Martin Ferguson’s comments in support of the Howard government’s bogus climate forum[1] remind me of why I dislike the hereditary principle in politics. Australian politics and the Parliamentary Labor party in particular is full of people who are there only because their fathers (or, more rarely, mothers) were politicians themselves.This wasn’t true, or not to anything like the same extent, thirty years ago.
A few of these hereditary princelings have made a reasonable contribution, but on the whole, they’re a dead weight, and Ferguson is a prime example of the latter category. If he’s done anything to justify the positions he’s held, I’m not aware of it.
The core of the problem is that the membership of the major parties has collapsed to the point where an extended family and its retainers can form the basis of an effective sub-faction, capable of winning preselections. Short of radical changes in both politics and society, it’s hard to see this changing.
One possible response would be to move to a primary system for preselections, on the US model. This hasn’t, of course, stopped the operation of the hereditary principle there, but I think that there is less of a cult of political celebrity here – I can’t imagine that names like Downer or Ferguson command many votes among the Australian public.
fn1. The derisory contribution offered by the US Administration (a budget request for $52 million, equal to about 0.0005 per cent of US GDP, which will probably not be delivered anyway) is an indication of the seriousness with which the US took the meeting, as is the fact that (as far as I can tell) it wasn’t even reported in the US press. The same is true, from what I can see of the other participants. The whole thing is, in essence, window-dressing to cover the Howard government’s failure to ratify Kyoto.
John Quiggin 
“One possible response would be to move to a primary system for preselections, on the US model.”
Prior to 1949, in NSW at least, ALP preselections were open to any paid up union member ie. you didn’t have to be also a paid up member of the ALP to vote.
So there isa precedent in Australia.
Prince Charles is an example of the “hereditary principle in politics”. There is probably no more ardent conservationist, in matters both natural and cultural, in Western public life than this Prince. I would have thought that this might earn the hereditarians a brownie point amongst the Greenies.
Are we in a parallell universe? For years Martin Ferguson sprouts wild rubbish, suddenly he speaks sense.
Ugly Dave, that was the case in Queensland prior to Federal intervention in the State ALP in 81. But the system was notoriously rorted, with union officials filling in hundreds of ballot papers on their members’ behalf.
JQ, this mistaken at two levels. One is that it confuses nepotistic practice with the hereditary principle – you are right about the problem but misdiagnosing it. (I’m not intending to imply “corrupt” when I write “nepotistic”, either, just referring to the ills you point out.)
The other level is that these people are the analogue of upstarts, in a precarious position and still with short-termist outlooks, and so not able to bring the true benefits of the democratic character of the lottery of birth to bear (as I may have mentioned before, in the UK I met a few peers of the realm socially, e.g. in pubs, before I ever met an MP – their interests are more diverse than self-selected politicians’).
The other mistake is not appreciating what the hereditary principle actually does, at a pragmatic level. It walls off the would-be nepotists by licensing them in a small degree, so long as they pay the price of kicking the ladder away after them; it seeks to substitute a less virulent strain for one that has no interest than to shoot through. It’s a working principle, not an ethical principle. The Bunyip aristocracy idea failed because there was no group in place needing to be bought off that way, then.
But history has shown the harm that was done by abandoning these pragmatic things under the influence of democratic myths like the one that has misled JQ into thinking there is no gain from it. For instance, the second Lord Stansgate could never have done as much harm as Tony Benn achieved; the system had spotted someone to sideline in the form of his father, and had tried to do so, but busting that pragmatic settlement introduced thinsg like the British Nuclear Police (one of the first forces without adequate supervision and control built in), and the premature destruction of large swathes of British industry, notably Clydeside.
Kicking upstairs works, and it’s not the same thing as nepotism even when you make it hereditary as a further precaution. But the condemnation of what is actually going on is spot on, just aiming at the wrong target. The hereditary system is actually a cure for this disease, though politically impractical here.
All ALP memebers are heroes until they broach the party line, then they and their forebears are condemned.
