Australia

A New Federation, New Republic, a New Hope!

The symbolism of this potential new Australian flag is explained near the end of this page.

A long time ago in a land far, far away…

Keen to maintain its control of the known universe, the Empire sent some of its worst kind to the distant land of Down U'er, where it imposed its own governing systems that it then used to ‘legally' remove the rights of native inhabitants.

After some two hundred years, an unrest began, led by a sharp-minded rebel seeking to separate this distant land from the Empire’s control. But this promising leader was too impatient for power and despite popular support for the cause, he was outmanoeuvred by the evil Emperor, who tempted him to the Dark Side, whilst anointing him Lord MT.

Yet despite his supposed command of the Federation in this land, it was clear that Lord MT was in turn controlled by the Dark Side, as he renounced the good causes he'd previously fought for.

The natives and their allies despaired, but a new young-ish aspiring Jedi knight, of some kindred spirit, believed there was still good in Lord MT and hope for him to participate in a reinvigorated, reforming rebel alliance

— if he could just offer an inspiring vision for a new Federation….

The following builds on a shorter article of mine from June 2016 (published here or as a pdf here) with some updated discussion and additional reform proposals on:

A multi-issue referendum to protect everyone's rights

Australia has gone through an expensive survey/plebiscite on same-sex marriage (that unleashed intolerance from both sides), which supporters of the cause (the majority of the population) opposed because of its divisive nature, and a minority saw as a means of thwarting change.  We seem to have lost the plot!  A referendum should be a rallying call for a vision that unites the overwhelming majority of Australians, and regardless of its merits, same-sex marriage (SSM) is an issue focussed on minorities, which fails to achieve that.  Likewise, many other single-issue proposals (such as creating a "republic" or changing the flag) struggle to motivate enough people by themselves.

Personally I think current ludicrous de facto laws — i.e. marriage decided by the government & dysfunctional courts without your choice — do much more to undermine the institution of marriage (as does much of modern culture), particularly the meaning of a wilful, publicly-expressed statement of mutual commitment that marriage entails, and should be repealed for couples without children, now they are no longer needed by gay couples for (somewhat lesser) partner rights instead of marriage.

But anyway, for all the angst and waste it created, the simplistic SSM campaign didn't really resolve anything, as Parliament still had to argue about the detailed issues that the process failed to address (such as gay parenting, noting the legalisation of gay marriage "helped to standardise and potentially expand surrogacy options for gay couples").

The SSM "survey" didn't even produce the "overwhelming" result in favour that was claimed, and if the Australian Bureau of Statistics is to retain any credibility it should acknowledge the huge statistical bias in the completed responses (that political decisions prevent them adjusting for) — which is revealed by a survey of poll responses & intentions part-way through the campaign (which itself could have inappropriately influenced subsequent votes) showing, "Among those who have already voted, 72% voted yes compared with 26% who voted no", but, "Among people who say they will not vote, 64% said they did not support same-sex marriage and just 13% said they did".  

These statistics could well give the "no" side a legitimate reason to question the validity of the final outcome, which, with a "survey", rather than a voting poll, is supposed to provide an estimate of overall community views. (Given the stronger yes vote in earlier returns, I correctly estimated the final % of those voting in favour would be 60-65%, which with a turnout of about 77% means the % of the total population supporting SSM may be only slightly above or even below 50%.)

I think the public should have boycotted the survey, rather than give it any semblance of legitimacy.  I find it repugnant that anyone's basic rights should be subjected to such a process.  I mean, whose rights will the masses vote on next?  The disabled, blacks, Jews?!  (However, this comment on the basic rights of couples is not to dismiss legitimate debate about matters like surrogacy and the rights of children to know their biological parents, or the option of having purely different nomenclature such as "union" for gay couples, with "marriage" reserved for a traditional man-woman partnership.)

Then it seemed we would (& probably still do) need another referendum anyway to change the rather trivial but absurd constitutional matter of dual citizenship being prohibited for MPs, which could threaten the government's legitimacy (and which the woefully inefficient court system could otherwise take months to consider for all the different circumstances of our MPs & senators — because an audit would almost certainly find more in potential breach).

Moreover, we're also facing the prospect of further polls before too long on constitutional changes for Aboriginal recognition (with bi-partisan support) and potentially a republic (the latter cause backed by 2016 Australian of the year and the former Opposition leader, Bill Shorten).

So if Australia is going to go to the trouble of a plebiscite or referendum on these issues, then surely we should do them all at once?  Aside from the cost of multiple polls, I would have thought we can't possibly create a republic and new constitution without recognising the original inhabitants (although it seems many Aboriginal people disagree) and saying something about Aussie values of equality and a "fair go" — for all genders, ethnic origin and sexual orientation!  In contrast to the overwhelmingly-opposed SSM survey, the idea of such a multi-issue referendum could be quite popular.

That said, whether or not it's desirable to have some kind of separate "Indigenous parliamentary body" – established perhaps by a formal "treaty" – I'm not so sure; it obviously depends on whether it's a good treaty or not (a treaty that gave up Aboriginal land rights for a tin of beans would clearly not be a good treaty!).  The devil is always in the details, for example: what are the rules for claiming Aboriginal heritage (DNA testing?) and what accompanying rights does this bestow — does it provide decision-making powers over the use of public resources, or just a "Voice", and if the latter, will that be more effective than existing or other less-formal mechanisms? (because a voice still needs someone to listen seriously to be effective, although that might be more likely if the "Voice" is not constrained by collective Cabinet responsibility and confidentiality, as I propose to reform more broadly below as part of creating a "Professional Executive"). 

