Research Essay

Assessment 4: Research Essay.

Do political parties serve special interest or ordinary

citizens in the political process?

Evan Mizzi

Student Number: 100145998

Swinburne University

Australian Politics: POL10001

Stephen Cope

01/06/2015

Introduction.

Portsmouth England, 1787, it would be 252 days before

Captain Arthur Philip and the First Fleet would

colonise/invade the shores of Botany Bay, carrying a cargo of

1480 men, woman and children. These indentured souls would be

the first to toil and establish what would eventually become

the Commonwealth of Australia a mere 114 years later. The

irony of convicts being transported for crimes to a land that

their liberal democratic government declared Terra Nullius –

“a land belonging to no one”, should not be lost in the

narrative herein (Borch, 2001, p.1). The world was changing,

revolutions would become a threat to ‘the security of the

empire’ and the political class of the day. Borders would be

redrawn, new political systems would emerge, and so too were

new nations and colonies. From Australia’s earliest

beginnings, the nation would be forged out of the disaffection

and distrust of two ethnically and politically different

peoples, both of who were pawns in a bigger Imperial and

political narrative of the day. On one side: the

colonisers/invaders, gaolers and their convicts, whose crimes

it could be argued, were not as great as the politicians who

declared New South Wales… Terra Nullius. And on the other: its

Indigenous and traditional owners, who had their lands stolen

from them under them by a foreign invader. Two ethnic groups,

their liberties stripped from them, both destined to live

under the Southern Cross and granted ‘indelible’ rights at His

Majesty’s pleasure.

These two peoples were displaced, demeaned,

demoralised and disenfranchised by the political classes. From

the Rum Rebellion, to Eureka Stockade and our often ignored

and shameful Frontier Wars, these were some of the events that

would usher in the dawn of a new ‘liberal democracy’. K.M.

Dallas would describe the British Transportation policy as

such: ‘Transportation was a mercantilist device for providing

any likely colonial venture with the means of unfettered

labour. Some form of slavery was essential in a civilisation

which had not yet learned to respond to wage incentives’

(Newman 2005, p.2). It could be argued that throughout

Australia’s history, political parties and governments have

mobilized the citizenry for its own political purposes. It is

the intention of this essay to shine a light on our liberal

democratic system of government. I propose to investigate

whether our political parties serve citizens, themselves, or

that of special interest groups. Secondly, whether the

particular lobbyists associated the political process wield

too much influence and power. Firstly, let us examine what

liberal-democratic government in Australia should represent.

There are many competing claims surrounding the values and

objectives which should embody our system of government, and

how its institutions should be structured to achieve these

ends. Nonetheless, in modern society, it is commonly accepted

that a system of government should be democratic, it should be

designed in a manner to allow protections for the rights and

liberties of individual and minorities, and should also be

stable and effective in its administration of the nations’

affairs and responsive to its citizens desires (Fenna et al

2014, p. 12) .

Foundations for egalitarian social policy.

So, what exactly are these desires? They obviously

vary greatly from individual to individual; farmers to blue

and white collar workers, small business people to

multinational CEOs and policy to policy, government to

government. This variance of opinions is what we call our

ideologies. That is the beliefs, interests and visions for

the way we collectively view the world. It’s a constant

battle of coherent ideals that governments (be them Liberal

or Labor) have to appease between the left and the right of

the political spectrum. It could be said that this

appeasement of the citizenry and the captains of business

and industry began at Federation with the Australian

Settlement. The Australian Settlement as described by Kelly

(1992) was a number of ‘accommodation’ packages reached

between the Deakenite Liberals and the Labor Party in 1901.

It saw the ‘White Australia’ immigration policy, on

protective tariffs for Australian Industry, applied to a

system of Industrial arbitration for disputes between

employees and employers which embodied the ‘living wage’

and also upon introducing ‘old age and the invalid pension’

(Fenna, 2014, p.127). These transformative and radically

paternally egalitarian social policies forged the bedrock

of our political policy for much of the 20th century. Today

politicians debate about citizens ‘sense of entitlement’, a

policy which was forged from fair and just political policy

115 years ago.

