Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Hartcher writes about how 'democracy is letting us down'. The context of this piece was the passing of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first Prime Minister, who has been remembered in this place this week. I am inclined to agree with many aspects of Mr Hartcher's article. In the Western democratic world there has been a crisis of confidence in democracy. The global financial crisis amplified cynicism people had with governments in the US and Europe in particular. The European consensus in this regard was to impose harsh austerity and to funnel taxpayer money into propping up banks. This had the effect of crippling communities and pushing economies into recession, but also confirming people's worst fears about government and politics.

In the US, the Obama administration sought to stimulate the US economy, but faced gridlock and harsh spending cuts from a Republican controlled congress. The political class in the US focused on itself instead of the people it should have been representing. The American public now seems irrecoverably split and disillusioned with the political process and politics more generally. In this context, I was very interested to see President Obama discuss compulsory voting as a possible solution, or perhaps a restorative solution, for America's democratic malady. If the President's hypothesis is correct—namely, that if the people who do not usually did vote—then outcomes on equality and livings standards would better serve those constituents.

Australia is, of course, one of the countries that does have compulsory voting and this, in my view, is a good thing for the quality of our democracy but it is no panacea. In Australia, we also have rising inequality and there is broad disengagement from political parties. The Lowy Institute poll last year found only 60 per cent of Australian adults and 42 per cent of those aged between 18 to 29 say that, 'democracy is preferable to any other kind of government'. At the last federal election, the total rate of informal votes—5.91 per cent for the House of Representatives—was the largest in Australia since 1984.

In Australia, I believe that the public's disaffection with this government and indeed politics more generally stems from the limited opportunities for meaningful engagement and a sense that political outcomes often have no relevance to people's lives or, when they do, they may well be deleterious—just look at the current budget. All of us involved in formal politics should think seriously about this—how we conduct our roles and how our parties work. But I think these issues go beyond the political debate here. Our society has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. People now have a different relationship with politics, with each other and with themselves.

I read with interest the recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Landscapes of helping: Kindliness in neighbourhoods and communities.    It discusses aspects of 'informal helping', which they term 'kindliness' and looks at an example of this in Hebden in South Yorkshire in the UK. This language, 'kindliness', is very novel in a political and even in a policy making context, but it seems to resonate with communities and the relationship that sustains successful communities. In my role, I was particularly interested in the section in this report on so-called 'third spaces', which states:

Third spaces—a conscious attempt to create public spaces where people could come into daily informal contact was key in promoting sociability and trust. Public space has long been an essential feature of urban housing design, yet it is not always 'owned' by people locally. It was important that the development of space tapped into the emotional connections people had with their neighbourhood.

I believe that governments of all levels can help to facilitate this with the design of our cities and suburbs, and it is critical in doing this to bring the community along. I believe there is an appetite for this in Australia and that this is vital if we wish to arrest this sense that democracy is letting us down. If we are doing so, we must take people with us. There are many examples that we can look to and learn from, and I note but one: last year in Paris they launched a participatory budget whereby money was set aside in the budget for projects imagined and chosen by the public. In 2014 this was a sum of 65 million euros. By 2020 it is anticipated this will come to a total of 500 million euros. Surely it is not beyond us to imagine something comparable in Australia.

While I do not pretend that initiatives of this type will solve every instance of discontent with our political system, I think it would go some way to addressing the genuine community concerns about our society and elevate our politics in a practical and symbolic way. As well as the initiatives, I believe the language of politics and the way we conduct ourselves and our role is vital. We should not neglect kindness or generosity as we speak of the work we do.