There are, certainly, potential dangers in creating special rights based on "race", and conversely, other historic treaties have at least partly been made for the benefit of the colonising nation, perhaps more so than for those colonised.  But in finding a way forward for Australia, we can surely learn some lessons from New Zealand.

A Separate Aboriginal Legal System?

Aboriginal Australians suffered immensely from European colonisation, and continue to suffer substantially worse life outcomes (on average) than other Australians.  e.g. the 2020 “Closing the Gap report” indicates Indigenous people in Remote/Very Remote areas have a life expectancy about 14 years less than non-Indigenous people across Australia, with that gap failing to narrow since 2006.

A major contributor to this inequity is the “justice” system, which essentially imposed the invading British concepts of law & justice on Indigenous people, with disproportionately negative impacts on them, especially in terms of land ownership (a European concept) and incarceration (see more below).

So what if we took local control & self-determination seriously, and allowed Aboriginal people to choose to live under their own legal system?

Whilst right-wing conservatives might shriek in alarm at such a radical prospect, it’s actually a concept that fits well with extreme libertarianism.  Of course there are limits to how it could be applied.  It would have to be a voluntary opt-in system for all individuals, rather than declared mandatory for any group of people or geographic area — so Aboriginal law could only apply to disputes between people who had all opted in, but could not in any way infringe on the rights of those who choose to be governed by national Australian laws.

Examples of where a different approach might feasibly be adopted under Aboriginal law could include the control of certain recreational drugs (e.g. alcohol & cigarettes or cannabis — which have a huge impact on Aboriginal welfare & crime, including through their influence on domestic violence, suicide & incarceration), or responses to low-level domestic abuse — which could potentially be dealt with differently by Aboriginal communities (e.g. through “restorative justice” approaches).  But it could not cover incidents that indicate a potential future risk to anyone who may not identify as Aboriginal.

Obviously this is a concept that has a lot of "grey areas" & practicalities that would require much consultation & debate before any trial could be established.

Anyway, while we're at it with referendums, a new constitution should also include a Bill of Rights to protect the basic civil rights of everyone (based on common law and the lasting influence of the Magna Carta) — especially the rights of children (ignored by the Child Support Agency & dysfunctional courts in contravention of UN human rights treaties adopted by Australia such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) — and restore & enhance them from the damage of recent years at the hands of increasingly repressive & autocratic governments (unconstrained by limited constitutional rights or political opposition), which have attacked various civil liberties in NSW especially through dictatorial or "Orwellian"/"nanny state" control of everything from Sydney drinking (where – until laws were recently relaxed again – if you ordered a whiskey after midnight you had to add a mixer) and cycling (including forced helmet-wearing even off road, when the evidence for it is at best mixed), to more serious areas such as restrictions on democratic protest (to favour industrial-mining interests), along with compulsory property acquisition for unpopular motorways (of questionable merit) plus the compromise of civil liberties such as freedom of movement & communication (even before Covid-19) and basic human rights — such as the presumption of innocence and the right to protest or expose government wrongdoing.

To effectively protect basic human rights, I suggest an implementation approach that initially focusses on thoroughly addressing key priority areas, rather than a comprehensive approach covering all conceivable human rights, which risks generating much bureaucratic activity but having little practical benefit.

A Bill of Rights vs democracy?

A Bill of Rights could be enshrined in the constitution, which could only be changed by, say, a two-thirds majority of voters.  To avoid grey areas of law being determined by an unelected and politicised judiciary (as the US Supreme Court has become in relation to abortion), the constitution could state that the Bill of Rights only overrides any other law of parliament if determined so with the unanimous support of the full bench of the High Court, thus leaving any cases with ambiguity to be more easily resolved by the elected parliament.  Possibly in addition, the constitution could allow any law of parliament to override the Bill of Rights if that law itself is supported by a 3/4 majority of the Senate (say) or a two-thirds majority of voters in a national referendum.

Without constitutional protection of their freedoms, the public seem to behave like boiling frogs with their passive response to these and other NSW "police state" laws, such as allowing Police interrogation of 14 year-olds for two weeks without trial (whilst existing laws can still imprison 10-year old children – which is especially common if they're Aboriginal – even for minor offences like stealing food), along with further terror laws based on "thought crimes" (applied with prejudice against Muslims to back up the West's wars against Islam) that can extend sentences based only on a suspicion of intent – irrespective of original offence – and make it easier for police to "shoot to kill".  These attacks on civil liberties are compounded by warrantless searches & the removal of the right to silence, plus restrictions on public gatherings or the right to protest on Crown land (especially about Aboriginal deaths in custody, with false claims about Covid-19 transmission used as an excuse to "justify" heavy-handed restrictions, even while many other more-risky activities continued).

Then we really were taken for fools on 1 April 2022 – a 'dark day for democracy' – when despite widespread opposition from human/civil rights groups, the NSW Parliament rushed through "draconian" and potentially unconstitutional anti-protest laws in less than a week, giving the Government & Police the most vague & broad powers, whilst also  being selective (by allowing protests about some matters supported by the Opposition Labor Party, but not others), and leaving a constitutional court challenge of this "deeply anti democratic" legislation as the last line of defence for people's basic liberties.

