hello world!
If no one stands up for our values, then we as a nation will be valueless. A party or an entity has no soul other than the people engaged in the delivery of its pursuits. Our party is made up of a wonderful tapestry of open, aware, and loving people who have come together with several common purposes. The biggest of these is re-empowering the voice of the people of Australia.
We embrace the values here articulated. Our core leadership team across the country have also affirmed their commitment to these values. Please note that this is a short-form explanation: it is true of who we are, but cannot capture every dimension of our ethical and moral perspectives, in every area. Given our commitment to openness and dialogue, we will endeavour to continue to communicate well along these and similar lines; if offence is caused by any of our positions, we are also open to feedback in every respect to broaden our collective understanding, as we cherish unity across our nation.
It is the responsibility of all to protect life. At the Australian Federation Party, we are diametrically opposed to full-term and late-term abortions. We find State legislation to legalise these types of abortions reprehensible, as also the passivity of Federal Governments, in view of public funding via Medicare. Especially where this has been coupled with the removal of the crime of child destruction from state criminal codes, we believe that the failure to address this legislative cascade is out of step with community standards of morality and belief and with the sacred place of human life in indigenous culture and other traditions.
The expansion of abortion laws proposed by Federal Labor is not acceptable. The Australian Federation Party promotes principles of informed consent, adoption and social programs that support women to carry pregnancies to birth and care for their children beyond.
The Australian Federation Party is opposed to the funding/teaching of gender fluidity theory (or any other sexual theory) in schools. Our schools should focus on safe and responsible relationship practices. Education is about expanding knowledge and developing one’s ability to think critically: it is not about using our children for programming and social experimentation.
All women must be protected and have their rights championed. Harsher criminal penalties for rape and other serious crimes against women must be considered in the future. The definition of a woman is a mature adult female. There should be a free and open dialogue so that Australia can achieve proper balance and equality for women in all spheres of our society.
The Federation has its roots in Judeo-Christian values. First Nations people also have The Dreaming, and the multicultural evolution of Australia now means that there is a range of religions in our country that all should enjoy the freedom of speech and expression.
The Australian Federation Party embraces a multicultural society, including all elements and with a view to promoting a spirit of unity. Given that Christianity is the founding faith tradition for the Federation and the Australian Parliament, we support the continuity of this tradition in the use of Christian prayer at the opening of Parliament and the seeking of spiritual guidance for our nation. We do not support an absolutist separation of religion and state but do support the continued and free expression of these practices, which have been present since our founding.
A key policy of the Australian Federation Party is Education Choices. Our party remains deeply concerned regarding the development of curricula that seek to socially program our children and erode their capacity to think independently. Education Choices is about creating individual learning programs for our children that reflect family unit expectations, needs and values. The state should never interfere in the sound values and choices of families.
We need an education system that is responsive to the needs of the individual child and family. As part of this, Education Choices is envisioned to attach funding to the individual, rather than the institution, thus broadening the scope of learning opportunities within public and private schools and a home-school context.
As part of the Australian story, the Christian history and heritage of this nation should never be diminished and continues to be a central element of understanding our core values, which have shaped and continue to shape who we are. The Australian Federation Party does not advocate for the imposition of any religion upon anyone and believes in a broad education regarding multiple faith traditions.
One of our leaders was once asked to request the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, for the exclusive right of Christian Chaplaincy in Australian public schools. They declined because they/we do not believe in exclusivity for one group over and above the interests of another group. Australia must find pathways of unity to enable us to work together.
We believe School Chaplaincy should continue to be funded and available in Australian schools and that programs should be expanded to enable multiple chaplains in Schools. We must connect with our children and restore a basis of values and meaning in our country with serious endeavour and focus, especially after the aftermath of the pandemic. The loss of our children to suicide, and the rise of mental illness, alcoholism and drug abuse must be tackled head-on.
As a nation, Australia has failed to find a pathway of unity with our First Peoples. A process must be agreed upon with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to bring us together and build unity. We support amending our Constitution to recognise our indigenous as First Peoples, which would help bring greater unity. The legal profession has taken advantage of elders on behalf of mining companies, where no due process has been followed. We believe that extensive independent reviews must uncover systemic corruption, institutional bias, and abuse.
Australia needs the best education system to build a generation of passionate, creative, and critical-thinking young people. We need to help develop young people who can think, problem solve and adapt to changing circumstances. However, the choice of diverse options for education must be safeguarded in the future.
Some families will choose a home-schooling experience for their children, some will choose a public-school learning experience, and others will choose a private schooling experience, which may or may not have a specific religious focus. If a family decides to have an education with a religious focus for their child/children, then they should be able to participate in a learning stream with this goal, alongside all other relevant educational goals. No matter what funding models are applied to education, these should be equitable; specifically, funding allocations to religious schools should be the same as for public schools.
There is no obvious reason when a family chooses to send their children to a particular school because of the particular learning pathway that the school represents (religious or otherwise), why a school cannot employ a teacher who is likeminded and can support education in the values and principles that reflect the parents’ choice. Progress towards limiting schools’ freedom to choose such staff has lost sight of the priority of parents in their children’s education.
We now live in a society where people are fearful to freely express their viewpoints. Whether this extends to perspectives on religion, sexuality, gender identity and more, all people deserve to have freedom of expression. Of course, that freedom of expression must be respectful and uphold an individual’s right to choose. A state should never legislate to stifle discussion and debate on a range of matters in society, and the Australian Federation Party is committed to repealing legislation that seeks to divide Australians rather than draw us together.
As a multicultural and free society, freedom of religion and its expression, privately or publicly, is always critical. It enables us to understand each other and celebrate our society regardless of our belief system.
The Australian Federation Party fundamentally believes in a person’s right to choose a medical treatment of any sort, based on proper, reliable and accurate information being published and specifically provided to an individual, leading to genuine informed consent. All such information must be able to be discussed and debated openly. AusFedParty rejects any forceful vaccination “mandates” imposed anywhere across our great nation since they cause disunity, fear and ultimately mistrust of the Government and the Health Care Sector. On the other hand, freely exercising an informed choice promotes respect for and empowerment of the individual.
To date, federal and state governments and the two-party system of Liberal/Nationals and Labor/Greens that exercise power have demonstrated a lack of apprehension in the use of technology to track, trace and potentially control populations in Australia. This was reflected in the recent pandemic, but perhaps more so in the existing or proposed legislation, such as the Digital Identity Bill. Any use of technology to impose excessive control on the people by a state entity is in disjuncture with the spirit of the Federation and the Constitution, which binds it together. Technology should be used to promote and protect self-determination, whilst also improving the efficiency of services and providing a means to listen to the people’s voice.
