Progressive politics will shape a better future for Australia

The time has come to reform the Australian political system and step away from the two-party structure that is keeping us from becoming a republic, writes Dr Klaas Woldring.

RECENTLY, I read some Independent Australia articles about the John Curtin Research Centre, its activities and political orientation.

The debate centred on long-held opinions on what is progressive and what is conservative in the Australian Labor Party (ALP), something I was involved in during the 1990s when the Progressive Labour Party was formed in Newcastle and fielded candidates for elections. Several NSW ALP members attended. They were of the view that the ALP was becoming “conservative”, meaning becoming more like the conservative Coalition. They wanted to move away from this trend and aimed to be more “progressive”.

With that, they primarily meant more radically strengthening the rights and interests of workers and trade unions, public education and services, and campaigning for the rights and representation of women. One could say these were traditional ALP values, as opposed to the values of the rich and elites of the business class. The formation of a republic, meaning the replacement of the monarchy by an Australian president, was seen as a new, progressive objective. Otherwise, especially in terms of the environment and the organisation of the state, conservative values prevailed.

Australia's vicious constitutional cycle needs to be broken

The results of the Voice Referendum serve as a reminder that Australia's Constitution is archaic and in need of reform for us to move forward.

There was actually a lot missing there. Only a few of the attendees mentioned other kinds of possible progression. One who did was the late Tom McDonald, instigator of superannuation in the building industry and an executive member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). He also was a member of the Trade Development Council/ACTU 11-member mission to Western Europe in September 1986 which looked at workplace democracy in five European countries. This included Sweden, Austria, Norway and West Germany.

Former PM Bob Hawke rejected the recommendation that Australia should adopt similar progressive workplace democracy systems. His view was that they were great there, but not suited to the Australian system of industrial relations. Hawke did have other progressive ideas, though, like the republic, replacing federation and ending Apartheid. However, the massive drop in union membership to 12 per cent, from more than 50 per cent then, strongly suggests a need for progressive change, more than “enterprise bargaining”.

There is much more scope now for system progress other than the battle for decent wages, income and education — the fair sharing of the cake, as it were. The single-member electoral district system, which underpins the two-party dominance, is a very obvious one even though few people seem to realise the connection. It is responsible for the polarising culture in our lower houses of Parliament. The people are increasingly looking for a better alternative as is shown by their declining first preference vote, over two decades, but the major parties are not interested.

In the 2022 Federal Election, only 15 electorates (of 151) were decided by a first count clear majority. The majors ended up with about one-third each of the vote, after preferences. Progress here surely means electoral system change to party-list proportional representation widely used elsewhere.

Australian politics due for an overhaul

The Australian two-party political system needs major reform in order for us to progress towards becoming a republic.

The recent debacle with the Voice Referendum, a result related to the system of two-party oppositionism and poor political education, also demonstrates that the archaic Australian Constitution needs to be replaced. Further piecemeal tinkering has proved to be ineffective. Why not a new Constitution prepared by a competent independent committee? That would be a really progressive move the ALP is still not considering.

The Constitution was meant for White colonials only, an Act of the British Parliament. The ALP could begin to tackle progressive issues right now if it wants to be recognised as a progressive party. A republic grafted on the existing structure, with many omissions and limitations, really makes no sense at all. A republic requires a new Constitution. Does the Australian Republic Movement realise this?

There are several other aspects of this Westminster system, as shaped specifically by philosopher and politician Edmund Burke, which Australia improved upon. The tripartite system initially was put forward by the French theorist Montesquieu. He used the phrase “trias politica” to indicate the desired relationship and distribution of power and functions between the legislature, executive and judiciary (Spirit of Law, 1748).

The motivation of this theorist was clearly to curb the centralisation of power by the French monarchy. His preferred example was the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Montesquieu is important in this debate as his views were used, criticised and amended by Edmund Burke. He argued that the Executive, while having a separate function, should also be part of the legislature. This is what actually developed in Britain, a system later transferred to the British colonies as well.

Progressive coalition government is the future for Australia

Australia's two-party political system is archaic, providing PM Albanese with an opportunity to consider a more progressive form of government.

Thus, ministers in Westminster systems are members of and vote in the parliament. However, many European states have gone quite the other way. In such examples, the ministers can sit in the legislature, present and explain their views and defend their positions against critics, but are not MPs and have no vote.

It should also be realised that this is very different from the U.S. system of government in which a very powerful president is elected every four years and is supported by an executive. There is a fairly widespread popular view that the only alternative for Australia is the U.S. presidential system, but this is quite incorrect. If Australia is to improve its governance system and its democracy, it should look to European alternatives, especially northern European systems, not the U.S.

Regrettably, knowledge about other European systems is sketchy here, resulting from inadequate political education at high schools and universities. The ABC and SBS could provide targeted and balanced educational programs to improve this situation within a short period of time.

The prospect of a new dimension of progress would naturally include effective decision-making to achieve environmental targets. A new Constitution should include clauses to deal with this aim in detail.

There can be little doubt that the adoption of a new Green Constitution, reflecting truly progressive objectives and values, would assist the ALP in building effective majority coalition governments.