Tag Archives: #democracy

And the public gets what the public wants?*

Posted on by
Reply

Another Australian General Election comes and goes – although with a mere 3 years between federal polls, our politicians and their parties seem to be in constant campaign mode. Certainly, the formal election campaign lacked any significant new policies, so it felt like the leadership “debates” were simply a continuation of the stale language, petty point-scoring and tedious soundbites we hear day in, day out.

Cue the constant and familiar references to crises in housing, the cost of living and climate change. Both major parties tried to build platforms promising financial incentives for first-time home owners, with policies that were expensive, ill-conceived (albeit well intentioned), and with little regard for the consequences on the housing market or the broader economy. There was a failed attempt to have an informed debate about nuclear power, and tons of the usual pork-barrelling for pet industries and favoured constituencies. Even a major credit rating agency suggested that the Commonwealth’s coveted AAA status could be at risk as a result of all the campaign largesse. And of course, any lowering of the AAA rating would likely see an increase in interest rates, which would largely defeat the object of the first-time home owner policies.

At the time of writing, the Australian Labor Party has retained power with a significantly increased parliamentary majority, based on the projected number of seats it will win. But while the seats total may look like a landslide, it’s clear that a significant portion of the electorate voted tactically to either: a) keep the Liberal Coalition out of power; b) increase the chance of a minority Government and/or hung Parliament; or c) maintain the current status quo in a turbulent and uncertain world.

Based on the counts so far, both the ALP and Liberals have each only managed to garner about one-third of the total primary votes (4,678,061 – 34.81% and 4,315,961 – 32.1% respectively). While the national swing to Labor was around 2.3% since 2022 (with the Liberals seeing an opposite swing of -3.6%), this is enough to give them a large majority in the House of Representatives, thanks to the preferential voting system.

By contrast, in 2022, the ALP secured fewer primary votes than the Liberals (4,776,030 – 32.58% and 5,233,334 – 35.70% respectively), but managed to secure government with a slim majority. The point is, that the two major parties combined face a continued decline in their share of the primary vote. Given the performances by the Greens and Independents in recent elections, there could be a case for adjusting the current system of preferences to include a weighting or allocation based on the total primary vote by party. This might seem fairer in those constituencies with very marginal results, or where parties draw a significant share of primary votes nationally, but not enough to win (m)any seats, even with preferences. But given that most independent candidates (by their very nature) are not affiliated to any party, and usually focus on local issues (and often on single policy platforms), that allocation would be very difficult to calculate on a federal scale.

Meanwhile, it felt like the number of early-voting facilities was limited compared to previous elections, and there was little or no promotion of postal vote applications. This could have been due to the relatively short campaign period (although it always feels much longer…) combined with the large number of public holidays during that time. Cynics might suggest that this was a deliberate tactic by the incumbent government as early voting and postal votes are traditionally considered to favour the Liberal Coalition. I can’t find any compelling evidence for this theory. Partly, I suspect, because the major parties recognise that undecided, wavering and swing voters make a huge difference to the final results, so encouraging people to cast their ballot on election day helps them in that regard, even though more and more voters opt to vote before the big day itself. Whether the promise of an election sausage is sufficient incentive, I’d rather not speculate!

I experienced a huge feeling of disengagement with this latest election, mainly because I didn’t identify with any policies, parties or candidates that I could really get behind. When it came to voting for the Senate, I couldn’t see 6 parties (above the line) let alone 12 candidates (below the line) that I considered deserving of my vote. But we are forced to express our preferences for a minimum number of parties/candidates, hence the candidate lists are usually very long. I always think the large Senate voting slips are problematic, especially if you want to complete the full “below the line” choices, as we don’t really know what preference deals have been done behind the scenes.

Like many voters, I had issues with the unsolicited text messages I received, on behalf of candidates and/or parties. Apart from not disclosing how they obtained my number, some of the SMS did not carry the relevant authorisation statement; the sender’s number was anonymous (presumably they use automated systems); and blocking the sender had little or no effect – they still kept sending them! Since political parties are deliberately exempt from complying with laws against spam and invasion of privacy, the Australian Electoral Commission is relatively powerless to act. Presumably it’s in the parties’ interests to keep the status quo?

I was also surprised that polling stations still use a paper-based system to tick off who has turned up to vote. (I was using the same system when I was a polling clerk back in the 1980s in London.) Although the polling officers are required to ask me if I have already voted in another location, there is no immediate way to cross-check the electoral rolls. Surely an electronic tracking system would be a better solution? And on that note, I’ll end with a suggestion that it’s about time we put voter registration, voting and campaign donations on a blockchain to support voter ID and verification with privacy, secure proof of polling and force campaign funding transparency… as well as a speedier vote count!

*(with apologies to The Jam)

New Labor?

Posted on by
Reply

At the time of writing, ballot papers in the recent Australian Federal Election are still being counted. Although it is clear that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has secured more seats in the House of Representatives than any other party, and its leader, Anthony Albanese has already been sworn in as the new Prime Minister, the ALP is yet to establish an overall Parliamentary majority – although it is highly likely they will.

