The opposite of a neoliberal economic agenda isn’t a progressive economic agenda, but democratic re-engagement. Neoliberalism taught us that “there is no alternative” to cutting taxes, cutting services and letting the banks treat us as they see fit. But of course not even the Coalition believes that any more. These days they proudly subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their preferred form.

While the hypocrisy is staggering, at least voters can now see that politics, and elections, matter. Having been told for decades that it was “global markets” that shaped our society, it’s now clear that it is actually the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott who decide whether we get new coal mines or power stations. Luckily, millions of voters now realise that if it’s OK to subsidise new coal mines, there’s no reason we can’t subsidise renewables instead.

The parliament is filling with people of all political persuasions who, if nothing else, decry the neoliberal agenda to shrink our government and our national vision. While there’s obviously quite a distance between MPs who want to build the nation, one new coal mine at a time, and those who want to fill our cities with renewable energy, the whole purpose of democracy is to settle such disputes at the ballot box.

The Liberals want to nationalise coal-fired power stations and pour public money into Snowy 2.0. The ALP want much bigger renewable energy targets and to collect more revenue by closing billions of dollars in tax-loopholes. The Greens want a publicly owned bank and some unions are pushing to nationalise aged care. It’s never been a more exciting time to support a bigger role for government.

So, what to nationalise? What new machinery of state should we build first? Should we create a national anti-corruption watchdog, replace the productivity commission with a national interest commission, or abolish the failed network of finance sector regulators and build a new one from scratch?

Or should we think bigger? Is it time to rethink not just the agenda of our parliament but the way that we choose our parliamentarians? Is it time to replace our system of electing one representative from each of our 150 electorates with a more proportional system of representation where each region elects multiple members of parliament?

We can finally have a national debate about the size and role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build

At the last federal election the major parties attracted 76.5% of the primary votes for members of the House of Representatives but won 96% of the seats. While our system of preferential voting allowed Kerryn Phelps to win Wentworth from the Liberals with a primary vote of 29% of the vote, our “winner takes all” system means the 43% of electors who voted for Dave Sharma have no voice in the House of Representatives. But while such voicelessness might feel uncomfortably unfamiliar for the Liberal voters of Australia’s wealthiest electorate, such an outcome is the norm for the quarter of the Australian population who cast a first preference vote for independents and minor parties each election.

Proportional representation is neither radical nor a silver bullet. The reason the Senate is more diverse in its representation of women and minor parties is that each state elects six members of the Senate at a half Senate election. This means that candidates only need to gain 14% of the vote to win a seat in the Senate, compared to the 50% needed to win a lower house seat. Tasmania and the ACT have systems of proportional representation, and internationally around 80 countries rely on some version of proportional representation to settle the question of who gets to sit in Parliament.

Ironically, one of the major objections to proportional representation in Australia has been that it tends to deliver minority government, a situation that the major parties prefer to avoid. But now that we are back in our second minority federal government in five years, the idea that avoiding proportional representation is an effective way to avoid minority government seems a bit optimistic.

The Liberal party and the conservative media are no longer afraid of minority government. While the government warned the voters of Wentworth that minority government would lead to “chaos”, it turns out, like most of the Coalitions forecasts, this was errant nonsense. The ACT has been in minority government for 10 years and there have been minority governments in NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia.

The more independents and minor party MPs winning seats in the lower house the greater the probability that a general election will deliver a “hung parliament”. There are now six independent and minor party MPs in the House of Representatives and the result in Wentworth has inspired talk of Jane Caro taking on Tony Abbott, Farmers Federation chair Fiona Simson challenging Barnaby Joyce and backbench Liberal MP Julia Banks running as an independent. There is little doubt that there will be a bigger crossbench in the coming year and little doubt that it will have a larger share of women than the current Coalition party room.

The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size and role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build. But we need to do more than talk about tax and regulation. Australia is one of the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world, and we once helped lead the world in the design of democratic institutions and the creation of an open democratic culture. Let’s not allow the legacy of neoliberalism to be a cynical belief that there is no point repairing and rebuilding the democratic institutions that ensure not just our economy thrives, but our society as well. A quick look around the world provides clear evidence that there really are a lot of alternatives.

• Richard Denniss is chief economist for the Australia Institute