of our democracy and the political culture that goes with it.

He discovered that there is only so much one can do about meaningful and significant change without a like-minded opposition leader’s sincere, earnest cooperation. Dutton must find some positivity. It may be foreign to him, but find it he must.

However, Albanese learned it would never be forthcoming from a man like Peter Dutton, whose sole interest is obtaining power. This was decisively confirmed with the recent “Voice” referendum: The moment Opposition leader Peter Dutton (unexpectantly for Albanese) uttered “No.” 

That would be the end of it. And so it was for The Voice, but any proposal that warranted change carried the same threat. 

If we want to become a nation, independent, holding its place in a world of hard-earned international goodwill, we must become a republic, one with an Australian as our head of state; it can only happen with the help of Peter Dutton.

But Dutton will have differing views rather than agree to any proposal to upgrade our Constitution via a standing committee putting forward recommendations for the public to consider.

It is just ridiculous that a document that doesn’t even mention women is still with little change since January 1, 1901.

In this period of our political history, the only way for vital issues to be updated is to have all political party leaders agree on the substance of any proposal. For any opposition leader to oppose, such a proposal would render it dead in the water.

Unsurprisingly, our two-party political system was born from this very dreary document written by men for men. Our current combatant political two-party system could serve us better but needs more positivity to change it. Members sit on opposite sides in an auditorium where pit bulls are let off the leash for a bit of snarling and hatred.

Nobody wants to improve the system because it suits them not to. Once they are the winner, they have the power.

Democracy should be a “Work in progress”: Never ending

A clear indication of an Australian democracy in decline is the fact that people are giving up this voting gift, literally saying: “A pox on both your houses”.

Tens upon tens of thousands did so at the last election by not voting.

Our political system is in crisis because our solicitations need to speak with clarity on issues that concern people.

To truly serve the needs and aspirations of its people, a genuinely effective democracy must constantly evolve and adapt. We must be bold and persistent in building a more inclusive and just society. We must remain compassionate and sympathetic towards each other and work together towards creating a better future for all. A functional democracy should give its citizens a definite sense of meaningful involvement. It should always be open to improving its methods and implementation. Crucially, its constitutional framework must be regularly revised, renewed, and subject to political compromise whenever the greater reasonable demands it.

But above all, its function should be that:

“… regardless of ideology the common good should be served first and foremost. A common good healthy democracy serves the collective from the ground up rather than a top down democracy that exists to serve secular interests. One that is enforced by an elite of business leaders, politicians and media interests who have the power to enforce their version. That is fundamentally anti-democratic.

Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.”

Unfortunately, Australia’s democratic process, as defined by its Constitution, is struggling to keep up with the changing times. It seems stuck in the past, and moving forward requires significant changes. Labor’s desire for a republic and a modernised constitution is understandable, but it may need help from others. It’s a difficult situation, and understandably, many people feel frustrated.

With his opposition to the Voice, Dutton has shown that nothing can be changed without his agreement.

In my previous article I wrote – and wish to repeat – that:

“I am not a political scientist, historian or a trained journalist. I write this as a disgruntled and concerned citizen who wants change to the Australian Constitution I grew up with. The demise of Australian democracy originates in a monumental shift by both major parties in how they now interpret their individual philosophies.

They are now tainted with sameness.”

The Liberal Party has been replaced by a neo-conservative one, actively supporting rich individual identities against a collective one, and old-style Liberalism no longer has a voice. 

Labor, as is usual, has come to power during a crisis and is managing its wimpy grip on power, unable to make the hard decisions it knows it promised less Dutton denies his support yet again. There is little or no difference between the Liberals and the National Party, who seem irrelevant as a political force in doing anything that benefits our democracy.

Conservatives are going down the path of a defined inequality with a born-to-rule mentality that favours the rich.

Continued tomorrow …

Continued from Authoritarianism is taking over the world. Will it snare Australia?

To recap, in Part 1 I wrote that:

In recent years, we have witnessed three individual politicians who have used the techniques of the authoritarian leader, fear, negativity, misinformation and lies. I refer to Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and the now opposition leader Peter Dutton. All have used the methods of an authoritarian ruler.

