- 3 hours ago
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00Possibly our most controversial, brilliant, pint-sized, impulsive, known to pack a pistol.
00:09And he created the Australian Federal Police in a fit of rage, after a scallywag threw an egg at him.
00:15When Hughes started out as PM in 1915, he was the leader of the Labour Party, a socialist lawyer from Sydney.
00:24But after a mammoth brawl over conscription, he was expelled from Labour and reinvented himself within months as a Conservative Prime Minister leading the Nationalist Party.
00:35Our first duty as Australian is to Australia.
00:38As you can imagine, not every Conservative voter in Australia was convinced by this sudden conversion.
00:44The farmers in particular started running their own candidates against Hughes' Nationalist Party.
00:49This was a problem for Hughes, because back then voters only chose one candidate off the ballot paper.
00:56And if half the anti-Labour voters peeled off to the farmers, it would split the Conservative vote, ironically allowing Labour to sneak through and win.
01:06Hughes did something incredibly cunning.
01:09He rammed a bill through Parliament introducing full preferential voting.
01:13There must be a number in every square.
01:15That way, angry cockies could still vote Farmers 1 and Wallop Hughes, while still putting Labour last.
01:24More than a century later, Australia is still the only nation in the world using full preferential voting.
01:32Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting in 1918 to preserve what was already becoming a two-party system.
01:40Labour versus non-Labour.
01:42But more than a century later, Australian voters are using it to achieve the exact opposite.
02:12Democracies are never static.
02:17They're born, they change, and they can die.
02:22In some countries, these life transitions come about by means of bloody revolution.
02:29In Australia, we tend to choose a different path, a sneakier path.
02:34Much as we lord the legend of Ned Kelly and fancy ourselves larrikins, Australians follow the rules most of the time.
02:44But inside those rules, we use our people power to set off a quiet riot of change.
02:52We're doing it right now.
02:55Could you explain how preferential voting works?
03:00Oh my god.
03:01Explaining the preferential voting system is the hardest thing in the world, particularly when you're trying to do it in layman's terms.
03:07What it is, is an incredible safeguard, and we are the envy of many democracies.
03:12I think I used food as an analogy.
03:14When people go into the ballot box with their pencil in their hand, they say, I'd like candidate A to get elected.
03:19You need to get takeaway, and so-and-so wants pizza, and so-and-so wants pasta.
03:25But if they don't get elected, candidate B.
03:28And so-and-so wants some Thai food.
03:30And if people don't like candidate A or B, my preference is candidate C, and the person I like least is candidate D.
03:38It allows minority interests to be visible in the electoral system.
03:43It forces you to think and then commit to, which of these schmucks do I really hate the most?
03:49Which of these schmucks do I hate second most?
03:52We've moved through to, here's the person I could perhaps put up with if my preferred candidate, number one, can't get elected.
04:00Preferential voting gives us the least disliked candidate.
04:05There is something about being able to register not just your assent, but your dissent in the same process.
04:12That is, I think, ingenious.
04:14It smooths out the result.
04:16It means that we get less polarisation.
04:19Why do you think Australians have started using the preferential system to send a message to major parties?
04:25I think Australian voters are becoming a lot more switched on about the power of their own vote
04:30and the potential that they have in a preferential voting system,
04:34and increasingly to actually elect alternatives, whether they be minor parties or independents.
04:40People are waking up to the idea that the two-major-party duopoly is not all they get to pick from.
04:47We have choice here.
04:50In many seats, we wouldn't have a chance without one-nation preferences.
04:52Just like the Labor Party wouldn't have a chance without green preferences, that's preferential voting.
05:00For Australian voters, full preferential voting means we express an opinion on every single candidate.
05:07For the Australian Electoral Commission, it means one of the most fiendishly complicated counting processes in the democratic world.
05:16For most Australians, the election night is over.
05:21Everybody's put their beer cans in the recycling and moved on.
05:25Not you, though.
05:26No.
05:26For the AEC, election day is essentially halfway.
05:30Election day happens.
05:30Fantastic.
05:31But then we have another, you know, at least five weeks or more of just getting everything checked, counted, checked.
05:38All of our process is done so that we can say, election is done, confirmed, and we have an official result.
05:43What are we seeing in this little roped-off area here, Melanie?
05:46So this is Fowler.
05:48This is fresh scrutiny.
05:49So this is that second check of what's been counted on Saturday night.
05:55So all of our staff are, you know, taking their time, formality checking every single paper, seeing where it goes to for their first preference, and then doing a count again to make sure the numbers that we've got are right.
06:09But they do get looked at one more time, at the full distribution of preferences.
06:12It's so hard, isn't it, now that there's so many people voting for third parties and independents, because those preferences can change elections for major party candidates.
06:25We've seen that in heaps of seats.
06:28Absolutely.
06:28Especially we've got a lot of close seats or interesting seats this election.
06:32You know, there's been a lot of seats where it's not actually very clear.
06:35The real power of preferential voting is the degree of control it gives to voters.
06:43The winner isn't just the person who got the most number one votes or primary votes.
06:49In our system, the candidate with the fewest primary votes is eliminated, and their votes are chucked back into the count, this time added to the pile of whichever candidate that voter put at number two.
07:03And so on, and so on, until somebody gets above 50%.
07:09And yes, this does mean you can win a seat, even if you didn't get the highest number of primary votes.
07:17So tell me what happens when a seat gets very, very close.
07:22So candidates are entitled to appoint scrutineers to come and observe the process for them.
07:27They can do that in any seat.
07:28But where a seat is really close, they're very interested, of course, in where the votes are going.
07:32They have the right to challenge.
