I particularly appreciated the insights of the Strangio article the other day.
I agree with your analysis that more independents and third party candidates are on their way, as they represent genuine community interests as opposed to the major parties. Citizens assemblies and popular referendums at state and local levels should also be more regular to bypass the duopoly in parliament.
Although preferential voting is better than old first past the post, we’re still locked into the two party system with single member electorates. Until we get multi member districts for increased proportional representation, informed voters will have to engage in strategic preferencing.
The arrogance the ALP is showing in its rhetoric on key issues (Housing, Palestine, AUKUS) is from it realising it can win majority government with 32% of the primary vote (polling averages show them now between 28 and 31%). They know Greens and Independents will have to preference them for their votes to count in the majority of electorates. Diversity of opinion in the lower house will happen despite the preferential voting system which was designed to preserve Labor and Conservative parties.
There's also the fact that don't seem to have learned the lessons of Fowler and have three more non-local candidates lined up, to be parachuted in. I can't remember which electorates, if anyone has them handy.
Having lived in a blue ribbon Liberal seat for 50 years, the stark contrast now that we have a community independent member could not be starker.
Your analysis bears out our experience of being invited to engage in all kinds of policy creating activities which has been truly refreshing and offers hope for a healthier democratic process
Very interesting, Eve. The number of people in such electorates who have said me that being in a safe seat for a party just means you are ignored. Independents can't afford to do that and don't have a "central office" overruling the local candidate.
The Green's strategy of being LNP lite (and opposing almost everything). It will be interesting to see if it works or not for the next election.
If it doesn't work, then there is likely to be lots of one issue small parties making up the Senate instead of a larger Green block, which is going to make it probably even more of a juggling act for whatever party wins in the lower house.
Personally, I have voted Green at times in the past. Less likely now, and they may be further down my preference selections as well.
I wouldn't describe what the Greens are doing in that way, but I think you are right to suggest that the approach plays well in some areas and not in others. For me, the key at this stage is to undermine the power of the majors so they no longer just presume that one or the other of them will control the parliament/form government. The idea is to take that power away from them and I think we are lucky to have managed to gather a responsible crossbench.
Excellent Tim! Nicci Savva says it well and you sum it up perfectly: “ it is more accurate to think of what is happening not as a disruption but as a democratic correction, an organic attempt by voters to use the tools available to them to construct a parliament that better represents their views rather than the views of the small number of highly influential interest groups that currently dominate policy and governance in Australia through the major parties.”
I thought Savva's lectures was good, if a bit belated. I thought her comments on media (in the same speech) were less impressive and 20 years behind what others have been saying.
1.The political class has gradually got used to minority governments relying on support/tolerance from small numbers of independents to the point that it's not much remarked. For example, I had to check that Minns was in a minority government. That could evolve gradually as the number of independents increases.
2. The big issues arise when there is a Labor+Green majority or near-majority. It's worked well in the ACT, but not in Tasmania. One striking outcome there is that major legislation on industrial manslaughter has been passed over the opposition of the Liberal minority government, something that would require resignation in a standard Westminster system https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-11/tasmanian-parliament-passes-industrial-manslaughter-laws/104331438
3. Albanese is the worst possible person to handle this. If Labor goes into minority, he should go too.
I still think there is difference in how the political class react to state versus federal minority governments and I'm not convinced they will be other than disruptive if we have one after the next federal election. The media class will go nuts. The Tas eg is also interesting in that people voted for minority in an election predicted on overcoming minority government and that Labor simply refused to form government under those circumstances. Agree completely about Point 3 and would go further: there needs to be some sort of generational change to a new leadership group attuned to power sharing. Not sure how that happens though.
My perception is that Albanese, along with much of the current Cabinet is stuck in the old model, but that Chalmers is not. He would be willing to cut a deal with the Greens in the next Parliament, though he would avoid a big ceremony like that held by Gillard and Brown. And I think he would be able to bring people like Charlton and Leigh (both PhDs, like him) along.
On the LNP side, my impression is that Angus Taylor would be similarly open to a government some independents offering support and others willing to give him a go.
well that goes without saying - I just hope that he stays in charge long enough to continue to lead Labor into minority so the repair of Australian democracy can begin. Maybe that's Albanese plan & he really is going to be a leader having realised that the duopoly does not equal democracy. An important subject that has not been written about in detail, & I have no reason to doubt the veracity, is Guy Rundle on Crikey who has discussed Labor's unhealthy factionalism. I can only hope that in time major parties would be reduced to mere 'rumps' with little sway.