The best way to guard against a takeover by a popular authoritarian is to create the best democracy possible.

Democracy is a complex political system that involves various components. Still, at its core, it is about individuals with similar beliefs and values collaborating to create a set of principles that guide their actions and decisions. It is a process that requires active participation and engagement from all members of the community, with a focus on inclusivity and equality. Democracy is a mechanism for achieving consensus and promoting the common good through dialogue, debate, and compromise.

They then become the foundation of political parties. These ideologies pull in different directions in a quest for majority approval by the people. It is a far from perfect system that has variations all around the world. It is elastically flexible, unpredictable and, at its worst, violent and highly combative.

The system of Australian Democracy, when it functions optimally, is characterised by a sense of dignity and constructive engagement. It effectively serves society’s needs and can accommodate a broad range of ideas and perspectives, regardless of their extreme. However, it is worth noting that the Australian democratic system is not perfect; it is far from ideal.

What’s wrong with our Democracy?

In their article The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule, Sarah Repucci and Amy Slipowitz contend that:

“Undemocratic leaders and their supporters in democratic environments have worked to reshape or manipulate political systems, in part by playing on voters’ fears of change in their way of life and by highlighting the very real failures of their predecessors. They have promoted the idea that, once in power, their responsibility is only to their own demographic or partisan base, disregarding other interests and segments of society and warping the institutions in their care so as to prolong their rule. Along the way, the democratic principles of pluralism, equality, and accountability – as well as basic stewardship and public service – have been lost, endangering the rights and well-being of all residents.”

In fact, it can sometimes be cumbersome and unwieldy, and there have been instances where it has failed to meet the expectations of its constituents. Despite its imperfections, the Australian democratic system remains an important and valuable institution that plays a critical role in shaping the nation’s future.

Common to most Western Democracies (without anything better), it has a capitalistic economic system. One that is badly in need of an overhaul.

In Australia, the right to vote is the gift that democracy gives. People are free to vote for whichever party (or individual) they support, but overriding this is the fact that people cannot possibly believe in democracy if, at the same time, they think their party is the only one that should ever win.

A clear indication of an Australian democracy in decline is that people are giving up this voting gift, literally saying: “A pox on both your houses”.

The 2022 election had the lowest turnout for a century:

“For the first time since compulsory voting was introduced for the 1925 federal election, turnout fell below 90%.”

Our political system is in crisis because our solicitations need to speak with clarity on issues that concern people, particularly women.

I would argue that an enlightened democracy should give the people a sense of purposeful participation. It should forever be open to regular improvement in its methodology and implementation. Its constitutional framework should be exposed to periodical revision, renewal, compromise, and bipartisanship when the common good cries out.

But above all, its function should be that regardless of ideology, the common good should be served first and foremost. A typical good, healthy democracy serves the collective from the ground up rather than a top-down democracy that exists to serve secular interests.

Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.

Unfortunately, Australia’s version of the democratic process has none inherent in it and is currently sinking into a quagmire of American Tea Party hypotheses.

I am not a political scientist, historian or a trained journalist. I write this as a disgruntled and concerned citizen because it seems that the Australian democracy I grew up with no longer exists. 

The demise of Australian democracy originates in a monumental shift by both major parties to the right, with the result that neither seems to know exactly what they stand for. 

They are now tainted with sameness.

The Liberal Party has been replaced by neo-conservatism, authoritarian leadership.  

Labor has lost its zeal for change and how to go about it. 

We have ended up with an individual identity against a collective one, and old-style Liberalism no longer has a voice. There is little or no difference between the Liberals and the National Party, who seem irrelevant as a political force. Conservatives have gone down the path of inequality with a born-to-rule mentality that favours the rich.

They still carry the “lifters” and “leaners” tags so popular with the Abbott era.

“It is a distillation of the idea that there is no such thing as society, that we are only responsible for our own circumstances”. (Tim Dunlop, The Drum, 4/7/2014).

