Transforming Australia’s Democracy for the People
By Denis Hay
Transforming Australia’s Democracy: From Representation to True People’s Power.
Description
Discover how Australia’s democracy can evolve from representation to a true people-powered system, using its monetary sovereignty.
Introduction
Australia’s current political system is termed a “representative democracy,” where citizens elect members of parliament to make decisions on their behalf. While this structure provides a degree of public participation, it often fails to be a true democracy “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Corporate interests and political elites often influence decision-making, leaving many Australians feeling disconnected from the process. This article explores how Australia can evolve its democracy to be more inclusive and representative, using its monetary sovereignty to ensure that the needs of all citizens are genuinely met.
Shortcomings of Representative Democracy
1. Current State of Representative Democracy in Australia
Definition and Structure: Representative democracy involves electing officials to make laws and policies on behalf of the public. While it provides a means for citizens to influence governance, the system can lead to decision-making that reflects the interests of a minority rather than the broader population.
Between elections, voters have limited direct influence over political decisions. Public participation is often reduced to occasional petitions, protests, or contacting representatives, which may not lead to significant policy changes.
Elected officials do not have to follow their constituents’ wishes once in office, allowing them to pursue agendas influenced by party lines, donors, and lobbyists instead. Furthermore, mechanisms like town hall meetings or public consultations often serve more as formalities than genuine opportunities for citizen input, leaving many Australians feeling powerless to affect decisions that impact their lives.
This disconnect between elections fosters voter apathy and disengagement, as citizens perceive that their voice has little impact beyond the ballot box.”
Additional Information:
Lobbying and Donor Influence: The influence of lobbyists and political donors can overshadow the preferences of ordinary voters. Policies and legislative decisions can be swayed by entities that provide financial support to campaigns, creating a system where political access and influence are tied to wealth and resources.
Lack of Mechanisms for Citizen Input: While there are some channels for public engagement, such as giving feedback on proposed legislation or taking part in advisory committees, these are often limited in scope and impact. The absence of robust mechanisms like citizen-initiated referendums or recall elections means that voters have little recourse if their representatives do not act in their interests.
Party Discipline: Australian political parties typically enforce strict discipline among their members, meaning that individual representatives may be compelled to vote along party lines, even if it conflicts with their constituents’ views. This reduces the effectiveness of public lobbying efforts targeting individual MPs.
Limitations and Criticisms
1. Influence of Corporate Interests: Corporations and wealthy donors often have more influence on policy than ordinary citizens. This can result in policies that favour business interests over public welfare.
2. Voter Apathy and Disengagement: A lack of faith in the political system leads to low voter turnout and increased numbers of informal votes, reflecting a disengagement with the political process.
2. Public Trust and Accountability Issues
Lack of Accountability: Many citizens feel their representatives are not held accountable for their actions. This feeling is worsened by the limited ability of the public to directly influence policy between elections.
Case Study: The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC): The NACC, set up to combat corruption, has faced criticism for being ineffective. While it can investigate politicians and public officials for serious or systemic corrupt conduct, its powers are limited. For example, public hearings are only allowed in exceptional circumstances, reducing transparency. Moreover, it cannot investigate state or local government officials, further limiting its scope.
Supporting information:
What can the NACC investigate?
How can the NACC Commissioner deal with a corruption issue?
3. Impact of a Flawed System
Policy Decisions Skewed Towards Privatisation and Corporate Benefits: Privatisation and outsourcing of public services have often led to poorer outcomes for citizens, with higher costs and lower quality services.
Social Inequities: Policies influenced by corporate interests often overlook critical social issues, such as affordable housing, healthcare, and education, worsening social inequality.
Why the Current System is Failing Australians
1. Growing Disillusionment with Major Political Parties
Both major parties, Labor, and the Coalition, have adopted neoliberal policies, often contrary to public demand for fair governance. This shift has resulted in many voters feeling politically homeless, driving the rise of minor parties and independents.
2. Underrepresentation of Marginalised Groups
Indigenous communities, poor individuals, and other marginalised groups are often excluded from the political conversation. This lack of representation results in policies that do not address their specific needs.
3. Consequences of Limited Engagement
Economic and Social Costs: Rising economic inequality, housing affordability issues, and workforce casualisation are direct outcomes of policies favouring the wealthy. Environmental policies are similarly compromised, often influenced by industries that receive help from lax regulations.
Transforming Australia’s Democracy
1. Implementing Direct Democracy Mechanisms
Citizen-Initiated Referendums and Plebiscites: Introduce mechanisms allowing citizens to propose and vote on laws directly. This can bypass traditional legislative bottlenecks and ensure policies reflect public sentiment.
