The Australian Democrats took it on the chin badly in the last election, and for the first time since 1967 an Australian Federal government will have a majority in the Senate as well as the House. I am a fan of strong third parties that hold the balance of power and stop truly repugnant legislation getting through the upper house. So what do I think the Australian democrats should do?

A Party of Review

I like the bicameral structure of government with the upper house having the designated role as a house of review and providing a democratic watchdog on excess from the Executive Council, Executive Cabinet and House of Representatives. Until Don Chip founded the Australian Democrats the federal Senate represented a rubber stamp for the party in government, or obstruction if the Senate had a majority of the opposite party.

Since 1977, the Australian Democrats have had a presence in the Senate, and after the 1980 election the Democrats achieved sufficient numbers to hold the balance of power. This party level innovation led to the Senate being a genuine house of review. In July this year the Liberal Party will take over as the majority in the Senate. The first time in twenty-four years a major party has held that power.

The Australian Democrats tried to expand their representation to the House of Representatives in the 1990 under Janine Haines. Judging by the electoral results - with gains in the Senate, but not in the House - the Australian voters preferred the Australian Democrats as a party of review in the upper houses around the country. The 2004 elections were not kind to the Australian Democrats. None of the Australian Democrat Senators were returned to the upper house.

So what should the Australian Democrats do in 2005?

Disclaimer

I am a perpetual third party voter, and the Australian Democrats have been beneficiaries of this several times. I believe that the major parties get too much encouragement as it is, so I have often voted in contrariness - or for the purposes of there being a strong and well represented third-party at the federal and state levels.

The Evil In The Federal Government

The current evil in the federal system is statism and anti-federalism. All parties at the federal level practice both these forms of politics. All the major parties seek the dissolution of the States as political entities. All the parties at the federal level are statist and use the monopoly on coercion a government has to interfere in individuals lives through legislation. Evil is a strong word, but the federal system is crying out for a party that is genuinely classic liberal.

The Australian Democrats are not right of centre, they are fighting for the left with Labor and the Greens. Labor is a bigger party, and the Greens are more extremist. The Australian Democrats are getting drowned out. For this reason, I believe they should return to their roots and become an economically liberal party that is socially progressive. I would also like to see a return to classic liberal principles, genuinely respecting federalism and dropping statist solutions.

As an example of the current statist policies of the Australian Democrats. The front page of the Australian Democrats has as its main issue;

Ban Smoking In Cars

Banning smoking in cars would cut down on bushfires, littering, car accidents and cancer, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison, said today. "Too many avoidable fires are started by butts discarded from cars," Senator Allison said. At least 4574 fires a year are caused by cigarettes and smoking materials.

I am a reformed smoker, and I can state quite simply that this is none of governments business. There is no way I would ever support or vote for this intrusion on peoples private space or their individual choices. Social change does not have to come through legislation and the monopoly on violence the government has.

An example of anti-federalism was contained in their policy previous to it being updated into the current pdf format . It involved the abolition of the states as political entities ;

(e) We strongly hold that the current three tiers of Government in Australia should be replaced by a more representative framework, where the States are replaced by Regional Governments and Local Councils are replaced by Community Councils that carry out the work of that regional framework

The federal government is the biggest problem in the current Australian political system. It needs its wings clipped first, so that the responsibilities the federal government has taken from the States are returned. One of the big ones is, the States right to tax. The GST is an anti-federalist piece of legislation. Governments are not supposed to tax for other governments.

Are the Democrats Screwed?

Not in my opinion. They may be a PR nightmare, but for the most part their policies remain the most reasonable and cogent for anyone interested in democracy first and factions second. The Australian Democrats' policies on accountability, democracy and political rights are very reasonable, and in my opinion necessary. For instance the Australian Democrats advocate for four and eight year fixed terms. I would rather that is three and six, but either way, fixed terms is very necessary and overdue.

In their Bill of Rights policy in which they want as Constitutional but recognize that Statutory is initially more achievable there is a small section on the addition of a Senate Committee;

Establish a Senate Rights and Freedoms Committee to scrutinise all legislation coming before the Senate. It will work closely with HREOC to ensure that the Senate is properly advised in its role as the final defender or freedom.

If I could deconstruct the current system I would have the Governor-General be the final defender of freedom . But in the current environment, it is the Senate that should take that role, however the Senate is overly subject to faction and party discipline. The Australian Government has been a static constitutional and statutory mess that has been subject to the whims of factional entrenchment. For this reason, I think that any innovation in the protection of political rights will have to come at the electoral or party level .

The Australian Democrats also advocate for a "Citizens Initiated Referenda". They recognize that the avenues available for an individual to influence the political process are limited and dominated by faction. Considering I have complete faith in the wisdom of the people and the statistical weight of popular opinion over-riding the minority interest of factions - I am fully in favour of this.

The Australian Democrats are in favour of Constitutional reform, with Republican doctrine as the basis. Their principles include an independent republic with an Australian Head of State. Recognition of the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as original owners of the land. Inclusion of a bicameral federal parliament, and separation of powers.

