Prelude to major system change?

Top of the list would be federal-state relations – a continuous sore aggravated by often having opposing parties at federal and state levels resulting in endless blame games between them. The increasingly counterproductive nature of this system need not be labored here. Many politicians and academics have written about it most still arguing for “saving”, “repairing”, “rescuing” the existing federation rather then abolishing that structure of divided sovereignty. Some are talking about a “new” federation or “tomorrow’s federation”. But Australia needs to talk about BEYOND FEDERATION because the conditions that gave rise to federation in the 1890s, which, at the time, made very good sense, have long ceased to exist. So, lets start talking about a national unified state with a high degree of decentralization. Of course this involves major constitutional change. Major constitutional change in many areas would be very desirable altogether. Do I hear you say “but that is so difficult, it won’t work”? That need not be so at all.  A new constitution can be discussed in a consultative process, written up and presented to the people in one document, and be treated as an amendment to the existing constitution, in a Section 128 referendum. Can we start with a competent, progressive Government appointed committee to Inquire into the need for constitutional change with a mandate to write a new constitution?

Secondly, our electoral system is grossly biased in favour of the major parties. This is the result of the 1918 Commonwealth Electoral and the 1924 Electoral Acts. The compulsory preferential system, based on single-member-districts is a grossly undemocratic system unlike what it was purported to be. Proportional representation, used by 89 countries in the world, would end this situation and would make it possible for new parties and Independents to gain representation.  Australia does have a kind of PR system, the Hare-Clark system (Tasmania, the Senate and ACT) but there are serious design problems with that system. The best system would be an Open Party List system as used in most European countries, simple, cost effective, flexible, above all democratic. Its introduction would create a very different political culture where common ground has to be found by elected political parties to create majority government. This is quite different from the adversarial system of which we have seen quite enough in recent years. Australia needs to move away from the two party hegemony and, also, consider coopting Ministers from outside the Parliament. The area of choice is simply inadequate. The result is that there is not enough quality. 

In the area of industrial relations Australia is still grounded in the same adversarial mode as emerged in the beginning of the 20^th century: trade unions and the IR club versus employer organisations; a tug-o-war at every election period, reflecting a zero-sum culture.  Can Australia move on to workplace place democracy, participative-decision-making structures and, where appropriate, employee share ownership? These structures of industrial relations, old AND new workplaces are increasingly common in many other countries, since the 1950s actually. Talking about productivity? Surely, this is the way to go.

Then of course the growing transport conundrum, especially in the big cities. Why not go ahead with Sydney’s second airport? After more than 25 years of federal-state haggling and indecision the need for a second Sydney airport is plainly overwhelming. None of the options is totally perfect but Badgery’s Creek has a lot going for it and very few residences would be directly affected. It seems the obvious choice. Superannuation funds can be tapped into for sound investment. Of course there are a lot of other infrastructural needs, like rail in particular, that require investment and doing.

Should we continue along the path of combatting climate change to the extent that we can – or turn the clock back?

Are we on right track with a carbon price or not? The evidence of climate change is unmistakable, right here in Australia and elsewhere.  If anything, we should do more, much more. Be a leader for other countries dragging their feet.

Conclusion.

Can we expect from either major party to at least make a start with major system changes like these? I would say it can hardly be expected from a conservative party led by Tony Abbott. Neo-liberalism is their ideology. We can expect, at best, a mirror image of the Howard years.

Can we expect dramatic, bold initiatives from the Gillard Government? Perhaps, if they get their act together very soon and abandon the archaic idea that they need to be governing in their own right. That is the past. Move on ALP. All social democratic parties form partnerships with Greens and Independents. It works in Tasmania.

A Hung Parliament is again possible, even more Hung than the one we have now. Expect a large number of voters not to vote for the major parties, even more so than in 2010. At present neither major party leader has strong support. Many people didn’t vote in 2010. That could happen again as well.