Will our government embrace these three reforms?

The most logical and accurate assessment of the appalling situation re-taxation, Industrial law and parliamentary corruption, (in terms of structure) I have seen in years, and decades overdue!

Stop this over-government, Which tier should we abolish? Australia should all be opened at the same time; same road rules; etc. Queensland is helping NSW by destroying their tourisim industry.

Phil has certainly generated a lot of discussion. I agree we need to talk with moderation and respect since to my view so much stated opinion is so aggressive at the moment.

Is NZ a suitable comparison for us with so many of them in Australia to work?

I dont believe NZ would allow the holes we have in the ground (a lot of them just left for animals to fall into I.e. around Kalgoorlie) but for some of us these are the best paying jobs we will ever get.

If there were no political parties and everyone competed in their electorates as an independent, would we not get the strongest representatives, with greater leadership and negotiation skills coming through over time and forming government and making decisions in the best interests of all.

The 2 Party system has helped create the unrepresentative Senate which has in turn probably never been a State House and certainly in recent decades less and less a genuine democratic institution.
The thought that there is a tyranny of large states versus the poor struggling small states is overstated when we consider the tyranny of distance endured by some regions and the imbalance in GST collections dep ending on the economic strength of various states. For example I would struggle to be convinced by W.A.'s treatment when I consider the higher revenue from Income tax, GST & mining royalties. Further the recent NSW wage increase freeze would most likely barely pay for the loadings they pay in their disadvantage from the Commonwealth Grants Commission ect, etc.

I am much more cynical and feel the pollies don't deserve trust, I certainly don't trust them. So I vote for the other side in the senate to the house to keep them 'honest'. I vote locally in my seat to make it marginal because at least then they are still useless but throw money at you!
The captains of industry are the same only interested in their bonuses and view of life through a fully serviced glass box.
To start to build trust they could start by listening to experts as in covid but not energy policy. They could be
seen to try and act in the broader National interest. Boards could start by insisting on demonstrating ethical behaviour and not rewarding the duds by paying executives excessively to off board to avoid the threat of wrongful dismissal. etc
Like most things if the common 'think' is to make it work it will. But there is no evidence of that until the covid crisis - maybe some green shoots here.
But I will vote for one new tax on turnover to make multinationals pay something towards this country they do so well out of eg google.

Casualisation of the workforce means lower wages, pay scales and entitlements and reduced collective bargaining means lower wages also. It’s the same as employer contracts. It’s take it or leave it. Wage theft has crept in due to casualisation of the workforce. The every day working Australian demand better job security and wage outcomes .

Troy, There is absolutely zero evidence to support what you say. Given the recent Court decision on casual employees, I am sure that employees will think that an employee has "double dipped" to the extent that they received an extra 25% over the base rate and now will also receive all of the holidays as well. Not a great outcome I would have thought. In addition, how can you say that there is an increase in casualisation of the workforce when there are the same number of people in casual employment now as there was 10 years ago? Please do not call something "wage theft" without a clear understanding of what you mean.

The idea that an upper house can effectively hold a mandated elected lower house "to ransom" has always irked me. It seems in the last 2 decades that not much is achieved because of the loss of control of the senate by the sitting government.Not since John Howard had control of both houses has so little true reform gone through our parliament.If an idea is proposed in the lower house it should be judged "on it's merit" and not simply opposed because the opposition has introduced it.Honestly,the number of times I have thought that it has become a waste of time voting because of the increase of these childish attics we see in the parliament .As for the average voter deciding who to vote for,their decision seems to be a "whats in it for me" scenario or "cargo cult"mentality.

The two charts that would reflect our situation are government expenditure now and then. Reform is certainly needed in energy, state law variations, employment, environment, taxation and Australian ownership to name but a few.
What is the vision and how do we get there?
If we had a referendum on the people;s need reform areas would anybody listen ?

Keeping Australia competitive in the world today is a never-ending challenge of adjustments, reform and emulating world best practice.
This is the header line of the article.
One of the key components of competitiveness is the cost and availability of energy. Nations rise and fall due to this very issue.
The trend is clear that Australia's energy future (economically!) lies with renewable energy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/#3775bf84e8ce
Yet, here in Australia, the fossil-fuel industry appears to dominate our supposedly democratically elected government policy (senate or no senate). Until we can emerge from this bind, our democracy appears to be ill-equipped to "move forward into broad, sunlit uplands".

Major tax reform would benefit the country greatly. Its a shame none of the political parties have courage to tackle the issues.
With respect to worker reform the concept that most workers prefer to be casual and embrace "freedom". Well they do have plenty of freedom now as many are unemployed having lost their jobs. Many of these workers have quickly found themselves in poverty depending on welfare. Having job security is important for many, not just those who have families/mortgages etc. We live in a society first , the economy should be there to serve the people.