The Australia Settlement is just one instance where

political parties both new-liberal and socialist democratic

found common ground in challenging classical liberalisms

ideals. The ideology of classical liberalisms Laissez-faire

economics is very similar to today’s neo-conservative approach

to policy and to the detriment of representative and

transparent government. Whereas reform liberalism provided for

the capacity of government to intervene with social welfare

policy, neo-liberal doctrine would prefer market forces and

the individualisation of society to dominate the economic and

social landscape. This domination creates division between

social and economic liberalism and indirectly erodes the civil

liberties of individuals with policy set around ideological

politics and not good governance or policy (Fenna, 2014,

p.182). The Australian Settlement set out what formed the

basis of an equitable social policy for Australia - albeit at

the determent of pluralistic immigration. Australian politics

at the turn of the 20th century saw socialist values and the

‘commonwealth’ or good of citizens become the defining

features of the Australian political policy and processes.

However, the unfettered growth which the Australian economy

saw for the first decades of the 20th century was nearing its

zenith. It would come to pass that unregulated markets in

United States would have reactionary effects across the

Pacific. By 1929 the stock market crashed and the Great

Depression would take hold. Relentless unemployment and

business bankruptcies set in, something had to be done and

done fast. John Maynard Keynes (1936) an English economist

proposed interventionist counter-cyclical budgeting to temper

the fluctuations within the economy. This involved supporting

job creation, business investment and welfare spending through

heavy doses of public expenditure such as Roosevelt’s ‘New

Deal’. This ‘New Deal’ predicated on Keynesian intervention

reinvigorated the United States and with that the rest of the

Western Worlds’ economies and was in essence a democratic

socialist policy that was in-line with the protectionism and

egalitarianism that the Australia Settlement afforded (Huff,

n.d, p.5) .

Love for sale

Unfortunately reform liberalisms belief in the moral

imperative of government intervention would be brought undone

with the post-war recession of the 1970’s. This saw rampant

inflation and increasing unemployment just as classical

liberals had warned. It set the scene for what would fuel

Australia’s constitutional crisis and with it, the rebirth of

classical liberalism in the form of neo-liberalism.

Intellectual contributors such as Hayek (1944;1960), would

place the core doctrines of ‘supply-side economics’ and

‘monetarism’ at the forefront of conservative neo-liberal

ideology. Both doctrines concerned with reducing the role of

government and instilling faith in ‘market liberalism’ which

would bring about a back to the future agenda on classical

liberal policy (Auerbach et-al, 2007, p.128). With the advent

of the 1980’s neo-liberalism conservative party politics had

taken liberal democracies by storm. Both Reagan and Thatcher

were espousing the virtues of ‘market liberalism’ as was

Rupert Murdoch in his newspaper publications and therefore

creating the dominant narrative for liberal democracies across

the globe (Manne, 2013). At home in Australia, the Hawke

government would soon deregulate the markets in the name of

efficiency. Social complexity and the need for organisational

efficiency will produce elites even in democratic politics

(Weber 1922). This same ‘efficiency’ was supposedly apparent

in market-liberalism in September 2008. Transparency and

citizen judgement curtail the dominance of the elite. Some

leaders are drawn to power for their own nefarious ends. Good

leadership depends on good institutions that preserve the

diffusion of power. In a rampant unregulated economy just

where do markets, the political class and elite derive their

logic and power from? (Fenna, 2014, p.243)

Liberal democratic theory suggests that individuals

(including leaders of political parties) will be driven by

self-interest, but that democratic institutions will keep

extremes in check by scattering power. A useful metaphor for

the dispersal of power would be ‘the lattice of leadership

that is, leadership is dispersed across institutional spheres

– the judiciary for example, and constrained to work for the

common good. The interlocking structure of the lattice

strengthens each part; the openness captures that sense of

dispersal; but when the lattice breaks, whatever is intended

to support it collapses (Fenna et_al, 2014, p.242). In recent

times, in Queensland politics for example, we’ve seen

questions arise over the separation of powers and the linking

of the appointment of Tim Carmody as Chief Justice of

Queensland. Carmody has been seen as being too close to the

previous Liberal National Party Newman government (Feneley,

2015). This places pressure on both the judicial system and

the integrity of government. It also lends credence to

Newman’s government appearing dysfunctional and self-serving

by using the office of Chief Justice for its own end. The

Carmody appointment could be witnessed as a form of ‘hard

power’, in this instance derived from the institutional

centralisation of power stemming from the office of Newman.