Exactly rog. Malcolm Fraser is a prime example. Oh, hang on, he wasn’t in the ALP …
CS: He is now
QED
Rog, I think you’ll have to dig a fair way back to find ALP hero-worship on my part, particularly in relation to Martin Ferguson. See here, for example.
I don’t think there’s anyone inside the federal ALP who doesn’t think Marn’s an utter log. Patronage is a tricky thing to handle well and he’s cleverly wheedled himself into a placeholder position for actual power (I reckon the federal Libs would think exactly the same about Downer). He should be punted, someone with talent and experience in the real world should take his place, but it won’t happen.
The narrowing of the base is destroying party politics, everywhere.
-peter
‘Marn’ Ferguson is exactly like his brother Laurie-a complete waste of space and time whose sole contribution to Australian politics has been to ensure that ‘being there’ is the highest principle to which one can aspire. The Ferguson dynasty should have been allowed to rest after Ferguson senior retired as NSW Deputy Premier under Wran. He at least stood for a very old fashioned sense of service to his Party and the Office he held while he was there, and served with devotion and distinction. His sons unfortunately, have an outsized sense of entitlement supported by little native talent and a complete absence of any drive other then to survive in the offices they have carved out for themselves, usually by taking the lowest common denominator position on everything in order to ensure their own survival. ‘Marn’s’ service in the trade union ‘mooment’ was as undistinguished as his brother Laurie’s has been in Parliament.
The pair of them shows exactly what is wrong with the hereditary principle which ever way you cut it. Marn and Laurie should put be put out to pasture-fast. They are ‘yesterdays’ men in every sense of the word.
John, I’m a big fan of open preselections – I made a submission to the Hawke/Wran inquiry arguing for it. We pointed out in Imagining Australia that a system in which
“Short of radical changes in both politics”
I vote for this. It isn’t really surprising that political party memberships of both Liberal and Labor parties have declined over the years when the average parliamentary session looks like a group of 13 year olds heckling each other. If you wanted to argue about politics (or just have an intelligent discussion), why would you do so with such a group, even if you could ?
I doubt that Mark Latham will be remembered for much, but I’ll remember him for this:
Seven Government MPs are the sons of MPs or, like the Kemp brothers, the sons of high-ranking Liberal apparatchiks. Two (Alexander Downer and Larry Anthony) are third-generation parliamentarians. If Tony Abbott thinks that Labor has too much political cloning then he must think Downer is Dolly the Sheep.
– the Member for Werriwa, Lunch, Burke, 1 Fb ’03.
I know many children of MPs who are politically active. The funny thing is, that almost without exception the ones who are any good are in a different party, or a different faction, from their parents. Some of them have politics very similar to their forebearers, but the shifts of time have placed them in a different grouping, and it has meant they have had to forge their way largely on merit.
Those who are in the same faction as their parents usually have the sense of entitlement you attribute to the Fergusons, and are often straight-forwardly corrupt.
Stephen L: Factions Schmactions, the rest of the country (apart from the political wankocracy) could not care less about factions, someone is either in a party or they ain’t. It is that simple.
CS: Mark Latham wasn’t really making sense in that quote you cite, hehe, in that case, a you chose a quote which fits him to a “T”.
The only 2 pieces of real common sense he came out with was (1) The bit about “tourists” and “residents”, to describe the hand-wringing latte-sippers on one hand, and those who actually have to live with reality in the suburbs on the other hand. And (2) Suggesting that it was despicable to gaol Pauline Hanson for politcal reasons, and that in Australia we defeat political opponents at the ballot box, NOT in the court system!
stoptherubbish
Well said. They are good examples of the problems in both major political parties.
conrad
Indeed. There is far more honest, intelligent, constructive, and dare I say it, civil discussion on sites like this one than takes place in parliament, especially in the lower house. Although, in fairness, there is some good stuff that comes out of committee work, including public hearings.