07:33So if they think that a count staff member has put it in the wrong place, they can challenge it.
07:37And then that must be determined by the divisional returning officer, must make the final decision on that as to where it goes.
07:43Very hard to tell which two is two.
07:45I would say one more point.
07:47One more point.
07:47One more point.
07:47One more point.
07:48What are the issues that tend to cause challenge or conflict between scrutineers?
07:55You know, is it literally, that's not a one or?
07:58Yeah, it is about formality.
08:00Handwriting can be an interesting thing.
08:02There's an apocryphal story about a voter in Queensland who used to vote below the line in the Senate in Roman numerals.
08:09Oh, we get a lot of Roman numerals.
08:11Yes, I think a lot of people who vote with Roman numerals below the line think they're being very unique.
08:16Is this a movement?
08:17It's a movement.
08:18I remember we had one, they had marked below the line every single box in Roman numerals
08:24and wrote a honestly very snarky comment about good luck at AEC counting this
08:27and not realising that I was quite well versed in Roman numerals by that time
08:31and have worked out that they'd voted informally because they didn't know their Roman numerals.
08:35No.
08:35So, you know, I'd say if you want your vote to count, vote in clear numbers.
08:40It does slow things down for our purposes.
08:44We just really like a nice clear ballot paper with your preferences.
08:48We haven't even addressed the Senate count yet.
08:51With its bed sheet dimensions and dozens of candidates,
08:55the Senate ballot paper is the reason why the AEC provides magnifying glasses.
09:03Wow.
09:04So how many of these Senate voting counting layers have you got around Australia?
09:10There are eight around the country, one in every state and territory, one for each Senate election.
09:15And this one only does New South Wales?
09:16Correct.
09:17And how many Senate ballot papers is this place going to handle over the whole process?
09:22A bit over 5.2 million ballot papers.
09:25All right.
09:26That is a logistical nightmare.
09:29And when the Turnbull government suddenly changed the Senate voting system in 2016
09:33to allow voters to express six preferences above the line rather than just one,
09:40the AEC, under intense time pressure, did something unprecedented.
09:45They brought in machines.
09:48That meant that we had to develop new equipment, new machinery to be able to do that,
09:53and new processes and procedures, and the testing was through the roof.
09:57This purpose-designed contraption weighs out Senate papers into piles of 50
10:03and scans them automatically, saving an image of every ballot.
10:09We did all the testing, we had blank ballot papers, we tested the scales, the whole system worked.
10:14But when we were doing it live, quite often when those bundles came in,
10:21they were either one ballot paper short or one ballot paper, it was 49, 51, it was never quite right.
10:25In the end, we worked out that the discrepancy was being caused by the weight of the pencil lid on the ballot.
10:33We hadn't factored that in, and so then we had to recalibrate those scales to put that in
10:39to make sure that we actually got the 50 ballot papers.
10:41So it's the weight of the vote, it's like a soul, it actually has a weight as well.
10:47So what are all these people doing?
10:50Once the images are captured by the scanners, the computer tries to read it,
10:54and these people are making sure that the preferences have been read
10:57and every ballot paper is captured correctly.
10:59Right, so they're humanised, checking the work of the scan.
11:03Yes.
11:04So it's sort of like, how many of these squares contain fire hydrants?
11:08I am not a robot.
11:09Yes.
11:09Right.
11:17This collaboration between human and machine will still take weeks and weeks to spit out
11:23the full result in the Senate, where Australians have historically delighted in voting for minor
11:30parties and independents.
11:32The big change this century is that we're now doing that in the lower house too.
11:38I think Australians embrace the full preferential voting system, and they're thinking their
11:43way through their vote, and how they're allocating those preferences.
11:46It's changing the nature of Australia's elections, and of counts, and of electoral outcomes.
11:5311 weeks after the election, the 150 people who will make up the 48th House of Representatives report
12:06for duty.
12:06The headline result is a landslide to Labor.
12:11They have so many MPs that they spill across into the opposition benches.
12:16To look at the chamber, you'd think the two-party system had never been in better shape.
12:21At a time of declining electoral turnouts around the world, a record number of Australians had
12:27their say.
12:28But there's an underlying truth that's not visible to the naked eye.
12:32Of these 150 seats, a record 139 were forced to preferences in the most complex and demanding
12:41count the AEC has ever seen.
12:45That's because for the first time in history, more than one third of voters put a number
12:50one next to a candidate that wasn't from Labor or the Coalition.
12:55The decline in support for Australia's major political parties comes down to changes in
13:00the complexion of the Australian society.
13:03Australia is, you know, very diverse, very culturally different country from what it was a couple
13:12of decades ago.
13:14There are things that people want fixed that aren't being addressed by either side of politics,
13:20and so they look for other people to represent their interests.
13:25More than anything, so many people now don't feel like they're being listened to.
13:31And so they resort to people who they feel are at least listening to, or at least are
13:36echoing their sentiments, and therefore they feel listened to.
13:40People have taken it on themselves and say, you know what, if the two major parties, the
13:44two major parties of Wapley aren't going to address our issues, well we're going to push
13:48for independent voices that are from our community, for our community.
13:53I think the community independent is a lot more targeted to communities, representative
13:58of communities, and moving away from a one-size-fits-all.
14:03It would not at all surprise me if we end up relatively soon in an environment of just perpetual
14:08minority governments.
14:10You can say that's good or bad.
14:11It's not really the point I'm making, it's just that that will happen.
14:15The Europeanisation of Australian politics, let's say, is not necessarily very far away.
14:20I see a lot of journalists talk about this, who think minority government is a bad thing,
14:26and think that where we're headed is a bad thing.