Australian sovereignty is in peril because of the behaviour of the Liberal/Nationals and Labor/Greens. Australia should, first and foremost, be able to protect its sovereignty so that it is never compromised again. Additionally, we should have alliances that extend our capacity to protect our sovereignty, including the USA, UK, India and Japan, whilst they remain like-minded nations. Aggressors in our region must be curtailed, and therefore core relationships with other countries must be nurtured.
Failed relationships are inevitable in any society. Family Law systems should be fair and balanced and provide a pathway to peaceful resolution without extensive costs being incurred by 3rd parties. A fresh look at the process of family law, especially with a view to the welfare of children, is an important objective for the Australian Federation Party.
It is time Australia stands strong against the drug trade. Australia needs to introduce better policing and harsher punishment for people who trade drugs and destroy the lives of countless thousands of Australians.
In addition, we need to measure and publish the success of various forms of drug rehabilitation programs. Funding must be made in abundance for those programs that have long-term and successful track records. Our education system must participate in drug education and promote abstinence programs at the very earliest opportunity.
It’s time the Australian Government assists law enforcement agencies in stopping unlawful internet content. Unlawful content is no different to other attacks on our nation that seek to destabilise and destroy the minds of our people. Australian Federation Party supports introducing the latest Internet Service Providers (ISP) filters to track, block and report unlawful content (featuring illegal pornography and violence) in Australia. Based on the need to protect children from the harm of pornography, we also advocate federal legislation to ensure a default ‘clean feed’ to Australian homes, to the effect that pornographic content would be available only as an ‘opt-in’ service (at the level of ISPs).
Our nation has progressively sold itself into poverty. Today we have largely lost our manufacturing and supply chain industries, and our standard of living has progressively declined, while the cost of living has increased and wages have stagnated. The values we once perceived as central to the Australian spirit have been dismantled. Millions of Australians have been displaced and forgotten because of misjudgement, incompetence and corruption of our political class, who make one rule for themselves and another hundred for hard-working Australians.
The focus must be on re-building industry, adding value to our raw materials and restoring dignity for Australian workers, on the generation of jobs and on national security. We need to create a society that creates opportunities for all. Care for the poor is paramount, as it reflects the soul of the nation; where restoration can be achieved, it should be, and where long-term care is needed, it should be available.
Our environment is being destroyed because of practices that create multi-dimensional environmental and climate consequences. We are stewards and custodians of this beautiful land, from which we are nourished. Australians have the task of preserving and protecting our environment in all its variety for future generations.
Soil regeneration programs are key to the bio-sequestration of carbon, the retention of water and the health of our agricultural sector. The Australian Federation Party has a core environmental policy focusing on this issue and practices, destroying our soils with subsequent climate impact.
People ageing in Australia realise that they have been, in a sense, abandoned and that many do not enjoy an acceptable standard of living, after a lifetime of working. It is a matter of honour for this nation that we afford the highest respect and value to our elders, the generations that have preceded us and built what we currently enjoy. We must not be caught out being under-resourced to meet the health care and other needs of our elderly in the next decades and must plan accordingly; in health workforce terms and other ways.
The entire process and economic model associated with ageing must be reviewed thoroughly and system-wide. We must ensure that all ageing Australians have a decent opportunity to fund themselves as they age, in a way that maximises dignity and self-determination, with the best possible quality of life in view. In Australia, this should be done without stripping intergenerational wealth from families.
The NDIS Policy was introduced during the dying hours of the Gillard Government in 2013. It was rushed and, as with all rushed legislation, did not make for a well thought out scheme.
The scheme is ostensibly funded and managed on a 50/50 basis. The States provide the majority of face to face contact with overall administration handled by the Federal Government.
As with any of these areas of combined State/Federal responsibility, blame for problems with the scheme defaults to the Federal Government and States do nothing to change public perspectives.
Most Participants will confirm that the NDIS has changed their lives. But that is what leaves them even more vulnerable than before, the fear that losing that support would plunge them back into that feeling that they were among the forgotten Australians.
The result is an NDIS Policy scheme where Participants are uncertain of their future and see the NDIA as the enemy. The request for the funding process has been likened to begging for pocket money. Participants live in fear of their reviews and feel the NDIA will take it away at any opportunity.
In 2021, the LNP introduced legislation to remedy this. They were flooded with submissions (mainly from Service Providers) and Participants panicked. Its detractors preyed on their fears that it was all an attempt to reduce their funding.
The legislation was badly written (yet again), but its main aims were sound.
There are more Participants in higher socioeconomic levels and they got more funding as well!
These issues still need to be addressed, but they can’t be without legislative change to the NDIS Policy and a solution still needs to be found.
At the same time, we see the following issues that need to be changed.
The NDIA is moving service coordinator functions to LACs, which is a big move towards making sure this support is available to all Participants where direct funding is not included in their plan, but it is vital that they also provide fund management assistance. It cannot also be expected of LACs, they are 2 very different skill sets.
The NDIS is a growing ‘drain’ on both Federal and State coffers. NDIS Policy needs proper financial management is vital for both Participants and the government and yet the Pricing Guidelines provide almost negligible funding for this aspect of a Participant’s funding.
A fixed fee of $100/mth on a plan ensures that those with larger plans are unable to get the financial overview their plan requires. They make the same mistake so many corporates have made in the past. Failure to recognise that financial oversight and management are the keys to efficient and effective use of funding, failure to recognise only leads to inefficiencies and misuse of funds.
Our plan involves the following;
To be done by Allied Health Professionals, who already know the applicant, using the standard assessment tools already identified, including statements from the applicant and other interested parties.
NDIA to advise Participants who are receiving disproportionately high funding levels in relation to the average with a view to bringing them back toward the average and increasing funding for those on the lower end.
Fund Managers and Service Coordinators (as Plan Supporters) to be held responsible for ensuring the proper support of participants with a view to ensuring they are protected from abuse and neglectable to achieve the most from their funding
Fund Management funding and fees are based on a % of total funding (not a fixed amount).
NDIS Policy Plan must not be in any way linked to those providing services to a Participant. Provide Fund Management support in parallel to LACs through the current provider network where separate funding is not included in a plan
Service providers who do not provide services to the benefit and satisfaction of Participants and their Plan supporters are held responsible for these failures. Restrictive clauses in Service Agreements to be removed.