Slightly off topic but I don’t think that ballot papers should include the names of the political party that a candidate is affiliated with. Parties should not be banned however neither should they be actively encouraged by the system. People should stand on their merit and their affiliation with others is only one factor in that equation.
If people get to that ballot box and then vote for people they know nothing about, purely on that persons affiliation, then it ensures that we will get dud candidates.
TerjeP,
Nothing could be worse for democracy. People’s affiliations are the whole point. How am I going to know what I am voting for, unles I can be reliably sure how the person I am voting for, will act once they are elected? How will I know who not to vote for? Voter’s preferences are not simply for the individual, but are mostly for who/what the individual stands with and for. Not knowing this in advance robs people of crucial information which they need in order to cast a vote that reflects their real preferences.
Heh: You wanna fix the hereditary candidates? Term Limits!
John Quiggin writes: “Australian politics … is full of people who are there only because their fathers (or, more rarely, mothers) were politicians themselves. This wasn’t true, or not to anything like the same extent, thirty years ago.”
Hmmm, I had the impression that nepotists did rather well thirty years ago and more, in all parties, at least in the smaller states. The Downer family is an obvious instance, but consider also the Lyons and the Hodgman families in Tasmania, the former family especially (Joe Lyons having been Premier and his son Kevin having been Deputy Premier). As for bigger states, let’s not forget Clive Evatt, brother of H. V., in NSW.
These surely counterbalance the instances of more recent Ferguson-style nepotism which others have mentioned?
Terje can always be trusted to make some flatulent “right libertarian” interjection into practically any discussion. Mate, the next book you read should be Karl Popper’s “The Open Society and its Enemies”. People who want to obliterate the system and impose something new are dangerous utopians, no matter what buzzword they use to describe their philosophy. Hopefully age will you grant you the maturity to see the error of ways. Repent I say. Repent.
Back on topic, it is a troubling situation that so few of us actively get involved in political parties. To many of us have grown fat, lazy and complacent. Mind you, I say this with a beer in one hand and a fag in the other.
Steve,
It was a contribution not an interjection.
I suggested that ballot papers should not contain the names of political parties, but rather they should just have the name of the candidates such that the voters will need to think for five minutes to know who they are voting for. Suddenly that makes me a threat to Open Society and a dangerous utopian. Clearly it is not hard to spook you.
Regards,
Terje.
I don’t like Terje’s idea, but all options should be considered in the mix.
I have never heard a convincing argument, for example, for why we couldn’t adopt confidential voting for pollies in parliament.
On MF’s comments, isn’t he reflecting a quite different issue/malaise/characteristic (depending on your view) in Labor- the influence of particular unions and factions?
The CFMEU have long been right wing, loaded to the rafters with Howard voters, and riled at environmentalists and other lefties. And I suppose it’s their right to be.
Whether MF speaking out about an issue that is undeniably his faction’s cause says anything about heredity is questionable. That it points to the heart of the faction and union versus Joe Bloggs member problems in the party is much clearer.
PrQ,
The last three times I have had a close look at Liberal candidates for preselection to federal parliament not one of them had been a party member for more than one month prior to the preselection. It may only be in my area of WA, but I think that is a close as you will get to non-hacks getting up. I have not seen any equivalents on the ALP side, save Peter Garret; and a great shadow environment spokesperson he has been.
It depends if you see the pollies as delegates or representatives. If they are delegates then confidential voting makes no sence at all. If they are delegates then we need to ask who they are delegates for. If they are delegates for their parties (ie parties feature on ballot papers and voters vote for parties) then their parties will want to see how they vote.
If they are representatives then presumably they represent the electorate that voted for them rather than any party. In this case there is a slightly stronger case for secret votes. Although how the electorate is supposed to know that a candidate is truely representative of their views when they can’t review how the representative votes in parliament is the catch.
Given that Beazley can buy my vote and Howard can buy my vote I want to know why I can’t sell my vote on EBay to the highest bidder. Why is the market artificially constrained?