14:28I see some journalists just lose their heads over it.
14:31I definitely think for a strong democracy, you not only need a strong opposition, but
14:36perhaps we could look at nations and countries like Denmark, you know, who have minority governments.
14:44All right, let's look at Denmark.
14:50This is the Danish parliament, where a dizzying range of parties squeeze into the benches of
14:57a single chamber parliament that's smaller than ours.
15:01It's been more than a century since a single party held government here.
15:08Last time the Danes went to the polls was in November, 2022, it took a month and a half
15:14for a governing coalition of parties to be achieved.
15:19And when it formed, it was surprising, a partnership between the major centre left-wing party and
15:25the major centre right-wing party.
15:30In Australian terms, it's like Labour and Liberal governing together.
15:35Let that sink in.
15:39Mr Speaker, I feel very close to the centre of Danish power.
15:43How many people work in this chamber?
15:45How many MPs do you have?
15:46We have 179 MPs, 175 from Denmark, two from the Fair Islands and two from Greenland.
15:53Right.
15:54And how many parties are operating in this chamber?
15:56Well, in Denmark, we have a lot of parties.
15:59We have actually 12 parties in the parliament right now, yes.
16:02Is that because no one party ever gets a majority in Denmark?
16:06Yes.
16:07I mean, the biggest party will normally be around 25% of the votes.
16:12To go to the parliament, you need 2% of the voters.
16:15And that's the reason why you have a lot of parties.
16:17So you open the doors to even the tiny, tiny parties?
16:20Yes.
16:21It's funny, isn't it?
16:22I mean, you go to the US, you have a country of 350 million people, you have two parties,
16:26we have 6 million people, we have 12 parties.
16:28That's something to...
16:29You just like parties.
16:30Yeah, we just like them.
16:32It makes it complicated sometimes.
16:35In Australia, we have most of the time majority governments.
16:39And we're nervous about the idea of minority governments because we think they're chaotic
16:43and could be a little unreliable.
16:46What do Danes think about majority governments?
16:51Danes are maybe a little nervous about majority governments because they are, you know, maybe
16:56too lazy.
16:57They have the majority.
16:58They don't listen to all the voices.
17:00They just get it their way.
17:02They don't seek, you know, a broad solution.
17:05So that's the reason why a lot of things, they're very much like the minority government
17:10because they have to be on their toes to stay in power.
17:14Is it exhausting to practice consensus?
17:16No, I don't think so.
17:19Whoever is in government, they really try hard to have a broad agreement because it is
17:25more reliable for the people outside, for the voters to see that whenever we have a vote,
17:32you know that it is there not only to the next election, but for a period of time.
17:37And you try not to do it my way or the highway.
17:41We have a bench.
17:43The prime minister and the opposition leader sit opposite each other.
17:47They are traditionally two swords lengths apart.
17:51I mean, that is the adversarial model for our parliamentary system.
17:55But this feels like it doesn't really invite swordplay.
17:58I guess you don't really have a sort of a direct line between the government and the opposition,
18:03though.
18:04No, no, no.
18:05We don't have that.
18:06And no shouting?
18:07No shouting.
18:08Then they are asked to leave the room.
18:09Okay.
18:10Have you ever been to Australian parliament?
18:11I've been to Australia, but not to your parliament, unfortunately.
18:14Okay.
18:15I'm just going to show you a quick thing.
18:16I've just got a little highlights package of what our question time looks like.
18:21Oh, ho, ho, ho.
18:30Like UK, the UK.
18:35Order.
18:36That's the Australian U. His name's Milton Dick.
18:39will leave the galleries quickly and quietly.
18:48Order.
18:50Our record is in one question time, just over 70 minutes,
18:5618 members of parliament ejected from the chamber.
19:01But it could never happen in the Danish parliament
19:03because it would not be allowed.
19:05There's also this, you don't argue with the speaker, period.
19:09Denmark's parliament has only one chamber.
19:16Ours has two.
19:18Why?
19:19Because of an epic piece of colonial power wrangling.
19:24As the six colonies of Australia fumbled their way
19:27toward the end of the 1800s,
19:29there were pressing and obvious reasons
19:32to come together as a nation.
19:35Defence, trade and immigration
19:37all seemed like matters where it made sense to have one approach
19:41rather than six.
19:43But with human beings,
19:45the ticklish and unavoidable thing about creating a new seat of power
19:50is that it can be quite an anxious process
19:52for the owners of the bottoms
19:54sitting in the existing seats of power.
19:57And the smaller Australian colonies were all led by guys
20:01who weren't exactly in love with the idea of handing over their power
20:05to the bigger, richer colonies like New South Wales and Victoria.
20:09What kind of design for a national parliament
20:12could possibly ease their fears?
20:14The British system and the House of Commons
20:17seemed an obvious place to start.
20:19But the mother country's wig-infested House of Lords,
20:24where seats were handed from posh fathers to sons like pocket watches,
20:29hmm, not quite on brand for a recovering penal colony.
20:33No, I think we're getting more towards the American idea.
20:36The breakthrough came from America.
20:40Australia's designers nicked the idea of the American Senate,
20:44which gave every state the same number of senators,
20:47regardless of population.
20:50Thus enabling, in principle,
20:52the Senate to be a place where the smaller states
20:55could rise up in majestic rebellion
20:57and resist the tyranny of Sydney and Melbourne.
21:02The Senate can block government legislation,
21:04its serious power.
21:07Thus was born a sort of Franken-parliament,
21:10which became known as the Washminster system.
21:14Half Westminster House of Commons,
21:16half Washington's Senate,
21:18with a largely ceremonial governor-general
21:21plonked on top like a jaunty monarchist cocktail umbrella.