Hello Troy . DEAD ON !!!

Regards , Ramon

Thanks for the extensive comments. Phil has read them (as he says, 'brickbats and bouquets') but will not have time to respond to them all.

I think Phil's suggestions on tax reform are timely, probably necessary and practicable.
Rather than focus on parliamentary reform however, there are other ways of determining public expectations outside of a democratic vote. As we live in the information age, a combination of data mining, statistical inference and artificial intelligence could produce an accurate picture of what the public wants in terms of social services and policy direction. What would be interesting, is if we got rid of cash totally and potentially paid GST directly to the ATO on a transaction basis via EFT. The ensuing data would help policy makers and give a "real time" profile of the economy and country when consolidated.

I continue to be surprised by the insistence that corporate tax rates must come down. The reality of the imputation system is that the corporate tax rate paid by Australian investors is close to zero. Passive overseas investors pay 30% on Australian companies. Direct international investors in Australian businesses (Google etc) seem to pay close to zero after various forms of profit shifting.
How about a proposal that Company tax rates were reduced to 5% with a 25% additional withholding tax to be paid by international investors? Sounds great? Except it's what we already have...

Leaving aside Phil's ideologically-tainted suggestions regarding tax and workplace reform, I take issue with his comments on democracy. Suggesting that the Westminster system is in any way 'democratic' or 'representative' to me shows a lack of understanding of democratic process. It is an archaic system that has completely lost its relevance in the past 100 years and doesn't represent the views of society. If you want a really democratic system you'll need to go for a true representative system, like most northern European countries have AND put a lid on lobbyists (of any persuasion). And may I suggest a very powerful federal ICAC......

Now who's being 'ideologically-tainted'? For goodness sake, can't someone say something that they believe without a smear attempt as the opening line of a comment on what they said?

I respectfully suggest that a better comment to say what you believe, Edward, would have been:

"I disagree with everything Phil has said, but wish only to comment on his views of the Westminster system. I believe that this system is not 'democratic' ....... ".

With much respect, may I suggest that your 'moderator' comment is ideologically driven. By asserting Phil has an ideological basis, Edward is being open about his perspective; he clearly doesn't like Phil's ideological underpinnings. I suggest you are more supportive of Phil's ideological position and would like to see open criticism of such minimised.

Phil is very clearly coming from a neoliberal (ideological) perspective and has fashioned his view according to the Hayekian notion that business is a better model from which to administer society than the political parliamentary structure in which he finds himself.

As for 'democracy', Phil offers a rather simplistic view. Back in the 1960's Richard Lucy coined the term Washminster to describe the (evolved) Australian mode of governance. He has elaborated his view into a text; The Australian Form of Government. Phil might do himself a service to read the text.

Fortunately, the checks and balances (as rough and as skewed as they are) that comprises the upper house not only minimises reckless behaviour in the lower house, but also instills a level support (albeit small) by Australian citizenry towards the parliamentary system.

While it is far too early to argue the neoliberal era is coming to a close, it is appropriate to say the ideology has run its course and many are now advocating replacement structures. On this, refer - https://thecorrespondent.com/466/the-neoliberal-era-is-ending-what-comes-next/61655148676-a00ee89a.

Dr Moon, no, I don't necessarily have an ideological affinity with Phil's comments. I was simply reacting as my comment said - Edward's opening remark was unnecessary and unhelpful. He could have made his point in a better way.

Oh dear! Poor Phil has fallen into the old trap of presuming that just because just over 50% of people in just over 50% of electorates voted for "X", that "X" has a mandate and should plough ahead at all costs and without interference because “the people” are behind them. Sorry, mate, but that's just a wrong analysis.

So too is trotting out the old canard that the Senate is "unrepresentative swill" a wrong analysis.

First, the history - without the Senate, there would be no Federation. I'm inclined to think also that without an on-going Senate, Federation would fall apart. So the task is to work out how to govern effectively in a bi-cameral system where the upper house has a different weighting to the lower house. Plenty of governments have found a way to do this so any failure is not a fault of the Senate, but a failure in the government of the day. Conversely, the task is not to bitch about the system, but to master it.