Now as social media threatens the Establishment's control over public opinion, the Government responds with dangerously vague, broad, widely-opposed and truly Orwellian anti-"misinformation" censorship laws that will curtail free-speech by ordinary members of the public (through the "chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about"), whilst the Government & mainstream news media that it collaborates with are exempt and thus automatically deemed to speak the truth.  The motives seem malevolent (despite Hanlon's Razor), as surely even the most well-intentioned stupidity couldn't fail to recognise that the reason "misinformation" & conspiracy theories flourish on the internet is because so many people have rightly lost all trust in lying, secretive, self-serving & morally-bankrupt governments, corporations (like drug companies) and mainstream media (resulting in the widespread sentiment that the compulsive liar Trump so cynically & hypocritically exploited with his calls to “drain the swamp”).

And relentlessly, the politics of fear – based on exaggerated threats of terrorism and immigration – are used to justify further infringement of civil rights (including the basic right to citizenship), along with "sweeping and vague" powers of surveillance & interrogation, enabling facial-recognition monitoring of the public with no accountability (& worsened by further laws planned to facilitate spying on citizens).

So when on top of all this, the worst of our politicians even snub the law & courts in their efforts to mistreat refugees, it seems to prove Tony Benn's point:

Of course most often – in both democracies and dictatorships, the demonisation of "others" and the creation of "enemies" abroad is not just an appeal to populism, or a product of unempathetic, psychopathic leaders, but a tactic used by corrupt & incompetent regimes to distract their populations from their leadership failures (a tactic that would start to crumble in the Middle East if the US stopped waging wars there).

But to the extent that there are legitimate security concerns, it may take courage to resist liberty-threatening actions in face of the fear created by terrorism, but as JFK said,

"There is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it."

Western democracies are failing

The apparent disdain for human rights shown by Australian and other Western governments becomes even more severe when it comes to foreign affairs & war, which I discuss at length here, especially in relation to the Middle East and the conflicts between Israel (backed by Western governments) and Palestinians.  Whilst I propose a specific solution for Israel and Palestine, the more general issue seems to be a deep disconnect between the morality & motives of our political leaders and those of the “moderate majority” of the population.  As always, tackling the underlying issues comes down to a matter of governance.  The repeated, widespread failings we see in Western democracies won't be addressed by hoping better people take over unchanged institutions, when the problems reflect fundamental & systemic failings in the accountability of our archaic democratic/electoral systems, parliaments, government bodies and the media.

A fundamental problem in our democracies is that our governments seem to be led by politicians who are more concerned with their position & power than doing what's best for the community, and they are too easily swayed by pressure from powerful, vested interests (not least a media controlled by a wealthy elite in collaboration with major corporations and global governments), or by a fear of negative public sentiment (often driven by media propaganda), which causes them to devote more effort to publicity management than quality public sector management.  Accountability to the public is of course essential, but the current system relying on the election of political leaders by mostly poorly-informed (or misinformed) voters every few years, is simply inadequate.

I discuss the potential to improve the accountability of news media to the public through the concept of "Capitalist Co-ops" here.

In relation to foreign policy, the military/defence & overall national security, we need the same changes as those required to improve the management of public services in general — in particular, stronger accountability of leaders to a more balanced parliament that is a better reflection of broad community views, as I discuss further below.

National security policy also needs to be subjected to greater challenge through the long, bureaucratic development process that occurs before final decisions are made by government.  Whilst such work needs to be done by experts in the field, that also makes it susceptible to being captured by blinkered views & vested interests, particularly military/security chiefs and the profit-seeking defence industry, which can result in the (mostly ignorant) elected members of government being presented with few or no options, and no time to develop realistic alternatives.  In that respect, one of the underlying problems contributing to currently poor defence decisions & priority-setting is the government budget process (which needs a total transformation anyway), as it tends to entrench historical spending patterns and ways of doing things.

To address these issues and adopt a more strategic approach to national security issues — encompassing all the scenarios of global conflict & terrorist risks, refugee pressures, border security, economic/trade, cyber-attacks and other risks, and the broadest range of options for managing these (not least through non-provocative engagement with China & Indonesia, and a truly defensive "Echidna Strategy") — we need to develop a wholistic, integrated approach to homeland security, international diplomacy and military defence, by establishing a "Ministry for National Security".

That is just one of many public-sector governance reforms that I discuss following, starting with the aim of tackling the major "bread-and-butter" issues in public services — which could really motivate the majority of voters in any multi-issue referendum that simultaneously addresses civil rights.

New federation roles for public service delivery

In debates on Australian constitutional structure that can at times be more emotive than rational, it is sometimes suggested that the States provide some kind of protection for people's freedom from the tyranny of an all-powerful Federal Government.  However, given the States evidently can't be trusted to protect our rights (& actually are more often denying people civil rights, as discussed above), if we're pursuing referendums & constitutional change, maybe we should just abolish the States?  Or, more practically, drastically reduce their responsibilities.  This country is over-governed, which means bureaucracy and buck-passing clouds accountability and obstructs reform progress, plus there's not enough talented politicians & public servants to fill the excessive number of places available (basic supply and demand economics).  Also, of course, there's the needless waste, complication & policy inconsistencies that result from having politicians & bureaucrats replicated across nine State, Territory & Federal governments, when for most public services one administration centre would suffice. (I use the term "bureaucrats" loosely to mean paper shufflers / policy advisers like I used to be, as opposed to the "front line" workers who are needed to actually deliver services.)  Nor is this wasteful duplication offset by supposed competition between States promoting innovation and greater efficiency, as some self-interested defenders of the status-quo like to claim.  Rather – from my observation – it simply enables the mediocre to justify itself through comparison with the atrocious, whilst the soul-destroying bureaucracy of COAG reduces collaboration efforts to the bare-minimum, lowest-common-denominator position of the most recalcitrant State, if not grinding any reform efforts to a complete halt.