It also includes the principle of recognising the necessity of protecting the natural land. I don't think this has anything to do with political rights and the process of government. This is a legislative or social issue, not a constitutional issue and probably why the Australian Democrats haven't reached wider acceptance with their increasingly left turn. The Greens represent this belief system better than the Australian Democrats do.

What would George Peponis do?

Simplify man, simplify! If the electorate wants a party of review give it to them. Reduce the non-essential policies that don't fit that meme to pop philosophies. On the non-essential and non-core areas let the other major factions do the fighting in that area, with or without your support. For instance, no point being militantly environmental when there is a faction dedicated to it. The Greens will undoubtedly lead that debate , and only require support if they are right or the Australian Democratic caucus supports it.

Another example is you can be for Free Trade, but with the caveat that there be no extra burden on Australian business with it, nor any disadvantage to Australian workers. Let the Liberal Party do the heavy lifting in the former and the Labor Party the latter. Both factions are supposedly dedicated to those policies - and if they aren't call them out on it - let popular opinion bend them that way.

For instance for the major policy groupings on the Australian Democrats policy page ;

• Accountability - No change. This section is fitting with the Australian Democrats being a "Party of Review" and "Keeping the Bastards Honest".
• Agriculture - Dump it. Follow the caucus on this, issue by issue. No need to announce or have it as a static policy. The Greens or Nationals will probably be all over this issue first.
• Attorney-General and Justice - Dump the parts "Domestic Human Rights" and "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Rights". Roll these both into a simple policy of non-discrimination against any minority. This can come under the political rights section. Rename this section "Justice".
• Children and Youth - Dump it. Follow the caucus on this from issue to issue. Have immigration included in a wider "political rights" section. The "Child Protection" system should be a state's rights issue.
• Communication - Simplify it to one paragraph. For instance; "The Australian Democrats are committed to supporting the quality and impartial broadcasting from the ABC and SBS. In telecommunications we support the market and private industry except in markets that become anti-competitive monopolies or where the lack of private industry penetration threatens the quality of life of Australians." This is a reasonable policy, but wide enough to allow wiggle room to keep or kill Telstra. The caucus can provide the feedback on that. I would split Telstra into two, one services and one infrastructure. I would also open up more of the spectrum for unlicensed public usage. Would enable innovation while cutting the advantage of rents from a monopoly.
• Defence - Simplify it to one paragraph. For instance; "The Australian Democrats are committed to the defence of Australia from outside coercion and interference. We will ensure the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is suitably funded to achieve that objective. We recognize the value of multi-national forces in securing peace and security. We do not support the use of the ADF in pre-emptive force on another nation-state unless the intelligence and case for war is irrefutable." Again this is a cogent and reasonable declaration of the right to defence, but without the violence of pre-emption. There is no need to have a PDF devoted to the War in Iraq as that paragraph makes it plainly obvious where the Australian Democrats stand.
• Disability - Ditch it. Follow the caucus on this, issue to issue.
• Education - I would bundle this into one PDF. It is a significant policy issue that it requires more than a paragraph. I would state general principles that the party recognizes that the most significant vector for social mobility is education. I would simplify the primary, secondary and tertiary education policies into, "Universal access to public higher and tertiary education". It must come with the recognition that the public schools welcome competition from the private sector, but that a wealthy and egalitarian society must make the distinction that there is a level of education that no person should be denied based on their ability to pay.
• Employment - Dump it. Support the major parties if they have rational and empirical policies on employment and in particular youth unemployment. If the policy works, claim it was your idea all along. If it fails blame Liberal and Labor for their inability to see beyond the faction system. I don't think the Australian Democrats policy position on this issue should be beyond seeking full employment for all Australians.
• Electoral Matters and Public Administration - Dumb title. Rename it "Democracy". Change the title of "Voting Rights of Prisoners" to "Voting Rights" and use it to bundle in any political and voting rights that are needed. Also add the policies from "Prime Minister and Cabinet" policy section. This one should be overloaded with policy as it is the Australian Democrats supposed speciality. Add another policy called "political rights" and bundle in all manner of anti-discriminatory policies. Also add a section "Independence of the Civil Service".
• Foreign Affairs - Condense it into one paragraph. Change the heading to "Foreign Policy". Something like; "The Australian Democrats recognize cultural and trade osmosis is the best means to ensure peace, prosperity and stability between nation-states." I would also add that the Australian Democrats will pursue an independent foreign policy that places Australian interests first and is subordinate to no other nation's interests.
• Health and Aging - Change the heading to "Health". Summarize it in a paragraph, namely that a wealthy and egalitarian society should ensure that there is a level of access to health that no-one should be denied.
• Immigration - Part of this needs to be bundled under rights. The indefinite detaining of refugees is inhumane and tyrannous. Rights extend to all under the jurisdiction of the government, part of their reason of being inviolable for the individual - no matter their citizenship. If they are human, they have political rights. I think the Pacific Solution is an abomination, not to mention unnecessarily expensive. I recall doing the sums in 2003 for it coming up with $48,000 per refugee in PNG/Nauru. It is cheaper to give them a work visa and even if they all end up on the dole the Pacific Solution is more expensive. I will let my personal distaste for existing Liberal Party policy interfere here and say, slam the Liberal Governments record on immigration. IMO we should be aiming to have an Australian population of between forty and sixty million within the next forty years. That will give us economic parity with nations such as the UK, France and Germany.
• Indigenous Affairs - I would rename this "Reconciliation". I would condense this into a paragraph that starts with, "The Australian Democrats recognize the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the original custodians of the land ...". I would also bundle in the reality that no Australian Republic would be complete without recognizing reconciliation.
• Industry, Small Business and Tourism - I would make this one heading called "Trade". And then issue a few paragraphs on how the Australian Democrats support open markets and free trade as the best means to create wealth and prosperity at home and overseas. I would also add the caveat that no free trade agreement is complete without labour standards. Comparative advantage should be based on skillsets and cost of living, not protectionism and government subsidy. I would also add that the Australian Democrats recognize small and medium business as the labour engines of the nation and will ensure that small and medium business is unencumbered by onerous regulation such as taxes, unless absolutely necessary. The GST would be first to go IMNSHO. The States can raise their own taxes. I would also prod the Liberal Party to match their rhetoric in these areas. If it works steal the glory, if it fails blame the Liberal Party ineptness.
• Information Technology Portfolio - Scrap it. Politics moves much slower than technology, it is best to let technological innovation to occur without legislative interference.
• Prime Minister and Cabinet - This would be included in the "Democracy" section. As a core competency of the Australian Democrats as a party of review it should be the largest policy section. This is definitely the Australian Democrats strength in their existing policies as well. Best to leverage that knowledge and rationality.
• Public Service - Scrap that section. Does nothing to describe who the Australian Democrats are. Put any information on the independence of the Civil Service into the "Democracy" section.
• Taxation, Finance and Corporate Affairs - Change the title to "Taxation". Offer no substantial policies but summarise the Australian Democrats stance into a paragraph describing the party's commitment to a just and equitable tax system that does not burden taxpayers. As a party of review there is no need to have a formal tax policy as you can always bash the Liberal and Labor parties as tax ogres. John Howard is presiding over the most taxatious Australian Government ever. The Liberals have also allowed bracket creep. Easy political pickings.
• Regional Development & Services - Unnecessary for a party of review and confusing to include. Dump it. Let the caucus decide policy on this from issue to issue.
• Territories and Local Government - Dump it. Let the primary focus of the party being upper houses at the federal and state level. Let local government candidates set the agenda here through local caucuses and speeches. This should not be a national or state policy.
• Transport - Dump it. Until the Australian Democrats become an opposition party at the State level there is no point hanging this out there. Let individual members build speeches on this that can be policy from moment to moment. Without a formal policy, the Australian Democrats are able to bash incompetence at the state level, especially in NSW.
• Women - This is moved to be part of the "Political Rights" section.
• Work and Family - Dump it. Let Labor pursue this, and if they don't push them too. So they seem at the forefront of it. If it works claim all credit and say it was the Democrats idea and Labor would have done nothing unless pushed. If it fails, blame Labor ineptness.
• Workplace Relations - Dump it. This is supposedly a Labor Party core competency. If they don't, hold a hot rod to their feet, but since the Australian Democrats are a party of review as their primary focus, there is no need to make a formal policy on it.

