Australia imagined

In this article I state a case for generating a movement for the electors of a federal government. Voters have a brief moment of power when every three years they choose a government. Thereafter, governments expect them to be passive recipients of their legislative decisions. Three years is a long time to remain compliant and obedient, particularly when they are compelled by laws to be silent. The second article outlines a simple but potentially very effective and powerful method for voters' voices to be acknowledged by politicians.

Independent media are organisations actively pursuing an agenda holding the governments of Australia to account on many policy areas including the nature of democracy and accountability. I am planting a seed developing an idea to reshape the manner democracy is practised in Australia. The basic idea is not new, but I have added an Australian twist which I believe will generate a new power to the people who elect governments. I believe independent minded people and organisations will identify with this idea and give it support to make it happen.

The strength of this idea though is dependent upon its political neutrality. By that I mean it is driven by citizens, and not by party members. With interest fostered by electors, an event coordinated by a body with a national reach will make a government take notice and heed the people who put them in power.

This intent does not suggest a revolution or any extreme actions. It is a cry for reform ' measured, achievable reform ' driven by a simple conviction: Australian democracy no longer serves its citizens as it claims to do. My argument seeks a subtle change and with cooperation from an organisation that has a wide reach, a small event can happen to create a moment the government cannot ignore. I want politicians to listen quietly and politely to the voices of their electors.

Background

The American Declaration of Independence contains the phrase by Thomas Jefferson: 'all men are born equal'. He meant to reassure citizens that those in power are no different from those they govern. Jefferson was appealing to revolutionaries to have faith and trust in their rulers; and for many years, for many people in many countries, this phrase was the bedrock of democracy.

Yet anyone with lived experience understands this is fiction. Inequality is baked into our lives. Genetics, the environment, and parents financial and social situation ensures every neonate has different life outcomes. The phrase 'all men are born equal' is a myth ' a story to pacify querulous cynics.

In global democracies, voter trust is collapsing because changes are occurring at an incredible pace ' politically, economically, technologically, socially. Young and old alike see their governments are not reducing inequality - they are entrenching it. Nowhere is this clearer than in how our democratic government functions between elections.

Let me explain

Australian elections for the Commonwealth parliament occur roughly every three years. During campaigns politicians promote a raft of policies carefully crafted through focus groups and marketing professionals. Electors respond by choosing the candidates whose policies have meaning to them, given their upbringing, education and personal situation. Election day is the most important moment citizens have to influence the potential government of the day. Then that moment passes, and it won't happen again for another three years.

Consequently, people's assumptions can be dashed when governments squib their political sales talk, for example distinguishing between 'promises' and 'core promises'. People deserve better.

Governing is a complex business, and many issues they face run counter to voters' expectations. But complexity does not justify a failure to respond to the voters' opinions. Nor does it excuse a system that listens more closely to paid insiders than to voters.

Politicians get to work in a unique realm. The corridors of Parliament House in Canberra echo with the footsteps of professional lobbyists. Former ministers, ex-bureaucrats, and corporate representatives enjoy direct access to decision makers seeking an advantage through government support. Their objectives are to convince parliamentarians to create, amend or remove legislation. They sweeten their arguments with sponsored travel to overseas countries, or tickets to exclusive sporting and cultural events, or a lavish meal, free, with wine! History shows that such inducements work. They win their way ' often! But the ordinary voter does not have an equivalent influence. How can the voter respond to or contest these forms of government access?

Electors do attempt to influence the government. They write letters, sign petitions, attend protests often marching in mass, and go on strike! The individuals who join these different actions are highly motivated and invest a great deal of energy and persistence is generating publicity that stirs a government reaction. Yet the power of the moment is transient.

The government's response is usually scripted, and hollow - a carefully worded letter, a media release, or a minister reciting party-approved lines before cameras. Rarely do representatives speak openly. A politician in the public spotlight is tightly controlled by the mantra that he or she is not to lose votes by an indiscreet gaffe. Electors become confused, disheartened, when words are veiled to obscure the truth of a matter. Almost never do they begin with: 'I think'' or 'I believe '' Instead, their phrasing contains the subterfuge: 'The government's position is ''. In this way, individual politicians are held accountable to their party not to the electors. Straying from accepted policy, quickly finds them is excluded from the party room! Clearly, elected representatives answer upwards, not outwards to their voters.