But as bad as these higher levels of government may be, the incompetence resulting from over-governance is probably trumped by the mediocre wannabe-politicians left over in local councils, which is especially observable in their economically-illiterate handling of development controls (such as flood management requirements), which contribute in no small way to a lack of affordable housing.  Although small councils could in principle obtain economies of scale through outsourcing of services and back-office functions, this doesn't give councils the "informed purchasers" needed to manage and ensure the accountability of consulting & contracting firms, who sadly seem only too happy to exploit council ignorance and disregard public benefit if it pays them more.

So I suggest we target an 80% reduction in the number of politicians & bureaucrats across Australia (starting with the grossly inefficient & unjust Child Support Agency!) — which I'd say is quite feasible, especially in NSW once Sydney's local councils have been amalgamated into fewer regional ones, when we'll hardly need a State Government (and why else would you go through the political cost of amalgamations?), given that:

It would be an impressive achievement of the Reform of the Federation process, which would deliver massive efficiency and productivity gains for Australia for decades to come, including solving current problems of "vertical fiscal imbalance" — the mismatch between accountability for most public service spending by the States and revenue-raising (taxes) to fund this that is mostly done by the Commonwealth.  I hate to say it but maybe even Tony Abbott could then take some credit — for at least commissioning a "Reform Of The Federation" White Paper, even though the position he advocated showed his usual lack of consistency.  Subsequent proposals that were put forward to address the problem of vertical fiscal imbalance — by giving States the power to vary & get a share of income tax, to fund cost pressures in hospitals and education — were quickly rejected by South Australia & Tasmania with the dubious argument that "it'd create a lot of confusion across the federation, it'd be very impractical to administer", and dodged by the other States, who of course want the money first, before they talk about accountability.  Now that's failed — because the States don't really want accountability for how much they spend — the underlying problem can easily be solved!

As indicated above, a new agreement on Federal & State roles that drastically reduced States' responsibilities but enabled them (except the NT & Tasmania) to formally remain in place for sport and other smaller services, could reap all the desired efficiency and equity benefits whilst avoiding the emotional barriers of total abolition.  It would then be up to each State to choose how much they rationalise their bureaucracies in accordance with the reduced responsibilities.  Queensland, for example, which already has relatively few, large councils and only one house of parliament, could choose to make little in the way of further changes.  On the other hand, NSW could scale back its parliamentary representatives to a single house (with voting similar to Federal reforms proposed below), and move them to the aptly titled new Powerhouse (Museum) in Parramatta, consistent with the future planning strategy for Sydney!

A New Republic for a New Federation

The changes described above should provide a more efficient governance structure for managing public services, but they would not address the overarching structure & operation of parliaments, nor the archaic democratic systems that consistently produce such inadequate, ideological & self-serving political leaders — who despite being elected seem not to represent the views of the "moderate majority", and lack the objectivity and professional expertise required to manage public services in an efficient, effective and unbiased way.  Why is it like that, and what can we do about it?

Clearly, whilst it seems absurd for Australia to have a British monarch as its head of state, simply changing that alone will do little to change the nature of Australian politics or improve the effective operation of its parliaments and governments.  This is especially true if a "republic" was founded on a minimalist-change model – simply replacing the current Governor General with someone formally appointed by the Australian Prime Minister, rather than the British Monarch – so as to deliberately avoid changing the fundamental nature of the current system (based on the lie of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", when it is so demonstrably & utterly broken).  In turn, this means a proposal for a republic based only on intentionally tokenistic change, will, for good reasons, probably struggle to gain popular support.

On the other hand, if the establishment of a republic is to involve more substantive change to our systems of government, it needs to be very clearly based on reforms that aim to tackle the problems we have, and not make them worse.  In this respect, it would be crazy to embark on constitutional reforms that replicated the dysfunctional US system, where the elected President has significant powers but is in perpetual conflict with the elected Parliament ("Congress").

Australia already has enough blame-games and buck-passing between upper and lower houses (and between State & Federal Governments), and there's no need to create a position with more powers than the current Governor-General (GG), nor even to have such a position at all if they're not even going to show common sense by disclosing to the public that a rogue PM has seized the power of multiple Minister positions.  We only need one political leader (the Prime Minister) — we don't need or want to create confused accountability with an additional, competing President.  Rather, we should preferably just replace the GG with clear, constitutionally-defined procedures to follow in the case of certain predictable situations, like "blocked supply" or a vote of no-confidence.

Moreover, as the US shows, presidential elections tend to limit candidates to only those who can afford to campaign across an entire nation, or already have some celebrity status, which doesn't exactly promote quality candidates who have the common man/woman's interests foremost in mind.  Besides, there's too much store invested in powerful individual leaders already, which often attracts the worst kind of people — self-promoting narcissists.  When a system only enables wealthy megalomaniacs to get elected, we shouldn't be surprised that the system only serves the interests of wealthy megalomaniacs.  The solution to that problem is not to create a fight between two power-crazed men (typically), each seeking a false "democratic mandate" to justify the policies they want to impose on a nation (despite the winner invariably not having the support of about half the electorate); rather it is to ensure power is held by a balanced parliament that incorporates the diverse views of the people, so that representative body can hold the leader properly accountable — as I describe below.