Labor seems unable to walk over the shadow of its past, a time when it did great things to advance the nation.

The Labor Party needs to rid its party of outdated objectives and invest in a social, philosophical common good. And recognise that the elimination of growing inequality is a worthwhile pursuit.

To do nothing is to allow the authoritarian his or her way. I don’t wish to sound alarmist, but…

In recent years, we have witnessed three individual politicians who have used the techniques of the authoritarian leader, fear, negativity, misinformation and lies. I refer to Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison and the now opposition leader Peter Dutton. All have used the methods of an authoritarian ruler.

Next week: Ideas for change.

One of the most hated aspects of the Morrison government was the secrecy. Over and again, we continue to shock to revelations of hidden wrongdoing long after their defeat last May.

It was a crucial aspect of the Coalition government’s efforts over a decade to diminish our democratic structures, shifting us towards competitive authoritarianism, and minority rule. It was integral to the malfeasance that caused us to sink 12 points – equal with illiberal Hungary – on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.

Scott Morrison’s deeply secret 5-ministry scandal was partly orchestrated to keep still more secrets.

In one manifestation, Morrison stood as the only permanent member of a cabinet committee so that any meeting with others could be designated cabinet-in-confidence. Documents were wheeled into cabinet meetings or stapled to cabinet reports to grant cabinet-level secrecy.

The Coalition aimed to make acts of journalism and whistleblowing liable to up to 20 years imprisonment in 2018. AFP raids on journalists and media organisations took place as a result of the government’s fear of transparency.

Repeatedly the public has asked why people did not reveal the offences and norm violations.

Part of the problem was draconian restrictions and punishment imposed on people in the public service and working for contractors. 

Australia has 849 secrecy restrictions criminalising the release of various kinds of federal government information. The publication of “government information is restricted by 11 general secrecy offences in the criminal code, 542 specific secrecy offences contained in 178 separate commonwealth acts, and 296 non-disclosure duties in 107 commonwealth laws.” Breaching any of these attracts criminal liability. 

The point of sending asylum seekers and refugees offshore was in large part to keep Australians from seeing that these are people like us, particularly children with whom we might more easily empathise. The appalling abuses and crimes perpetrated against them, leading to children almost dying of Resignation Syndrome, were amongst the Coalition government’s darkest secrets.

The immigration department set the AFP on “Save the Children” workers who had made a covert submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding the fact that they believed “the children have been subjected to multiple violations of their human rights and wrongdoing from multiple parties.” Workers had been blocked from speaking out by draconian confidentiality provisions in their contracts imposed by the immigration department.

Morrison devised the label of “on-water matters” to keep so much about our disgraceful disregard for international law and convention secret. Journalist Paul Farrell was pursued by the AFP at immigration department instruction for revealing Australian security boats’ incursions into Indonesian waters as part of repelling asylum boats.

Many of the best people in the public service have left a career where they had come to be treated as a servant class to political whims and ideologues’ missions. The fine people of the immigration department, with their nation-building role, left in droves over the Morrison and Dutton years, replaced with customs personnel who worked to keep out any potential non-white citizen as if they were pest-bearing woodwork. These small minds flaunted their new paramilitary uniforms and pointless medals, just as Scott Morrison did his grotesque trophy celebrating (wrongly) that he stopped the boats. 

Most of the people working in immigration by the end of Morrison’s government had nowhere else to go, and many should face investigation for implementing inexcusable instructions. Obeying orders is never a valid excuse for human rights abuse.

The Robodebt Royal Commission revealed how desperately battered the Public Service in Canberra has become after years of Coalition disdain for their function. Professor Glyn Davis of the Thodey panel investigating the public service crisis described it as transforming away from a partnership with politicians to a “command and control system” where “public service becomes the delivery arm of political goals.” 

Too many appointments were political. Too many senior people narrowed their focus to the task in front of them, to politicians’ demands, and ignored their duty to the nation. Too many people intimidated those who asked whether what was happening was legal or ethical.

