Appendix 2: Australian Commentary
Table of ContenTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 – MAKING THE BEST OF THE SYSTEM WE HAVE
CHAPTER 2 – THE CURRENT DYNAMIC IS ‘PROGRESSIVE VERSUS CONSERVATIVE’
CHAPTER 3 – OUR CURRENT PARTY STRUCTURES ARE INEFFECTIVE
CHAPTER 4 – INDEPENDENTS CAN’T FORM EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 5 – BREAKING INTO THE CARTEL
CHAPTER 6 – PATHWAYS TO SOMETHING NEW
CHAPTER 7 – A POTENT POLITICAL FORCE NEEDS PEOPLE
CHAPTER 8 – PRODUCING LEADERS
CHAPTER 9 – KEEPING IT SIMPLE
CHAPTER 10 – DRAFT ORGANISATIONAL MODEL
CHAPTER 11 – PEOPLE
APPENDIX 1 – HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
APPENDIX 2 – AUSTRALIAN COMMENTARY
A key reference point for Australian political scientists looking at our two-party system is the event known as ‘fusion’, in the first decade of the 20th century. Fusion refers to the forced merger of non-Labor forces at the time when Labor had taken one of the two spots. It is important for two reasons.
First, it shows how the party structures we still have today were formed. Secondly, it shows how the system can be renewed when it is not working. Older structures can be dumped and replaced by new ones.
The non-labor parties were the Protectionists and the Free Traders (a group that evolved into the Anti-Socialist Party shortly before the merger). Their respective leaders, Alfred Deakin and George Reid, loathed each other. Reid had to quit politics to allow the merger to happen. Charles Richardson, a Melbourne-based writer, describes the situation in 1909 in a 2009 article called Fusion: The Party System We Had To Have?
The major development of those first eight years (since federation) was the rise of the ALP to be a contender for power in its own right. By the third federal election, in 1906, Labor had almost doubled its vote to 36.6 percent—mostly at the expense of the Protectionists. Based in the trade union movement, Labor was a tightly disciplined group; its members pledged themselves to vote as a bloc according to the decisions of caucus, and therefore behaved more like a modern political party than their rivals did. This put them in a strong bargaining position.
But the nature of the ALP also provoked resistance. The caucus system was seen as hostile to the individual conscience of MPs; Labor’s socialist doctrines, half-hearted as they were, were resisted by the propertied classes; and the very idea of working-class participation in politics was still new and unsettling. As Labor seemed more within reach of a majority, it lost interest in cooperating with middle class politicians, and they in turn began to see themselves as sharing a common interest in resisting Labor’s claims. [1]
In 2010 a number of political scientists contributed to the book Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System. Paul Strangio from Monash University wrote about the significance of the event and its ongoing impact.
Because it is generally less well known, one event that might struggle to find a place in the canon of Australian political landmarks is the 1909 realignment of the federal party system: the moment of non-Labor party ‘fusion’. Yet, in the durability of its effects, fusion ranks as a profoundly important turning point in the nation’s political history.[2]
The party system created in 1909-10 has endured essentially intact ever since: Australian politics is still fundamentally played out within the frame of Labor versus non-Labor (Liberal). Challenges to the stability of that system have come and gone or, alternatively, been accommodated within the ‘two-party dominant’ regime.[3]
The durability of the two-party dominant system and the resilience of voter support for the traditional major parties in Australia are also striking from an international perspective. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, only the United States boasts a party system of greater longevity among the polities to which Australia is commonly compared.[4]
The tripartite order was reinforced at the following election of December 1903 when each party obtained roughly an equal share of seats. It was in the aftermath of that result that Deakin famously compared the situation to ‘three elevens’: a scenario ‘absolutely impossible’ in the parliamentary arena as it would be on the cricketing field. The trio, he declared, ‘should somehow be resolved into two…He had not the slightest idea as yet which of the parties were going to endeavour to unite, but unite they must’.[5]
Strangio also discusses how preferential and compulsory voting have anchored the system.
How do we account for the comparative stability of the Australian party system? The diversification of New Zealand party politics since the adoption of a mixed member proportional electoral system is a reminder that preferential voting has been one of the anchor points of Australia’s two-party dominant system. Compulsory voting is also surmised to have provided ballast to the major parties and insulated Australia from commensurate rates of partisan de-alignment experienced in other advanced democracies.[6]
Judith Brett from La Trobe University comments:
The ins and outs of governments in the first decade of Federation are difficult for modern readers to comprehend, accustomed as we are to the disciplined two-party contests that followed fusion, and to governments changing as a result of shifts in popular support at the polls rather than changed alliances within the parliament. Fusion marked … the end of instability in the parliament as it finally settled into the pattern of government and opposition...[7]
In 2002 Ian McAllister, a political scientist from the Australian National University, wrote a paper titled Political Parties in Australia: Party Stability in a Utilitarian Society. He made a number of comments that are pertinent to understanding the situation.