But if we really must have some kind of GG – in case some ultimate human judgement is required in exceptional, unforeseen circumstances – then we clearly need a more transparent and non-partisan parliamentary process for selecting him or her than the current one (not since 1977 has a GG performed so poorly at the Melbourne Cup — the consequence of another dismal captain's pick by the former Minister for (sic) Women!).  So I suggest we simply copy the proven corporation board model, by giving such powers to the Chair of the Board, a.k.a. leader/"Speaker" of the Senate, who would be chosen by the Senators (who themselves should constitute a balanced representation of overall community views).

But this relatively modest change, based on the corporate board model, also provides direction for more fundamental and important reforms to Australia's constitution, in order to modernise the currently archaic & dysfunctional "Westminster" system of parliament & democracy...

A professional Executive overseen by a balanced Senate with real-time public voting

It's often said that Australia's 3-year election terms promote short-termism, but would 4 or 5-year terms really be much better?  A more transformative reform would be for Treasuries to adopt long-term budgeting practices.

For elections, paradoxically, it may be better to copy the corporate model of essentially continuous elections, where an elected Board representing shareholders (voters) can change the CEO at any time.  In principle at least, the timeframe for "election" then becomes so short (the next Board meeting) that the CEO has to focus on longer term measures (reflected in the corporate world, in theory, by the share price).

Democratic governments could adopt a similar model, with Senators forming the equivalent of a corporate board, who could appoint the Prime Minister (PM) and replace him/her at any time.  A balanced Senate that broadly represents the diversity of public opinion could be elected through the "multi-State Senators" voting system I propose below, and then select a PM – using a transferable preference vote – who would command the broadest support of the Senate.  Any Senator could nominate their preferred PM, which could be themselves or another member of their party or, more preferably, anyone else outside of parliament (according to their own party rules, which may typically but not necessarily give the party leadership authority to determine who they will nominate).  What sort of person might be chosen as PM by such a system?  Well, someone in the political middle who is good at listening and understanding the legitimacy of various different perspectives, and skilled at developing creative, outcome-focused solutions (rather than pursuing ideological agendas) that can garner the largest, broadest amount of support from across the political spectrum.  In other words, someone quite different from most current politicians!

Despite the PM not being directly elected by the public, accountability would be improved by the stronger powers of a balanced Senate, and in turn, the accountability of the Senate to the public could be further strengthened through near-instant, electronic public voting (that had bipartisan support in 2016) — which could make elections essentially continuous, so voters could change the party their vote is allocated to at any time, with the weight of Senators' votes in parliament then changing in real time according to their currently registered electoral support.  In practice this mechanism would probably need to be limited to restricted issues, such as a vote of no confidence (to change the PM &/or call a general election) and perhaps other specific legislation, subject to certain conditions and thresholds, such as a two-thirds majority of all eligible voters.  Also the public may still be required to reconfirm their party vote every few years for periodic elections, or else lose the weight of their vote in parliament (but not be personally penalised, because abstaining can be an important indicator of the true public feeling about the state of democracy and the choices – or lack of – that they're offered, whereas compulsory voting hides this and can turn elections into an almost 50/50 coin toss dominated by the masses of apathetic & ignorant who might otherwise abstain).

Such a system, which some might think liable to create instability, could hardly be less stable than the current Australian & UK systems!  On the contrary, a PM who is accountable to the collective parliament (which is in turn continuously accountable to voters) – rather than a small bunch of extreme or disgruntled MPs in one party – is likely to be more balanced and representative in their actions, and less likely to be controlled or overturned on the whim of a few, as has been the case so much in recent years in both Australia and the UK (where the entire government leadership retains power through the support of an unstable minority of vested interests).

Then, with a PM chosen to more closely represent the balanced views of the parliament & people (rather than a single political party), that PM could nominate a balanced & professional team of Ministers (alongside alternatives put forward by MPs/Senators) for endorsement by the Senate to form a Cabinet or governing "Executive" that is not necessarily comprised of elected MPs — similar to other non-"Westminster" systems around the world, although the US system may not be the best example of this because of its entrenched two-party system, which through the corruption of democracy by money and winner-takes-all elections exaggerates & exacerbates divisions in public debate & society.

(The corruption of democracy by money is most obvious in the US, especially in presidential elections, where only celebrities and the rich, or those backed by well-funded lobby groups, can realistically campaign against other well-funded opponents across the entire nation.  Clearly we need to reduce money's corrupting influence on politics by prohibiting all corporate/organisational funding of political candidates & parties, and limiting the maximum size of any individual's voluntary contributions.  Nor do I see any good reason for taxpayer funding of political parties (as occurs in Australia) in an age when it's possible to spread a popular message nationally (or even globally) for free on the internet.  With slashed budgets, politicians would then have to focus on genuine, substantive content in their messages to voters, rather than dominating election campaigns with slick, expensive marketing.)

These reforms that I propose – to separate the governing executive from a representative parliament – would reflect that the required characteristics of the Executive team — being knowledge & skills in the areas of government they are to manage (for which we will need to pay top dollar) — are distinct from those of elected parliamentarians, whose purpose is to be in touch with community values, so they can make appropriate moral judgments when appointing Executive members and considering laws that are put forward for approval by the parliament.