While the final results are still to be tallied, it’s fair to say that this Election has been like no other, and the ALP will need to find a new style of Government, given the following facts:

  • Albanese is only the fourth Labor leader since WWII to lead the ALP to Government from Opposition – given the fixed three-year terms of Australian Parliaments, this is an achievement in itself;
  • The ALP secured less than 33% of the national primary vote (compared to the outgoing LNP Government’s 36%); this means nearly one-third of first preference votes were divided between the Greens, Independents, and other minor parties, and in theory breaks the two-party stranglehold on Federal politics;
  • The two-party preferred tally shows a remarkable similarity to the Brexit Vote: ALP 51.7% vs LNP 48.3% (Brexit: Leave 51.9% vs Remain 48.1%) – which might suggest a less than an overwhelming mandate for the ALP;
  • Candidates for the so-called “Teal Independents” secured more new seats than perhaps even they expected, and will form the largest group on the expanded cross-bench;
  • The Greens won three new seats, all in Queensland, which is surprising given the party’s stand on the mining, coal and gas industries;
  • Although Katter’s Australian Party retained its solitary member in the House of Representatives, neither of the other Queensland-based, right-wing parties (One Nation and the United Australia Party) picked up any lower house seats.

These election results have also highlighted (even exacerbated?) the differences that exist between regional, metropolitan, and suburban areas (both within each State and nationally) that represent significant fault lines across the Federal electorate.

Even if the ALP manages to secure a majority in the House of Representatives, the incoming Prime Minister has acknowledged the need to engage more with the cross-bench than previous administrations – in particular on climate policy and the establishment of a Federal independent commission against corruption. (And in the Senate, the ALP will likely be reliant upon the Greens to pass legislation.)

On climate policy, the main debate is on achieving lower targets for carbon emissions, how to do it, how soon, and at what cost. The biggest challenge will be on transitioning the mining, coal and gas industries (especially in Queensland and Western Australia), and on tackling the heavy polluters (in particular, energy generation, construction and agriculture). Given that both Queensland and Western Australia are under Labor Governments, and that these industries are heavily unionized compared to most other sectors of the economy, perhaps the Prime Minister will find it comparatively easy to sell his Government’s policies – but bringing the rest of the population with him will be key, and there needs to be a clearer path to decarbonizing the economy, including incentives for change.

Regarding a Federal anti-corruption body, the challenge will be to draw up practical and consistent terms of reference (especially given that such bodies already exist in some form or other at State level). For example, in addition to elected representatives and civil servants, should a new Commission have oversight of political parties, charities, unions, non-for-profits, industry associations, professional sporting codes, non-government bodies and anyone else that receives any sort of public funding? And what about whistle-blower protections and the public’s right to submit a complaint or other matter for investigation? How will it deal with freedom of information requests that appear to be denied on political grounds, or manage the transaction of investigations that may involve multiple parties? And should such a body have oversight of truth in political advertising or deliberate misinformation campaigns by those running for public office?

A glaring omission from the Federal election campaign was any meaningful debate on the need for structural economic reforms. Many of the published policies were heavy on how much funding would be allocated to favoured industries and pet projects, but they were very light on evaluating expected outcomes or measuring the quality of results. The only financial topics to get regularly aired were wage growth, inflation, interest rates, and incentives for first-time home buyers – all of which may be important, but they are largely “more of the same” that we have seen for the past 20 years of tax-based tinkering. Not since the introduction of GST (sales tax) in 2000 have we seen any significant policy implementation, and certainly nothing like the major economic reforms introduced by the Hawke/Keating administration. To be fair to the Greens, they did advocate new taxes to fund some of their carbon-related policies (including nationalising part of the renewable energy sector) but I don’t recall seeing a specific cost analysis or balance sheet on how they would achieve their goals. There are also tensions emerging between the need to bolster wage growth (off the back of improved productivity, which hopefully includes removing archaic restrictive practices and encouraging further competition?) and the need to address growing skills shortage (to be partly offset by increased immigration, without risking wage deflation?). Any discussion of the economy must also recognise the realities of the changing work environment, including new technology, remote working, casual employment and the need to encourage innovation and sustain the small business and start-up ecosystem.

Finally, if the Prime Minister is going to be successful in selling his vision of “New Labor” (my term) then he will need to:

  • ensure that the ALP does not again disintegrate into factional party warfare and rolling incumbent leaders that plagued the previous Labor administration (and which was adopted with equal gusto by the outgoing Coalition);
  • steer a renewed path to economic modernisation begun by his predecessors in the 1980s and 1990s;
  • embrace new technology and change the way public sector IT procurement is conducted;
  • acknowledge that the Government (featuring, as ever, so many career politicians who lack direct experience of working in industry or running commercial businesses) doesn’t know all the answers – but they know how and where to find them;

And while it’s not the Prime Minister’s job to actually “hold the hose”, he does need to make sure those who do are competent to do so, and that he and his Government will hold themselves, their appointees and their representatives directly accountable to the electorate.