I suggest that a lot of people who have climate change, integrity ... at the top of their concerns, will be reasoning that a vote for a 'teal independent" is their best choice, since in a distributive parliament, the teals will have the Labor Party by the short and curlies. The usual approach by governments to getting their way (threats, bribes (you can be Minister for Basket Weaving!) are unlikely to work, so the Government will either have to accede to their demands or ... delay, delay, delay. Oh.
An observation, it's not 'the mainstream media' (it never was), it's 'the corporate media'.
Fair point about mainstream media and I do switch the terms around a bit in different circumstances. "Mainstream" captures the ABC which corporate doesn't. I often use "legacy media". Such general names all have problems, I reckon. I like "distributive parliament" as used in your comment.
The form of resistance should be know when the new election donor & funding laws come out. My money is on this being massively negative for independents under the guise of protecting us from evil rich people (lol as if that isn’t the case right now).
Watching Albanese whining about L & the LNP trying to get elected to “govern” while the Greens act as “spoilers” is sickening. Their dual sense of entitlement is gobsmacking.
We came to OZ in 1985 and did not understand the « proportional representation » as we knew the Westminster system but ..always voted for the middle party in UK the Liberals .
Once we understood we voted for the Democrats and watched them shoot themselves .
We looked again and found the Greens but we lived in the Sydney Northern Beaches which was True Blue and little hope for others .What made Greens so unpopular ? They spoke as if we were filthy and yet many were highly educated teachers scientists who did not bullshit
How did proportional representation work well for the major con artists Labor and LNP
We use proportional in the Senate but preferential in the Lower house. My book, Voices of Us, make a case for using proportional across the board but I don't think it will happen. And you're right, neither the Greens nor Labor could win in the Northern Beaches, but independents with a pro-climate agenda have managed to be elected by preferential voting. It has been a consequential change.
It seems that there is an underlying trend towards the New Democracy, where decisons require a "super majoriy" of 80%, and everyone has a say through a diliberative process which has the effect of distilling the ideas of a cross section of the community. The end of the 700 year old Westminster system is nigh!
Yes, "we" are trying to impose a more deliberative approach on a system designed as confrontational. That's why I say we need to redesign our institutions to be more deliberative. Not sure what you mean by 80% super majority...?
Well said Tim. The arrogance of the political insider class is breath-taking. Crikey has been running some stories lately about why Labor hate the Greens so much and their housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather in particular. Max said something really profound about how frustrating it is to work in the Australian Parliament:
"It imposes this logic on people that despite the fact that we’re in a building where technically we have the power to lift millions of people out of poverty and housing stress, everyone has to pretend that isn’t actually possible.”
The Greens, the Teals and Jacqui Lambie and others refuse to accept this neo-liberal nonsense that governments can't actually solve problems, and Labor hate them for it.
That seems about right, doesn't it. And the hatred/refusal to negotiate with the Greens is a real tell for Labor, indicating they recognise what a challenge they are in some seats. The big shock is when/if independents start taking seats from Labor as happened to the Libs in 2022. We might be on the verge of that.
What was remarkable in the 2022 campaign was to see so many older women and men actively engaged in the political sphere - many for the first time ever - and feeling empowered by the outcome, so continuing to be involved in the electorate.
And of course choosing our own candidate rather than having them imposed by some inscrutable process.
It's apparent in my neck of the woods at a federal level at least.
The Voices 4 movement has re endorsed a great candidate to run against the Nationals incumbent again.
She made a safe seat unsafe in 2021.
More & more people are realising they are not being represented well by the 2 party system & are trying to take government back into the hands of the grass roots.
'It is still possible to read otherwise interesting and learned pieces like this by Professor Paul Strangio that don’t even mention the independents. '
Is grown-up government enough?
The puzzle of Anthony Albanese’s struggling prime ministership. Paul Strangio 3 September 2024 5733 words
Interesting & learned, yes but in the end after I waited a while before posting on X, I settled on Blinkered & fawning.
It did nothing to critique a modern Australia nor explore why people are looking for alternatives to the duopoly. Maybe Strangio could keep writing & explore that in addition to the penning of a paean to Labor/Albanese. Cheers
Great article Tim.
I particularly appreciated the insights of the Strangio article the other day.
