The rise of independent members of parliament and the interest in having more raises intriguing questions.
I like the idea of independent representatives as law makers but it does throw up challenges when forming government and selections for ministerial positions.
Linked to this, at least in my mind, is the question of becoming a republic and with that the role of President and the responsibilities that position would have. But more on that another time, for now, how did we get to where we are with a seemingly disconnected electorate and politicians that don’t want people to think beyond self interest.
Other questions which come to mind are the origin of the political parties we currently have and how they have changed over time, how some have disappeared while others have emerged, and who do they represent?
The Australian Constitution does not mention political parties, basing representation on the people who are elected to parliament, either in the Lower House representing voters in electorates or in the Senate to represent the state or territory. (The seemingly undemocratic equal number of senators for each state is to protect the interests of the states, including Tasmania, with the smallest population.) However, the role of Prime Minister is defined as the Head of Government, and thus the head of the executive branch of government, the cabinet. The roles of Prime Minister and Treasurer are filled by members of the House of Representatives.
While there is no mention of political parties, the electorates are districts drawn up by the Federal Electoral Commission to as near as possible give equal numbers of constituents to the parliament. Some electorates are in rural areas, with agriculture and mining being major industries while others are more urban, with working class populations or in other instances, business owners and wealthier constituents. It then becomes a matter that representatives of similar districts will come together to protect the common interests of their constituents.
The National Party was formally founded in 1913 in Western Australia and nationally in 1920, representing farming interests from each of the states in the Federal parliament. It became clear that farming and grazing interests were common and the formation of a party could give a more unified voice in the parliament, and in the framing of legislation covering those interests.
The origins of the Liberal Party are a little more complex, but likewise a uniting of elected members representing constituents of similar interests. The Commonwealth Liberal Party was formed in 1909, fusing two interest groups, Protectionist Party and Free Trade Party, both representing business classes from different states, either in manufacturing or in trade, across internal borders, trade between states of in import and export trade. The name changes and areas of interest occurred over time until in 1931 when the United Australia Party was formed, a conglomerate of interest groups representing business interests. These parties, and the emerging Liberal Party led by Robert Menzies were active in protecting rural and business interests, while the oldest political party, the Australian Labor Party worked to protect worker’s rights and working conditions.
The ALP is Australia’s oldest political party, founded in the 1890s as a result of the working conditions shearers faced in Queensland, and have had representatives in Federal and State governments since Federation.
I know, it’s a very brief overview of the political party system, but what emerges, looking at the history, and I encourage a deeper look, deeper than this article can provide, is that representatives with constituencies having common interests will come together to form some sort of voting block in parliament. That way they better represent their constituents, recognising that the various interest groups within electorates have common needs.
When we look at the independents in the current fedral parliament, we see they tend to represent conservative seats, formerly held by Liberal members and achieved their election through addressing environmental and women’s issues, where the Liberal Party, firstly under Tony Abbott and under the two subsequent leaders neglected the environmental issues, winding back the changes the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government has enacted, and projecting a male focus in attitude.
As such, those independents are very much united in that they represent conservative seats and recognise the need for responsible environment-friendly policies. So while ostensibly ‘independent’ they do form a voting block and theiir votes on legislation demonstrate that.
The change which has been effected, and this is a positive change, is that on the conservative side of politics we have voices which are more cognisant of women’s issues and of the environmental threats that business as usual represent from major industries. The advent of more women in parliament has also seen that the acrimonious debates, of blokes being blokes, has to some extent been reduced. The levels of respect demanded, that the unwelcome touching, the sexual innuendo, the personal attacks have diminished, but not (yet) eliminated, where debate and discussion can focus in the business at hand instead of being used for personal attacks.
The last point is the one to do with stability of government. Under the United Australia Party, the various factions and various interest groups caused quite a bit of disruption which led to instability and uncertainty in government. The governemt collapsed shortly after the 1941 election due to conflicts within the coalition, and John Curtin formed a minority government, winning a majority in the 1943 election.
The formation of the the Democratic Labor Party in 1955, an anti-communist party, while an off-shoot of the Labor Party was very much under the control of Catholic intersts, effectively ensured that the Liberals, together with coalition partners, the Country Party retained power for 23 years.
The party system, and it is more than a two party system, has seen good times and bad times, has seen good governance, which has unified Australia with trade and tarrif laws which are consistent, state to state, even overcame the stupity of having to change trains at borders because the rail guage was different from state to state, has seen off the threat of the Japanese in WWII, has built a defence system and a taxation system which sometimes is almost fair, and has seen tensions as coalitions form and dissolve, as party politics take precedence of effective governance.
But a parliament of independents would not resolve those conflicting situations which we see today; they have no magic wand which will miraculously fix the housing problem, or the cost of living crisis, or the interest rates determined by the RBA. Independents will rally together to deal with their constituent needs, and as in the formation of the parties, we see that similar intersts will form voting blocks. We see the fractures within the current Liberal Party as it seeks to weaken laws regarding abortion, individual rights regarding sexual and gender identification, end of life laws. Those same issues will face independent members because those problems do not just go away.