21:25Thus constructed out of spare parts from its divorced parents,
21:29the Australian Federation wobbled into existence
21:32on January 1st, 1901.
21:38The idea of the Senate as some sort of coliseum
21:41for the states to battle it out,
21:43with handicaps for the bigger ones,
21:46is what got Federation over the line in the first place.
21:49For that question, you'll place it on notice.
21:51But it's barely ever worked like that.
21:55I think the idea of a Senate
21:58and a body that was able to represent states' rights
22:03and states' interests
22:04was a good idea at the time,
22:06but that's not how it's panned out.
22:09And over the century or so,
22:12we've seen that the Senate does not represent states' issues.
22:16The reality is that professional political parties
22:19have taken over our parliamentary system.
22:23In the Australian Constitution,
22:25there's no mention of political parties.
22:28This is something that's evolved.
22:31This idea of attachment to the executive,
22:38the senior party members,
22:39what they say goes,
22:41that was not the case back then.
22:42There's a perfectly good reason
22:46why our constitutional drafters
22:48didn't mention political parties.
22:51At time of writing,
22:52they hadn't been invented yet.
22:55Lots of powerful elements in our democracy
22:57aren't mentioned at all in the Constitution,
22:59like local government
23:00or the Prime Minister,
23:03if you can believe it.
23:03The Australian Labor Party came first,
23:06formed in 1901 from the union groups
23:09that had sprung up from disputes
23:10like the Great Shearer's Strike of 1891.
23:15And in 1904,
23:16for about two seconds,
23:18the Australian Labor Party
23:19formed the first national social democratic government
23:22in the world.
23:24On the other side of the ledger,
23:26a series of non-Labour parties
23:28came and went until 1944,
23:31when Robert Menzies whipped them into gear
23:33and organised them
23:34under the banner of the Liberal Party,
23:37standing for fiscal conservatism
23:39and small government.
23:41Why were political parties invented?
23:43Essentially,
23:44they allowed like-minded candidates
23:46to increase their chances of winning power
23:49by grouping together.
23:51And sure enough,
23:52the Senate very quickly
23:53became a contest of parties
23:55rather than states.
23:57For the next 50 years,
23:59Labor and Liberal
24:00traded government back and forth between them.
24:03Each commanding around 40% of the vote
24:06and scrabbling every election
24:08to win the hearts and minds
24:10of the 20% in the middle.
24:13Parties exist because in the absence of them,
24:16you have chaos and the impossibility of...
24:20I mean, you just get gridlocked.
24:23The remarkable thing in Australia
24:25is we still have
24:27the two dominant political parties.
24:30Our parties exist
24:31by convention,
24:34convenience,
24:36perhaps, probably better to say,
24:37practical necessity.
24:39It's pretty hard to get anything done
24:41if you don't end up with a group of people
24:43who decide to work
24:44in a concerted way together.
24:46I think the kind of early iterations
24:48of liberal democracy
24:48in Australia
24:50didn't envisage
24:51that we would have a parliament
24:53that was completely dominated
24:54by the kind of ideological,
24:57entrenched positions
24:58of two parties.
25:00The eyes were passed
25:01to the right of the chair,
25:02the nose to the left.
25:03But Australian voters
25:04do not like
25:05handing over absolute control.
25:07And as the parties
25:09consolidated their power,
25:11Australians quietly foiled them
25:14in the polling booth.
25:16It's now customary
25:17that we use
25:18our lower house ballot
25:20to appoint a party
25:21to government
25:21and our Senate ballot
25:24to create a crossbench
25:26that will make
25:27that government's life
25:28a living hell.
25:31The eyes have it.
25:32The nose have it.
25:33Division required.
25:34Ring the bells.
25:37Sometimes when you end up
25:38with a particularly
25:39elaborate crossbench,
25:40do you look at that
25:42and think this is
25:44a demonstration
25:46of the Australian people's
25:48sense of humour?
25:51Well, we don't know
25:53we're creating a crossbench,
25:54but yes, yeah, they do.
25:55People go shopping
25:56in the Senate
25:56without a shadow of a doubt.
25:57And the Senate,
25:58over time,
25:59has become more and more
26:00and more and more diverse.
26:02The last few seats
26:04are always up for grabs.
26:07And so sometimes
26:07you get some unusual outcomes.
26:10The two major parties
26:11by necessity
26:12to win lower house seats
26:14cannot have excessive views
26:16and therefore reside
26:17pretty proximate to one another
26:19to be quite frank.
26:21People who have stronger views
26:22become more noticed
26:26in the Senate.
26:27What's the most hectic crossbench
26:29you've ever had
26:30to negotiate with?
26:32Probably the Palmer United Party period
26:35where we had,
26:37I think it was three senators.
26:39One of them obviously
26:40was Jackie Lambie
26:41who really has carved out
26:42her own political career
26:44since that time,
26:45which demonstrates,
26:46I think, her authenticity.
26:48So that was
26:48a pretty hectic Senate.
26:50I think the Senate
26:50at times has saved us
26:53from really bad decisions,
26:54but if I was in government,
26:57I'll tell you what,
26:59they wouldn't be
26:59my favourite people
27:00in the world.
27:01It's one of the strengths
27:02of our system
27:02that power can't be concentrated
27:04in one place.
27:06It prevents one part
27:07of government
27:08or of the state
27:09having too much power.
27:12So you're advising people
27:13not to vote Labor
27:14in the Senate?
27:16No, not at all.
27:19I think...
27:20So when you're
27:24in that situation
27:25and you've got to negotiate
27:28item by item
27:30on legislation,
27:31what techniques
27:32do you use?