Morrison ignored the findings of the Thodey report setting out the importance of a strong public service able to give frank and fearless advice. His government had little interest in policy supported by empirical evidence or the general good. As John Hewson said at the time, the government’s intent seemed to be to “consolidate political power.”

In the face of these threats, the last decade’s whistleblowers ought to be greeted as heroes. Public servants who strode against the humiliating tide of capitulation by their peers ought to be treasured.

Instead, only one of the whistleblowers has been rescued from continuing persecution in the processes set in motion by the last government. AG Mark Dreyfus felt that the persecution of Witness K’s lawyer Bernard Collaery was unconscionable and intervened. Public servants Richard Boyle and David McBride continue to suffer the financial, emotional and psychological pain of the system’s retribution. If convicted, they face lengthy prison terms.

Richard Boyle attempted to impress upon his superiors his concerns about the ATO’s “aggressive debt collection tactics.” When that failed, he went to the inspector general of taxation. There was no action on his justified complaints. The whistleblowing that followed the system’s failure to act on its own brokenness is still being vindictively pursued. We can only wish that Robodebt’s agents would have acted with such courage, but his persecution hints at why they didn’t.

David McBride, a former military lawyer, will be tried this November unless Dreyfus chooses to intervene. The revelations that he ultimately took to the ABC, when the internal system failed him too, became “The Afghan Files” revealing war crimes accusations. We need further military whistleblowers if soldiers did not merely, allegedly, act on their own bloodied impulse.

As Kieran Pender of the Human Rights Law Centre details, “Australia is a better place because they spoke up when they saw something wrong.” He has said, the failure of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to protect these men shows that the law is “utterly broken.” AG Dreyfus could act at any time but apparently does not want to be seen repeatedly to interfere with the actions of the courts.

We know there are 849 secrecy provisions in federal government because of an Albanese government report revealing it last month. Mark Dreyfus intends that to be the basis for extensive reforms.

Dreyfus has spoken about the crucial role of the public service in its ability to offer expert frank and fearless advice to politicians and their staffers. He has promised to extend whistleblower protections as part of his integrity framework. All this is admirable. It is not acceptable, however, for reforms to take so long that two of the best public servants continue to be tormented in the courts because of the Attorney-General’s department’s slowness to act.

A crucial part of extending whistleblower protections must be swift action to end these two prosecutions. Every politician and public servant must act knowing that they will be able to hold their heads up in the face of public scrutiny: secrecy is our enemy.

Our Constitution is the:

“Commonwealth of Australia founding document. After many years of debate and drafting, it was passed by the British Parliament and given royal assent (approval by the Queen) in July 1900. Australia’s 6 British colonies became one nation on 1 January 1901.”

Australians are sticklers for tradition when it comes to our Constitution. Despite 44 proposed changes, only eight have ever been successful.

Change has been an aversion to Australians for a long time, with dozens of proposed changes meeting with a very public flogging. Two proposals to change the Constitution will soon be placed before the Australian people. This year Labor plans a bid to give a Voice to Parliament for our First Nations people and will be placed before the people. At face value, it would seem harsh not to give our First Nation’s folk a voice in their destiny.

Our Constitution is “silent on the histories of the people who inhabited this continent before European settlement.” Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to correct this ascetic anomaly. It may, however, be the voice of the Opposition leader Peter Dutton that determines the outcome. If he decides his party will vote against it, it would only be for political reasons, and his party would be a national disgrace – an assassination of the referendum.

The second referendum being considered will be a bid to change the Constitution so that we can have an Australian as our head of State.

Both are worthwhile propositions of long-standing and deserve to be supported by a majority of citizens in a majority of states. The time is ripe for change. Sure, this would be a symbolic change. It will not improve our exports or our world standing on many things, but it will provide us with a new maturity commensurate with our standing in the world.

We have too many cultural concepts that speak of our past and not our future.

But are they the only proposals worthy of our earnestness consideration? Here is my list. You may have others, so please note yours in the comments section. Some might only require legislation; others may need referenda:

1 Change the Constitution to make change easier.

2 Create new ways of purposeful participation in the body politic for Australians wanting to be involved and enshrine the positions in the Constitution.