On the Liberal and National parties:
Despite the dominance of the owner–worker cleavage, reflected in Labor–Liberal party competition, the rural–urban division has remained politically salient through the Country (later National) Party. Between 1914 and 1919, a sustained period of low prices for agricultural produce stimulated the rise of country parties dedicated to defending agricultural interests, and they combined to form a single party in 1920, shortly after entering into a coalition with the Liberal Party. The coalition has remained in existence since then, except for two short periods in 1973–74 and 1987. Despite the permanent nature of the arrangement, there has been little pressure for a merger; two conservative parties, one catering to urban dwellers the other appealing to farmers living in the ‘bush’, has suited those on the anti-Labor side of politics.[8]
On the stability of the two-party system in Australia:
…the long-term stability of the Australian party system over the course of the twentieth century sets it apart from most others. The parties that compete for electoral support at the close of the twentieth century are very much the descendants of the parties that competed at the beginning of the century. Moreover, with the exception of some comparatively minor splits and fissures, parties outside the major Labor–Liberal/National division have gained little electoral success.[9]
On executive control of the legislature:
A third modification to the Westminster model of responsible party government is the level of discipline that the Australian parties enforce on their members. Labor was the first to achieve effective discipline at both the electoral and parliamentary levels, but the Liberals, of necessity, soon followed (Rydon 1986: 188). Dissent from the party line within the House of Representatives is almost unknown and the party machines have a variety of means by which they can enforce discipline among their members, not the least of which is the threat of ‘deselection’—the removal of the person as the party candidate in a constituency. As Jaensch (1994: 239) puts it, ‘legislative voting is redundant, except on the rare “conscience votes” or the rare case when a member of the Liberal or National parties has come under pressure from constituents or the local or state party base.’[10]
On the efficiency of the system:
… the political system was embedded within a utilitarian political culture, where efficiency was and is regarded as paramount. What is more efficient than mass political parties, providing accountability, policy choice, and a ready and able elite willing to hold political office? Utilitarianism and its practical embodiment within the electoral system—compulsory voting—have ensured that Australian political parties have remained dominant and relatively unchallenged during the course of the twentieth century.[11]
Anika Gauja, a political scientist from the University of Sydney, is particularly interested in the nature of political engagement and party membership. In a 2019 paper on The Expanding Party Universe: Patterns of partisan engagement in Australia and the United Kingdom, she comments on the similarities of the Australian and UK systems:
Australia and the United Kingdom are similar in terms of the electoral system, the degree of party system institutionalization or party de-alignment, comparable long-term rates of formal membership decline, as well as a large number of other institutional variables, including minimal legal restrictions on the participatory opportunities available to non-members. Including both countries in the study (of membership participation) thus allows us to hold these aggregate intervening factors constant and focus on the individual-level differences between party supporters and non-committed citizens. We should expect to see little variation between Australia and the United Kingdom …[12]
On the nature of modern 21st-century political participation:
One of the most salient findings of our research, with respect to the trajectory of opening up party organizations, was the clear difference between non-committed voters, regular party supporters and strong party supporters in the likelihood that they would engage in party activities in the future. As we move from the non-committed to regular and then strong party supporters, respondents’ interest in undertaking future party activities substantially increases. These trends are consistent with the engagement patterns identified above and suggest that as parties think about the future of their organizations, they could potentially draw on a core group of people who are unlikely to join as members, but would participate, for example, in open primaries and issues-based consultation. It also begs the contentious question: do parties need formal members at all?[13]
In 2020 former Labor politician Barry Jones wrote What Is To Be Done: Political Engagement And Saving The Planet. There are a number of comments on the nature of the situation with the current parties and the lack of public engagement with them.
On engagement and public trust:
A robust democracy depends on high levels of citizen engagement, and this demands an investment of time, energy, commitment, knowledge, judgement, and balance. Short of armed revolt, which I would not recommend, it is the only way that our system can be reformed to restore the concept of public office as a public trust, and to preference the public interest over vested interests. Are we up to the challenge? And are our schools and universities doing enough to explain how democracy works, and how institutions interact with our lives?
Trust has been declining in the democratic system, and in public institutions …[14]
On the number of people involved in the current parties and what more involvement could achieve:
Of 15 million Australian voters, barely 30,000 have even a nominal involvement in political parties—an engagement of just 0.2 per cent. The parties are small, closed, secretive, and oligarchic, and they prefer it that way.
If, instead of engaging in handwringing and voting with pegs on their noses, 10 per cent of voters joined the political party that they generally voted for and played an active role in policy formulation, they could transform Australian politics very speedily. In practice, even 5 per cent (750,000) might be enough to do so.
This is a modest figure, proportionately, compared to the period after World War II when party memberships were high. But it would transform politics beyond recognition, change party structures, and lead to more courageous policies. The problem for all major parties is that their traditional bases are contracting, so they come to rely on zealots and lobbyists, selling their integrity to the highest bidder.
“The hegemonic parties discourage a large membership, contrary to what might be expected, because the people who currently run/control/own the parties are unwilling to open up internal debate on policy, and they do not want to lose control.