This centralisation is nothing new though in Queensland. It’s

often said that the Conservative side of politics is a ‘broad

church’; however its history suggests that it’s a party whose

leader is ultimately responsible for policy direction.

Traditionally, conservative leaders have to be seen to be

strong. This has afforded them the power to act without

consent. Hewson’s failed 1993 Fightback policy is an example

of this almost non consultative approach to conservative party

policy direction (Puplick 1994, p.40). It could be argued

that the Carmody appointment as Chief Magistrate was based on

his willingness to do the governments bidding by being ‘tough

on crime’ which more than likely polled well within the

electorate. This ‘agenda setting’ narrative was reinforced by

the Murdoch Press (Goldsworthy, 2015). There are many ways for

governments of both socialist democrat and liberal

conservative ideological persuasions to influence opinion and

drive policy to meet its own ends. Political appointments and

using the media are two ways of political parties asserting

influence to meet their own agendas. This can be accomplished

in many ways, one example would be through agenda-setting

which is a macro theory that suggests audiences (in this case

the electorate) will collectively see as more important,

those issues which are given prominent coverage, such as the

hard on crime agenda and the appointment of Carmody as Chief

Magistrate in Queensland politics. Another way in which our

political parties can be influenced to act on behalf of

interests outside of the public good is through that of

lobbyists. Lobbying is the process by which groups and other

political actors attempt to influence policy. This can be

achieved via groups or individuals acting on behalf of

industry and business such as the MCA (Minerals Council of

Australia), or that or the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade

Unions). These specials interests groups, including NGOs (Non

-Government Organisations) such as ACOSS (The Australian

Council of Social Services) wield power and project influence

due to their large member bases. These lobby groups have the

power to persuade governments to do their bidding through

sheer numbers and access to funds. Members of Parliament may

be targeted at election time, when they are particularly

vulnerable to pressure, especially in a hotly contested

election (Fenna 2014, p.262). Charles Lindblom (1977) has

described what he portrays as the privileged position business

pressure groups occupy. All group activity is embedded in a

market economy; Lindblom argues that business enjoys

unsurpassed access to governments as their power base creates

a position of vast influence. His statement can reinforced

with evidence of political donations during the 2011/2012

financial year to Australian political parties. ABS

(Australian Bureau of Statistics) figures quote a combined

total of $8,807,936 was given to the Labor and Liberal

parties, with the majority entering the coffers of the liberal

party by an additional sum if $2,439,682 (Rogers 2013, n.p).

Large sums like this has the power to influence opinion as was

the case with the Australian Trade and Industry Alliance

controversially campaigning against a carbon tax. It spent

over 8 million dollars – largely on broadcast advertising and

thus as I mentioned earlier curry influence and debatably the

course of a governments future by agenda setting.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the influencing of the course of a

nation and its citizens futures doesn’t require arcane

punishments and depravation of liberties such as penal

transportation – mostly for petty crimes it might be noted.

Altering the course of a peoples’ history doesn’t require the

invasion of a landmass by a ‘superior’ power either. With the

stroke of a quill legislation in Terra Nullius as a legal and

binding ‘law’ usurped the liberal democratic freedoms of this

lands first peoples. Today, subsequent legislation predicated

on national security based to a large extent of a political

narrative of fear, could soon have similar effects in eroding

liberties. Human Rights Commissioner, Gillian Triggs, recently

warned that counter-terrorism laws introduced with “unseemly

haste” were likely to have a chilling effect on free speech

and privacy – she also raised concerns that the supremacy of

law over that of the executive government was under threat in

Australia’s contemporary democracy (Hurst 2015). Political

Parties and governments (even liberal democratic ones) don’t

always act in the vested interest of ordinary people. Our

political system and parties work in nuanced and at times

Machiavellian ways bending laws to suit their agendas.