27:34Sometimes it's frustrating.
27:35Sometimes you want
27:36the Senators
27:38to vote differently,
27:39but by and large
27:40it does require
27:41governments
27:42to sit down
27:43with the crossbench
27:45in a chamber
27:45we don't control
27:47to negotiate
27:48the passage
27:48of legislation.
27:50Here's where
27:51we should mention
27:52another thing
27:53that's unusual
27:54about the Australian
27:55political system.
27:57In these parts,
27:58voting against your party
27:59is a big deal,
28:01bigger than in any
28:02comparable democracy.
28:06Labor Party rules
28:08forbid disloyalty
28:09on pain of expulsion.
28:11It's generated
28:12an expression
28:13that's unique
28:14to Australian politics.
28:16disunity within any
28:19party or any
28:19side of politics
28:20is death.
28:21Disunity
28:21is death.
28:23Appearances
28:23of disunity
28:24can be death
28:26in politics.
28:26Disunity
28:27is death
28:27in politics.
28:28Disunity
28:29is death.
28:29They say
28:30disunity
28:30is death.
28:31The Australian
28:32Labor Party
28:32has probably
28:34the most
28:35disciplined
28:36caucus
28:36anywhere in the
28:38world
28:39that I can think
28:40of a liberal
28:40democracy
28:41where you
28:42basically
28:43defy it
28:44and you're
28:44essentially
28:45expelled.
28:47I mean,
28:47it's off
28:48the charts.
28:49The Liberal Party
28:50does not have
28:51that,
28:52but in practice
28:53as a counterbalance
28:55where it's a
28:56sort of gravitational
28:57force,
28:58it's kind of dragged
28:59disproportionately
29:00in the same
29:01direction.
29:02We've always
29:02respected
29:03the right
29:04of people
29:05to cross the
29:06floor
29:06on issues
29:07where they feel
29:08extremely strongly.
29:10It hasn't been
29:11an automatic
29:11expulsion
29:12offence
29:14as it has
29:14been
29:14for Labor
29:16people.
29:17In the end,
29:18if you are
29:19elected
29:20as a Liberal
29:21or a National,
29:22you are
29:23expected
29:24to adhere
29:25to the
29:27decisions
29:28of the Liberal
29:30and National
29:31leadership
29:31of the
29:32Coalition
29:33Party Room.
29:34To govern,
29:35you have to be able
29:35to control
29:35the Chamber.
29:36And to do that,
29:37you have to maintain
29:38some sort of
29:39control of your
29:40members.
29:40You have to all
29:40agree on a
29:41common position
29:42and you stick by it.
29:43If you start
29:44to fall apart,
29:44if you start
29:45to split,
29:46if you have
29:46antipathies develop
29:47on certain issues,
29:48you get chaos.
29:50I wonder if you
29:50could talk about
29:51how it's affected
29:52the Parliament
29:53that we have
29:53such a rigid
29:55binding caucus
29:56in our
29:57two-party system.
29:59Part of the
29:59growing disgruntlement
30:00Australians have
30:01with the
30:02kind of
30:02two-party system
30:03is that
30:05they want
30:06politicians
30:07that represent
30:07their views.
30:08That's technically
30:09the purpose
30:10of a democracy
30:10and not
30:12head office.
30:13I definitely
30:13think there
30:14is a
30:15correlation
30:15between
30:16the growth
30:17in the
30:19independent
30:19movement
30:19and the
30:21decline in
30:22the popularity
30:22of the
30:23two major
30:24parties,
30:25especially as
30:26they become
30:27very stringent
30:27on towing
30:28party line.
30:30I think that
30:30things like
30:32conscience votes
30:33and individual
30:34conscience really
30:35matters in
30:36liberal democracies
30:37and the
30:38capacity for
30:39individuals to
30:39be able to
30:40say, I don't
30:40agree with
30:41that, so I'm
30:42going to cross
30:42the floor.
30:43The idea that
30:44we have people
30:45who cross the
30:45floor, you
30:46know, in
30:46other countries
30:47that's just
30:48called voting.
30:50Now we've
30:51become a lot
30:52more in our
30:54pens and it's
30:55abhorrent if you
30:56move out of it,
30:57which is kind of
30:57ridiculous.
30:58That's just a
30:59form of political
31:00control by a
31:01clique over the
31:02general political
31:04scene.
31:05Barnaby Joyce,
31:06who arrived in
31:06the parliament
31:07in 2005 as a
31:09renegade national
31:10senator, crossed
31:12the floor 19
31:13times during the
31:15Howard government.
31:16He's an Australian
31:17standard bearer for
31:19party disunity.
31:20If anybody was to
31:22go into the
31:22Senate and to
31:23put out that
31:25they would never
31:25ever consider
31:26crossing the floor,
31:27then you're
31:28basically useless,
31:29aren't you?
31:29It is crazy.
31:31You know, you'd
31:31be better to speak
31:33against your
31:34family than to
31:35speak against the
31:35party.
31:36It's, you know,
31:37people don't talk
31:37to you.
31:38I'll give you a
31:39colourful story.
31:40At the start, when I
31:41first came into
31:42parliament, I
31:44couldn't get a seat
31:46in the joint party
31:47room.
31:47I'd literally go to
31:48sit somewhere and
31:48say, that seat's
31:49taken.
31:50Then I'd go to sit
31:51somewhere and say,
31:51that seat's taken.
31:53And so I literally
31:53had to go next door,
31:54grab a seat and
31:55bring it in.
31:56I sat by myself for
31:57dinner and tea for
31:58years.
31:59There's a real
32:00tribalism that
32:01doesn't exist
32:02elsewhere.