NDIA to be charged with finding ways to better employ the disabled including part-time positions AT ALL LEVELS, flexible working hours and the concept of a nationwide office environment to encourage other employers (public and private) to do the same. Ensure substantial tax incentives to businesses whose workforce is more than 50% disabled or above 50 years old.
We do not have much in the way of any written Bill Of Rights, the constitution does provide entitlements, but even those get a hammering by our political representatives. We do have common law rights, but who knows exactly what they are, and the truth is, it is more about the best lawyer winning rather than the Innocent party.
As for the constitution, who can afford a trip to the High court, let alone battle in such an arena to protect their Liberty?
Although the Australian Constitution does not contain a Bill of Rights, it does guarantee some important freedoms. Most significantly.
It is apparent from this list that the few rights that are listed in the Constitution are scattered about the text and are ad hoc rather than comprehensive.
This is obvious from a quick cross-reference between the Australian Constitution and other instruments, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982.
For example, the text of the Australian Constitution does not include anything amounting to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex(6) or race, and, while the Constitution has been interpreted to protect freedom of political communication,(7) it lacks a more general right of free speech
Here is a Sample Bill of rights to start the debate, a final version would need to be determined by the people. It would then need to be attached as scheduled to our Constitution by referendum.
That would ensure future politicians could not tamper with it, without the approval of the people and would make it a great topic for our children’s education system.
1. This Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of democracy in Australia. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedoms.
2. The Commonwealth and States must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.
3. The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.
4. All Acts of Parliament and supporting legislation must respect the rights of all Australian citizens and comply with this bill of rights, all past Acts of parliament will be deemed invalid where a conflict with this bill occurs.
1. The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state.
2. A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.
3. When applying a provision of the Bill of Rights to a natural or juristic person in terms of subsection (2), a court
a. in order to give effect to a right in the Bill must apply, or if necessary develop, the common law to the extent that legislation does not give effect to that right; and
b. may develop rules of the common law to limit the right, provided that the limitation is in accordance with section 30(1).
4. A juristic person is entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights to the extent required by the nature of the rights and the nature of that natural/juristic person.
1. Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
2. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
4. No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
5. Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.
Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.
Everyone has the right to life.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right
a. not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
b. not to be detained without trial;
c. to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
d. not to be tortured in any way; and
e. not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
2. Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right
a. to make decisions concerning reproduction;
b. to security in and control over their body; and
c. not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.
No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labour.
Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have
1. their person or home searched;
2. their property searched;
3. their possessions seized; or
4. the privacy of their communications infringed.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
2. Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that
a. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
b. they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
c. attendance at them is free and voluntary.
3.
a. This section does not prevent legislation recognising
i. marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law; or
ii. systems of personal and family law under any tradition, or adhered to by persons professing a particular religion.
b. Recognition in terms of paragraph (a) must be consistent with this section and the other provisions of the Constitution.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
e. Freedom to impart information of public interest.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
a. propaganda for war;
b. incitement of imminent violence; or
c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.
Everyone has the right to freedom of association.
1. Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right.
a. to form a political party;
b. to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party; and
c. to campaign for a political party or cause.
2. Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution.
3. Every adult citizen has the right
a. to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do so in secret; and
b. to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.
c. to have the free choice to cast a vote for those candidates they so choose.
d. to fair and free information so as to cast an informed vote.
No citizen may be deprived of citizenship.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.
2. Everyone has the right to leave the Commonwealth.
3. Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in, the Commonwealth.
4. Every citizen has the right to a passport.
Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely. The practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law.
1. Everyone has the right to fair labour practices.
2. Every worker has the right
a. to form and join a trade union;
b. to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and
c. to strike.
3. Every employer has the right
a. to form and join an employers’ organisation; and
b. to participate in the activities and programmes of an employers’ organisation.
4. Every trade union and every employer’s organisation has the right
a. to determine its own administration, programmes and activities;
b. to organise; and
c. to form and join a federation.
5. Every trade union, employers’ organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining. National legislation may be enacted to regulate collective bargaining. To the extent that the legislation may limit a right in this Chapter, the limitation must comply with section 30(1).
6. National legislation may recognise union security arrangements contained in collective agreements. To the extent that the legislation may limit a right in this Chapter, the limitation must comply with section 30(1).
Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
1. to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
a. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
b. promote conservation; and
c. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development by highlighting part of me and selecting the options from the toolbar.
1. No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.
2. Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application
a. for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
b. subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
3. The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including
a. the current use of the property;
b. the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
c. the market value of the property;
d. the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
e. the purpose of the expropriation.
4. For the purposes of this section
a. the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all Australia’s natural resources; and
b. property is not limited to land.
5. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.
6. A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.
7. Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).
1. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.
2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.
3. No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.
4. Any Australian citizen has the right to a jury of their peers regarding dispute of property.
1. Everyone has the right to have access to
a. health care services, including reproductive health care;
b. sufficient safe food and water; and
c. social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.
2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.
3. No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.
1. Every child has the right
a. to a name and a nationality from birth;
b. to family care or parental care, or to appropriate alternative care when removed from the family environment;
c. to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services;
d. to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation;
e. to be protected from exploitative labour practices;
f. not to be required or permitted to perform work or provide services that
i. are inappropriate for a person of that child’s age; or
ii. place at risk the child’s well-being, education, physical or mental health or spiritual, moral or social development;
g. not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, in which case, in addition to the rights a child enjoys under sections 12 and 35, the child may be detained only for the shortest appropriate period of time, and has the right to be.
i. kept separately from detained persons over the age of 18 years; and ii. treated in a manner, and kept in conditions, that take account of the child’s age;
h. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the child by the state, and at state expense, in civil proceedings affecting the child, if substantial injustice would otherwise result; and
i. not to be used directly in armed conflict, and to be protected in times of armed conflict.
j. When in State or Commonwealth care, such care is to be guaranteed and said carer to be liable for the child’s well being.
2. A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
3. In this section “child” means a person under the age of 18 year.
1. Everyone has the right
a. to basic education, including adult basic education; and
b. to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.
2. Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account
a. equity;
b. practicability; and
c. the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices.
3. Everyone has the right to establish and maintain, at their own expense, independent educational institutions that
a. do not discriminate on the basis of race;
b. are registered with the state; and
c. maintain standards that are not inferior to standards at comparable public educational institutions.
4. Subsection (3) does not preclude state subsidies for independent educational institutions.
Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.
1. Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community
a. to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and
b. to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.
2. The rights in subsection (1) may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.
1. Everyone has the right of access to
a. any information held by the state; and
b. any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
2. National legislation must be enacted to give effect to this right, and may provide for reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state.
1. Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
2. Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.
3. National legislation must be enacted to give effect to these rights and must
a. provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, where appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal;
b. impose a duty on the state to give effect to the rights in subsections (1) and (2); and
c. promote an efficient administration.
Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum including the right to a jury of their peers.
1. Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right
a. to remain silent;
b. to be informed promptly
i. of the right to remain silent; and
ii of the consequences of not remaining silent;
c. not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person;
d. to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than i. 48 hours after the arrest; or
ii. the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 48 hours, if the 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a day which is not an ordinary court day;
e. at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released; and
f. to be released from detention if the interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions.
2. Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right
a. to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;
b. to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
c. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
d. to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released;
e. to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment; and
f. to communicate with, and be visited by, that person’s
i. spouse or partner;
ii. next of kin;
iii. chosen religious counsellor; and chosen medical practitioner.
3. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right
a. to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
b. to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
c. to a public trial before an ordinary court;
d. to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
e. to be present when being tried;
f. to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
g. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
h. to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
i. to adduce and challenge evidence;
j. not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
k. to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
l. not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
m. not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
n. to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and
o. of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.
p. To be aware of any laws said to be breached, prior to an offence being recorded.
4. Whenever this section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands.
5. Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.
1. The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including
a. the nature of the right;
b. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
c. the nature and extent of the limitation;
d. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
e. less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
2. Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.
3. Any previous legislation or law that affects a limit on this bill of rights will be invalid to the extent of such effects applied.
1. A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when
a. the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergencies; and
b. The declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.
2. A declaration of a state of emergency, and any legislation enacted or other action was taken in consequence of that declaration, may be effective only
a. prospectively; and
b. for no more than 21 days from the date of the declaration, unless the Commonwealth resolves to extend the Declaration. The Parliament may extend a declaration of a state of emergency for no more than three months at a time. The first extension of the state of emergency must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of a majority of the members of the House declaring said state of emergency.
Any subsequent extension must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least 60 per cent of the members of the House. A resolution in terms of this paragraph may be adopted only following a public debate in the Assembly.
3. Any competent court may decide on the validity of
a. a declaration of a state of emergency;
b. any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; or
c. any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.
4. Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency may derogate from the Bill of Rights only to the extent that
a. the derogation is strictly required by the emergency; and
b. the legislation
i. is consistent with Australia’s obligations under international law applicable to states of emergency; ii. conforms to subsection (5); and
iii. is published in the national Government Gazette as soon as reasonably possible after being enacted.
5. No Act of Parliament that authorises a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislation enacted or other action was taken in consequence of a declaration, may permit or authorise
a. indemnifying the state, or any person, in respect of any unlawful act;
b. any derogation from this section; or
c. any derogation from a section mentioned in the Non-Derogable Rights below.
The extent to which the right is protected
1. Equality with respect to unfair discrimination solely on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, sex religion or language.
2. Human Dignity Entirely.
3. Life Entirely.
4. Freedom and Security of the person with respect to subsections (1)(d) and (e) and (2)(c).
5. Slavery, servitude and forced labour with respect to slavery and servitude
6. Children with respect to:
– subsection (1)(d) and (e);
– the rights in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1)(g); and
– subsection 1(i) in respect of children of 15 years and younger
7. Arrested, detained and accused persons with respect to:
– subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c) and (2)(d);
– the rights in paragraphs (a) to (o) of subsection (3), excluding paragraph (d)
– subsection (4); and
– subsection (5) with respect to the exclusion of evidence if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair.
8. Whenever anyone is detained without trial in consequence of a derogation of rights resulting from a declaration of a state of emergency, the following conditions must be observed:
a. An adult family member or friend of the detainee must be contacted as soon as reasonably possible and informed that the person has been detained.
b. A notice must be published in the national Government Gazette within five days of the person being detained, stating the detainee’s name and place of detention and referring to the emergency measure in terms of which that person has been detained.
c. The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a medical practitioner.
d. The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a legal representative.
e. A court must review the detention as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than 10 days after the date the person was detained, and the court must release the detainee unless it is necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order.
f. A detainee who is not released in terms of a review under paragraph (e), or who is not released in terms of a review under this paragraph, may apply to a court for a further review of the detention at any time after 10 days have passed since the previous review, and the court must release the detainee unless it is still necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order.
g. The detainee must be allowed to appear in person before any court considering the detention, to be represented by a legal practitioner at those hearings, and to make representations against continued detention.
h. The state must present written reasons to the court to justify the continued detention of the detainee, and must give a copy of those reasons to the detainee at least two days before the court reviews the detention.
8. If a court releases a detainee, that person may not be detained again on the same grounds unless the state first shows a court good cause for re-detaining that person. 8. Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to persons who are not Australian citizens and who are detained as a consequence of an international armed conflict. Instead, the state must comply with the standards binding on Australia under international humanitarian law in respect of the detention of such persons.
Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. The persons who may approach a court are:
1. anyone acting in their own interest.
2. anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
3. anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;
4. anyone acting in the public interest; and
5. an association acting in the interest of its members.
1. When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum
a. must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom;
b. must consider international law; and
c. may consider foreign law including the UN declaration of human rights
2. When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.
3. The Bill of Rights does not deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms that are recognised or conferred by common law, customary law or legislation, to the extent that they are consistent with the Bill. Previous Legislation introduced at either State or Commonwealth level will be deemed invalid to the extent that it restricts any rights contained in this bill.
Family Court did not know whether it was “doing more harm than good.”
Richard Foster (CEO)
The Australian Federation Party will urgently establish a Royal Commission to expose and understand what billions of dollars paid to it by Australian parents to the Family Law Industry has actually achieved.
“Family Law” as it functions today will be replaced by “Family Separation Support” with direct ministerial accountability for ensuring that beneficial outcomes are the measure of a new system designed to enable separating parents and their children to move on with their lives as amicably as possible.
The new legislation will allow most people to resolve their matters without the need to engage in an adversarial legal process by prescriptively answering the essential questions that 47 years of legal precedents currently avoid;
The failure to do so is the root cause of significant direct and indirect financial costs borne by Australian parents. Our community bears enormous costs in adverse human and societal impacts. Many murders and suicides are also linked to a failed system that successive governments have ignored or condoned by their constant failure to properly investigate or oversee.