And engagement needs to be direct, personal, and face-to-face to be effective. As Oscar Wilde reputedly observed, ‘The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings.’[15]
On the choice that the Australian public is currently forced to make:
On the political menu, consumers (that is, voters) have the alternative of McDonald’s or KFC. They might prefer something other than a Big Mac or fried chicken, but they must turn up and choose, whether they like it or not.[16]
On the lack of public power in the current parties:
Voters are now spectators, not participants, in the political process, in which the real and the virtual have been inverted, as if a horror movie represents the reality, and the audience cannot change the outcome.
Party structures are oligarchic and secretive, and their members, in practice, comprise two categories: insiders (being small in numbers, but powerful) and outsiders (in large numbers, but ageing and weak).
Factions, trade unions, industry groups, and substantial donors are major players.[17]
On the situation at hand:
If 5 per cent of Australian voters, the estimated 750,000 mentioned above, joined—or even attempted to join—existing parties, they would blow open the entrance to some dark caves. But if the hegemonic parties rejected them, they would then have the option of retreating, or forming a new political force—perhaps a Courage Party.
Party apparatchiks are preoccupied with preserving the vehicle, ensuring its electoral support, and less interested in the destination, especially if it is over the hills and far away.
I joined the Australian Labor Party in 1950, just 70 years ago, and would now classify myself as an anxious life member. I owe the ALP a great deal, particularly for my 26 years as a member of parliament, both state and federal, and seven years as a minister. But during a period of dramatic global change with profound implications for Australia and liberal democracy generally, all Australian political parties have demonstrated their inadequacy.
Apart from a commitment to ‘fairness’—rather a vague concept—the ALP has become very risk-averse, retreating to its historic base, failing to build on the radical innovations driven by Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Rudd, and Gillard. However, some Labor state premiers have been effective, even taking personal responsibility on some issues, which is a rarity.
It is hard to think of an issue that Labor would not modify or abandon under pressure.
If there was a Truth in Politics Act, existing parties could be required to adopt new, more accurate names, for example: The Self-Interest Party; The Coal Party; The Tepid Party; The Pure Party; or The Me Party.[18]
Sydney businessman Mark Bouris expressed how many people see the current party situation in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald in early 2021.
Once upon a time, Labor stood for really good, solid social values. Today, it stands for the 1000 interests that it represents. And the Liberals, the conservatives, don’t stand for middle Australia. You know, the toffs, they ran it, but they knew they had to go to the middle class.
It doesn’t have the middle class anymore. It stands for big business and your greedy people, who think it’s all about the Mercedes-Benz or expensive lunches and making shitloads of money. And it kills me.[19]
[1] Richardson, Charles. 2009. “Fusion: The Party System We Had to Have?”. Policy 25 (1): 13-19, p. 13.
[2] Strangio, Paul. 2009. Introduction to Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System, ed. Paul Strangio & Nick Dyrenfurth (Melbourne, AU: Melbourne University Press, 2009), 1-22, p. 8.
[3] Strangio, Introduction to Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System, p. 9.
[4] Strangio, Introduction to Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System, pp. 10-11.
[5] Strangio, Introduction to Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System, p. 14.
[6] Strangio, Introduction to Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System, p. 11.
[7] Brett, Judith. 2009. “‘the fortunes of my own little band’: The Dilemma of Deakin and the Liberal Protectionists”, in Confusion: The Making of the Australian Two-Party System, ed. Paul Strangio & Nick Dyrenfurth (Melbourne, AU: Melbourne University Press, 2009), 23-44, p. 33.
[8] McAllister, Ian. 2002. ‘Political Parties in Australia: Party Stability in a Utilitarian Society”, in Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Paul Webb, David Farrell & Ian Holliday (Oxford, ENG: Oxford University Press, 2002), 379-408, p. 381.
[9] McAllister, ‘Political Parties in Australia: Party Stability in a Utilitarian Society’, p. 382.
[10] McAllister, ‘Political Parties in Australia: Party Stability in a Utilitarian Society’, p. 396.
[11] McAllister, ‘Political Parties in Australia: Party Stability in a Utilitarian Society’, p. 405.
[12] Gauja, Anika and Max Grömping. 2020. “The Expanding Party Universe: Patterns of Partisan Engagement in Australia and the United Kingdom”. Party Politics 26 (6): 822-833, p. 825. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354068818822251.
[13] Gauja and Grömping, “The Expanding Party Universe: Patterns of Partisan Engagement in Australia and the United Kingdom”, p. 831.
[14] Jones, Barry. 2020. What Is To Be Done: Political Engagement And Saving The Planet. Brunswick, Victoria: Scribe Publications, p. 325.
[15] Jones, What Is To Be Done: Political Engagement And Saving The Planet, pp. 326-327.
[16] Jones, What Is To Be Done: Political Engagement And Saving The Planet, p. 328.
[17] Jones, What Is To Be Done: Political Engagement And Saving The Planet, p. 329.
[18] Jones, What Is To Be Done: Political Engagement And Saving The Planet, p. 333.
[19] Brook, Stephen. “‘Are You Mad?’ Money Man Mark Bouris Aims to Shake up Politics”. Sydney Morning Herald, 12 February 2021. https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/are-you-mad-money-man-mark-bouris-aims-to-shake-up-politics-20210207-p570dn.html