I agree with your analysis that more independents and third party candidates are on their way, as they represent genuine community interests as opposed to the major parties. Citizens assemblies and popular referendums at state and local levels should also be more regular to bypass the duopoly in parliament.
Although preferential voting is better than old first past the post, we’re still locked into the two party system with single member electorates. Until we get multi member districts for increased proportional representation, informed voters will have to engage in strategic preferencing.
The arrogance the ALP is showing in its rhetoric on key issues (Housing, Palestine, AUKUS) is from it realising it can win majority government with 32% of the primary vote (polling averages show them now between 28 and 31%). They know Greens and Independents will have to preference them for their votes to count in the majority of electorates. Diversity of opinion in the lower house will happen despite the preferential voting system which was designed to preserve Labor and Conservative parties.
There's also the fact that don't seem to have learned the lessons of Fowler and have three more non-local candidates lined up, to be parachuted in. I can't remember which electorates, if anyone has them handy.
Great article, Tim
Having lived in a blue ribbon Liberal seat for 50 years, the stark contrast now that we have a community independent member could not be starker.
Your analysis bears out our experience of being invited to engage in all kinds of policy creating activities which has been truly refreshing and offers hope for a healthier democratic process
Very interesting, Eve. The number of people in such electorates who have said me that being in a safe seat for a party just means you are ignored. Independents can't afford to do that and don't have a "central office" overruling the local candidate.
The Green's strategy of being LNP lite (and opposing almost everything). It will be interesting to see if it works or not for the next election.
If it doesn't work, then there is likely to be lots of one issue small parties making up the Senate instead of a larger Green block, which is going to make it probably even more of a juggling act for whatever party wins in the lower house.
Personally, I have voted Green at times in the past. Less likely now, and they may be further down my preference selections as well.
What if no party wins a lower house majority, as seems highly likely
I wouldn't describe what the Greens are doing in that way, but I think you are right to suggest that the approach plays well in some areas and not in others. For me, the key at this stage is to undermine the power of the majors so they no longer just presume that one or the other of them will control the parliament/form government. The idea is to take that power away from them and I think we are lucky to have managed to gather a responsible crossbench.
Excellent Tim! Nicci Savva says it well and you sum it up perfectly: “ it is more accurate to think of what is happening not as a disruption but as a democratic correction, an organic attempt by voters to use the tools available to them to construct a parliament that better represents their views rather than the views of the small number of highly influential interest groups that currently dominate policy and governance in Australia through the major parties.”
I thought Savva's lectures was good, if a bit belated. I thought her comments on media (in the same speech) were less impressive and 20 years behind what others have been saying.
A few thoughts
1.The political class has gradually got used to minority governments relying on support/tolerance from small numbers of independents to the point that it's not much remarked. For example, I had to check that Minns was in a minority government. That could evolve gradually as the number of independents increases.
2. The big issues arise when there is a Labor+Green majority or near-majority. It's worked well in the ACT, but not in Tasmania. One striking outcome there is that major legislation on industrial manslaughter has been passed over the opposition of the Liberal minority government, something that would require resignation in a standard Westminster system https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-11/tasmanian-parliament-passes-industrial-manslaughter-laws/104331438
3. Albanese is the worst possible person to handle this. If Labor goes into minority, he should go too.
I still think there is difference in how the political class react to state versus federal minority governments and I'm not convinced they will be other than disruptive if we have one after the next federal election. The media class will go nuts. The Tas eg is also interesting in that people voted for minority in an election predicted on overcoming minority government and that Labor simply refused to form government under those circumstances. Agree completely about Point 3 and would go further: there needs to be some sort of generational change to a new leadership group attuned to power sharing. Not sure how that happens though.
My perception is that Albanese, along with much of the current Cabinet is stuck in the old model, but that Chalmers is not. He would be willing to cut a deal with the Greens in the next Parliament, though he would avoid a big ceremony like that held by Gillard and Brown. And I think he would be able to bring people like Charlton and Leigh (both PhDs, like him) along.
On the LNP side, my impression is that Angus Taylor would be similarly open to a government some independents offering support and others willing to give him a go.
well that goes without saying - I just hope that he stays in charge long enough to continue to lead Labor into minority so the repair of Australian democracy can begin. Maybe that's Albanese plan & he really is going to be a leader having realised that the duopoly does not equal democracy. An important subject that has not been written about in detail, & I have no reason to doubt the veracity, is Guy Rundle on Crikey who has discussed Labor's unhealthy factionalism. I can only hope that in time major parties would be reduced to mere 'rumps' with little sway.