🙂
Why do libertarians want to permit elected representatives to:-
a. not tell people who they represent when they stand for election; and
b. Not permit the electors to konw how they vote in Parliament.
What is it about political arrangments that makes secrecy work better than open and accountable decision making?
And btw, Marn Ferson’s union background was the LHMU, not the CFMEU. His connection with his old union has long been little more than a small step on his personal ladder of opportunity. He couldn’t give a rats about workers, Howard voters or otherwise. He is the classical ‘hack’-a small but perfect example of the type.
Stoptherubbish,
You are generalising. I call myself a libertarian but I don’t agree with both assertions.
a) They should represent their electorate not their party. I don’t want party names on ballot papers. If it is necessary for representatives to have a party lable next to their name so that people know “who they represent” then we should also have a comment field so they can list the other more important factors about them that might influence our vote. For instance they should have a comment field where they list their views on abortion, taxation, welfare and foreign policy. Or else all this stuff (including their party) can be put on their advertising material and the ballot paper can be about voting for people.
b) I don’t support or advocate secret ballots in parliament. The fact that I try to understand the argument in favour of secret ballots in parliament should not be taken as support.
Regards,
Terje.
I’m not a libertarian, I was just mooting it. And I wasn’t referring to his background, but rather a primary constituent union of his faction.
Arguably “open and accountable decision making” is a euphemism if people pass somebody else’s vote and not their own. The person who made the decision isn’t the one “open” to public scrutiny…
I think this thread has revealed the actual political culture of Australia. And it isn’ta pretty sight.
It shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp the proposition that it’s up to individual parties to decide on the most effective means of relating the wishes of its rank and file members to the actions of its representatives when elected to legislative bodies.
But it should be noted that the Australian experience suggests that there is no necessary relationship between the power of the rank and file ofthe party and the viability of that party as a political force.
The tragi-comic demise of the Australian Democrats is a case in point. That party came closer to binding the actions of elected representatives to the wishes of its membership than any modern Australian political party.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/constitution.shtml#9
Apart from adherence to a few motherhood statements anyone can join. The balloting system gives a large measure of power to rank and file members.
All this conforms with the sentiments often expressed on this thread as to what constitutes an appropriatee political party structure for a mature democracy such as ours in Australia.
Yet the Australian Democrats are a putrid political corpse.
This suggests to me that Australians tend to pay lip service to one set of politcal values yet live according to another set.
I believe that mindset is called cynicism.
Katz,
The other option is that what is written in the constitution is not always what happens.
Terje said:
Whether you’re a libertarian or not, would anyone disagree with this sentiment if party ‘discipline’ was less solid than it is in Australia? Today we vote for the party, not the person and it sucks. Maybe banning all political parties might not be a bad idea.
Steve Munn said:
I know this is off topic, but how on earth can you type with both hands full? 😉
Alpaca: (still off topic) Speech recognition software has made fantastic advances of late!
I think party discipline is generally a good thing.
Without it we could end up going down the American path whereby lobbyists, corporations and so on effectively buy individual politicians.
Re secret ballots: there are competing concerns. On one hand, an open ballot allows the electors to see how their representative is representing them. On the other hand, it does make enforcing party discipline much easier, which I consider a downside on the whole. Perhaps if the ALP were further to the left than it currently is I would consider keeping party discipline to be more important (at least as far as the ALP goes). 🙂
How you weigh up those concerns will affect which outcome you consider more appropriate. For publicly elected officials, I consider the voter’s right to see how their MP votes more important than the possible freedom that secrecy might give them. OTOH, when the ALP in SA finally brought in secret ballots, it was heralded (by its supporters) as a great victory for democracy over factional power, as it made it much easier for delegates to vote as they wished.
I think the general public’s view is ‘A pox on both their houses’.
Why is there always this obsession with banning things. They banned rainwater tanks in Sydney now they force developers to include them. It seems that if its not compulsory it must be banned.
