Australian Democrats

Summary

Policies & Commentary

Before we dive into the policies of the Australian Democrats (hereafter referred to as AD), let’s clear a few things up. This party may have the same name as the one originally founded in 1977 and led by former Liberal Don Chipp, who split from his party with a vow to “keep the bastards honest”. It certainly works hard to portray itself as the inheritor of a long tradition of cross-bench representation, even co-opting the “bastards” slogan and retelling the history of the original party on its website. It also claims for itself the accomplishments of the original party.

I find this extremely unethical behaviour, because AD are not the same party.

Full disclosure: I was a member of the original Australian Democrats, so it’s fair to say I am not able to be entirely objective here. Acknowledging that, I feel I should point out that there are major differences between the original party, and the one that now bears its name. Not least of these is the fact that AD has abandoned the central “participatory democracy” ethos that defined the original party as different from all others in the Australian political system. AD now is indistinguishable in form from any other party in terms of its governance. Now, it has to be acknowledged that there are former members of the original party involved in AD. When the central pillar of the party’s ruling principles is so radically different, however, it’s difficult – if not impossible – to support the claim that AD has any business using the original party’s achievements to bolster its credibility.

So, for the rest of this article, AD’s policies will be evaluated without any reference to the original party, and evaluate them on their own terms.

Let’s start with its biggest policy initiative, which is nothing less than a complete overhaul of the Australian Constitution.

AD has a lot to say about Australia’s attempts to change its consitution through referendums, calling them ad hoc and lacking in strategy, consistency and engagement with the people. It proposes instead to establish a Constitutional Reform body, whose job would be to guide and rewrite the Australian Constitution so it is fit for purpose. And by “fit for purpose”, AD means:

• A republic with an Australian head of state
• A clear and expressed right to vote in elections
• Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Nations peoples
• Clear separation of powers and roles of the executive and judiciary
• Protecting fundamental human rights through a bill of rights (freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, assembly, association, and movement)
• Solving jurisdictional issues across parliaments and local government- heads of power, roles, responsibilities and funding matters
• Modifying Section 44 eligibility requirements for standing for Parliament so dual citizenship and office of profit under the Crown are not disenfranchised
• Fixing government terms of office
• Introducing voluntary voting for 16 and 17-year-olds

This is, frankly, astonishing. What the AD proposes is a project that would take years. Every section – every clause – would be subject to a prolonged battle. It would also cost billions. Even presuming a final document could be agreed upon, any new constitution could not be adopted without going through the very referendum process that AD criticised.

There’s also the crucial question of exactly who would make up this reform body. Politicians? Lawyers? Indigenous representatives? Immigrant representatives? Scientists? Community representatives? Historians? AD doesn’t say.

Look, AD isn’t wrong. Our Constitution is badly in need of reform, but a proposal such as the one being put forward in the party’s platform needs more than a simple “we’re gonna do it” statement. People may not want to read long essays on the philosophy underpinning policies when they’re working out who to vote for¹I know I certainly don’t, but they do want to know how parties intend to fulfil their promises.

Moving on to cost of living, AD’s primary focus is taxes and regulation. Rather than immediate relief, it wants to see the lowest income tax bracket abolished altogether, so that the tax-free threshold would be effectively raised to $45,000. It would also close the gender pay gap.

Conversely, the capital gains tax discount would be halved to 25%, and a 20% super profits tax would be established on non-renewable resource extraction. It’s difficult to see how these directly affect the cost of living, but presumably AD places these policies here to show how it would compensate for the loss of income tax revenue.

AD also calls for the establishment of a grocery price of conduct, and to have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigate, monitor, and regulate the child and aged care, banking, grocery and food sectors. This would be a significant expansion of the ACCC’s regulatory powers, which would likely require complex legislation.

On housing, AD has a strong emphasis on social and supported accommodation for those who are unhoused or at risk of it, as well as transition accommodation for those fleeing family violence. It also wants to set up a National Housing Strategy to investigate ways to bother lower costs and increase supply. For renters, AD promises to incentivise developers with build-to-rent programs, as well as increase the maximum amount of Rent Assistance. It doesn’t call for rental caps, but it does want to rent increases to be tied to increases in the median wage.

This last is problematic, in that it would unfairly penalise those who earn below the median. These are the people most at risk of becoming unable to afford rents, and only a percentage of those are eligible for Rent Assistance.

AD’s policy on Medicare, and healthcare in general can be summed up in one word: more. More doctors, more nurses, more mental health funding. More funding for elective surgery and telehealth. Greater rebates.

Many of these strategies call for funding for programs that are designed to reduce future burdens on the healthcare system. This includes prevention of injury in sports, of chronic disease, and universal preventative dental care. In particular, AD would like to see programs of this nature aimed at helping Indigenous folk be undertaken in full consultation and participation with the Indigenous communities.

If all of AD’s healthcare policies were to be implemented, it would require a huge amount of funding. In fact, that’s true of almost everything in its policy suite.

For example, in the area of energy, AD wants to nationalise poles and wires, with the government becoming responsible for operating the transmission and distribution structure. This would be coupled with incentive programs to encourage the purchase and installation of solar batteries in households and businesses, and a rollout of solar and storage for schools and for government and community buildings. Landowners would be compensated for the installation of new transmission lines on their properties.

In their Arts policy – what’s that you say? An Arts policy? In this economy? Yes, AD has a pretty comprehensive set of proposals for the Arts sector.

Apart from support for Indigenous Arts, community festivals, and for recording artists to receive fair compensation for the use of their songs on radio, AD calls for a quota of 25% local material on commercial radio and streaming services. Now, I’m pretty sure they have little chance of imposing that on Spotify or Apple, but it would be excellent to have commercial radio feature more Australian content. And who knows, it might even mean that Gold FM could finally expand its woefully limited playlist.

AD also wants to establish a basic income support scheme of ~$600/week for up to 5,000 individual artists, writers, dancers, theatre-makers and filmmakers. This immediately brings up the question of who qualifies for such a payment, because 5000 is an extremely low number. While I support the idea of artists’ stipends in principle, I would like to see more detail regarding both eligibility and expectations placed upon those who would receive it.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that AD – like many others in this election – has a policy advocating for High Speed Rail (Drink!).

There are many, many more policies on AD’s website, most accompanied by lengthy explanatory essays, than I can possibly cover in one article. If what you’ve read so far has piqued your interest, I recommend you take a closer look.

I am reluctant to recommend AD, however, because taken as a whole, there is far, far more proposed expenditure than could be accounted for by its proposed resource super profits tax and capital gains discount cut. On the whole, over-promising isn’t a bad thing, but there’s a sense of imbalance here that makes me think that the middle of the ticket is a safe place.