Participatory Budgeting: Enable communities to decide how public funds are distributed for local projects, ensuring spending aligns with community needs and priorities.
VoteWrap: For a Representative Democracy to be a functioning democracy there needs to be an effective, efficient and timely way for the voters of each electorate to tell their Representative how they want them to vote on Bills before Parliament.
2. Strengthening Democratic Institutions
Reforming the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC): The NACC needs enhanced powers, such as broader authority to investigate past misconduct and increased transparency in proceedings. This would allow it to act more effectively against corruption at all levels of government.
Setting up an Independent Federal Anti-Corruption Body: Expand the NACC’s powers to include investigating historical cases of corruption and allow public hearings in more cases. This would improve transparency and public trust.
3. Expanding Public Engagement and Transparency
Reforming Political Donation Laws: Implement stricter limits on political donations and increase transparency around lobbying activities to reduce undue influence on policy.
Enhancing Access to Government Data: Make government data and decision-making processes more accessible to the public to improve accountability and enable informed citizen participation.
4. Leveraging Australia’s Monetary Sovereignty for Public Good
Public Funding for Essential Services: Use Australia’s monetary sovereignty to directly fund public infrastructure, healthcare, education, and housing. This would ensure that essential services are adequately provided without relying on private sector intermediaries.
Investing in Sustainable Development: Direct public funds into renewable energy, public transport, and sustainable infrastructure to ensure long-term economic and environmental health.
Summary
Australia’s representative democracy has significant room for improvement. By implementing direct democracy mechanisms, reforming the NACC, and using monetary sovereignty, Australia can create a more inclusive political system. Citizens must advocate for these changes to build a democracy that genuinely reflects their will and serves their interests.
Question for Readers
What changes do you believe would make Australia’s democracy more representative and effective?
Call to Action
Join the discussion by sharing your thoughts in the comments below. For more insights on transforming Australian democracy, subscribe to our newsletter!
Social Sharing
If you found this article valuable, please share it with your friends and followers on social media. Your voice can help drive the change Australia needs.
This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
16 comments
Login here Register here-
Peter Gumley -
Sharon -
Ann -
B Sullivan -
Terry Mills -
Steve Davis -
Terry Mills -
Ann -
Phil Pryor -
Arnd -
A Commentator -
Arnd -
Terry Mills -
Phil Pryor -
Arnd -
Clakka
Return to home pageElectors desperately need more input into decisions relating to foreign affairs policies – Australia is vulnerable to involvement in “forever wars” that are of no existential threat to Australia. This vulnerability is heightened buy the presence of foreign military bases and personnel on Australian territory. There is practically no opportunity for electors to influence the decision making process in these matters.
This is precisely what we need and why we need it. How do we do it though? Referendums are notoriously expensive and too much political pressure and lies actually distorts intelligent discussion and influences the less well educated to follow the loudest and most populist party or opinion. What is a reasonable alternative?
I’d like to see more of the likes of the Teals. Enough of them to take the total control of everything that has bogged down the parliament. More transparency and only lobbyist allowed should be not for profit companies. If they want to lobby they do it without the chance of money hanging over their heads and we need to keep the minierals council out of our politics completely. The corruption body needs lots more teeth and big one’s at that and no secrecy. Except for National security (ASIO) we need to know what they are spending the country’s money on.
As usual the massively disproportionate representation of the National Party in parliament is ignored. Primary voting figures consistently reveal that although the Greens Party is the first preference of as much as three times as many voters as those who vote for the National Party, the Nats always win more seats in Parliament. That is not democratic at all. If National Party voters are entitled to 10 seats to represent them in parliament then the Greens voters should be entitled to 30. That would make a huge difference in who gets to form government in the house of reps don’t you think?
But somehow I think this massive skewing of parlamentary representation is being deliberately ignored. I mean, it is so obvious, and so detrimental to democracy in Australia, but it never receives any attention at all.
We are once again seeing one of the major flaws in the US electoral system, one that Australia has avoided more by good fortune than prior planning.
In the US they leave the oversight and counting of votes to individual states to organise, frequently to the detriment of certain classes of voters and always open to manipulation by partisan officials and crooked politicians.
Who can forget the pleas (demands) of Trump to the Georgia state officials after he had lost that state.
“So, look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Thank your lucky stars for the Australian Electoral Commission which, so far, has not been corrupted.
Ann, you’re right, more TEALS would not be a bad thing, but do not forget, they might be divorced from the Libs, but they would be, I imagine, still wedded to the liberal economic system.