This reality promotes an uncomfortable question: Does the practice of democracy in Australia genuinely reflect the ethos: 'government of the people, by the people, for the people'?

Has politics become the exclusive realm of the powerful, the wealthy, and the well-connected? It does not have to be this way.

Must Australian electors continue to passively accept the existence of a limiting democratic system that only needs your vote once every three years? Or is there an opportunity to display agency so they are listened to?

Australian democracy needs a mechanism that restores voter influence between elections, reduces the imbalance of power between electors and inside lobbyists, and compels politicians to remain answerable to those who voted for them.

Democratic engagement in Australia can be reshaped by calling for a nationwide series of coordinated Town Hall Meetings, designed to give voters a stronger voice between federal elections and rebalance the influence currently held by political insiders and lobby groups.

The concept argues that Australia's modern democratic system has drifted away from earlier ideals of participatory governance. While voters retain the power to elect representatives, their influence largely ends at the ballot box, with elected officials making legislative decisions independently until the next election cycle.

The current political structure has enabled professional lobbyists and well-connected groups to gain disproportionate access to policymakers. In contrast, ordinary voters are said to have limited ongoing input into government decision-making, contributing to a perception that public concerns are frequently unheard.

Restoring voter influence

A change to improve the practice of democracy does not need a revolution. This reform calls for a coordinated civic initiative. At its core is the idea of holding Town Hall Meetings simultaneously across all federal government electorates'currently numbering 94'on a single day.

Under the proposal, these meetings would be organised by local citizens and open to all voters within an electorate, regardless of political affiliation. Each gathering would be chaired by a moderator, allowing participants to speak directly about how government policies affect their lives.

Local Members of Parliament would be formally invited to attend, not to campaign, but to listen to constituents' concerns and feedback. Importantly, organisers are expected to retain control of proceedings, ensuring that electors have primary speaking rights during discussions.

Although it is probable that only small number of electors might attend, advocates argue that such a coordinated event would create 'the largest focus group in the country,' capturing a wide range of perspectives that might otherwise go unnoticed in opinion polls or media commentary.

Accountability through visibility

A key element of the proposal is the post-meeting impact. Representatives would return to Canberra with what is described as 'unfiltered' feedback from their communities, potentially shaping party discussions and legislative priorities.

The meetings would also be recorded, increasing transparency and accountability. Governments learnt in 1970, that a failure to attend an interview on the ABC's This Day Tonight TV program, led to the interviewer addressing his questions to an empty chair. Future interviews were attended. It was a prime example of how public accountability can influence political behaviour.

Failing to attend or disregarding the outcomes of these meetings could carry electoral consequences. Conversely, a government that responds positively may strengthen public trust and political support.

A national moment of civic engagement

The proposal suggests the initiative could be implemented by holding all Town Hall Meetings at 11:00 am (AEST) on the second Saturday of the Commonwealth Parliament's Winter break. This synchronised timing is intended to create a shared national moment of civic participation.

This coordinated approach would amplify the collective voice of voters, making it more difficult for governments to ignore widespread concerns.

The Town Hall Meeting is a response to a broader criticism of modern governance. Neither arguments about the complexity of the political world nor the degree of influence of secret lobbyists, are valid reasons to oppose voters right of access.

Looking ahead

Since the end of World War Two, Australia's population grew by 20 million. Our population is expected to continue rising significantly over coming decades, so it is feasible to ask whether current governing structures adequately suit the interests of our grandchildren.

As a concept, this proposal frames the Town Hall Meeting as a practical and achievable step towards strengthening democratic participation without the need for legislative change.

Ultimately, this idea challenges Australians whether they accept on-going limitations to their democratic role, or whether a more active engagement is possible and necessary. You can't change the times you live in, but you can choose how you respond, and society becomes how we behave. Rules can be changed.