32:02Now, the problem
32:04with that is in
32:06people's hearts, they
32:08feel a sense of, I'm
32:09letting myself down,
32:11I'm not true to my
32:12personal values because
32:14I haven't been given
32:14the liberty on certain
32:15issues to move.
32:18That has evolved in
32:19Australia.
32:19It wasn't always like
32:20that.
32:21And because it's so
32:22prominent now, people
32:24are more inclined to
32:25say, well, the only
32:26way I can get away from
32:27that tribalism is to
32:29leave the tribe.
32:30With a heavy heart, but
32:31a clear conscience, I
32:33announce my resignation
32:34from the Australian
32:36Labor Party.
32:37Fatima Payman is an
32:39ex-Labor senator.
32:41She split with the
32:41Labor Party in 2024
32:43after voting with the
32:44Greens to support the
32:45recognition of
32:46Palestine, which was
32:48formal Labor policy at
32:49the time.
32:50The issue wasn't
32:52Palestine.
32:53It was backing a
32:53Greens motion against
32:55Labor instructions.
32:57By her own actions,
32:59Senator Payman has
33:00placed herself outside
33:01the privilege that
33:02comes with participating
33:04in the Federal
33:05Parliamentary Labor
33:06Party caucus.
33:07Modern day Australia
33:08looks very different to
33:09what it did 30 years ago,
33:12let alone 130 years ago,
33:14right?
33:15So in order for us to
33:17represent our
33:19constituencies, our
33:20states, our electorates
33:22in the best way
33:23possible, we need to be
33:25able to have the freedom
33:26and the liberty to
33:29represent their voices
33:30without the constraints
33:32of caucus solidarity
33:33or this binding rule.
33:35We believe in
33:36collectives, we believe in
33:37the power of collectives
33:38to give effect to change.
33:42When voters vote for a
33:43Labor candidate, they can
33:45have a greater degree of
33:46confidence that that Labor
33:47candidate will act in
33:49accordance with the
33:49party's election platform,
33:52which is primarily what the
33:53voter is looking to.
33:55But in situations where it
33:57may be a sensitive topic,
33:59the MP or senator may have
34:01strong ties or beliefs or
34:04her electorate's pressuring
34:05them, they need to be able
34:08to exercise their
34:10conscience vote.
34:11We have to, as a party,
34:13a government work together
34:13to deliver change.
34:15And I accept it's not as
34:17fast as some people want.
34:19Sometimes it's faster than
34:20others want.
34:22I accept that some people
34:23want us to go further.
34:24Some people think we've
34:25gone far enough.
34:26I was told, you know,
34:29Penny Wong had to vote
34:31down same-sex marriage so
34:33you can vote this down too.
34:36That was a hard time.
34:38When did that long, long
34:41story arc feel the toughest
34:44for you personally?
34:47Oh, it was a lot of tough
34:49moments.
34:53It was hard to vote against
34:59marriage equality the first
35:00time, but it was probably as
35:04hard to be in a caucus where
35:06my perspective was in the
35:08minority.
35:10The question of same-sex
35:12marriage was, in legislative
35:14terms, a simple one.
35:15should the wording of the
35:18Marriage Act be changed, yes
35:20or no?
35:21But the Parliament was loathe
35:23to make a decision.
35:25Well, it certainly could have
35:27answered that question, but I
35:29thought there was a better way
35:30of dealing with it.
35:31I took the view that something
35:35as personal, as deeply
35:37personal as same-sex marriage,
35:41where so many people had all
35:44sorts of different views for
35:46all sorts of different
35:47reasons and all sorts of
35:49different personal
35:49circumstances, particularly
35:51friends, family members, etc.,
35:54who might have had a big stake in
35:56this one way or another.
35:58I took the view that if the
36:01decision were to be made, it
36:04would be better made through a
36:07plebiscite than through a
36:09parliament.
36:11And in 2016, after more than
36:13a decade of parliamentary
36:15fumbling and indecision about
36:17whether or not the Marriage Act
36:18should be changed to allow
36:20same-sex marriage, the decision
36:22was subcontracted to the
36:23Australian people via a voluntary
36:27postal survey.
36:29Yes responses, 7,870,000.
36:34The parliament passed the
36:38legislation only after being
36:40told to by the people.
36:44There is, naturally, disagreement
36:46about whose fault all this was.
36:50The fact that we had to go to a
36:52postal vote on marriage equality is
36:54not actually a function of the
36:55system not working, it's a
36:57function of the political
36:58weakness of the coalition.
36:59They were too scared to move
37:01because of their internal
37:02opposition without the cover
37:04of a postal vote.
37:07Well, you had internal
37:08division as well, right?
37:09It was...
37:10Well, but we resolved that.
37:14You know, we went to a
37:15national...
37:15Well, we went to multiple
37:16national conferences, had a
37:17lot of arguments, and we
37:18resolved that.
37:20The coalition couldn't do it
37:22without going to the people.
37:24The Labor Party didn't push it
37:26because it was Labor senators
37:28that would have potentially
37:30objected or not voted for it
37:33or abstained, leading to its
37:35defeat.
37:36And they like to whitewash
37:38that and ignore it, but it's
37:40a very important part of the
37:41story.
37:42And that was why the parliament
37:44was reluctant to vote without
37:46the plebiscite or then the
37:48postal survey, because it
37:50wouldn't have passed the
37:52parliament.
37:53Even though I personally didn't
37:57support same-sex marriage, the
38:01fact that the decision was made
38:03by vote of the entire people has
38:07made it, I think, much easier for
38:09people to accept.
