(More) power to the people
By Steven Tripp
‘If you were Prime Minister for a day, what would you do?’.
It is one question that makes my skin crawl. It is like fingernails being dragged across a blackboard.
I understand the intention, but a Prime Minister acting alone should not have the power to be an all-powerful dictator ruling over us.
The question shows a lack of understanding of how our system is meant to operate.
Our Constitution enforces checks and balances, evidently in the form of separation or powers, in which the legislature, executive and judiciary have divided responsibilities – or at least should have.
You could argue that the fourth arm of these checks should be the media – if only it operated objectively.
Despite prevailing arguments to the contrary, I believe that our system has operated well. That was, up until the recent pandemic, when power hungry politicians and bureaucrats extended the limits of their ‘authority’ far beyond what we should have allowed.
Instead of learning from bad mistakes however, Governments, particularly the Federal, have looked to extend their power and consequently are assaulting personal freedom in the process.
The recent passing of the Digital ID legislation and the looming Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill are examples.
Where is the Counterbalance?
Government in Australia is not meant to be dictatorial, authoritative or totalitarian. Government is meant to be representative, with a focus on the best interests of everyday people.
In essence, it is a master-servant relationship, where we the people are the masters.
The aftermath of the pandemic should have seen less draconian edicts and more safeguards against unjust Government legislation.
Yet, for example, a COVID Royal Commission seems more fantasy than inevitability at this point.
The question is, how do we push back against the slow march towards totalitarianism?
What can we do to firm up defenses, to ensure that our system is operating in the interests of the ‘people’ and not the ‘political elites’?
Plebiscites for Treaties
International Treaties can have a significant impact on the Nation. Climate treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement are examples.
The Australian Government regularly enters into international treaties, often enjoying bipartisan support from Labor and the Coalition.
This bipartisan support negates any electoral vote or indication of the will of the people.
Yet, there are those that argue that certain free trade agreements and collective international treaties, such as with the United Nations, do not represent the interests of the Australian people, nor the National interest.
Looking forward, there is concern among a section of the community that the lingering World Health Organisation Pandemic treaty will take away Australia’s sovereignty and individual citizen’s bodily autonomy during a pandemic.
To defend against this, Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Loughrey has proposed that any treaty that the Australian Government enters, should be approved by the voting majority by way of a plebiscite.
While continual plebiscites may aggravate the voting public, the threat of losing a vote may deter Governments from negotiating unpopular treaties, especially as treaties can take years to formulate.
As treaties can change the policy direction of a Nation, the importance of the voting public having their say is as equal importance as voting in a general election in my opinion.
Plebiscites could also question whether Australia should continue its membership to international bodies, such as the United Nations or the World Health Organisation.
The voting public has not had a say on these memberships. It would be interesting to see whether there would be public support to stay part of these global bodies.
Citizen Initiated Referenda
It has been argued that the act of voting on big issues at an election every three or four years is not enough.
Governments can introduce legislation that they failed to mention during the preceding election campaign.
Either that, or Government’s break their election promises and proceed with legislation despite assurances to the contrary – we all remember ‘There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead’.
The recent Digital ID bill is an example of legislation that appears to be increasingly unpopular with everyday voters, but it enjoyed a clear path through Parliament.
In State Parliaments, bans on ‘conversion therapy’ have passed, despite no clear public appetite.
‘Citizen initiated referenda’ could be a means of addressing all the above. The aim being to diffuse political power and improve voter representation.
Provided that the referenda could attract enough public support, citizen initiated referenda could trigger the repeal of unpopular legislation; such as State Public Health Orders.
Similarly, it could also introduce legislation that is popular with the public but delayed by unwilling parties. Think the abolition of pay-roll tax, stamp duty or the construction of new dams.
Why do we need to wait until an election, at the earliest, to initiate popular legislation, or remove unpopular or concerning legislation?
The more influence the voting public can have over the process of legislation is far more favorable than leaving it to politicians in my opinion.
Recall elections:
Recall elections is a method by which the electorate can vote to oust elected representatives before their terms have officially lapsed.
Initially, in countries where they are implemented, recall elections were an attempt to curtail the influence of political parties on elected representatives. In essence, to ensure that elected officials were representing their constituents instead of abiding by the party machine that they are a part of.
Would the constituents of New England and Lyne have enjoyed the opportunity to hold recall elections following the 2010 hung Parliament?
Despite implementing a mechanism of accountability upon an elected representative, one criticism is that recall elections could be used excessively, causing financial expense and frustration of the public.
Since 1913, California has seen 180 recall attempts of state elected officials. However, there have only been six successful recall attempts.
Conclusion
The stated reforms above have their pros and cons, as does all legislation that is proposed or implemented.
You could also consider an Australian Bill of Rights, which has been debated since Federation.
Whether you agree with the options above or not, the main point is that no legislation is currently being implemented to restrict the power of Government, or to give more power to the voting public.
Unfortunately, the opposite is happening.
It seems we are being restricted further and further by increased regulations, restrictions and censorship.
The pendulum has swung out of balance and it is time to begin the discussion on how ‘we the people’ push back.
By Steven Tripp