3 A two-year constitutional review ending with the appointment of a full-time sitting committee. They would review, make recommendations and advise the Government of the day.

4 Outline the standards required to become an MP or Senator in the Constitution. A suitability test for prospective MPs.

5 Appointment of an independent Speaker heading an Independent Speaker’s Office with a broader range of responsibilities.

6 An independent review of Australia’s voting system to eliminate any anomalies and to teach politics in year 12 and the possibility of allowing 16-year-olds to vote if registered at high school and completing the politics course.

7 A review to redefine free speech and what it means in an enlightened society.

8 Find a place in our Constitution that guarantees a Department of the Future in the cabinet.

9 A guarantee of affordable health care for all citizens.

10 A 10-point “common good” caveat for all proposed legislation.

11 Describe in our Constitution the place or purpose of the government, the judicial system, business, religion, the law and the media.

12 Major appointments to government agencies be considered by a joint parliamentary committee to discourage stacking agencies with partisans.

13 A bill of rights be looked into by a group of retired judges appointed by the government.

14 Consider some form of yearly citizen-initiated referenda.

15 Reinforce secularity concerning religion.

16 One item I feel is missing, and I am not sure how to phrase it, is to restore science to its proper place.

17 Lock in fixed four-year terms in the Constitution with a specified date.

18 A guarantee of affordable health care for all be enshrined in the Constitution.

19 Re-instate our public broadcasters’ autonomy, financial, programming and management independence with a charter that explicitly requires no government, corporate or religious interference.

As I said at the start, I am asking for general comments on my piece and any new ideas that could be included in our Constitution.

Now allow me to quote from an essay by Dr Venturini written around the same time as my original piece. His 5-part essay is informative in underlining the intent of the Constitution as, basically, enshrining the rights of the states as sovereign entities within a sovereign commonwealth. They were never about ‘we, the people’. So much is left to conventions, and we know how much those have been shunned over the last decade.

“A quick look of the Australian Constitution reveals that it is technically an act of the British Parliament passed in 1900, the last vestiges of British legislative influence in Australia to be eliminated with the passage of the Australia Act in 1986.

The Constitution is interpreted and operates in two ways: literally – some sections of the Constitution are taken literally and followed to the letter; conventionally – other sections operate through a series of ‘constitutional conventions’ which vest real power in the hands of elected politicians.

Alongside the text of the Constitution, and Letters of Patent issued by the Crown, such Conventions are an important aspect of the Constitution; they have evolved over the decades and define how various constitutional mechanisms operate in practice.

Conventions are unwritten rules, not laws. They express an accepted way of doing something. The ‘Westminster parliamentary system’ is built around these kinds of unwritten rules. They presume that people of good reputation and character behave in an honourable way. By and large Australian ‘conservatives’ do not respect ‘Labor people’ as persons of honour. This is one of the reasons why ‘conservatives’ have been preferred to ‘Labor people’ = rabble on a three/fourth basis since federation.”

So, there you have it. What else would you like to see written into our Constitution, or how might we improve it?

The Age last year revealed that special forces veteran Ben Roberts-Smith wore the provocative symbol of a crusader cross on his breast over his uniform while on duty in Afghanistan. Apparently “quite a few” others wore it. This is particularly problematic because while Roberts-Smith may not have perceived it that way, the cross has strong associations for the far right suggesting an era of racial purity, with the Christian west waging war on the Muslim enemy.

The armed forces redacted the symbol when the photograph was released, later describing it as “at odds with Defence values.”

Australian soldiers also created scandals sporting KKK outfits and flying the Nazi flag “for a prolonged period” while deployed in Afghanistan. This stands disturbingly alongside accusations that Australian soldiers committed war crimes there.

Thomas Sewell, who founded the National Socialist Network is a former soldier. A number of his fellow veterans have links to far-right groups. In 2021, one former soldier had his passport cancelled as a Neo Nazi. It is not known if he chose to enter the army as a Neo-Nazi or was radicalised within it. Former special forces officer, Riccardo Bosi, has been one of the leading conspiracy spruikers at “freedom rallies” in NSW, with particularly violent rhetoric. He claims to be transitioning into politics.