Next week: Renzo Piano & the Centro Botín

 

 

Signing off for Saturnalia

Posted on by
Reply

According to a Gallup Report, in 2018 the world was “sadder and angrier than ever“. If recent global events are anything to go by, 2019 will easily top that. And as I write, much of south east Australia is on fire (the bushfire season having started back in early August), only adding to the sense of rage. I can’t recall an angrier year, maybe not since the 1970s.

Image of Scott Walker scanned from the NME Annual for 1968

Reasons to be angry? World politics, climate change, fake news, growing nationalism, economic stagnation, and sectarian intolerance. Evidence of anger? Brexit, Impeachment, Hong Kong, France, Chile, Iran, India, Iraq, Adani, Extinction Rebellion, #MeToo, etc.

Meanwhile, considered academic debate has been reduced to very public slanging matches. Even popular music seems shoutier than ever, and no action movie is considered complete without gratuitous violence, hyperbolic pyrotechnics and pounding soundtracks.

So much noise, so much hot air (verbal and atmospheric) and so much sheer rage, not always easy to articulate or understand – and not easy to predict how that will translate at the ballot box, given the election results in Australia and the UK. Politicians of all persuasions are increasingly seen as being a key cause for voter anger, but in both cases, continuity was deemed preferable to change.

As we wind down for the holidays, it’s frustrating to think that the “season of goodwill” is limited to just a few weeks of the year. I’m not suggesting 12-month-long Black Friday Sales. Rather, can we find it in ourselves to be more civil to each other throughout the year, even if we disagree on certain things? In particular, I’m thinking of the growing evidence of sectarian strife. Established religions may condemn to hell (or even death) anyone who disagrees with their belief systems, but in a democratic, secular and pluralist society, the right to “freedom of religion” also means everyone is entitled to “freedom from religion”.

In light of that, I’d like to wish all my readers a safe and peaceful Saturnalia. Normal service will be resumed in the New Year.

 

 

Brexit Blues

Posted on by
1

Reading the latest coverage of the Brexit farce combined with the inter-related Conservative leadership contest, I am reminded of Oscar Wilde’s description of fox hunting:

“The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable”

Whichever candidate wins the Tory leadership race and, as a consequence, becomes the next UK Prime Minister, they will inevitably fail to deliver a satisfactory Brexit solution, simply because there is no consensus position.

But the underlying cause for this impasse is a series of flawed processes:

First, the promise made by previous Prime Minister David Cameron to hold a referendum on EU membership was flawed, if not highly disingenuous – because from the start, there were no terms of reference. Cameron chose to make it part of his manifesto pledge ahead of the 2015 general election campaign. Even at the time it felt like a desperate ploy to appease the mainly right-wing and Eurosceptic faction of the Conservative party. Despite being generally in favour of the UK remaining within the EU (but with “looser ties”), Cameron probably never expected that he would have to deliver on his referendum promise let alone lead the Brexit negotiations. Behind in the polls, the Tories were expected to lose the election. Instead, they won, but with a much reduced majority – which should have been the first warning sign that all was not going to be plain sailing with Cameron’s EU referendum pledge.

Second, the referendum question put to the electorate in 2016 was itself flawed. Cameron had originally talked about renegotiating the UK’s terms of EU membership, much like Margaret Thatcher had done with some considerable success in the 1980s. There was certainly no mention at all in Cameron’s January 2013 speech of a “No-deal Brexit”. However, the referendum question put to the voters was a stark, binary choice between “Remain” or “Leave”. As some have argued, the design of the referendum should have been enough to render it invalid: both because the voters were not given enough reliable data upon which to make an informed decision; and because there was no explanation or guidance as to what type of “Leave” (or “Remain”) outcome the government and Parliament would be obliged or expected to negotiate and implement. Simply put, the people did not and could not know what they were actually voting for (or against). I am not suggesting that the voters were ignorant, rather they were largely ill- or under-informed (although some would argue they were actually misinformed).

Third, the respective Leave and Remain campaigns in the 2016 referendum were both equally flawed. The Leave campaign was totally silent on their proposed terms of withdrawal (I certainly don’t recall the terms “Hard Brexit” or “No-deal Brexit” being used), and their “policy” was predicated on the magic number of “£350m a week“. And the Remain campaign failed to galvanize bipartisan support, and was totally hindered by the Labour leadership’s equivocation and ambivalence towards the EU (which has only deepened as Jeremy Corbyn refuses to confirm what his policy actually is).

Finally, the Parliamentary process to implement Brexit was flawed from the start. Cameron jumped ship and ending up passing the poisoned chalice to Theresa May. The latter had supported Remain, but now had to lead the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. However, rather than trying to build consensus and broker a truly bipartisan solution (this is not, after all, a simple, one-dimensional party political issue), May proved to be a stubborn, inflexible and thick-skinned operator. Now, there are threats to prorogue Parliament in the event that MPs vote against a No-Deal or Hard Brexit, if a negotiated agreement cannot be achieved by the October 31 deadline. May’s negotiation tactics have only resulted in deeply entrenched and highly polarised positions, while she ended up painting herself into a corner. Good luck to her successor, because if nothing else, Brexit is casting division and national malaise across the UK.

Next week: Pitch X’s Winter Solstice