Opening Remarks by Senator The Hon John Faulkner
Cabinet Secretary
Special Minister of State
19 April 2008
20/20 Summit, Parliament House Canberra
Stability is a strength. And Australia’s democracy is undeniably stable.
Those who wrote our constitution forged from compromise structures of a national government which have withstood more than a century of accelerating change.
Perhaps the constancy of our democracy is unremarkable in a nation which was, after all, born at the ballot box, not on a battlefield. Certainly, most Australians rarely stop in their day-to-day lives to consider whether they are experiencing “peace, order and good government”.
But institutions that endure unchanged are not unmixed blessings. Stability is a strength. Stagnation is not.
Australia is a very different nation from the one first given name and shape in the nineteenth century negotiations of our Constitution. Australia has changed. The world has changed. And Australia’s place in the world has changed.
Some changes have been evolutionary: government programs and the public servants needed to administer them ‘just grew’. Some changes have been abrupt: two world wars dramatically changed our views on defence, security, international alliances. Some crept up on us, like our increasing engagement with our region, or women’s participation in paid work. And some have been driven by unpredictable and world-changing technological developments, like the explosive growth of the internet.
Throughout, there has been growth of a more national perspective – an increase in the role, power, financial control and responsibility of the Commonwealth.
But while the environment in which we govern has changed dramatically in the last hundred years, the Constitution and the formal structures of our government have changed hardly at all.
Does it matter? After all, we are one of the oldest and most stable democracies in the world. Surely our institutions must have found ways to address the changing demands of changing times?
Address, yes, but answer, no.
Today, the body that comes closest to making the Australian federation work is COAG. Dig down into COAG and you find a complex web of inter-governmental agreements and ministerial councils – a superstructure built around the federation inconceivable to the framers of our Constitution.
So much of our machinery of government was not reflected in the Constitution – the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, political parties - all so critical to the stability of our parliament and governance.
The Senate was conceived as a States’ House. That notion was stillborn.
The High Court found its own way to respond to a changing Australia, perhaps as early as 1920, but undeniably by the years of the Mason Court.
A mature democracy should strive for better solutions. A mature democracy should have a Constitution that reflects the reality of the body politic. The nineteenth century structure of our Federation is creaking, if not being stretched to breaking point, to meet twenty-first century demands.
While our political culture retards structural reform, forcing ‘fixes’ and ‘work-around’ solutions, governments are reluctant to press for structural change. They expect rebuff from citizens – and with reason: 36 of 44 referenda for constitutional change have been defeated. Australians have been reluctant to extend the formal powers of government or even embrace modest reforms like simultaneous elections for both houses.
This leads to impasse, not balance – stagnation, not equilibrium.
We have also seen the integrity of governance in Australia compromised.
We have seen a period when the apolitical nature of the public service has been tested and public servants’ role in policy development constrained. We have seen increased emphasis on security and secrecy undermining openness and transparency.
And we have seen new laws restricting rights and freedoms pass without a yardstick to measure or restrain them.
Some of these symptoms of failing structures can be, and are being, reversed:
But these reforms, important and necessary as they are, treat symptoms – not the underlying causes. We can continue to apply bandaids as necessary. But do we really want our democracy to be one in which accountability and good governance ultimately depend on the goodwill, on the whim, of the government of the day?
I hope that this 2020 summit will look forward to a nation unafraid to consider substantial change.
The problem we must solve is how to promote the process of change.
Any substantial change to our structures of governance will be hard to make without political bipartisanship and strong community support – and the possibility of that is undermined by cynicism about politicians’ motives and the capacity of our institutions to provide real and lasting solutions.
The deficit of trust in the modern Australian polity is a common lament. Politicians complain we are too little trusted, and too often maligned. In 2006, politicians were reported to be the least trusted profession in Australia, ranking below lawyers, journalists and psychics.
Openness and transparency are often prescribed as remedies for lack of trust – but this is more complex than it seems.
The proliferation of new media and communications makes information both more fluid and more precious. Failures in confidentiality can have catastrophic effects for nations and citizens as well as for governments.
The news media, striving for market share in a 24/7 news environment, too often prioritise the shocking over the reasoned. Stoked by spin or encouraged by banner headlines geared more to the sensational than the sensible, moral panics sweep across the body politic, galvanising public opinion in extreme directions and then vanishing without trace. In this environment, the inclination of governments to keep their cards very close to the chest is understandable. Equally understandably, it feeds the suspicion that the whole story is not being told, and fuels a consequent mistrust of the government’s motives.
Is it reasonable for governments to demand the electorate trust them blindly while they go about the business of running the country in secret? Is it reasonable to expect governments to reveal information that will be sensationalised, misinterpreted and used to frustrate or even destroy policy objectives?
One thing is certain: trust must be part of the solution.
Trust in the political context is not simply the belief that another person is telling the truth. Trust in politics speaks of faith in motivations and reliance on judgement. But dishonesty is not the only way to fail the test of political trust. Indeed, the road to political hell is paved with many a good electoral intention. The contract of political trust depends on governments successfully carrying out their commitments – prizes aren’t given for trying.
Governance is the Cinderella of discussions about our polity. Governance is not just about choosing a government – nor determining what that government will do. It is also about the nitty-gritty, the nuts and bolts, the often boring detail of how a government goes about its work, implementing policies and delivering programs. It is the concrete steps we take after announcing our purpose. A safety net for all Australians is a noble aim, but governments cannot pay sickness allowance into people’s bank accounts by press release or build aged care facilities by cabinet decision alone.
Without those concrete steps, a yawning gulf remains between idea and action. Without them, governments would be rich on purpose but poor on results.
To achieve real reform in governance, we must overcome the idea that there is a division of purpose and process, of ends and means.
The challenge for us today is to do as Australia’s democratic pioneers did in the nineteenth century. The democracy they created then was “state of the art”, “world class”. They had the courage to rise above their colonial interests, the confidence to propose a blueprint for a new nation and the pragmatism to accept compromise in the pursuit of a greater end. They had the foresight to conceive the vision that would serve for generations beyond their own.
Here at this 2020 summit we, too, have the opportunity to imagine the nation of our future. We too have the chance to debate how – to decide if – our democracy will grow and change. It is an opportunity to look forward, beyond the most immediate weaknesses we see, and begin to discuss the shape of the nation we would like to divine:
The Prime Minister has challenged us to propose reforms for our nation to go forward to 2020.
In the 2005 Henry Parkes Oration, I proposed three changes to improve Australia’s governance:
I believe those proposed changes remain relevant today. This weekend will see many more suggestions and proposals for improving the quality and structure of Australia’s governance.
Unquestionably, we need new ways to effect change. The process itself must embody the vision we pursue: for governance is not only the means through which we pursue our goals, but the way in which we create them.
Let our means be worthy of our ends: let our goals be worthy of ourselves.
ends
| Media Contact: | Website: |
|---|---|
| Media Adviser- Colin Campbell - 0407 787 181 | www.cabinetsecretary.gov.au www.smos.gov.au |