I suggest that a lot of people who have climate change, integrity ... at the top of their concerns, will be reasoning that a vote for a 'teal independent" is their best choice, since in a distributive parliament, the teals will have the Labor Party by the short and curlies. The usual approach by governments to getting their way (threats, bribes (you can be Minister for Basket Weaving!) are unlikely to work, so the Government will either have to accede to their demands or ... delay, delay, delay. Oh.
An observation, it's not 'the mainstream media' (it never was), it's 'the corporate media'.
Fair point about mainstream media and I do switch the terms around a bit in different circumstances. "Mainstream" captures the ABC which corporate doesn't. I often use "legacy media". Such general names all have problems, I reckon. I like "distributive parliament" as used in your comment.
The form of resistance should be know when the new election donor & funding laws come out. My money is on this being massively negative for independents under the guise of protecting us from evil rich people (lol as if that isn’t the case right now).
Watching Albanese whining about L & the LNP trying to get elected to “govern” while the Greens act as “spoilers” is sickening. Their dual sense of entitlement is gobsmacking.
Agree, those laws will be a big test.
We came to OZ in 1985 and did not understand the « proportional representation » as we knew the Westminster system but ..always voted for the middle party in UK the Liberals .
Once we understood we voted for the Democrats and watched them shoot themselves .
We looked again and found the Greens but we lived in the Sydney Northern Beaches which was True Blue and little hope for others .What made Greens so unpopular ? They spoke as if we were filthy and yet many were highly educated teachers scientists who did not bullshit
How did proportional representation work well for the major con artists Labor and LNP
We use proportional in the Senate but preferential in the Lower house. My book, Voices of Us, make a case for using proportional across the board but I don't think it will happen. And you're right, neither the Greens nor Labor could win in the Northern Beaches, but independents with a pro-climate agenda have managed to be elected by preferential voting. It has been a consequential change.
It seems that there is an underlying trend towards the New Democracy, where decisons require a "super majoriy" of 80%, and everyone has a say through a diliberative process which has the effect of distilling the ideas of a cross section of the community. The end of the 700 year old Westminster system is nigh!
Yes, "we" are trying to impose a more deliberative approach on a system designed as confrontational. That's why I say we need to redesign our institutions to be more deliberative. Not sure what you mean by 80% super majority...?
Well said Tim. The arrogance of the political insider class is breath-taking. Crikey has been running some stories lately about why Labor hate the Greens so much and their housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather in particular. Max said something really profound about how frustrating it is to work in the Australian Parliament:
"It imposes this logic on people that despite the fact that we’re in a building where technically we have the power to lift millions of people out of poverty and housing stress, everyone has to pretend that isn’t actually possible.”
The Greens, the Teals and Jacqui Lambie and others refuse to accept this neo-liberal nonsense that governments can't actually solve problems, and Labor hate them for it.
That seems about right, doesn't it. And the hatred/refusal to negotiate with the Greens is a real tell for Labor, indicating they recognise what a challenge they are in some seats. The big shock is when/if independents start taking seats from Labor as happened to the Libs in 2022. We might be on the verge of that.
What was remarkable in the 2022 campaign was to see so many older women and men actively engaged in the political sphere - many for the first time ever - and feeling empowered by the outcome, so continuing to be involved in the electorate.
And of course choosing our own candidate rather than having them imposed by some inscrutable process.
Bravo, TD. Short, pithy & inspirational. Times they are for the changing. Yipppeee.
Agree with your points.
It's apparent in my neck of the woods at a federal level at least.
The Voices 4 movement has re endorsed a great candidate to run against the Nationals incumbent again.
She made a safe seat unsafe in 2021.
More & more people are realising they are not being represented well by the 2 party system & are trying to take government back into the hands of the grass roots.
Tim just read the piece you refer to here:
'It is still possible to read otherwise interesting and learned pieces like this by Professor Paul Strangio that don’t even mention the independents. '
Is grown-up government enough?
The puzzle of Anthony Albanese’s struggling prime ministership. Paul Strangio 3 September 2024 5733 words
Interesting & learned, yes but in the end after I waited a while before posting on X, I settled on Blinkered & fawning.
It did nothing to critique a modern Australia nor explore why people are looking for alternatives to the duopoly. Maybe Strangio could keep writing & explore that in addition to the penning of a paean to Labor/Albanese. Cheers