What is missing in political debate is a philosophic underpinning; a vision which asks the questions like what sort of society do we want to be, how important is transperancy and fairness, can we treat all our citizens respectfully, can we have an economy which benefits all Australians?
Instead we get click bait questions, like are you better off today than three years ago? My answer, an honest one is yes, I am much better off, thank you. I have retired and have enough to last me however long I live. But to the young couple who have bought a house and had a baby in that time, life is a bit more of a struggle, balancing work and child care, perhaps going to part-time work, the cost pressures and time pressures of a young family as opposed to a child free, dual income life, they probably would say ‘no’ to that question, but is changing government going to alter their circumstances? Probably not.
And is an independent local member going to make that life easier? Is an independent member going to reduce the interest rate on the mortgage?
Probably the better solution is to encourage more people to become politically aware and active. To insist on meeting the local member or at least their electorate staff.
And in joining a political party, to ask that the elected member in parliament can have a conscious vote on issues such as that Fatima Payman faced when the stance in the Israel/Gaza conflict is so decidedly pro Israel, pro Zionist and anti-Islam that religion, that distinct marker of faith becomes one on which a person is judged, rather than their humanity and their sense of humanitarianism.
The same where a debate or issue is against the interests of the elctorate, but in narrowed in definition through the party. Actively working within a political party to ensure that the representative represents their electorate first is important.
The final factor is that it costs money to mount a political campaign, and independent candidates can be, and as in other jurisdictions has happened, can be ‘bought off’. Look at the influence of the gun lobby in the US, where despite people being killed daily, guns are freely available to most people legally and the black market is very active for those who for some reason or other cannot legally own a gun.
Look at the influence of churches in the health system and the refusal to conduct abortions.
Look at the influence the gas and mining industries buy.
Look at the influence of big business in framing tax and wages policy.
Look at how the comsumer is made to suffer as retail duopolies set prices to ensure high profits and healthy share-holder returns while governments appear helpless.
Look at how the taxation system is geared to benefit those with the most while the greatest (proportionally) burden falls on wage earners.
I could add a few more ‘look ats’ but I think you get the idea.
Politics looks hard. Politics takes time to be involved in, but ignorance and distancing from the system because it is too hard, because it requires commitment in time, in money, in intellectual engagement can be hard. But if we take the easy way out and do nothing we will get the governments we deserve.
And to expect independent members to be the cure all is a bit unrealistic.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites like The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Yep, the idea of independent MPs and parties is not a panacea, when there is disengagement with politics and serious core issues, led by RW MSM.
Further it does not protect them and their policy interests from external wedges applied by RW MSM cartel, think tanks and influencers when even both the ALP and LNP struggle with traction on their own originally developed policies (usurped by imported policies and tactics from US).
See UK FPTP first past the post electoral system, now having independents and supporters demanding PR proportional representation, because…..
They need to be very careful that it’s not a ‘RW libertarian trap’ for the advantage of Farage’s Reform and while ignoring unelected Lords; maybe Oz preferential in Commons & PR elections for Lords would suffice.
What’s missing is not a philosophical underpinning. What’s missing is the execution of policies in line with such an underpinning, or even a demonstrative fight for same. If Labor represents working people, how are there non-Labor governments? Moderate liberalism is a philosophical underpinning, but because moderate Liberals have no achievements to speak of there are no moderate liberals to speak of. The decay of party politics is the idea that people who talk the talk deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Of course nobody has a magic wand, or a magic money tree, which is why every article insisting this is irredeemably silly. Who do you think you are, Glenn Milne?
If you really believe in a party system then you have to start by agreeing that the current party system isn’t fit for purpose. The move towards independents should be seen as a deconstruction of the party system (one that leaves parliament functioning without the need for revolution and “special administrative arrangements”). Nothing about the current political moment precludes the possibility of new, more relevant parties emerging as we go forward, which you might regard as more solid grounds for hope than is possible with nonsense about magic wands: a good community independent is much more likely to devise both good and relevant policy than any given branch meeting of any political party anywhere in the country.
The problem with Independents is this. If one party has a majority, all an Independent can do is advocate for their community and vote on legislation. If, however, we have a Hung Parliament, the Independent can become kingmaker. Does that improve democracy? Yes and no.
Where Potty Boy Dutton was 100% wrong when he farted that parliaments are a hindrance to good governments is that a) he’s never been part of a good government, so he wouldn’t know, b) he is unafraid to use parliament to attempt to destablilise Labor and c) while a government requires a majority in the lower house, it does not operate in a way that says, “This is what we want and we will impose it. That’s when a government becomes a dictatorship.
It is true that the Australian Constitution, as originally written, did not mention or recognise political parties and in my view, quite rightly so as we frequently see people elected to represent one party who, as soon as they are elected, jump ship and become in most cases an Independent or create their own party [Lambie, Payman et al] : that is particularly the case in the Senate and sometimes it works out quite well.