To ban political parties is to ban freedom of association. It’s an absolutely terrible idea. All I ask is that we minimise the extent to which we institutionalise political parties. That is a world apart from banning them. Let people join them, but don’t make space on ballot papers for the names of political parties or reserve special privaledges associated with parties. After all we don’t put peoples religious denomination, sexual orientation, gender, country of birth or other details on ballot papers.
While we are talking political reform what do people think about having more states.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Altered-states/2005/01/24/1106415528397.html
http://www.newstates.net/main.html
Armaniac: I have never heard a convincing argument, for example, for why we couldn’t adopt confidential voting for pollies in parliament.
“I didn’t vote for that 5,000% pay rise for Parliamentarians and if re-elected I promise to vote for its overturn.”
I agree with you Ian Gould. Armaniac is displaying striking naivity. Transparency is essential for good governance, including the minimisation of corruption.
Terje has asked: ‘While we are talking political reform what do people think about having more states.’
I have 3 thoughts: Yuck! Yuck! Yuck! The best constitutional change that we could make is to abolish the states and federation. States are a grotesque waste of money and time. Australia only needs a national and local-regional governments. In a country that only has a population similar to that of Tokyo, we have six unnecessary governments.
‘State rights’ can go hang.
Opening up the ALP to directly-elected representatives would be an interesting move. I think the major obstacle remains the factions, who put loyalty [to the faction] and patronage above the qualities of the individual. Much easier to pick a hack like one of the Fergusons, who is sure to toe the factional line, than a bright, charismatic person who they would regard as a trouble-maker. Its become a cliche but Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam et al wouldn’t win preselection in this ALP. A ban on formalised factions is badly needed.
“A ban on formalised factions is badly needed.”
The problem is that it would lead, not to the elimination of factionalism, but to clandestine factionalism and the use of dishonest stratagems by the current beneficiaries of factionalism to maintain the patronage and control networks within the cracks of whatever new rules were put in place to forbid factions. I think MB’s first suggestion re direct election of positions in the ALP would achieve more.
Will said:-
How about this then. We abolish the states and transfer all of their powers (plus some federal powers) to local governments. You still effectively have more states.
The best combination package of reforms I’ve found, drawing on individual features that have happened in other times and places, goes like this:-
– More and smaller states, corresponding to “natural” splits (no rigging to make every state include some of evrything like today’s constituencies, more like Swiss cantons).
– Unicameral but small state houses, with term limits based on time served in the most recent few terms (to enforce sabbaticals and prevent a political class at that level); no bye-elections, but quorum requirements to trigger a general election when any seat goes below adequate representation.
– Cumulative voting at that level (this also allows Terje’s proposal).
– Federal lower house/upper house responsibilities changing round, with lower house becoming house of review with state associations and upper house initiating much of the legislation (the lower house reviewing for acceptability not viability – it doesn’t make the final bill that goes up for assent).
– Federal upper house to be on the (former) Canadian system, with life senators voted in more or less at large, but with some places ex officio and some by co-option (getting the starter stock by kicking all willing current pollies upstairs).
– Federal lower house to be a joint sitting of the state houses, with quorum requirements for each state.
Sounds good to me.
I don’t understand the way in which you are defining term limits. Can you expand on this point.
Again I don’t understand. Please expand.
If states are smaller and more like local governments then the house of reps would be like the senate in composition. However I am not sure of your exact views on this.
Why?
Now it is starting to sound like the EU. Although I think that the EU structure has a lot to offer (ie weak central executive kept in check by activist states).
Has anyone read (former Hawke government finance minister) Peter Walsh’s contribution to the climate change debate in the Oz today?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17913942%255E7583,00.html
I expected Walsh would be anti-Kyoto, but this is so extreme it could have come from Piers or Bolt.
Walsh is more extreme than either, and this is in fact moderate for him. He has previously described Kyoto as the greatest threat to Australia since the Japanese Fleet entered the Coral Sea in 1942. I’ve posted on this above.