Experts say major parties must defend multiculturalism and put populist parties last on their how-to-vote cards

This article is more than 10 months old

This article is more than 10 months old

The major parties have been urged to put populist parties last on their how-to-vote cards and reject the myth of a “homogenous national identity” in submissions to the Senate nationhood inquiry.

Two academic experts, Glenn Kefford and Duncan McDonnell, have warned the inquiry that Australia may have avoided outbreaks of populism only because of poor leadership on the extreme right. Major universities have called for transparent and independent decision-making in government as a cure for voter disillusionment.

The inquiry – spearheaded by Labor’s Kim Carr and Liberal Amanda Stoker – was criticised by the Greens for its “bizarre grab-bag of issues” after it solicited submissions on all forms of extremism – from ecofundamentalism and postmodernism on the left to conservative nationalism on the right.

Australian white nationalists reveal plans to recruit 'disgruntled, white male population' Read more

But despite initial misgivings that it could be hijacked by those with extremist views, the submissions published so far canvas a range of mainstream reforms including an Indigenous voice to parliament, allowing dual citizens to run for parliament and democratic reforms including term limits.

Kefford and McDonnell submitted that “radical right populism” had been a “marginal force” in Australia – with One Nation absent from the commonwealth parliament between 2000 and 2016 – while radical left and rightwing parties had increasingly become parties of government in countries such as Austria, Finland, Greece and Italy.

The pair noted that “the degree of dissatisfaction with mainstream parties and the functioning of democracy is similar in both Australia and major Western European nations”.

They argued that poor electoral results for the far right in Australia were therefore more likely to be explained by “leadership problems” such as the “turmoil that has plagued a party such as One Nation” rather than a lack of demand for extremist politics.

“In this sense, Australia may be like countries such as Finland and Sweden where, once an effective populist leader of a well-organised party emerged, radical right populism quickly flourished in societies where experts had previously thought it would not.”

Kefford and McDonnell urged major parties to defend and advance multiculturalism, grow their bases and commit to place populist parties last on their how-to-vote cards at every election “as happened, until recently, with One Nation”.

“Doing short-term deals for the sake of a single election is not only bad politics, but legitimises the positions of parties and movements that seek to further weaken the guardrails of Australian democracy.”

In the 2019 election the Liberals did a preference deal with Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party while the Nationals did deals with One Nation.

In October Australia’s spy agency warned that the risk of extreme right-wing terrorism was on the rise. Far right groups had attempted to market themselves as fitness groups and to branch stack the NSW Young Nationals as means to recruit members and increase their political power.

The Group of Eight universities urged the government not to attempt to “lock down notions of nationhood and citizenship”, warning that “national identity should not come at the expense of pluralism, tolerance and respect, indeed, these are core features of our national identity”.

The ANU school of history proposed using major government statements to recommit to multiculturalism by explicitly rejecting the idea of a “homogenous national identity” and to address the marginalisation of the regions and other local areas that is “implied in growing concentrations of cultural, political and economic power”.

It submitted that despite the erosion of trust in some public institutions, royal commissions enjoy high trust and “have helped to re-engage citizens with government, salve personal and social wounds, and advance constructive policy ideas”.

It proposed greater independence for the public service and the wider use of independent statutory authorities, public inquiries and royal commissions.

In a joint submission the Melbourne School of Government, newDemocracy Foundation and Susan McKinnon Foundation suggested a range of reforms including more free votes in parliament, truth in political advertising standards, trial of citizen juries and a more independent process for major appointments.

In October a survey of federal parliamentarians found a majority support caps on donations and spending but opposed forms of direct democracy such as plebiscites and citizen juries.