Besides enabling the appointment of more competent Ministers/Executives, political parties that chose to nominate government Executives from outside their group of elected members would be more likely to attract ordinary, decent, moral people as parliamentary candidates, who actually want to do the job of holding the Executive government to account, rather than megalomaniacs who just see Parliament as a stepping stone for themselves to get into a position of power — like the narcissists & psychopaths that are currently drawn to politics and seek power for the sake of power, such as Donald Trump, perhaps Tony Blair, and most definitely the compulsively lying Boris Johnston and brazenly lying, 'hypocritical, untrustworthy, horrible psycho' Scott Morrison.

Of course there remains a risk if the Senate selects professional Ministers from corporate leaders (given CEOs may be twenty times more likely than the average person to be psychopaths or sociopaths), but this would be better managed by their stronger accountability to the Parliament (i.e. being more easily sacked).

The current political system is not designed to attract or appoint intelligent people with expertise, or balanced & thoughtful critical-thinking skills – with a desire to learn or listen to alternative points of view – nor those who consider principles of integrity & accountability to be more important than their own interests.  Rather, it attracts people who are power-hungry, dishonest & self-serving, and dedicated to entrenched black-&-white, us-vs-them tribalism (based on stubborn ideology that attracts stupidity and encourages wilful ignorance).  Generally this means people who have spent their entire career training in the party machine (or in the similarly combative legal system) and surrounded by similar people, and consequently parliament is a place full of people like that, which then creates a self-reinforcing culture that discourages "normal" people and rewards those who are duplicitous, scheming, back-stabbing and often narcissistic — especially those willing to do what it takes to get to the very top.  So maybe we should create a political system that attracts different kinds of people? (as "Democracy First" aims to do)

If we reform the system as I propose – so the PM & Ministers are fully accountable to the Senate (i.e. able to be fired by it) – then they would no longer be able to show such disdain for accountability, as so often currently exemplified by their contempt for journalists (or control of them, by only giving them access to news if they toe the line) and parliament (e.g. in both scheduling/cancelling and repeated shutting down of debate).  And then with a more representative Senate (see reforms for this below) properly overseeing a more-professional governing Executive, the immature & aggressive pantomime that is the lower House of Representatives would be made redundant and could be scrapped (which would also improve the efficiency of the legislative process).  Like well-functioning corporate boards, the PM & their Executive team would then be required to submit papers to the Senate several days in advance of meeting (published on the internet as per below), so Senators had time to read them and potentially submit questions in advance (online, so the public can see) before finally grilling the Executive in person on issues not adequately addressed.  This would provide much closer scrutiny and stronger accountability than can ever be possible through elections every few years by a public that mostly doesn't have the time or interest to be across all the issues in sufficient detail to be able to make a well-informed judgement of Ministers' performance (even if we had better, unbiased news media).

Democratic participation in policy development

There are also other fundamental problems with democracies that rely solely on periodic elections, not least the potential for bad/unfair Government decisions that get forgotten or outweighed by other issues by election time.  For this reason I used to support the idea of direct online voting for all policies, as advocated for Australia by onlinedirectdemocracy, MiVote and voteflux.org, but it could lead to tyranny of minorities (like queer people) through denial of their basic rights via simple majority votes.  As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government; apart from all the alternatives".  Perhaps if the constitution protected individual liberties (which, as discussed above, we need anyway!), then direct online voting on specific policies could be enabled in certain circumstances, such as if supported by a given number of public petitions &/or Senators.  Fundamentally however, it is just not realistic or reasonable to expect the entire general public to spend enough time to become sufficiently knowledgeable on all public policies to be able to make good decisions.  We each have a different role to play in society, and that's why we need politicians and public servants who will make informed decisions for us (but in line with our values).

A different approach, advocated by The New Democracy Foundation and people like Nick Gruen, is to have random members of the public selected for a period of "Senate duty" (similar to jury duty), where they would be given the information and authority to make or delay decisions.  My suggestion is that 20%, say, of a reformed Senate be comprised of such public members, who would not have a vote on predefined constitutional matters (like electing the governing Executive) but would participate in a legislative review committee (or a "citizens' assembly") for a specific new law proposal and vote on this proposed law (only) along with the rest of the Senate.  This would force the regular elected members of the Senate to argue the case on policy merits, rather than voting solely on party political lines.  In principle, that outcome could also be assisted by having secret electronic voting in the parliament, so Senators could freely vote against the directions of party leaders & "whips", although this seems hard to reconcile with the need for accountability to voters through transparency on what their elected representatives vote for or against (it may be possible if their voting was only made public just before elections but that would limit public pressure at the time of critical votes).

An alternative, indirect way of facilitating broader public participation in democracy would be to tackle obstacles to mass online membership & control of political parties, so they are less dominated by zealous enthusiasts, extreme factions & tribal political warriors, and more strongly influenced by the “moderate majority”.  A specific measure that may assist this could be for the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to establish a voluntary register of political party affiliation.  Any political party's membership-administration-unit could then access this database (if authorised to do so by the AEC) to check whether a member of the public applying to join their party was already registered with another party (which party this was need not be disclosed to the applying party), so the administrators could be more confident that applicants were not simply seeking to join for disruptive purposes.  This could enable parties to more easily build a mass online membership based on ordinary, moderate, low-engagement people (who could vote online for their preferred election candidates, and potentially also on party policies).