38:10And interestingly, what prior to
38:13the event was pitched as being a
38:16divisive thing has turned out
38:19actually to be a unifying thing.
38:23No-one argues for changing the
38:25law back to what it was.
38:27In practical terms, there aren't
38:30any specific rules about when a
38:32government can put an issue to a
38:34national vote.
38:36But in other countries, voters are
38:38encouraged to participate between
38:39elections.
38:41Back in Denmark, home of
38:43consensus, they love throwing stuff
38:45back to the people.
38:47This is a town hall.
38:49And Danes have a range of
38:50different ways they can
38:52participate in their democracy.
38:54I'm getting a sense that Danish
38:56people are super engaged with the
38:59democratic process.
39:01Yeah.
39:02Yeah, I would say we are.
39:03I mean, your turnout to vote is
39:06above 80 percent.
39:07Yeah.
39:07Even though you don't have
39:08compulsory voting.
39:09Yeah, we're not forced to vote
39:11like you guys.
39:12What do you think about that?
39:13I think it's crazy.
39:14Really?
39:14Yeah, because if someone
39:16forced me to do something, I'm
39:17like, then I don't want to do
39:19it.
39:19I would like to go vote because I
39:22believe in our democracy.
39:23Ah, so apart from the
39:25parliament, where everybody is
39:27very consultative and takes all
39:29the people's views into account,
39:32you can also rise up as a people
39:34and force the parliament to
39:36discuss something if you don't see
39:38it on the agenda, right?
39:39Yeah, yeah.
39:39We have this thing called a
39:41Bauer force, like a citizen
39:43suggestion.
39:44Uh-huh.
39:44It was started in 2018, where
39:48citizens can register online and
39:52then they come with a suggestion
39:54for a law.
39:55Oh, so it's like a petition.
39:56Yeah, make this new law or erase
40:00that law.
40:01Uh-huh.
40:02And if they get 50,000 votes, the
40:06politicians are forced to discuss it
40:08in the parliament.
40:09Wow.
40:09Yeah.
40:10Okay.
40:10And I have to be honest to say I was
40:13laughing a lot of the idea when it
40:15came because I was like, but if they're
40:17forced to discuss it, they will not
40:19take it seriously.
40:20Whose idea was it?
40:20It was like one of the very left
40:23parties.
40:24Oh.
40:25Uh, like, you know, those, the
40:28hippie vegetable feelings kind of
40:31party.
40:31Yeah.
40:32But now it turned out that the
40:35suggestions that gets these 50,000
40:37voters, they take them very
40:39seriously and then they come into
40:41the parliament and they actually
40:42discuss these things.
40:44Oh, right.
40:44So it actually makes a difference.
40:46So you've been talked around.
40:48You're now a fan.
40:48Yeah, I think it's a good, I like it
40:50now.
40:51We have a kind of lesser or lower
40:54understanding or knowledge of how to
40:55get change in between the ballot box
40:58than other countries that have
41:00non-compulsory voting because you,
41:03that's what you have to do.
41:04You've got to get up and organise.
41:06Compulsory voting is a really good
41:09thing in Australia, but it may lead to
41:11a bit of disengagement outside of the
41:13ballot box.
41:17Our democracy, with its compulsory
41:19voting and its parliamentary standing
41:22orders and conventions, feels like a
41:24rigid and permanent framework.
41:27Immutable.
41:29But that's an illusion.
41:31Change regularly comes from forces that
41:34the system didn't anticipate.
41:37Political parties for one.
41:40Vested in foreign interests for another.
41:42But there's a consistent factor with the capacity
41:45to confound all of them.
41:48People power.
41:49The literal Greek translation of the word
41:52democracy.
41:54Sometimes people power amasses among the people
41:57with the least power of all.
42:00People whose voices the system is not yet trained
42:04to hear.
42:06The township of Yirikala has an official head count of 657.
42:12But this tiny community has changed the course of our nation's history.
42:16And it began before most of its residents had even been allowed to vote.
42:21The Yirikala region was underlaid by a blanket of bauxite.
42:29And bauxite was a precious mineral in the 1950s.
42:34What the parliament did was pass a law that allowed a mining company
42:42to mine for bauxite without consulting the traditional owners.
42:47The Yirikala people first saw these little white survey pegs.
42:52No one had asked them for their permission to come onto their land
42:56to put these markers across.
42:58This is where the Yirikala Nara met.
43:00So the Nara is like the Bush parliament that are the representatives
43:04of the different clans who were here in the community
43:07and they would come together
43:08and there were a lot of decisions to be made.
43:10They knew that danger was coming
43:12and they knew they had to do something about it.
43:14The mining company holds a lease for 57 square miles.
43:18The land has been withdrawn from the reserve to allow the development.
43:22The Yirikala people decided,
43:25you know, if this is going to keep on going,
43:27we need to say something to the government.
43:29The government has to hear our voice.
43:31It was a fight, fight for land rights.
43:35Balanda democracy or laws was different to Yirikala.
43:42And so they were thinking of ways to,
43:45how can we make them listen to us?
43:48The Bark petitions were painted in the middle of 1963,
43:53following six months of activities
43:56on the Gove Peninsula in northeast Arnhem Land.
43:59An extraordinary kind of form of bicultural diplomacy
44:03that involved a kind of written appeal to the parliament
44:07accompanied by a really important
44:09Bark etching painting
44:12which spoke to the sovereignty of the Yirikala people
44:16and who they are and who their people are.
44:20And that was presented in a Bark petition form
44:23to the federal parliament.