The media and oppositions parties carry their own lens and spin, simplifying the message into a reasonable, yet repeatable phrase will carry more weight than a complex and comprehensive policy. The danger is the "Bush Conundrum" where you have a tightly disciplined campaign and then don't follow up on your rhetoric. Since the Australian Democrats are answerable to a caucus this might not be the same issue that it is with the American Republican Party.

In Summary

So the Australian Democrats message has been condensed into core competencies of;

• Accountability
• Justice
• Democracy
• Political Rights

And essential but shorter policies;

• Telecommunications
• Defence
• Education
• Foreign Policy
• Health
• Reconciliation
• Trade
• Taxation

This has condensed the Australian Democrats position into smaller more understandable language. What are the basic values of the Australian Democrats? Easy peasy - Accountability, Justice, Democracy and Political Rights.

So what should the Australian Democrats slogan be? "Keep the Bastards Honest" should never die. It should be re-used over and over. The meme of "The Party of Review" should also be firmly established. But what could be a wider slogan;

Ensuring freedom and liberty,
Defending and strengthening democracy,
Guaranteeing political rights and justice for all.

Nice rhetoric, but eminently achievable for the Australian Democrats and fitting with the popular perception of their party and its role in government. Until the Australian Democrats make headway in the lower houses, there is no need to cast themselves as anything other than a centre right party that is the party of review, the party of democracy and the party of political rights.

cam

More Reading on Australian democrats

• Australian Democrats
• Slogan
• Keep The Bastards Honest
• The Australian Democrats
• Steele Hall and the Liberal Movement
• Leadership and Electoral Popularity
• Don Chipp's Resignation Speech
• Democrat Policy on Senate Money Bills
• 2007 National Election
• Why The Australian Democrats Will Be Missed