Australia’s broken political system

Political donations, party machines and failing governments all point to the same problem: a democratic system that has become better at protecting power than serving the public.

Politics is disappointing, but does it always have to be this disappointing? It’s a question that we’re always asked at New Politics and becomes harder to avoid after a week in which the Prime Minister attended an exclusive fundraiser at a Point Piper mansion, Labor members gathered at a national conference to debate policies the parliamentary leadership will end up ignoring, and Victorian Labor descended into another leadership crisis only months before a state election.

These events are not directly linked, but they expose the same failures: political parties that increasingly facilitate access, participation in democracy for the select few, and even leadership as instruments for maintaining power, rather than using it effectively in the public interest.

It would be naïve to imagine there was once a golden age when Australian politics was pure, democratic and untouched by money or vested interests, because those days have never existed. Political influence has always been applied inconsistently, parties have always cultivated and worshiped wealthy supporters, and governments have always attempted to neuter and diminish their party memberships. But democratic government has always depended on the goodwill and sound judgement of the people occupying public office, and if that goodwill can no longer be guaranteed, stronger legislative safeguards need to be implemented.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is facing legitimate questions over his attendance at a fundraiser held at a billionaire’s Point Piper mansion, where guests were encouraged to contribute $10,000 each. The objection isn’t that Albanese shared a meal with wealthy people – prime ministers need to meet with different business leaders, community representatives and citizens from every part of society, even the parts that we might not necessarily agree with.

The problem is that only one class of Australian can afford this special type of political access. A renter struggling with a 20 per cent increase, an exhausted nurse, a disability pensioner or a casual worker can’t pay $10,000 to sit in a magnificent private home and explain their concerns directly to the Prime Minister. Political access shouldn’t be like an auction going to the highest bidder, yet neither major party is willing to demand or implement stronger restrictions on political donations, lobbying and fundraising.

These same barriers were also visible at Labor’s 50th national conference, albeit in a different form. Here we had Labor members invited to travel to Adelaide, debate, negotiate amendments, applaud speeches, and congratulate themselves on their attendance. But it’s primarily a political theatre and pantomime. Members can express their views on Gaza, AUKUS, gambling advertising, gas exports, corporate power and voluntary assisted dying, yet any proposal that flies in the face of the dictatorial parliamentary executive is softened up, deferred, or put into the “for review” bucket, and never seen or heard of again.

A democratic party does need some flexibility when it gets itself into government, and there needs to be a response to changing circumstances – an issue that has a high level of support at this kind of conference and ends up in the Labor Platform might end up being too politically contentious and difficult for a government to achieve. But there has to be a meaningful relationship between the people who sustain a political movement and the government that’s operating in its name. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Another form of detachment from the public is now appearing in Victoria, where the Labor Party has decided that four months before a state election was the best time to remove Premier Jacinta Allan, and create a level of instability that will more than likely seal the fate of the Victoria Labor government in November, despite the poor state of the almost unelectable Liberal Party. Labor should have a good story to tell Victorians, with Melbourne being the third most desirable city in the world to live in, and a massive infrastructure program that will benefit the state in the short-to-medium term.

But there have been many allegations of corruption and organised crime associated with this program, and Allan hasn’t been politically astute enough to manage the crisis or establish an inquiry to resolve them. Instead, the allegations were allowed to fester for almost two years, and that ultimately cost her the leadership.

This is the story of long-term governments in contemporary Australia, and it seems that the timeframe for administrations maintaining their competence is becoming much shorter as time goes on. In previous eras, governments commonly remained in office for long periods: the Coalition governed federally for 23 years between 1949 and 1972, while state governments sometimes lasted for 24, 27 or even 32 years and, more or less, were competent for much of that time, certainly by today’s standards.

The modern era has been different though. The NSW Labor government held office for 16 years between 1995 and 2011, but much of its final eight years was marked by insufferable instability and corruption. The Coalition then went through a similar decline during its 12 years in office: broadly competent in its first half, disastrous in its second. Federally, the Coalition displayed a high degree of incompetence pretty much across all three terms between 2013 and 2022.

Has governing simply become too difficult? Is the best the public can expect is a few years of competent administration before the rot sets in and then a governing party becomes more concerned with its own survival than the public interest? Is that the stage the Albanese government is now entering? Or is our political system no longer sophisticated enough to deal with the complexities of the modern world and the pace of rapidly changing circumstances?