“Family Separation Support” will be governed by new, clear laws enabling the normal case to be dealt with in a similar fashion to how property transactions are handled by conveyancers, taxation matters by accountants, etc. New laws, rules, and regulations governing the usual course of events will aim to avoid the need to rely on an adversarial process that too often results in long-lasting acrimony that benefits no one other than the Legal Industry.
Politicians and governments of all stripes seem unable to break the inertia. Promises abound, but very little changes as Australian schools slide down the international rankings.
The reason for the inertia in fixing our schools is clear – we have a political stand-off between Left and Right. The Left thinks spending more money on state schools will improve their quality, while all the evidence shows that this doesn’t happen. The Right continually talks about declining standards and outcomes in state schools, but has no idea how to turn this around. What’s more, the Right is not motivated to turn it around because it has a preference for private schools anyway.
The battle between these two positions results in a 0-0 draw. Nothing happens to enable major reform in the way our schools are run. Teachers are rarely able to teach as they would like. Principals tend to drown in micro-management. Parents search far and wide for schools that may be more suited to their child, and increasingly choose to pay fees which stretch family budgets to breaking point.
The split between private and state schooling has been entrenched for over a century. It’s a split that has been very socially divisive in Australia, and is still an obstacle to social cohesion as well as school effectiveness.
Western Australia has pioneered the way forward since 2009 by introducing ‘independent public schools’. This began as an opt-in scheme within the state’s Department of Education whereby individual state schools could choose to become an ‘independent public school’.
This means the school has more governance and operational autonomy than conventional state schools – it is run by a school board instead of the Department, with more flexibility to run the school in ways that suits each community. After 10 years, there are now 575 independent public schools in WA covering 80% of students. There are no student fees, curriculum remains within the national framework, and while independent public schools can hire staff directly without having to use the central departmental pool, employment conditions cannot vary from those in the state system.
A similar but more adventurous reform process has been underway in England over the same period. State schools are now permitted to opt-in to become ‘Academy’ schools, which have more autonomy than Local Authority schools, including freedom to adopt their own curriculum and employ teachers from various professional backgrounds, and not necessarily with teaching qualifications.
‘Free Schools’ are new public schools in England established by parents, teachers, communities or NGOs, usually in areas of disadvantage or poor performing Local Authority schools. There are now 507 Free Schools in operation, with another 226 in the pipeline. Sixty-five per cent of secondary schools in England are now Academies, along with 25% of primary schools.
As Australia slides in the PISA school rankings, England has seen significant rises from 2015: from 22nd to 14th in reading, from 15th to 14th in science, and from 27th to 18th in maths. Significantly, Scotland and Wales have not introduced Academies and Free Schools, and PISA rankings for Scottish and Welsh schools have declined over this same period.
There is now a major crisis of confidence in Australia on the part of parents and teachers in our school systems and education departments. Bold and innovative changes are needed on both demand and supply sides of the educational equation to stem the decline and rebuild confidence on the part of parents and teachers.
Every student and their family is entitled to clear information about generally accepted year and stage-specific knowledge requirements in each curriculum area as each student progresses through their years of public education. This should be readily available in the form of a portable, online Student Learning Plan that is accepted by schools and teachers as a foundational plan against which every student’s learning plan and progress can be measured, with resources made publicly available for each student’s learning.
Its purpose is to assist parents in working with teachers as co-educators of their children, outlining year and stage-specific core knowledge requirements, teaching methods and learning tools. It would be renewed annually.
Every teacher is entitled to a portable, online Core Curriculum Teaching Plan that specifies year and stage-specific core knowledge requirements, teaching methodologies, and teaching resources. Teachers should not be expected to have to devise teaching plans for every student and every subject, in isolation from institutional and peer support or parental expectations. Its purpose is to assist teachers to do their job effectively.
All state schools in Australian states and territories should be permitted to become Independent Public Schools on the Western Australian model established in 2009. This is an opt-in scheme where public schools can exercise more governance and operational autonomy, run by an independent school board, with greater flexibility in organisation and teaching methods, and additional flexibility in hiring teachers and other staff, while remaining non-fee paying schools. After eight years as an Independent Public School, schools would be permitted to exercise a second stage in autonomy and flexibility, varying their curriculum outside the Core Curriculum requirements, and employing teachers from various professional backgrounds as they see fit.
Parents, teachers, communities and NGOs should be encouraged to establish new public schools, based on the English Free School model in the UK established in 2010. All institutional impediments to the formation of new schools should be removed, and a supportive regulatory framework established, based on the governance and operational requirements for Independent Public Schools.
All state schools should have the right to expel disruptive or poorly behaving students. States and territories have an obligation to accommodate disruptive and poorly behaving students in intensive support settings until they are able to resume participation in mainstream schools.
All state schools should have the right to remove teachers who they deem to be ‘not suited to teaching’. Individuals in this category should be supported by education departments in exiting the teaching profession without industrial relations agendas inhibiting their rapid movement out of the profession.
School funding should be reallocated from schools to parents. Parents should be able to take their child’s funding to a school of their choice and should be encouraged to use their funding as leverage in negotiating an educational program that suits each child. This is essential for students with learning difficulties, disabilities or behavioural challenges who face constant battles in finding schooling options that suit their needs.
A parent-directed, portable school funding entitlement would encourage parents to cooperate with other parents in establishing new schools with their preferred culture and educational philosophy.
8. All state and non-state schools (private and public) would be required to meet a minimum benchmark of inclusion of students with learning or developmental disadvantages in order to be eligible to receive public funds.
A ceiling of $20,000 in annual fees for fee-paying schools would be introduced for schools that wish to receive public funding. Public funds should not be permitted to reinforce social exclusion through inaccessible school fees. Fee-paying schools may choose to set their fees beneath this ceiling and receive public funding, or exceed the ceiling and forfeit public funds.
Ideally, public schools should comprise students from a broad range of social, cultural and educational backgrounds. But increasingly this is difficult to achieve as our cities segment by class and ethnicity. We support financial incentives for Socially Inclusive Schools where schools that draw students from diverse economic and social backgrounds receive additional financial resources.
By ‘diverse economic and social backgrounds’ we mean, specifically, a mix of families with tertiary education and families with sub-year 10 educational attainments, and a mix of families with anglo-celtic heritage and families from other cultural backgrounds.