Second, there’s a fair argument that the Senate, for each State, more accurately reflects the diversity of the will of the people. That doesn't suit the major parties, but then our best interests (we the people, not we the corporations) is not fully aligned with the major parties’ best interests anyway, so that’s a good outcome. It’s true that there have been quirks and whimseys and similar that have delivered some perverse Senate outcomes. And that has cut both ways – to a government’s advantage and to its disadvantage. My understanding is that the worst of these “quirks” have now been curtailed, and I'm sure the system could be improved. However, a much better improvement would be having, say, 5-member electorates in the House of Reps, thereby allowing a much more reasonable representation in the lower house of the expressed will of the people than the current “just over 50% …” process. And it’s almost certain that would deliver a Parliament requiring much more negotiation finesse on the part of the government than most recent governments have been able to muster.

And third, some of our biggest governmental FUBARs have been when the government of the day did have control of both houses. “Work Choices” anyone. Conversely, the Senate has many a time saved us from a some seriously bad government policy – for example, Tony Abbot and “Smokin’” Joe Hockey’s never delivered budget. My clear learning from seeing about 40 years of lawmaking under my vote is that robust challenge to the policy first put forward by any government results in way-more robust law.

Viva La Senate!

And just to cement my tribe of enemies out there, I see there’s some replay of the usual “wasteful three tiers of government” argument. Show us the data! We might pay some regard then. To my mind, a much more productive line of “effectiveness / value for money” argument is to better clarify the responsibilities of the 3 tiers and eliminate overlap and duplication. If there’s one lesson the COVID-19 disaster should have taught us, it’s that State governments are way more relevant (and generally way more effective) in our day-today life than is Canberra. And, curiously given how different their union is to our federation, the same is true in the USA, where the states have got on with the job in the way that best suits them each, while the Feds have held 2-hour daily press conferences promoting quackery.

I generally agree that the Senate is helpful as a house of review. I'd be interested in views of them blocking the ETS in the 2007-10 parliament though where the Greens in the Senate blocked Rudd's policy.

In relation to 3 tiers of Government, what would improve things is a concept of national uniform legislation with local service delivery. Having 8 different sets of road rules and 8 different bodies advising on this is crazy. If there are some areas where its viewed the current system serves us well, have national legislation with 8 appendices which are legislated by the states/territories and override the national legislation, Periodically the appendices get reviewed and moved to the national legislation if everyone agrees.

I know someone who did a massive thesis early this century calculating the cost at around $40b a year. That figure will be much larger now. So a plan to recover some of that seems sensible.

If the states have been the key to COVID 19, then surely Scomo being overseas during the bushfires isn't an issue.

Your definition of democracy seems to be that one of the two major parties must have an absolute majority in both houses, even though the voters have shown that that is not what they want! And the present situation doesn't prevent any policy being implemented - it only requires majority support (which can be either both major parties, or the Government party plus some of the minor parties).

Agree, the senate has saved the Australian people from some pretty horrible policies. The house of review can keep it’s right to reject poorly thought out policies. If the ruling party is convinced it’s agenda must pass, it can call a double- dissolution and take it to the electorate. Look at how much legislation Julia Gillard managed to get passed. If the government of the day is having trouble getting what it wants, perhaps it should reconsider the policy, listen and consult and negotiate.

The only aspect of the article with which I agree is the level of political stagnation and lost opportunities in this century. Most of the content of the 3 proportions are idealogical and lack any test of fairness or social justice. Democratic decision making has weakened but not due to make up of the Senate - rather the capture of political decisions by powerful, rich individuals and minority groups. The rising influence of unelected media and policy advisers have weakened the capacity for objective evidence informed advice from government departments. Innumerable reviews and inquiries have developed reforms across taxation, energy, welfare, etc which have been largely ignored.
It is clear that technology changes have and will continue to create substantial shifts to our labour market, including off shoring of work to the cheapest sources of labour overseas. But the article completely misrepresents the state of work in Australia-marked by stubborn unemployment, record levels of underemployment, increased reliance on migrant workers underpaid and abused by employers. The use of labour hire firms, underpayment of casual or contract workers is inconsistent with a notion of greater freedom and choice for many workers. We need new forms of labour association coupled with stronger rights and protections for workers. In addition reforms to labour market assistance are urgently needed - to strengthen productivity, Increase portability of workers over their working lives, and invest in effective social enterprises aimed at those with disabilities or learning disorders.
Taxation reform is required. But there is no disincentive to productive enterprise. Rather we need to redistribute the tax cake to ensure large businesses and wealth individuals pay their fair share of tax to enable investments in education trading and health. Why no mention of CGT and negative greeting tax reforms? These enable unproductive wealth creation that has distorted the housing market and reduced tax revenue.
For these reasons, and probably many others, the propositions in the article are fundamentally flawed and outdated. The Covid 19 pandemic has clearly shown the vital importance of strong social and welfare nets - as inevitably reliance on private market enterprise will fail.