44:25So they were like a Bark emissary
44:27from the Yirikala parliament,
44:30the sovereign nation of the Yirikala people,
44:32to the sovereign nation of the Commonwealth of Australia,
44:36asking for consideration to be made
44:39about Yirikala law being obeyed,
44:42which it hadn't been when the mining companies came on
44:44and started to prospect
44:46and started to peg out their boundaries.
44:49And so it was really an act of diplomacy
44:52and we tend to think of them now
44:53as being a kind of an object or an artwork.
44:57But essentially these were a gift.
44:59They were a kind of treaty
45:00in order to say,
45:03please understand where we're coming from.
45:06We're trying to understand where you're coming from.
45:08See, we're doing things the way you like them done
45:11with paper
45:12and with all the fancy words on a petition,
45:15with signatures
45:16and let's listen to each other.
45:19Bala Galili, Two Ways Learning.
45:21So an invitation to negotiate
45:23and a political document.
45:25100% a political document
45:27and I reckon one of the founding documents
45:29in Australian history.
45:31If the politicians had have understood
45:33how to read the story that was being told,
45:36they would have understood
45:37that they were land titles,
45:40that they were an exclamation
45:41and an explanation of Yorngul inheritance,
45:46of Yorngul landholding,
45:47of Yorngul sovereignty
45:49over the lands
45:50that had just been given away
45:52without any consultation
45:54or consent or compensation,
45:57which broke Yorngul law.
45:59The government then agreed
46:02to empower a select committee
46:04of inquiry to go to Yiddakala
46:07and to directly investigate
46:10the grievances of the Yiddakala people
46:12and effectively the recommendations
46:14that it made
46:16found in favour of the Yorngul.
46:19The findings were given
46:20just before the election,
46:22which Menzies won in a landslide.
46:25And effectively,
46:26all of the recommendations
46:27of the select committee
46:28were just washed away
46:30with the tide of history.
46:33Mining went ahead.
46:34People we don't like
46:39come onto our land
46:41and stay on our land.
46:43While the bulldozers
46:44rip the valuable ore
46:46from the earth
46:46and freighters come into the bay
46:48to ship it overseas,
46:50the Aborigines are fighting
46:51their claim
46:52in a white man's court.
46:53How would you feel
46:54if your home was invaded
46:57by strangers?
47:01The lives of the Yorngul
47:02were changed irrevocably.
47:04But for the signatories
47:06of the petition
47:06and their descendants,
47:09it was just the beginning
47:10of a decades-long battle.
47:12And for Australia,
47:14the petitions marked
47:15the beginnings
47:16of the land rights movement.
47:20Decades of protests
47:22that brought powerful
47:23Aboriginal voices
47:24to national
47:26and international attention.
47:27The Yorngul brothers
47:33spent a lifetime
47:34seeking justice.
47:36The mining company
47:37and the government
47:37has to learn some lessons.
47:40Dr Yorngul did not live
47:42to see the High Court
47:43finally, in 2025,
47:45rule that the Yorngul people
47:47were entitled
47:47to compensation
47:48for the loss
47:49of their land.
47:50We're coming now
47:53to Parliament House,
47:55which you can see
47:55on the left-hand side
47:56of the coach.
47:57It is in this
47:58Parliament House
47:59that the laws
48:00which govern our country
48:01are made.
48:02A lot has changed
48:09since 1963
48:10when the 24th Parliament
48:13received the Bark petitions
48:15and didn't understand
48:17quite how to read them.
48:18Members of the Synod,
48:20pray be seated.
48:20That Parliament
48:21had no Aboriginal members
48:23at all
48:24and its female representatives
48:26could be counted
48:27on one hand.
48:29It was a sea
48:30of white male faces.
48:32The 48th Parliament
48:35we just elected
48:36has 10 First Nations
48:38representatives
48:39and, for the first time ever,
48:42is 50% female.
48:45This Parliament,
48:46thanks to the relentless
48:47force of people power,
48:49is starting to look
48:50a lot more
48:51like the population
48:52it represents.
48:54Australia's democracy
48:56is unique,
48:57but, like every democracy,
49:00flawed.
49:00You fill in the boxes,
49:01starting with numbers,
49:02number one.
49:04Sometimes it divides us.
49:07But we will decide
49:08who comes to this country
49:09and the circumstances
49:10in which they come.
49:12Or ignores people
49:13it shouldn't.
49:13No!
49:14Or looks away
49:16from problems
49:16that seem too hard
49:18to fix.
49:19Every black death
49:20in custody.
49:21But at other times,
49:22we've made hard decisions
49:24together.
49:24Australia has done it!
49:26Which have built prosperity.
49:27Paul Keating
49:28floated the Australian dollar.
49:30When the phone
49:31started ringing
49:31in dealing rooms
49:32this morning,
49:33trading was frenetic.
49:34Improved lives.
49:36Medicare will provide
49:37every permanent resident
49:38with basic health insurance.
49:40This is how democracies change.
49:44Sometimes it's an agonising,
49:46unconscionably slow process.
49:48For the pain,
49:49suffering and hurt
49:50of these stolen generations.
49:52Driven by persistence.
49:54We say sorry.
49:55And courage.
49:57We don't want the GST!
49:59This country desperately needs
50:01a new taxation system.
50:04Sometimes change is born quickly
50:06out of shocking events.
50:08There is no other way!
50:09There is no other way!
50:11If a democratic parliament
50:13is a conversation
50:14between a government
50:15and the governed...
50:17Girls, I cannot wait
50:18another day!
50:20..this one is listening
50:21more closely
50:22than it once did.
50:25MUSIC PLAYS
50:38MUSIC PLAYS
Recommended
42:55
|
Up next
1:07:55
24:28
1:59:55
31:36
44:58
44:53
1:05:43
46:37
58:24
Be the first to comment