What we certainly need though is an informed Opposition, which a neutral public service should give advice to, as well as to the Government — because it should be a public service, not the government's political service!  Re-establishing an a-political bureaucracy that genuinely serves the public will require repeal of the anachronistic "Cabinet-in-Confidence" secrecy that facilitates contempt for "freedom of information" and has become an insult to democracy (instead, Cabinet papers should be released automatically on the internet by default, unless an exemption is sought & approved by a committee appointed by the Senate), and also – to restore the lost tradition of independent, frank & fearless advice – the appointment of government agency board members & Executives by a more representative parliament (or committee of the Senate), rather than by Ministers who are only accountable to one political party.  The same appointment & accountability model  should also apply to representatives in embassies & other international institutions, like the UN, as well as the currently politicised Council of the Order of Australia (which should award those voluntarily serving the community rather than failed politicians & other high-profile achievers who have already been rewarded by their employment). 

Establishing genuinely independent oversight and funding decisions is especially important for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) public news & current affairs service, which needs to be accountable for some of the extreme views it broadcasts, but not through secret direction from the PM or politicised board appointments, which all parties have been guilty of.  This article of mine gives further examples of how the public service has been politicised, especially and most disgracefully by even the Chief Medical Officer during the Covid-19 pandemic.

To further democratise decision making, I also recommend that as part of broader tax reform (& building on this initiative), voters/taxpayers could choose what services 1% (say) of their taxes will fund (e.g. health, education, defence, or a mix, chosen if/when you submit your tax return on time!).  Not only would this directly allocate a small fraction of funds in line with community wishes, it should encourage service agencies to provide decent public information to justify this funding, and thereby also provide better guidance to government as to how they should allocate the other 99% of taxpayers funds (instead of the rubbish some of them get away with providing to government under cover of "cabinet-in-confidence"!).

Multi-State Senators

The last component of structural democratic reform that I propose, to deliver a more balanced, representative parliament, is an alternative voting mechanism to the current proportional representation (PR) for the Senate, which I call "multi-constituency members":

The problem with PR is that whilst it ensures political parties get members in proportion to their party's vote, it typically has a very weak connection between individual members of parliament and local voters (especially when people are appointed from party "lists") — with the resulting "unrepresentative swill" most starkly demonstrated recently by the racist bigot Senator Fraser Anning, who not only got in with just 19 direct votes, but then only an hour after being sworn in, he also left (or was kicked out of) the One Nation party that got him elected!

But at the other extreme, although single-member constituencies (as used in Australia's lower house) have a stronger local link between individual MPs and voters, this is at the expense of parochial politics (i.e. MPs more concerned with local than national interests), which leads to "pork barrelling" (e.g. through poorly conceived infrastructure projects and routine politicisation of community grants, which has reached pandemic levels in spread, magnitude and brazenness) and also tends to give a majority of seats to one party without requiring a national majority of votes as a mandate to govern — which is why a second obstructive chamber of parliament is then seen as necessary to moderate the unrepresentative lower house.  It seems much better and more efficient to have an electoral system that builds balanced & diverse representation directly into a single house of parliament, as New Zealand & some other countries do with a partly-PR, "Mixed Member Proportional" (MMP) system — which has helped New Zealand avoid extreme & corrosive "populist" politics suffered by many other nations.

An alternative to PR that is already used in many countries to deliver a more balanced parliament whilst maintaining local representation is the multi-member constituency.  This approach has large local constituencies that each elect more than one member of parliament, such that 2nd & 3rd place parties tend to get more members.  The Australian Senate can be seen as an example, where each State is a single constituency electing multiple members.  However, it still suffers from local (State-based) parochialism, and, by design of the Constitution, gives disproportionate representation to states with low populations (like Tasmania), so votes there carry more weight than in other States.  Also, having just 6 seats available in each State (2 in the NT & ACT) in each election creates rounding issues, leading to parties getting a number of seats that is not tightly linked to its proportion of votes. 

My proposal for "multi-constituency members" would split up & distribute a "multi-member constituency" across several regional areas around the country, so that each of the multiple MPs elected by a group of constituencies would have to represent the interests of all these regional areas.  For the Australian Senate, one way of doing this – as illustrated in this graphic (click here to see pdf version with data table) – would be to group together one local constituency from within each State, so that each multi-State group would then elect multiple Senators for that group, each having to represent the interests of all Australian States.  More practically, each Senator could represent 2 or 3 constituencies across 2 or 3 chosen States, with at least one in Victoria, NSW or Queensland, and at least one from the rest.

With the Senate also expanded to some 200+ members (in place of the abolished House of Reps), the result should be a reasonably proportional representation of parties' votes through members of parliament (Senators) who retain a fairly strong link to local voters, but still have to represent the national interest across all (or several) States.  And if each State's constituency has a voter base proportional to the State's relative population, then it would also deliver a more democratic result where each vote has equal value.

This spreadsheet provides draft examples for 20 (or 24) Multi-Member Constituencies (MMCs), where each MMC comprises 12 (or 10) twin-paired sub-constituencies (one of 240 in South-East States paired with another one of 240 in North or Western States), and each MMC elects 12 (or 10) Senators (with voting similar to the current method for electing Senators in each State), giving a total of 240 Senators.

Obviously this Multi-State Senator model needs to be worked out in more detail, simulated and refined to ensure it produces a more representative outcome (perhaps in combination with the idea of real-time weighting of Senators' votes), before being put to a referendum.  But in combination, the above concepts provide the basis for the reforms we need to address our falling faith in democracy and return power to the people, through the Senate (and similarly in other countries, especially to modernise the UK's archaic system).

