Independents of Australia — Part One
This article is the first official step to testing whether there is an appetite for political innovation and evolution in Australia and whether it is possible.
Assumption: A greater number of elected Independents will improve democracy in Australia
Independent candidates who run and are elected into the Senate or House of Representatives have the power, right and often the inclination to independently decide whether to support, reject, debate legislation or policy positions.
If a government attempts to rush through poorly formed policy /legislation, they must negotiate with all who are eligible to vote, thus negotiate with the independents in order to gain majority support for the bill. The more independents with the power to vote in parliament will add greater scrutiny to bills and make it harder for hidden agendas entwined in some bills to pass in Parliament. This should add a layer of accountability and would likely act as a democratic filtration system. Conversely, it could make the passing of ALL legislation more difficult, which could negatively impact the productivity of Parliament. The question Australians need to ask is — could it get any worse than it already is?
Independents are empowered with the right to shape their decisions in Parliament by the views of their electorate. They have the ability to ask their electors about their thoughts on major policy decisions. Thus, with an Independent, the “will of the people” can be the basis for all decisions made in Parliament because an independent representative is not obliged to “toe a party line” or suffer undemocratic interventions like cabinet solidarity*.
Assumption 2: The cost to resource an elected representative is often the cost of integrity
While it costs a substantial amount of money to inform an electorate of the intention to run for a Parliamentary position (and convince them to vote for you), it costs even more to fund the overhead costs required for optimal function as a Senator or Minister.
My dream politician would be publishing Twitter polls to gauge the public position on a controversial topic, they would be publishing behind the scene videos where they could explain and translate the decisions and debates they are currently engaged with. They would be publishing long-form articles and infographics that make it easier for the Australian people to not only understand the challenges and context behind their decisions but the process and influence they endure in making them. My dream politician would publish their bank statements online as one of the many measures of transparency. They would publish all the documents that inform their decisions in Parliament, to ensure it is easy for us playing at home to keep up. They would have a team dedicated to exploring international best practices, a team to engage and connect with the community, obviously, a media and communication team and likely an admin support team to help manage travel, and appointments and attempt to schedule some kind of work-life balance. But it would cost a lot of money to fund this “dream team” — which is important for Australians to acknowledge.
The reality is it costs a lot of money to ensure good governance and good decisions are being made on a regular basis.
However, upon reflection, Australian taxpayers are currently investing a LOT of money, for often poor decisions made on their behalf, with often little accountability or transparency on how or why they were made. In my opinion, improving the resources and function of individual candidates is a sensible investment.
So if we can accept it costs a considerable amount of money to run as a candidate and then person optimally as an elected representative, we then need to question where that funding comes from.
Major and even minor political parties offer potential candidates established support services and mechanisms that are critical for success. They have the staff, they know the ins and the outs, and most importantly, the responsibility of raising funds is taken off the individuals' shoulders, and spread across the organisation. Don’t get me wrong, elected representatives of major parties still spend a concerning amount of time being pimped out by their parties in an effort to raise funds (never is this more apparent than in the lead up to an election where opportunities to share a large room and an overpriced meal suffering through an hour or two political hyperbole is available on the daily).
But largely it is safe to say that the direct responsibility of fundraising is a burden shared by several professional fundraisers within a political party. Being shared by many opens up roles and opportunities for party elites unknown to the voting public, who are hustling, making promises and wooing donors. For the Liberals donors are usually wealthy individuals or major corporations, essentially buying policy influence. The Labor party is predominately funded by trade unions, which when you think about it objectively, appears to be the most democratic because the working people of Australia are the key stakeholders who fund the unions, who in turn fund the unions fund the Labor party. Conceptually this appears a solid model, almost a form of indirect crowdfunding, however accusations of corruption have long plagued the major trade unions of Australia, which invariably muddies the waters pertaining to the ethics of this practice. And due to the enforced culture of party “solidarity,” it's unclear how much influence senior leaders of the trade unions have in the policy positions of the Labor party.
The Greens need a mention, they appear to be constitutionally bound to a 75% member majority to make decisions, thus I believe “buying” green policy isn’t commonplace, however, they usually benefit from major philanthropic donations (how much influence that has is unknown, because again these parties aren’t often great with transparency). However, with the Greens, I feel something else impedes optimal decision making. Due to the fact the Greens rely upon their passionate team of committed volunteers (arguably a lot more than the two major parties), due to their restrictive majority rule policy, internal debates held by their often hard left tribe add a unique challenge for Green representatives to vote according to the will of their electorate, because if the will went against the 75% majority of the Greens member base, then the Greens representative is constitutionally bound to honour the wishes of the membership over the electorate.
Thus those who fund the parties or volunteer for the parties, are often more influential than the electorate (who are basically never asked anyway) on major policy and voting positions.
The Challenges for Independents
There are thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of impressive, honourable, smart, committed Australians out there who would make incredible politicians.
Realistically we only need 56** to improve 25% independent accountability in both the Senate and House of Representatives. So where are they?
Well technically we could have;
- Zali Steggall for Warringgah
- Julia Banks
- Tony Windsor
- Helen Haines
- Andrew Wilkie
- Cathy McGowan
- Prof Kerryn Phelps for Wentworth
- Rob Oakshott for Cowper
So technically we only require a further 48 Independent candidates to put their names forward.
In the next article of the series, I intend to tackle the reasons why so few great Australians resist the urge to run as an independent candidates in Australia.
***
Australia desperately needs innovation in democracy, and to cut through Australian apathy. For the state of #auspol to improve, we need action, and if you support positive action to improve the state of democracy in Australia please share this article — we can do this, but we need to act together, and quickly.
*Cabinet solidarity refers to members in a cabinet being unable to vote independently and outside the majority of the members in cabinet, independents have traditionally been excluded from the executive function of Australian politics because cabinet has been historically compiled of senior members of a single party or a coalition)
- * 56 based on the total number of senators (74) and Members (150) equating to 224, and 25% of 224 is 56. Why 25% not 100%, well frankly I don’t even understand how Independents could form government, I mean it’s possible but 25% would create an incredible improvement to the function of democracy in Australia.