However, there were conventions which were generally followed when there was a senate vacancy due to resignation or the death of a senator – the convention required that the state parliament of the relevant state from which the former senator had come, should nominate a replacement (no by-election you will note) of the same Party – it was just a convention and not binding and was generally followed by honourable men (it was all blokes in those days). So along came John Bjelke Petersen in Qld, a dishonourable scoundrel, who trashed the convention by nominating a National Part flunky to take the casual senate vacancy of a Labor senator.
So we had a referendum and introduced section 15 of the Constitution which, inter alia, says this :
Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.
So, due to bastardry from the Queensland National Party, it was necessary to introduce political Parties into our Constitution, it also introduced one of the most convoluted sections yet seen in our founding document, all thanks to Uncle Joh.
In my view, casual senate vacancies should be handled as they are in the Reps. hold a by-election in the respective state.
PS : I am very much in favour of independents in both Houses !
The Teals are a (largely) policy free zone.
I’m in a Teal seat, and despite the commitment to community consultation, a number of statements seem to appear out of nowhere. Policies are just made up on the run.
Emails about important policy positions go unanswered.
Chaotic and undisciplined is the appearance of the MP’s office and organisation.
The independents are an indulgence, a luxury that is tolerable when there are about a handful of them. If there were 20 or 30 of them parliament would be as chaotic as their office admiration.
* All wanting a place in the media spotlight
* All pushing their favourite agenda item
* No coherent policy framework
* No policy co-ordination
* No leadership structure
If the Teals formed a political party, they would be worth considering. But they’re not.
Choose a (small?) political party that broadly reflects your orientation, join them and advocate their policies.
We need people in parliament who actually bother to care about the people they represent. Party or independent, doesn’t matter. The problem at present seems to be that they all represent themselves, they win a seat and start looking at how they remain in the=at seat for THEMSELVES, just the life of that parliament. What happened to vision for the future? The Labor party tries to project years ahead but they too have fallen in to the elelction cycle nonsense.
I believe the UK system where MPs have “surgeries” in their electorate where anyone can come in and talk to them. This would keep them in touch with the wants and needs of the people who voted for them. We can always contact our MPs but usually a staffer replies and we don’t actually “talk” to the MP.
Minority governments that need the votes of Independents are the best option at the moment, but we need a return to values and ideologies on both sides.
I couldn’t ‘like’ but it was a pleasure to read some thoughtful and considerate comments.
Sue, we did have that facility many years ago but there were many complaints about it, the chief one being that it was a bit Facebookish.
We could always bring the feature back if there was enough demand for it.
Keitha, yes, I agree we need people in parliament who care, and I have found in the representatives from electorates I have lived in, most are accessible, some more than others.
They make themselves available with coffee meetings in local cafes, and there is an open discussion available at that time, but we, their constituents need to take up the opportunity to attend those gatherings… as well there are evening sessions, easier for people who work,
The unfortunate thing is that many of those events are poorly attended, or attended by party faithful, who come to support rather than to question.
I shouild sleep on this thoughtful article before I try to make sense with the keyboard.
The Teals tried to be a good influence and seemed ready to cooperate with the Labor of a couple of years, but Labor seemed not to want nclude, as has also happened with the Greens. Too much lobby influence so political donations seemed to obviate action on uregent fronts involving social infrastructures; education and media come to mind. But Labor retreated and instead fitted in with Dutton and the retention of the Duopoly- mustnt upset Murdoch, Rinehart and foreign TNC’s, etc.
Globalism and hi tech of the neo lib sort has rendered the system obsolete, as with England and even worse, the USA.
Time for bed, very late here so must be off.
We need more independents as a considerable number of MPs from all the major parties have come up through ‘the system’ and know instinctively how they should behave to climb higher on the slippery pole. The font of all wisdom on how Australia should be managed is not held in the headquarters of the ALP, Liberals or Nationals (or their fellow travellers in some states).
Australia is one of the few countries in the world where a majority government is ‘business as usual’ and arguably only when the ALP is power as the Coalition is just that – a coalition of two (or more) closely related political parties – neither of whom could form government without the other.
While the inevitable speculation after an election in countries that don’t have a duopoly in political representation (including over the ‘ditch’ in New Zealand) can be seen to be chaotic, arguably it provides better results in the long term as a variety of views are in the tent and have to be considered – rather than the tent being an outpost of the government’s political headquarters.
At least with our system of preferential voting we ultimately end up with a government that has achieved a majority by distribution of preferences.
In the UK, where first past the post remains the order of the day, The Labour Party won 33.7 percent of the vote in the 2024 general election and claimed the majority and government. Yet there were close to seventy percent of the electorate who didn’t vote for them.
Historically the Conservatives recorded their highest share of the vote in 1931 at 60.8 percent, the Labour Party in 1951 at 48.8 percent.