Military veterans have also been amongst the strong supporters of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. One notorious photograph showed a group of gym-fit veterans who had gone on to work as “emergency response” guards at Australia’s scandal-plagued refugee prisons on Nauru. Both parties were present at a “Reclaim Australia” white ethnostate rally. Refugees have reported ugly experiences with veteran guards in Australia’s indefinite detention complexes. Their Islam-hating sentiments were leveled at the wars’ victims trapped with the men who loathed them.

Pauline Hanson and veterans working for Wilson Security as guards on Nauru in 2015 from the Guardian Australia

The University of Canberra’s National Security Hub has expressed fears that veterans are being targeted online by far-right groups. The fact that the body has Defence funding underlines that the leadership of the armed forces is beginning to take far-right radicalisation within our military, and its veterans, more seriously.

The way that authorities supervise our armed services (including police) has for too long ignored the threat that is posed to our democracy by the militant right. The growth of the conspiracy sphere has raised the threat posed by such trained individuals and groups by the depiction of governments, “the left” and minority groups as an existential threat to the national wellbeing. 

Worryingly, the Australian armed forces (allegedly?) continue to prioritise religious chaplaincy over secular mental health resources. The elite group that supervises and advises upon the wellbeing of our service people has declared that it sees itself having an evangelical role in bringing God to the forces. 

The international right has Pentecostal Christianity thoroughly intertwined within the conspiracy sphere. Centre Left politicians and progressive groups are defined as a child-devouring and demonic threat to the populace within these ideologies. Violence is a result. Religious symbols, banners and prayer were on display at the insurgent attack on the US’s Capitol on 6 January 2021. In far-right circles, Christianity is also deployed as a meme representing white superiority. (Although some more extreme groups prefer Nordic faiths, divorcing themselves from Christianity and its Middle Eastern roots.)

Within our political system we have parties like Pauline Hanson’s and Clive Palmer’s content to replicate the kinds of narrative and trigger words found in conspiracy and far right circles. Senator Ralph Babet’s social media feed regularly reveals conspiracy-theory messaging. The Coalition parties have both had representatives willing to ally themselves with conspiracy and far-right narratives, giving credence to the movements, and the delegitimising of the centre/left.

Murdoch’s News Corp platforms are filled with race-baiting stories. Even an Indigenous Voice to parliament, purely an advisory body, is anathema to these organs. Ben Roberts-Smith has quoted his employer, Kerry Stokes, as happy to hold a costly media platform for the power it gives him over politicians. His Channel 7 is too often held to account for racist framing of news stories.

Daily Telegraph tweet about one of the Queensland police shooters.

In the standard media approach to violence committed by white terrorists, Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph covered the Wieambilla conspiracy-driven police killers with warm humanising descriptors. The former educator of the three was evoked as a dedicated NSW principal harmed by health and systemic problems. Across the media, the armed forces and in politics, violent extremists who are white have tended to be depicted as a lone threat, an outlier, or even a damaged victim.

Germany is facing this crisis. In the wake of the Nationalist Socialist Underground serial killings, the Day X plot and now the Prince’s coup plan, they have seen repeatedly both the radicalisation of citizens into violence, and the systems’ propensity to excuse and ignore the warnings. Most concerningly, Germans have seen that there may not just be shoulders shrugged at white boys gone wrong, but potentially complicity within the armed forces and security sectors with far-right aims. People with military training, a system that is lax about its weaponry, and even current serving members with access to high-tech equipment, pose a substantial threat. The far-right parliamentary party AfD is also represented in these spheres.

When a briefing took place about AG Dreyfus’s anti-corruption commission, one of the leading public servants was asked if the parameters were being future-proofed against a government without respect for our system. The public servant dismissed this with, “That’s democracy.”

This is a moment in history where “That’s democracy” reveals a normalcy bias that endangers our future. The framework of democracy protections being erected by the Albanese government needs to take into account that not all our politicians support liberal democracy. We need to challenge our media owners to face the implications of their messaging.

