Ideas
For Australia in 2026
Photo by Nathan Anderson on Unsplash (stars shine against a pink and purple sky over distant fog touched hills, a few midground trees, and the orange glow of a distant town)
I was recently asked by the local chapter of the Fabians if I wanted to join (“no thanks - have been a member before, but have family and personal health matters now”), and did I have any suggestions on topics for them to consider this year - “why yes” ... and what I sent them is below, in case it is of any interest/use to anyone else.
These comments are all based on, and for, what is happening in Australia, which, although there are concerning elements and echoes of what is happening overseas, is not what is happening elsewhere … yet.
1. Internal accountability within political parties.
While elected representatives of [a (nominally?) progressive party] have room to move in the decision making in Parliament so that they will not be bound by policies that are inappropriate, it is probably fair to say that - especially at a national level - there is frustration or even anger on the part of that party’s branch members at the party policy platform being treated ... dismissively.
How can modern political parties ensure there is adequate internal accountability to members of the party of the party’s elected representatives - especially on policy matters?
For some background on this for one party, see https://labortribune.net.au/democracy-on-backburner-as-alp-national-platform-consultations-begin/ (I MAY write an article on one idea I have on this for them) and https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/power-for-its-own-sake-and-to-hell-with-courage-labor-has-lost-its-way/
2. The possible demise of major political parties.
My opinion - held for quite a few years (and I relatively recently wrote a blog post about this, on a blog I no longer actively use, at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-demise-of-political-party.html) - is that the [Australian conservative parties] are (except for renewals given to them by other parties) dying - mainly as a result of being so utterly out-of-touch with voters on the climate crisis, but also social attitudes generally.
The [other “primary” party] is also showing, IMO, signs of a similar arrogance around the climate crisis - especially with regard to giving young people a genuine voice, and risks following the neolibs into oblivion in around, in my opinion, three electoral cycles later - in fact, their national president also made comments about the need for renewal for similar reasons in recent weeks (my apologies for not digging up the link - I think it was on The Guardian).
While I consider the two-party thinking of most political commentary/thinking in Australia to be lazy, habitual, and utterly without any valid merit (it is a form of “both sideism” that ignores the nuance and complexity of modern societies and modern politics, and an overly simplistic, paternalistic form of “thinking”), what happens if one or more major political ceases to exist? The Australian Democrats were probably the last such party of noticeable political weight to cease to exist (before their relaunch), and that was probably mainly triggered by the elected representatives ignoring the directions of members regarding the GST, but we have had major parties die out before now - and there was the ALP split of the 1950s.
Furthermore, if this happens, in a world where almost no-one accepts any particular need for two main parties, how does a new progressive party come into being?
3. A more social cohesion-promoting form of social security
As someone who has worked overseas (and am helping a young person [overseas] get a post-grad qualification] after having helped them get through Uni) and seen what happens when there is either no, or an inadequate social security, I refuse to trivialise what we have to the disparaging term “welfare”. I have also seen, throughout my life, the vicious, malicious, bad faith judgementalism and resentment shown by too many [Australian] people against others who, in the opinion of the small minded haters, are getting assistance that they don’t deserve.
IMO, this bad faith small mindedness has led to a system that:
(a) harms a great many people who deserve assistance - including by inept access systems that add to the burden and trauma of people in need trying to access these systems;
(b) puts a manifestly excessive load on staff of such systems;
(c) created massive expenditure (and harm - such as Robodebt, invasive investigations, etc) in monitoring and enforcing compliance.
If the harm was measured - the cost of premature deaths, the human and social capital cost of people giving up and not trying to access aid they are entitled to, the the human and social capital cost of the stress and trauma of trying to use barely functional systems, etc, what would the real cost of our system be?
If we had a system where access to social security was for all and with minimal rules and thus minimal bureaucracy, what would the direct costs be reduced to - one third? One quarter? One tenth of what it is now? Yes, some richer people would receive help and then immediately pay for it by slightly higher taxation, but the system would overall have a far lower cost, the massive human harm that is actively caused now would eventually cease, and there would be an opportunity for Australians to start being more cohesive.
I tried to raise this with [some] politicians before I joined [a party], but they seemed utterly bewildered (or were putting on a great act of being obtuse) about the concept that something can have both good (support/aid) and and (trauma) aspects at the same time.
I also note Australia’s current Treasurer used to favour a UBI, and that the problem of landlordism that a former and, in my opinion, thoroughly contemptible Prime Minister introduced (as well as his incising racism into the Australian soul - and then outsourcing it to [a far right party]) is another example of social and human harm from a divisive policy/set of policies.
(This topic is personal for me, which I may write more about that in my next newsletter)
4. Fighting fascism
When something like this crops up, people who have built their political career around their passions (and resultant skills) suddenly have to set all that aside, grieve that loss (I consider the need to grieve as a result of changes - even if they are for the better - is an underacknowledged or mostly unacknowledged necessity, something that contributes to bigotry/discrimination, personal health problems, and pointless resistance to progressivism), and develop skills they don’t have.
To a lesser extent, I consider this issue has shown itself with our current Prime Minister initially struggling with international and some human rights matters, although he seems to be developing those skills now. Whether those are up to dealing with the world war threatening problems of the current USA regime is yet to be seen.
Before the current dictator returned to power in the USA (I try not to name evil - which is a bit like the “no notoriety” campaign), I tried to get a small group of in-party experts assembled who could provide a quick commentary, and hopefully advanced warning, of human rights issues. I’m quite annoyed (feel betrayed, actually) that what was suggested would happen didn’t, but that has firmed my views on a few matters (and led me to daydream about a school for political candidates where they get thrown into responding to impossible situations in order to learn to deal with their emotional and mental limitations/blocks ... sigh … and of every single candidate voluntarily being tested for authoritarian character traits and publishing the results .... SIGH).
Building a stronger democracy is crucial to defeating the threat of fascism, but that requires a willingness to be better people, not only to adopt better political measures.
Until I can overcome my executive dysfunction enough to get myself set up on Stripe here, if you wish to encourage or support me you can do so at PayPal or Ko-Fi – and such would be appreciated.