Political parties and that of the elite in business, who do

their bidding via special interest groups, have to an extent

arrogated our liberal democratic political processes through

mass political donations and manipulation of the national

dialogue through the media. They have learnt to be far more

subtle in the devices which they employ to bend political

policy and process to suit their own agendas. Some critics

have claimed that there is a danger of so-called special

interest groups unfairly outweighing the broader public

interest within the political process. In 1992 Opposition and

then Liberal Party Leader, John Hewson gave a damning

expression of his view in his Alfred Deakin lecture: “The

contemporary political debate, does not pit pragmatist against

ideologists - rather it pits advocates for the national

interest against captives of the vested interest” (Fenna 2014,

p.272). Ultimately though, the citizenry do not wish to hear

truthful proclamations of a political discourse. When Hewson

attempted to convince us that his fightback policy was for the

betterment of the nation back in 1993 he famously lost the

unlosable election. Citizens know that politicians and

political parties will lie to them, but in recent history

we’ve witnessed lobbyists, interest groups and big business,

basically anyone with enough power and capital to influence

government hold our liberal democracy at ransom. There are now

three certainties in life we can rely on, death, taxes and

disenfranchisement from our political parties and system of

governance.

References

Borch, M. 2001. Australian Historical Studies. ‘Rethinking the Origins of Terra Nullius’, pp.222.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d2aa98d2-

0fe1-41d2-bf77-f3af328e8e73%40sessionmgr4003&vid=1&hid=4214

Feneley, R. 2015, Jun 6.The Sydney Morning Herald. ‘Queenslands Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the

tainted LNP and the shrinking government of Annastacia Palaszczuk. Retrieved 6/06/2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/queenslands-chief-justice-tim-carmody-the-tainted-lnp-and-

the-shrinking-government-of-annastacia-palaszczuk-20150605-ghgexu.html

Goldsworthy, T. 2015, Jan 20. Brisbane Times.com.au. ‘Queensland State Election: Revealing facts

on bikie laws and crime. Retrieved 31/05/2015.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/queensland-

state-election-revealing-facts-on-bikie-laws-and-crime-20150120-12u1aj.html

Fenna, A. 2014 ‘The Australian System of Government’ in Government and Politics in Australia,

10th edn., ed. A Fenna, J Robbins and J Summers, Pearson, Frenchs Forest, pp. 12.

Fenna, A. 2014 ‘The Australian System of Government’ in Government and Politics in Australia,

10th edn., ed. A Fenna, J Robbins and J Summers, Pearson, Frenchs Forest, pp. 182,184, 242, 243,

262, 272.

Huff, B. N.D. ‘The Experience of Politics in the Age of Social Reform’,Comparisons in approaches

to Social Policy History in Australia and in the United States. A.N.U. p.5. Retrieved 31/06/2015.

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/219345/Huf_paper.pdf

Hurst, D. 2015, June 6. Gillian Triggs slames ‘scores of laws’ threatening fundamental freedoms.

The Guardian. Retrieved 06 June 2015.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/06/gillian-triggs-slams-scores-of-laws-

threatening-fundamental-freedoms

Kelly, P. 2010. ‘The Australian Journal of Political Science. Vol 39, No 1, March, pp, 25. ‘The

Australia Settlement’. Retrieved. 4/06/2015 http://www-tandfonline

com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/1036114042000205588

Manne, R. 2013, November. ‘Why Rupert Murdoch can’t be stopped’. The Monthly. Retrieved, 31

May, https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/november/1383224400/robert-manne/why-

rupert-murdoch-can-t-be-stopped

Newman, T. 2005. Becoming Tasmanian. ‘Convicts Punishment and Transportation’. Viewed, 06

June, 2015. http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/php/BecomingTasmania/convictpunishment08.pdf

Rogers, S. 2013. ‘Australia’s political donations: Who gives and gets the most?’ The Guardian.

Retrieved 03 June 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/28/australia-

political-donations-parties