Further, the slowness with which our security forces have moved from seeing enemies as foreign to understanding that too many of them are our own must cease. The far-right wants the end of democracy. It’s up to us to stop their mission.

By Denis Bright  

Victorians rejected the instability of minority government in favour of a third term for Labor’s Premier Daniel Andrews. He joins the ranks of just three Victorian Labor premiers who have achieved three consecutive election victories.

This Labor Government will have a comfortable majority in the Legislative Assembly with a likely 54 seats. Only the seat of Pakenham is still in the doubtful category with the Liberal Party just five votes ahead on preference estimates.

The Greens will have a stronger rhetorical voice in both houses of parliament. There will be a two additional Green Legislative Councillors. Under Victoria’s proportional voting system, the Andrew’s government has always lacked a majority in the upper house and will have to look beyond the Greens (3) to pass legislation perhaps with the support of pragmatic or progressive councillors from the Legalise Cannabis Party (2) or Democratic Labor (1).

The ABC News site has a full analysis of the swings and round-abouts from the Victorian elections including the results in the La Trobe Valley electorate of Morwell.

With a populist conservative campaign, the National Party (9) won three additional seats mainly at the expense of regional Independents. The National Party will take the Labor seat of Morwell in the La Trobe Valley on a primary vote of just 23.5 per cent with the support of preferences from the Liberals, One Nation (6 per cent) and a mix of local independents and far-right minor parties.

Photo from the ABC

Despite the weakness of the Labor Party’s vote outside the Geelong-Ballarat-Bendigo Triangle, one of the strengths of the Labor Party in Victoria is its formal and accountable policy committee structure covering fourteen policy chapters. Membership of these policy committees is decided by State Conference.

This committee structure has the capacity to zoom in on the policy concerns of voters between state elections. It can bring policy debates to branch networks particularly if it is supported by grassroots policy associations. This is a big change from the negative news about branch stacking which affects both sides of Australian politics including the NSW Liberal Party as noted by Anne Davies in The Guardian (23 January 2022).

Underlying the problem of branch stacking is the vacuous nature of political activity at the grass roots level. Victoria Labor’s Committee system could liven up grassroots politics through the formation of policy associations to extend the outreach of formal committee networks.

In contrast, the National Party offers a return to old time populism as emphasized by Nationals for Regional Victoria:

I’m a Traralgon boy, born and bred. I’m a plumber, run my own small business and I have had a lifelong involvement in the Traralgon Football Netball Club.

One thing I’m not, is a career politician. I come to this role as a genuine community candidate and I’m running because we need a strong voice in State Parliament to stand up for the Latrobe Valley.

​I’ve been a plumber for 35 years, running the business that my dad and mum set up myself for the past 20. I come from a strong family that values and rewards hard work and enterprise.

​Running my own small business means I know what it takes to create jobs in our community and the value of young people learning a trade. Life is tough for tradies and all businesses currently, with shortages of workers, endless government red tape and a lack of understanding of our region by decision makers in Spring Street.

Ali Cupper was prepared to co-operate with the Andrews Government to bring the Mildura Hospital back into public ownership after its privatization by the Kennett Liberal Government in 1992. The change back to publicly operated hospital was an quite amicable as the contracts for Ramsay Health’s operations was ready for renewal after twenty years. Ali Cupper just disagreed with Victoria Health’s new master plan for the hospital.

In that macro-theme of Floods of Challenges in Australian politics at all levels, progressive leaders can and should take up issues which appear to be insurmountable. Members of the broad Labor movement would surely welcome opportunities for involvement in policy formation even if their participation is through policy associations rather than formal committee structures.

The street art of Fintan Magee and others should encourage political elites to anticipate the need for greater community involvement in the fine tuning of grand plans.

Surely, the transition from guided democracy and political elitism is a plus for Australia’s slow transition from neoliberalism and demands for blind loyalty within the branch structures of mainstream political networks which raise money for those mindless political jingles at election time.

Image: The Pillars Art Gallery