The whole idea of democracy for our Commonwealth is that less populated states (some with bigger distances to cover) get an equitable share of the income to cover basic costs.
If you consume national TV or Radio, the “News” (mostly bad) is largely from the Eastern Seaboard.
The rest of us still need sufficient clout to allow our voices be heard. By holding up unfair legislation, the Senate (perhaps unwittingly) encourages the lower house members to pause long enough to listen to their own voters, rather than blindly (or coercively) following the party line.
I am Australian. I don’t want to have a British Westminster system which, from where I sit, eschews scientific evidence in order to promote the financial interests of white males with imaginary friends.

Great ideas Phil. Forward thinking and considered.
Two comments from me:
1. The Left are revelling in this new form of socialism now adopted in Australia. Whether temporary or permanent, the present situation comprising 4 of the 5 elements embraced by them (big government, big spending, big welfare and as little work as possible) has them salivating. The only missing ingredient of their Utopia is big taxes. They will not sit idly by while this increasingly serious form of socialism is replaced in turn by what they didn’t like before. Albo has already started signalling obstruction and confrontation. So the chances of your reforms getting up are pretty remote in my estimation.
2. There are so many other areas where reform is also needed. Just a few more are water resources, nuclear power, railway infrastructure, change preferential voting to first past the post, abolish compulsory voting, fix the broken education system,. I could go on.

The danger in first past the post non compulsory voting is that you end up with a Parliament composed of people elected by a small minority of the voting population. It also leads to candidates pandering to the extreme elements in their parties for pre selection. Look no further than the polarisation in US politics for an example of the end result.

Your observations and suggestions are correct but I am not hopeful things will change. The senate makes the current parliament unworkable due to the obstruction by minor parties whose politicians are not particularly bright. Increasing the GST is a good idea except the welfare groups and unions say it disadvantages the poor. So it wont get a guernsey. We are heading down this dangerous path of more socialism. Central banks have used QE coupled with lowering interest to appease younger voters who have no idea about saving, budgeting or investing. The key is the education system which needs a complete overall. Our education systems have been so dumbed down. Our politicians lack the conviction to dish out any form of tough love. As Margaret Thatcher once said 'socialism is great until you run out of other people's money'!! The end game is approaching.

Great contribution Phil - as always! Alas I suggest that our PM perhaps lacks the conviction, vision and importantly the determination to act on such fundamentally essential changes. All 3 areas that you suggest involve changing the mindsets of electorate majorities - particularly of the Left, the entrenched Greens and other minority parties, the Trade Union heavyweights. The tax issue is particularly fraught too because Australia has a poor record on tax reform.
Another area of Constitutional reform must surely also include somehow strengthening Federal "rules" to finally ensure all Australians are governed by the same laws, educational curriculums and standards, and other basic areas mostly financed by the National government but currently administered and managed by States. And lastly our country has to reduce the enormous cost of our poorly performing and cossetted public service that adds to our red tape, lack of urgency, cost per head of population and gross under-performance. Carlo Bongarzoni

Leave the gst as it is, reduce the company tax to 20%,leave personal taxes as is,abolish stamp duty,abolish payroll tax and finally make companies pay closer to the 20% buy setting a minimum tax of 5% on all companies regardless of deductions.
Set a federal government royalty (1 or 2%)to start with, on all our exported minerals and gas in addition to state royalties. We cannot go on letting our gas and minerals be plundered. Our gas is just being given away and we have little to show for it.

Great future vision. I have a feeling that some rougue employers and unions would spoil the resultant changes. I would prefer to see more consensus government and workplace, with employers giving employees a share in profits and a representative on boards of management. The old Fletcher Jones model should be revived. At the present moment employees think that money grows on trees. If they knew what the profitablity of their employer was, they might be more enthusiastic about consensus management. We live in a capitalist system and the only way this system is to survive is for the employers to make a profit, and the employees be paid enough to be able to buy the goods and services that the business wants to sell. It is a delicate balance.

If is was possible to reform the Senate [long overdue] would it also be possible to replace our expensive and restrictive three tiered system of governments and replace with a Federal Gov and Provincial Govs?

I believe as do many others that the major parties have missed a great opportunity in the last 3 months to forge a coalition. This IDEA that they must be opposed to each other on all matters needs to stop and stop NOW.

Absolutely agree Tony Carr, remove both extremes and a broad based party representative of most Australians emerges, untraditional but worth a crack in these times of unprecedented debt, I personally reckon we will be wallowing in red,green,black tape until the country goes bust, note now there is an urgency to get people back to work the states, with their medi bureaucrats are doing every thing in their considerable new found power to wreck the place, cut red tape?? 50 pages of childish instructions to a cafe owner to have 10 seats approved, I have an idea, halve the public service-starting from the top.