These additional incentive payments should be sufficiently large in size to encourage schools to tailor their enrolments accordingly. Without an intentional movement towards making schools socially inclusive, the current segmentation of schools by class and ethnicity will deepen and intensify towards extreme levels of social fragmentation.
The Australian Federation Party will commit to reviewing all domestic and global arrangements. and re-establishing self-reliance in core areas such as essential health, defence, fuel, technical and strategic communications facilities; skilling our own people rather than importing expertise; integrating defence and civil infrastructure to include natural disaster prevention and response, infectious diseases prevention and response, and climate change mitigation and adaption; reforming the ABC so it fulfils its nation-building charter; scrapping external arrangements that are not in our national interest, including the $90bn French submarines contract.
Break up concentrations of market power in the Big Four Banks, Big Three Utilities, Big Two Retailers and NewsCorp; remove restrictive licencing that prevents market competition; redirect investment into productive businesses by shifting negative gearing from property to innovation.
Create local recovery networks and support agencies in each federal electorate for small business revival; scrap business taxes for small biz (land, payroll and energy taxes); transfer responsibility for super collection to the tax office; reduce licencing fees to cost-recovery only; eliminate fees for ASIC searches.
$132bn stimuli annually by making it super voluntary – it’s the people’s money. Twenty-five per cent of super account holders choosing to opt out and withdraw $20,000 per year from their accounts will contribute an annual stimulus of $132.5bn to the economy. Much of this expenditure would in turn earn GST and tax revenue.
For firms with more than 50% employee ownership and share in governance, and firms where more than 20% of employees are people with disabilities and severe mental illnesses, people over the age of 60 years, and others who have experienced long-term exclusion from the labour market.
All tax revenues flowing from mining operations in Australia should be quarantined from ordinary recurrent expenditures of government and invested, with 50% of income directed to education/research and development in regional and rural Australia.
On the Swiss model with 70% of 16-19-year-olds learning and working in a VET system in which 70% of learning takes place on the job, under private sector direction, with employers paying a minimum wage to VET students of $740.60 per week before tax.
By shifting health to the Commonwealth and education to the states; merging most state and local government functions in smaller state jurisdictions; remaking local government as a lean non-service delivery instrument of local representation.
Limit foreign ownership of existing Australian businesses to 49%; permit foreign investment only where Australian capital is unavailable, whilst adopting a mirror foreign investment approach for considered partners.
Utilities, transport, insurance, agriculture, health care and social services; end the outsourcing of service delivery to external contractors and insource to associations of consumers and communities; de-corporatise community organisations.
At 44 times the lowest pay in the company as a condition of licencing, based on the Israeli model; cap public sector salaries at the current pay level of the Prime Minister ($549,000) including departmental heads, university vice-chancellors, and police chiefs; link politicians and public servants salaries to upwards and downwards movement in the median Australian income.
To achieve these changes and drive economic growth, we will need strong community organisation and a renewed ethic of self-help and mutual support. Without it, the voices of ordinary people will remain weak and ignored by governments.
The Australian Federation Party Economic Policy
Employee ownership of firms in Australia is relatively poorly developed compared to other advanced economies, and our once important mutual and cooperative sector has been allowed to wither by successive governments of both Left and Right.
Large populations of workers, people with disabilities and mental illness and their carers, older people and indigenous citizens have been locked out of economic ownership for generations. Both the Right and Left have presided over this large-scale social and economic exclusion.
Our aim is to strengthen the Australian economy by dispersing ownership and economic power as broadly as possible, building the capacity of consumers and family and small businesses, eliminating corporate welfare in all its forms, and overhauling the many legislative and institutional arrangements that prevent market competition from benefiting ordinary people.
Our approach to economic policy rejects both the anti-competitive culture of Big Business and the anti-enterprise culture of many trade unions. We support measures to build greater ownership of capital by a greater proportion of Australian citizens. We seek a bigger sector of self-employment, micro-, family and small businesses, and a bigger mutual and social enterprise sector.
The Big Four Banks embody all that is wrong with the Australian economy. We have the most concentrated ownership of banking and financial institutions in the western world. The Big Four have a de facto government guarantee against failure while operating effectively as a cartel, circumventing competition laws and (through their economic dominance) imposing a non-entrepreneurial culture on Australia’s corporate and institutional investors.
They shun lending to small businesses and the self-employed, preferring equity and debt in the risk-free property sector and mergers and acquisitions which boost returns without having to be innovators or risk-takers. They do all this while gouging consumers and ratcheting up executive salaries to obscene levels.
Our energy sector is dysfunctional, producing higher prices, uncertain supply and perennial policy uncertainty. The Big Three companies (AGL, Origin and Energy Australia) have been permitted to operate both generations and retailing: these functions should be separated. Market share caps should be imposed on the Big Three to encourage new entrants, and subsidies for both fossil fuels and renewables should be removed to allow consumers to drive the market.
Australia’s retail sector is dominated by two companies (Coles and Woolworths) which have 70% of the market share. By contrast, the two biggest retailers in the USA command 20% of the market share. Australia’s extreme levels of concentration have an adverse impact on both consumers and suppliers, particularly in farming and rural communities. Both Left and Right are philosophically blind to these adverse consequences of concentrations of ownership.
We seek a more inclusive and competitive economy, with favourable taxation and other incentives for firms with employee ownership and shared governance arrangements, and for businesses that include people with disabilities, mental illnesses and other disadvantages.
 | A nation of owners (we seek the widest possible distribution of economic ownership amongst individuals, families and communities) |
 | A break up of cartels (we require a forced divestiture of assets by firms with more than 40% of national market share, and firms that misuse market power) |
 | Empowerment of consumers (we stand for a greater capacity for consumers, fewer restrictions on competition, and removal of restrictions on new entrants in all sectors) |
 | Inclusion of people with disadvantages and disabilities in the mainstream economy (we support comprehensive incentives for firms to include the disadvantaged in employment and ownership) |
 | An end to corporate welfare (we will abolish corporate hand-outs, subsidies, rebates, tax concessions, research grants and tariffs as measures that favour the powerful and exploit the weak) |
a. Prohibiting banks from operating in superannuation, insurance, wealth management and financial planning markets as a condition of holding a banking licence;
b. Introducing a cap on market share by any one bank of 20% in any market segment, and a forced divestiture of assets by any bank which exceeds the cap;
c. Prohibiting banks from owning equity in other corporations, prevent banks from acquiring a dominant place in the national economy and ensure banks remain servants of other corporations, not their masters;
d. Introduction of mandatory prison sentences for bank executives or directors who breach ASIC reporting or disclosure requirements, or Trade Practices Act provisions dealing with anti-competitive behaviour, price-fixing or collusive behaviour;
e. Removal of institutional impediments to the transfer of a customer’s business from one bank to another, and prison sentences for bank executives who place obstacles or delays in this process;
f. Creation of a level playing field for all financial institutions, removing product and function restrictions favouring the Big Four, easing the regulatory and compliance burden for small institutions, and removing regulatory impediments to the formation of new banks, and credit unions and building societies.