Here is a draft policy-platform & constitution I've produced for a generic political party that could advocate for and help progress the refinement and implementation of these reforms.

A new day, flag and anthem for a united Australia!

Finally, a new Australian republic will need new, uniting symbols — for its national day, anthem, and especially a new flag.  

Clearly a new modern, independent, multicultural Australian republic should be founded on Aboriginal recognition and celebrated on a new Australia Day that represents a uniting day of national celebration for all Australians, rather than the annual insult & mourning for indigenous people that is "Invasion Day" of 26 January (which only became a consistent national holiday in 1994 anyway).  Nor is it really appropriate to be focussed on the founding of Sydney (much as I like it here).  But since as a republic we would inevitably lose the "Queen's birthday" public holiday, we could keep 26 January as a solemn, commemorative "National Sorry Day" (currently held on 26 May), or rename it to "Immigrant Day", and choose a replacement "Australia Day" public holiday from a range of possible alternative dates, such as:

Then maybe we could add a further bonus "Aboriginal Dreaming" holiday (for chillin' & pondering the meaning of everything) — preferably later in the year, given NSW currently has 9 public holidays over the four months from Xmas day to Anzac Day, and (excluding the "Queen's birthday" in June) only one over the rest of the year ("Labour Day", itself moved to October from "May Day").  Potential dates of significance to Aboriginal people include 17 September — the date in 1790 of the first apology to Aboriginals and conciliation with European settlers — or earlier options such as 27 May – when the 1967 referendum recognised Aboriginal people as full citizens – or "Mabo Day" on 3 June recognising them as original inhabitants with land rights.

As for a new flag, it's time for us to be bold and show the Kiwis how it's done! (Such a shame they lacked the courage – I do like their proposed Silver Fern flag, which looks great on their planes – but it's perhaps not surprising as their single-issue referendum on just a flag was not matched with any proposal or backing for substantive constitutional change, like a republic.)

In terms of options, a 2016 survey found 64% of respondents believed the Australian flag should change, with the most popular design being the first flag copied here ("Southern Horizon", with green & yellow curves) out of six options that also included the second flag below it.

I think this indicates Australia's flag should include green & yellow/gold (unless it changes its sporting colours, which seems unlikely), but I also prefer to keep the red, white & blue for a link with tradition, so I've taken the 1993 competition-winning design (the fourth flag down, which is similar to the third – from here – but without the patchy blue-black sky and the amateurish-looking sun) and in the next three flags added green & gold borders, which symbolise the sandy beaches and greener coast line of Australia (greener compared to its desert inner, where the red Uluru sits).  The first of these uses green for the outer border so as to make all the yellow parts seamless and to give a better contrast for the edges of a real flag against the sky, but I prefer the outer edge being yellow to symbolise Australia's golden beaches.

I also added a golden sunrise layer above the red Uluru – symbolising a new dawn for Australia and Aboriginals especially – and a black Uluru shadow to further strengthen the Aboriginal link (which also makes Uluru look a bit like a boomerang, although I'm sure someone could draw it better than me!).

Like the South African flag, the combined six colours – incorporating those of the current Australian plus Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander flags – represent unity between original inhabitants and more-recent colonising people.

To reinforce elements of the Torres Strait Islander flag, my last version incorporates the dhari symbol amongst the stars (obviously the background blue needs to be better matched) and also has a thicker green border (which could potentially be thickened only at the top and bottom, as in their current flag).

Another potential variation (not shown) could replace the Southern Cross stars with the starred cross of the Eureka flag, which symbolises "justice, multiculturalism, mateship, egalitarianism, democracy, republicanism and the rights of the workers".

It has been pointed out to me that the 1993 winning design looks like an upside-down Pepsi logo, but maybe that's quite fitting — Australia has a lot in common with America, but we can take the good things from there and turn the bad stuff like inequality on it's head, because we're upside-down this side of the world and Australians are proud to give everyone a fair go!

Or maybe this new flag idea
IS-dE(a)d??!

Many other potential flag designs can be found  here (&  here), including these three Aboriginal-themed designs, with the first also combining Aboriginal & existing flag themes to produce a "Reconciliation Flag".

Below it is the "Aboriginal Australian flag" from the 1990s, which simply replaces the UK's Union Jack in the existing Australian flag with the existing Aboriginal flag.  This was opposed by the designer of the Aboriginal flag, but that problem may be avoided now that the Government has bought the copyright.

I also quite like the third option, but I don't think it'll fly ('scuse the pun; I mean gather broad support), especially as the dotted art could be hard to draw (particularly for school kids).

Finally, these kangaroo flags – from here & here – are probably the best kangaroo ones I can imagine without being totally tacky, but it is still a 'roo.  Maybe they could be good options for Qantas?

So that just leaves the anthem, and let's face it, the current one is rubbish!  The problem is not just its dodgy (yet short) history and offence to Aboriginals (including that "fair" originally meant "white"); it's also a real dirge — the "tune" just feels so lame!  As an alternative I like, "I Still Call Australia Home" (the Qantas advert), but I & others would struggle with the high notes, so I think the only decent option (backed by many others, including former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett) is "I am Australian":

We are one, but we are many,

And from all the lands on earth we come;

We share a dream and sing with one voice:

I am, you are, we are Australian!