B Sullivan Thirty Greens in parliament ! Terms like bedlam and herding cats come to mind
Bedlam : noun – a scene of uproar and confusion
The Teals in Parliament at the moment seem to be neigther Labor or Liberal leaning. They are interested in doing what they told their voters they would do.
Any independent member representing in parliament should be a good thing, if done honestly and openly, for reflecting an electorate is what is required. Even Katter deserves some toleration therewith. I’ve always looked to “eternal” attitudes in policy, philosophy, outlook, origins, but, at the moment, and probably from now on, the major parties reflect little good and honest and instead are vehicles for mediocrities, ambition, donor driven selfishness, careerism. With three levels of government, inefficiencies abound, stupidities arise, evasion of duty and responsibility become easy, even normal. A rather “German” type of arrangement with half representation by party listing would surely be a great improvement.
Steve:
That they are. As explained two years ago by Calla Wahlquist in The Guardian:
In other words, they combine a socially progressive agenda with an economic reactionary one. Which certainly does not resonate well with my communist outlook on political economy.
A small number of Teals, because of their earnest and well-intentioned naivety, may have a very limited meliorate effect on the processes and outcomes of parliament. But I shudder to imagine both houses being dominated by them.
Although, on second thought: could it really be worse than the current Punch and Judy show playing out in The Big House On Capital Hill?
The Teals are a policy free zone.
They have perhaps 2 or 3 policies, and in my experience, decline to deal with their positions or views outside these areas.
My local Teal won’t answer reasonable questions about foreign policy, trade, taxation, the economy, federal funding for private schools (or any education policy beyond HECS).
There was a time that I was supportive of independents, not now.
They are an indulgence and indulged.
Parliament can function with a handful of them, but a policy free group of 20 or 30 would be unworkable.
* No coherent policy structure
* No leadership
* No co-ordination
It is far better to choose a (minor?) party that broadly reflects your views, join them and become active
At least you have a reasonable picture of what you’re supporting.
Phil, German politics, especially at federal level, is no better than in Australia. It certainly provides just as much grist for comedians and satirists.
Teal is a media concoction : the so called Teals are Independents and from my observation are doing an excellent job in representing their electorates and the people of Australia. We need more independently minded people in our parliament who are not constricted by party policies and who can call out the hypocrisy.
I know, Arnd, but it seems a good idea to be useless but different…
I admire Denis Hay’s enthusiasm and dedication. In fact, I am mildly envious of it.
But I find his enduring fixation on presenting “Australia’s monetary sovereignty” as panacea to all political and economic ills tiring. I gave indication of my reasoning few months ago here on The AIMN. If there is any interest in further discussion of the subject of MMT, can we please do it on that thread, rather than starting a new one.
As to replacing or amending the processes of representative democracy with those of direct democracy, this is a subject that came up during my short ime with the anarchists at the Jura Bookshop in Petersham twenty-five years ago.
I was the lone dissenter – I was then, and still am now, quite in favour of representative democracy.
The key to political reform does not, in my opinion, lie in facilitating and institutionalising mob rule, but in more clearly defining and conscribing the legitimate remit of our representatives.
Above all, though: as a matter of great urgency, we need to rid ourselves of the attitude that There Are No Alternatives to the neo-liberal outlook on economics. We need to replace “free” market capitalism with actually free market socialism, in a root-and-branch review of all political economy.
Once we have done that, our political decisions makers will have much greater room to make and implement useful decisions. Regardless of how they are chosen and appointed.
I think about ‘Going off the Gold’, and FDR and Nixon and the disastrous effects of their meddling, the affect of accumulation rather than sustainment. How fiat currency made mathematical jiggery-pokery so much easier, hurtling us towards an oblivion for the sake of satisfying deliberately irresolvable equations. Boys and brokers pumped by coke and bling as they decimate reality with hedges and derivatives as they supersize their algorithms as every good automaton should, manufacturing sine waves in defiance of nature’s entanglements.
It’s as if in their world of addiction there’s only one dot called ‘money’ spinning around the globe at the speed of light, and their game is to hold out that they captured it long enough to gain ‘interest’.
In that game, of course nothing matters but ‘capture’ and the tilting at their windmills. Everything else is irrelevant chaff but for the need of their players to sustain themselves.
So considering the addictions have drawn in almost the entire world, the spin has generated a discombobulated mania, a quest with no purpose, bringing on collapse by both overheating and nihilistic backlash.
Hmmm. I wonder what we can come off or go onto next. Certainly seems in more ways than one, a root-and-branch review is needed, pronto. What are the algorithms of atrophy and entropy?