a. Prohibiting energy companies from operating both generation and retailing functions, and requiring the Big Three to divest assets to new entrants;
b. Introducing a cap on market share at current levels by any energy company in generation and retailing, and permitting only new entrants to operate in new energy sources such as thermal;
c. Requiring retailers to offer a ‘default product’ independent of standing offers at prices no higher than those determined by the Australian Energy Regulator;
e. Creation of a level playing field for all energy providers by removing all subsidies across all energy sources, and allowing consumers to drive the market.
a. Introducing a cap on market share by anyone retailer of 30% in any market segment, and a forced divestiture of assets by any retail group which exceeds the cap;
b. Introduction of mandatory prison sentences for retail executives or directors who breach Trade Practices Act provisions dealing with anti-competitive behaviour, predatory pricing, price-fixing or collusive behaviour;
c. Prohibit retailers from acquiring interests in gaming, insurance, alcohol and tobacco companies.
a. employees own at least 50% of equity and/or exercise at least a 50% share in governance;
b. 20% or more of employees are people with disabilities, mental illnesses, ex-offenders and/or have a history of long-term exclusion from the labour market.
a. allowing employees to opt-out of the superannuation system (if an employee opts out, the employer super contribution of 9.5% of pre-tax wages (rising to 12$ in 2025) would be paid to the employee’s regular bank account;
b. permitting members of super funds who opt-out to withdraw up to $20,000 per year from their existing super account over a transition period of 10 years, with any remaining funds transferred at the end of the 10th year;
c. abolishing all super tax concessions (earnings on balances in super funds would continue to be taxed at 15% before and after retirement, as would annual pre-tax and post-tax super contributions; and
d. abolishing the special Commonwealth Government employee rate of superannuation at 15.4% and replacing it with the ordinary citizen rate of 9.5%.
a. giving small business owners protection from unfair contracts and unscrupulous behaviour by Big businesses and Governments;
b. permitting small businesses to collectively negotiate with suppliers, acquirers and franchisors; and
c. exempt businesses which employ less than 20 people from the requirement to collect superannuation contributions by transferring this function to the tax system.
a. requiring a forced divestiture of assets in any firm controlling more than 40% of the national market share in any domestic market;
b. removing restrictions on new entrants in banking, retailing, insurance, utilities, airlines, shipping and the media to encourage more enterprises and more options for consumers;
c. restricting licensing fees for industry entrants to cost-recovery rates for supervision and regulation, not for revenue-raising purposes for governments;
c. removing incentives to invest in property and housing ahead of productive value-adding businesses by scrapping negative gearing; and
d. scrapping all forms of corporate welfare including subsidies, development assistance, relocation incentives, research grants, tariffs and industry adjustment schemes.
We favour reducing the tiers of government for service delivery to two (federal and state) while retaining three tiers for governance (federal, state and local). Local government should be stripped of its service delivery functions (these should transferred to the states or commonwealth) and reworked as an instrument for local community voice and micro-level social organisation.
The renovation we propose can be achieved without changes to the Constitution of the Commonwealth.
Around the globe, there is a return to localism – reviving and strengthening local forms of community and economy. Local governments, in their current form, are rarely an amenable mechanism for this sentiment. They are typically too bureaucratic, too managerial, too risk-averse, and too clunky.
Within current local government boundaries, we favour precinct-level networks (200-400 households), connected online and in-person, as infrastructure through which mutual supports and information flows can be enabled that involve the whole of the population in ‘looking after each other’ and developing local neighbourhoods and community life.
For many social, health, ecological, and security challenges, this kind of micro-level social infrastructure is essential. It is necessary if we are to facilitate neighbourly supports for older people living at home – these neighbourly supports have broken down in many places and no longer occur naturally. To be revived, they need a mechanism for facilitation.
People with disabilities and their families, parents with young children, and new settlers also require micro-level social supports. Governments assume these natural supports exist, but they have to be nurtured and maintained.
Multi-purpose infrastructure of this kind has been desperately needed in 2020 by house-bound older people, and many others who live alone. More than one third of Australians now live in a single-person household. Some communities have spontaneously engaged in mutual support for vulnerable people during COVID, but many have not.
Prevention of family violence and suicide also require localised supports based in civil society (families, neighbours and mentors). Formal services are woefully ineffective in crisis prevention, and tend to be oriented to post-crisis support. In the current explosion of suicides and mental illness generated by the COVID panic, we have lacked micro-level mechanisms to facilitate these supports.
We have three tiers of government, but none of the three are suited to building the social supports that really matter.
Micro-level organisation is also necessary for three other important functions: natural disaster prevention, preparedness and response; local climate change mitigation and adaption; and civilian organisation for national security preparedness.
Some of these functions previously fell under the heading of ‘civil defence’ during and following wartime, and the State Emergency Services in the 1950s grew out of this notion of civil defence. But these SES structures are now largely moribund, absorbed into state government bureaucracies and detached from citizen initiative. The same can be said of some volunteer fire-fighting services.
Local government, freed of service delivery, can be re-tasked for the building of local community and the facilitation of local self-help and mutual support.
Local governments have a checkered history in planning, being vulnerable to influence from both property developers and NIMBY activists, with a legendary reputation for delays and obfuscation. A carefully designed planning instrumentality auspiced by state governments has long been sought by many planning reformers.
Waste collection and roads can be transferred to the states. Maternal and child health, kindergartens and child care can be transferred to either state or federal governments. None of these services require their management to be located in a separate and virtually exclusive jurisdiction separate from the states and the commonwealth.
The financing of health care is a federal responsibility, via insurance and public funding – ours is a hybrid public-private health system and it should remain so. The transfer of health to the Commonwealth would mean that individuals, health insurers and the Commonwealth would continue to purchase services run by hospitals and community health services that are currently run by the states – these providers are already independently governed and managed. It is but a small step for them to become fully self-governing – which for many would be a return to the founding ethos.