The incentives against good government

Australia isn’t badly governed in the sense of being unstable, authoritarian or corrupt. Sure, there are pockets of corruption, but it’s not comprehensively corrupt and, eventually, the Eddie Obeids of politics will always be caught out. Elections are generally competitive without too many dramas, compulsory voting produces a high participation rate of around 90 per cent, transfers of power when a government loses office are peaceful, the judiciary is professional, the Senate can place a handbrake on governments, and the public service still has the ability to administer complex programs, in most cases. These are substantial democratic achievements and should never be underestimated or dismissed.

But Australia is badly governed in more infuriating ways. This is a country that has the wealth, institutional history and administrative abilities to solve many of its most persistent problems, but repeatedly chooses the measures that are just small to do this. Governments promise to make housing more affordable, while protecting the tax concessions and rising property values that make it unaffordable.

They promise cheaper energy through useless and expensive rebates, without confronting the energy corporations; a promise of higher wages without addressing the workplace imbalances between employers and employees; a promise to provide better services without raising enough revenue; climate action while continuing to approve fossil-fuel expansion; and gambling reforms while remaining dependent on gambling taxes.

This is currently a system that rewards caution – which Anthony Albanese has taken full advantage of – the management of political messaging, and accommodating vested interests and concentration of power, more than it rewards problem solving. Mining companies, banks, property interests, gambling corporations, consultants, defence contractors and large media organisations don’t need to directly bribe governments, because it’s almost as though they’re a de facto part of government anyway – they have privileged access, the capacity to directly lobbying governments at any time, they can make political donations without any fear of being caught out or compromised, they have control over investment and employment, media influence and the ability to finance campaigns against the policies they don’t like and don’t want to see introduced.

The consequence is not so much the overt corruption but the expectation that governments will obey their instructions, or face the consequences. Governments then understand which proposals will provoke a costly political attack, so any proposal or policy recommendation is diluted well before the public gets to see them. Reform is then reduced to what the vested interests will allow.

Changing the costs of political failure

We’re always ready to identify all the problems that currently exist within politics and because we always bellow about it – possibly too often – it might appear that the entire system is so broken that it’s beyond redemption. But the good news is that the ready-made solutions already exist, if only there was the will to implement them.

As we’ve discussed many times before, the immediate reforms are available right now: real-time disclosure and tighter limits on political donations; comprehensive registration of professional and in-house lobbyists and restrictions for how much access they can gain with ministers; publication of ministerial diaries; enforceable cooling-off periods for former ministers; stronger whistleblower laws and protections for journalists; truth-in-political-advertising, effective and workable Freedom of Information rules and a properly resourced National Anti-Corruption Commission operating with greater transparency than what it has shown over the past three years.

All of these measures currently exist on some level – a weak truth in political advertising Bills was introduced into Parliament in 2024 but not passed – but they’re piecemeal, not backed up with any meaningful legislative powers, and have little or no consequence if they are ever breached.

In the longer-term, there needs to be a change in the distribution of political power, including proportional representation through multi-member electorates, stronger democratic processes within political parties, parliamentary control over war powers and major treaties, citizens’ assemblies, reducing dependence on external consultants and providing sustainable support for independent and public-interest media.

Of course, none of this could ever happen by itself, and it’s not just a matter of finding better politicians: it’s a matter of making the existing politicians perform to a higher standard, if we’re willing to demand it from them.

The objective is, first of all, to change the cost of political failure: to make it more politically costly for governments to ignore renters than property investors; more costly to ignore workers than employers; and more costly to serve donors instead of the public. These should all be self-evident and obvious truths, yet too many politicians act contrary to the public interest.

Change can always happen, but it will take a great deal of organised pressure outside of Parliament, as well as mood for change within. Australia is functioning in a least-worst position politically, because that’s where its leaders want to position the country. Of course, we should be thankful that Australia avoids political violence and dictatorships, but what a depressingly low bar that is to set for such a wealthy, largely peaceful, and highly educated country.

Politics won’t improve because leaders suddenly discover courage in a quiet moment of reflection: it will improve only when citizens rebuild the organisations and democratic institutions that have been allowed to fall by the wayside. Those institutions became weaker because the leaders who benefited from their decline allowed it to happen. Restoring them will require sustained public pressure, stronger civic participation and a willingness to demand more from out political leaders.

Australia could be doing so much better – but only when political timidity and weakness starts to carry a far greater price than implementing meaningful reform. Making that happen is the task that lies ahead for all of us.