(Image: Tom Red/Private Media)

With the announcement on Monday that the Greens are proposing a truth and justice commission on Indigenous/non-Indigenous relations in Australia, the writing of the great post-election shopping list has begun.

The Greens appear to be proposing this as a non-negotiable condition of supporting a minority Labor government. There’s going to be a lot more on the way — from them and the independents with even a chance of getting in.

Non-negotiable is nonsensical, of course; if Labor is within coo-ee of government after the election, the horse-trading will be monumental and leave everyone feeling burnt and disappointed, even if it’s only for confidence and supply support.

Everyone’s bluffing. Labor says it won’t deal and of course already is through back channels; the Greens and independents are preparing their real list behind the shopping list. Should that process continue, politics as usual will carry over past the election and into the new period.

That will be a wasted opportunity to change how things are done, and simply entrench cynicism and create a vacuum capable of being filled with a right-wing populism.

Instead the Greens and independents should be being public now about the priorities they would bring to the table, and the minimum they would want for any commitment above and beyond a vote-by-vote process. In so doing, I would argue, they should clear the decks of all content-based items, and have a slate that is purely about the form of government and Australian democracy. Without that, nothing will change. 

That we need some, any, change in the structure of government and “actually existing” Australian democracy does not, I think, need to be argued to a Crikey audience in any detail. We can agree that our system is a smoking ruin. What was once a system which had some moral bounds by way of a mix of tradition and parochialism has become, as we got richer and worldier, a debauch, in banana republic style.

Our single member lower house has awarded government to the minority-voted party more than half-a-dozen times since Federation, often at crucial junctures. It magnifies some parties — the Nats — and minimises others — the Greens — in distorting fashion.

Preferentiality combined with compulsory voting and matched public funding funnels votes to the two major parties. A lack of control on donations has made the big three (including the Nats) clients of different sectors of capital as membership has plummeted. It makes possible the politics of plutocracy a la Clive Palmer and the UAP. There is virtually no control of the government-lobbying revolving door. There is no federal corruption oversight. 

Without real change to this set-up, specific program gains from negotiation — even those on climate change — will be provisional and wobbly. In service to the climate emergency, it is far more important that the Greens and independents take any chance they get to change the structure of Australian democracy. 

Were one to have a wish list on this, that would be a process in three stages:

Immediate

Establish a federal ICAC, with strong powers: Labor has already, finally, agreed to this, but it would have to be demanded as the first order of business for any supported Labor government, just to ensure its ardour. 

Ban the lobbying revolving door: regulation and law banning former MPs registering as lobbyists for 10 years after they leave Parliament. It may well be difficult to ban informal lobbying work — as political “advisers” etc — but it my be possible to criminalise an ex-MP having a lobbying meeting with a current MP, something more than simply banning them from registering as a lobbyist. 

The Voice to Parliament: through plebiscite and legislation, or legislation alone, as an interim measure ahead of a greater consideration of indigenous sovereignty (see below).

Mid-term (within a year)

From day one, there should be a consultation process to produce a political donations reform bill, most likely capping individual donations at something like $1000-$1500, attaching it to real individuals, banning “fronting” — distributing $100,000 in donations among employees or members — and capping spending on shadow campaigning (i.e. the super-rich running ads saying Labor eats babies, etc).

The latter is tricky, but doable. Laws penalising blatant and stark untruths in political campaigning should also be introduced. All donations should be immediately disclosed and published.

The formula for public funding should be changed, so that it is not simply a reinforcer of parties gaining the most primary votes, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Matched funding should be skewed, so that parties with fewer votes gain a larger amount per first preference vote. (They do a little, at the moment; but not enough.) 

Mid- to long-term (over three years)

A sustained public debate and inquiry into voting systems should be inaugurated from day one — to lead to possible changes in time for the 2025 election — that can be achieved by parliamentary vote alone (such as optional exhaustive preferentiality).

Long-term (five years, to land in the next Parliament)

Something like two constitutional conventions, spaced two years apart, lasting for months and considering everything: the crown and the republic, Indigenous sovereignty, the states, electoral divisions, and the restoration of disjunctive rail gauges.

These would then emerge as either a package plebiscite and referendum, or a series of separate such to occur around 2027 for a chance at a true and comprehensive modernisation of Australian democracy.

Yes, the last of these is a thousand migraines, and the odds of it happening are low. Which is why the more achievable changes should be separated out and acted on immediately.

As I say, committing to these changes and possibilities is a vastly more important role for the minor parties and independents than gaining this or that concrete policy achievement — save for a few immediate executive decisions such as getting the damned souls out of the Park Hotel, and halting the cashless warfare card rollout, doable with the stroke of a pen. 

But the moment of a hung Parliament, now, would be one to push for the structural changes required to knock our system into some sort of shape — still a long way from a democracy, but at least not a laughable client state. 

If there is a will to do this, then it would be better announced sooner rather than later, by Greens and key independents together, with plenty of lead time.

Furthermore, if it is announced, it has to be genuinely committed to, should the occasion arise, and to leave Labor without any guarantee of confidence and supply if it will not commit to the whole “immediate” package (some, but not all, of which is Labor policy). 

And should the crisis then arise for a Labor government that has failed to move on these vital matters, such a crossbench alliance would have to be willing to go all the way, and not give confidence. That would take some nerve; it would have to be committed to right from the start, because to threaten it and then back down would finish the power of the crossbench to offer any sort of deal. 

The capacity for a reversal is high. Labor and the Coalition could briefly ally to squelch it, calculating that the inevitable hit in public regard was worth stabilising a system which guarantees them a separation from that very public in question.

And of course the very system we need to change — the triple lock of exhaustive preference, compulsory voting and public funding — may well deliver the fix it was designed to serve up, and the Greens will make no lower house gains, and the independents very few.

All the more reason to think about it, game it out, find out if the will is there for it, and be ready to act should it appear, because who knows when it will again?

Letting it pass through lassitude and lack of will for the possible means the only thing we will be reconciled to is failure.

Is there any chance the Greens and independents could be so principled? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say column. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.