The financing of education is also a federal responsibility, via public funding of both public and private schools. Our hybrid public-private school system should also continue into the future. Schools currently run by the states have become more independent of direct government administration in recent decades, and most are now independently governed and managed. Their funding comes from the Commonwealth, and, if they are independent schools, from parental fees.
The transfer of health and education to the Commonwealth would mean removing one tier – the states – from the churn of public money from taxpayers to the Commonwealth to the states to the purchasers of services. At the same time, this shift could assist hospitals and schools to evolve as independent entities that are more accountable to their consumers and parents, and less like operational outposts of distant colonial bureaucracies.
4. This transfer would reduce the size and scope of state governments dramatically. During this transition, we propose that all other functions of state governments (apart from health and education) remain in place. To match this reduction in size and scope of state governments, the number of state Members of Parliament should be cut by 50%.
5. The financial implications of these shifts are significant but are manageable without major disruption. Local government rates would be radically reduced, and should be capped at $100 for an average household. Savings to state governments from the removal of duplication in health and education should enable them to absorb the addition of local government service delivery functions in roads and rubbish.
6. The authors of the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia made specific provision for the formation of ‘new states’. In North Queensland, Central Queensland, the Riverina and New England, citizens’ movements for new states have existed continuously throughout the last 130 years. In parts of Australia where there is a popular desire for greater regional autonomy and decision-making, there is no reason why the current provisions in the Constitution for recognition of new states cannot be enacted in the 21st century.
The Riverina new state proposal is available at www.theriverinastate.com.au/
7. The writers of the Constitution also made provision for the inclusion into the Commonwealth of Australia of Pacific Island states. In part, the authors had New Zealand in mind, but not exclusively.
In 2020, many of the small micro-states in the Pacific face major security and economic challenges. China is cultivating a military presence in many of these states, and is sowing financial dependency through loans and investments in the region. This is a direct security concern for Australia.
At the same time, major internal security and governance challenges persist amongst the Pacific states. Australia administered Papua Guinea from 1919 to 1975 when it became independent. A wave of mid-20th century nationalism in developing countries produced a rush to independence which in some cases was premature, and has led to deep disappointment in the outcomes that have accompanied independence.
In this context, our Federation of Australian states may yet take a new turn. A Federal Renovation Policy is needed. If the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and/or Papua New Guinea were to seek participation in our Commonwealth as ‘states’, either for a limited period (such as 99 years in the case of Hong Kong) or for an unlimited period, who is to say that this would not be mutually beneficial in ways that perhaps only the writers of our Constitution anticipated.
The United Kingdom is indeed a working model of such arrangements – Wales and Scotland are nations, they field their own sporting teams in international competition, they nurture and present their own cultures to the world, but for security and economic reasons, they are part of a union.
At Federation, our fore-bearers made some assumptions about representation in the federal political system that, retrospectively, could be improved upon.
The first assumption was that representatives would always remain true to the people. We know this is no longer true. Major party coalitions elect representatives that only listen to party power brokers, corporate lobbyists, and globalists before they listen to the people that elected them to office. This has driven the fundamental collapse of a people’s democracy.
The second assumption, somewhat based on the first assumption, is that they assumed a three-election cycle would be sufficient for representatives to be held accountable to the people for their actions. It isn’t and never was. There is no management theory that recommends a three-year check in on the performance of someone doing a job for you.
The combination of these assumptions and the natural evolution of political parties, after federation, has meant that power brokers, modern corporations, and globalists, in different forms, have sort to influence and now control these representatives. They have succeeded in this task and turned the representatives away from the people.
The only way to get the focus back on the people is to establish a new process and system that enshrines the voice of the people back into the representative democracy model.
Currently, many of the political, corporate, and global agendas are pushed or rushed through parliamentary processes without most people having a single idea about what is going on. Modern-day parliamentarians bargain on the reality that members of the public are not really paying attention, and that suits them.
AusFed’s want to make it easy for everyone to engage, young and old alike. We have implemented simple ways to work with the people that Liberal and Labor have ignored for generations. We have created a six-step simple process to bring back the voice of the people.
Each elected member will attend a monthly town hall type event where they meet face to face with the people with an ‘open agenda’. The people set the agenda and the local representative provides transparent feedback and information on issues that matter to the people.
Something that has become apparent is the lack of knowledge and understanding about Australian democracy and the parliamentary system/process. A monthly program, known as Democracy 101 will be conducted by the local member for the people in the electorate. It is important for the local member to personally run this workshop as it is important to be regularly reminded of all the elements of a people’s democracy.
Each elected representative will have the right to vote independently of the party for the benefit of their electorate. This put’s the people before party politics. For this to occur, the party must not be listening to that segment of the community, so it is the government’s responsibility to be in lockstep with the people, not others. This enables the local member of parliament to focus on the people without the retribution of the power brokers that dominate Labor and Liberal coalitions.
No more rushed legislation where the people do not understand the direct consequences or where ‘sleeping’ legislation is embedded for government benefit without the knowledge of the people.
No new bill or amended legislation will go unchecked by the people. That is why there will not be any more rushed processes, or abuse of processes, in the parliament. All bills and legislation introduced by the government will undergo a process of consultation with the people before it is formally introduced to the parliament. This part of the process will be known as ‘People’s Legislative Review Groups’.
These groups are drawn from specialty skill sets in every electorate depending on the focus of the bill or amendment. There are 80,000 – 120,000 people in every electorate and it is time we started listening to the thoughts of very capable and intelligent people.
For example, any new bill or amended legislation that affects small to medium retailers would involve gathering a cross-section of retailers and consumers from the electorate to review the proposed bill or amendment from their perspective. These review groups will provide feedback and record results that feed into a national system. The feedback will then be used in the drafting process by the parliamentary library to ensure it reflects the will and needs of the people.
Finally, AusFed’s will interact with all registered voters by introducing a ‘Democracy in the Palm of Your Hand App’. A beta version will be released prior to the 2022 federal election. The government will use this to get daily, weekly, and monthly feedback on specific issues and its representatives to ensure it is hearing the voice of people from all over the country every day. AusFed’s will use technology to enhance democracy, not reduce the freedoms of the people.
These six simple steps are critical to ensure a genuine people’s democracy in Australia.
After taking billions of taxpayer dollars from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) over generations, the two major party coalitions have not once documented steps on how they will listen to the people and preserve their democracy outside what was created at Federation over 120 years ago.
Totalitarian leadership is lazy leadership. Skilled leaders yearn to listen and learn and implement in a manner that unites the people of a nation, not divides them.
