All Australians, including those here today, must be ever vigilant of those who seduce public opinion to erect itself into an inquisition over the rights of conscience. It is incumbent on all who value liberty of conscience for themselves, to resist invasions of it in the case of others or your case, may, by change of circumstance, become theirs.
If I was Thomas Jefferson I could claim responsibility for that quote as coming from a letter to my mate Dr Benjamin Rush. But that quote is relevant to us here in Australia and should be nailed to the door of our Australian Senate before a photocopy is handed to the Senators prior to voting on the impending Cross Media Ownership Laws.
In the world where selling political parties is now like selling brands of bottled water, the contents are indistinct but the packaging is colourful, there has been a democratic devolution that has been exploited by the executive. When the executive calls public debate and associated dissention in the Senate Chamber bad manners it stands to reason that we should be discussing the principle of coram populo. Is a Senator a renegade, a hero or just doing what he or she swore an oath of office that they would do? Who is calling the terms renegade, maverick, etc. and what is their stake in the debate? Where is their disclosing footnote on the commentary?
The so called discussion behind closed doors, as opposed to informed debate in front of the public in the Senate, is no more than a usurping of your democratic right. Closed door discussions with an Australian Senator are the murmur of the usher as she corrals you to the exit. If it is believed by the executive that a more just form of government is one not subject to open and diligent review then this should be proposed to the public as an alternative to the bicameral system of parliament and taken to an election.
We believe that democracy is an indestructible angel; it is our right, a self evident facet of life that will always prevail in Australia. Unfortunately, it can become a perfunctory body diminished by the attack of the pathogens of self interest, greed and manipulation. The disease is invigorated by the innate belief we all have that we are omniscient and that my desires are in your interests. These pathogens are a more basic construct of our society than the minor section on the humanity clock which is democracy.
It is sobering to think that the emerging superpower of China has never been, nor does it show any signs of becoming, a democracy. The Limits of Developmental Autocracy by Min Chin Pay has recently pointed out that an economy growing at near 10% and an exploding middle class does not equal democracy or even inspire it. Russia's cleptocracy is slipping backwards in its democratic process. For many countries in South East Asia democracy is just a foil for vested family interests, an appendage of the same families who control the economies of those countries. Africa is a tale of woe from Cape to Cairo and you can watch the Middle East and your choice of the theocratic state in variant forms on television tonight.
The calibrator of the democratic state is its ability to engage in debate and, by so doing, dissent in a way that is harmless. The more apparent the debate and dissent the more democratic and thereby free is the country, the government, the process or, for that matter, the media or even your marriage. Open discussion and analysis of alternatives is part of the essence of democracy.
Media is the diagnostic tool that tells us whether a democracy is healthy, sick or non existent. Likewise, the more debate and dissent is curtailed and the more harm that is caused by those participating in the debate, and to those participating in the debate, the less democratic and the less free we become. This is the test that should be used when you ask how free is Australia and how democratic and serious about freedom is a political party or a political process? The valued judgement you must make is – Do you value democracy?
If our political process, or for that matter media content, promotes harm to those who dissent then we have arrived at the headwaters that lead away from that small human plateau of true democracy. You should be ever vigilant of those who encourage the trip to sea where that stream will flow and the spurious drivel that is given as an excuse for that journey. Defending democracy is like the pursuit of white ants; small and innocuous at first but if you are not attentive and wait till they find you, then your problem has generally become irretrievable.
The demise of the Senator's roll has come with the inclusion of the executive in the Senate. How can you be an ardent and forensic arbiter of the person who sits in front of you in the chamber of review and beside you at every other lunch? What is even more peculiar is how the Senators who are in the executive can be the directors of an informed debate to flesh out the contrarian views of their own decisions. This would have to be thought of as slightly schizophrenic at best but more likely insincere.
The preselection process of a Senator is failing to catch the imagination and capture new Senators who will fight for more for democracy than for their personal political future. The Damoclesian issue of disendorsement and the laurels of a ministry, committee chair or general bonhomie in the party room override what should be a deeper obligation to our nation, i.e., that you are a Senator not a Member.
The party system is currently corrupted or, at the least, ill informed because the basis of its selection criteria for a Senator is those who are the least likely to fulfil their constitutional role to their fellow Australians. How the preferred candidate is then hidden is that they stand as Mr or Mrs Liberal, or Mr or Mrs Labor, or Mr or Mrs Green. They are made to feel beholden by sections in that party, that their responsibilities to that party are greater than their responsibilities to the Senate and the proper operation of review.
Australia should be selecting a different candidate for the Senate than the candidate they select for the Lower House. You should demand that person perform their duty to represent their state and review and amend legislation in the totality of the function: from the chamber to the committee to public comment, and to produce their best efforts predominantly in the public forums that are built for that purpose and called Parliament.
We should be prepared and invigorated that we would know our Senators by their voting record, not by their capacity to follow what is currently their highest duty: to make it to the chamber within three minutes of the bells ringing and sit as instructed by the Whip.
Independence of the Senate is the case in the United States and democracy appears to be travelling quite well there. They only need two parties because they can rely on their Senators to represent their state in preference to the instruction of the executive. The party system in the Senate should affect the ethos of the Senator but not be the exclusive determinant of the vote and, as I will show later, this is basically the case today.
Australia, when it gets that big white piece of paper, should refuse to vote for Senators who have never given you any reason to believe that they are properly fulfilling their constitutional role as opposed to their parochial political role.
Likewise, a party of any persuasion that disenfranchises Australians by a custom, practice or policy that prohibits Senators from exercising their right to dissent by crossing the floor, speaking th