Democracy has largely been reduced to a contest between three dominant parties, two of which act in coalition.

Each is a private organisation with a small membership which primarily represents the interests — in particular the economic interests — of a section of the community.

They dominate public discussion and debate and one or other of them has governed Australia for more than 70 years.

They enacted the legislation that provides public funding based on past election results, giving them a major electoral advantage over other parties and independent candidates.

During that period, politics has been transformed from a public service to a career with a well-defined path for those who embrace the culture and authority of their chosen party, and accept that ideology and sectional interests are more important than the common good.

Winning is all that matters and "whatever it takes" is the basic rule.

Trusting pollies to behave properly

We have a representative democracy with a "Westminster system" where the Federal Parliament is supreme.

Australian courts have power to enforce the division of power between the Commonwealth and the States but laws made by Parliament cannot be questioned on any other basis.

Unjust laws are valid; courts can only protect individuals or minorities when permitted to do so by Parliament, which can effectively oblige judges to be complicit in injustice.

Parliamentarians are not legally required to act in the public interest or tell the truth or forbidden to act in their own interests or the interests of their supporters. Australia's Constitution requires them only to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

Ministers give an additional undertaking which presently merely requires them to serve the Australian people.

The Westminster system takes it for granted that political power will be exercised by people who know how to behave properly and can be trusted to do so.

That assumption might seem strange today. However, ethical behaviour is in everyone's rational self-interest.

The world's great religions and traditions, most major philosophers, and common human experience all confirm the fundamental importance of ethics to civilisation and social harmony.

Parliament's role diminished by party rules

Today, parliamentary supremacy has been reduced to a sham. "Responsible government" means in this context that the executive government is responsible to Parliament.

In practice, Parliament's role is severely diminished by party discipline which obliges parliamentarians, whose preselection is commonly held at the whim of the party leadership, to rubber-stamp decisions made by the executive. Conscience votes are a rarity.

Compliant party apparatchiks are rewarded with preselection, supportive interests and those who pay enough are provided with special access and influence, cronyism is widespread and the limited constraints on the misuse of power which exist are circumvented by appointing supporters to supposedly independent public positions.

Misleading and deceptive business conduct is illegal; misleading and deceptive political conduct is regarded as clever.

Group dynamics often affect individual behaviour. Individuals subordinate their values to group objectives and engage in conduct which they would otherwise regard as dishonourable.

Important information is withheld, distorted and manipulated and falsehoods and propaganda are euphemistically misdescribed as "spin".

It is almost impossible for voters to distinguish information and rational opinion from nonsense and deceit.

Scandals are frequent and politicians regularly attribute misconduct to each other, accuse each other of egregious character flaws and assert, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that only their opponents act improperly.

Reprehensible conduct, often involving the misuse of public money, is falsely denied or excused as "within the rules", which means merely that the conduct is not illegal according to self-indulgent rules which the parties themselves determine.

Democracy 'drowning in distrust'

Ordinary people have a very limited role. Periodically, citizens are compelled to vote. Since one or other of the dominant parties always wins, there is very limited practical choice.

Many people vote only because they're legally obliged to do so. Numerous people vote for minor parties although they can't win. Some vote for disruptive fringe parties which provide an outlet for those fed up with a system that is failing them.

The dominant parties' response — predictably leading to a further loss of credibility — is to ridicule the fringe parties (and by implication their supporters) for ignorant populism, while dog-whistling their own populist messages and slogans and in some cases agree to fringe party preference deals.

The cumulative impact of the dominant parties' constant rejection of community standards and concerns is massive public anger and contempt for politicians. John Faulkner, a former Labor minister, put the position succinctly when he described Australian democracy as "drowning in distrust".

Those who control the dominant parties must be aware of the risk of political chaos.

Democratic nations which do not have informed citizens and trusted governments will find it extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to function effectively in a world increasingly troubled by fanatics and terrorism, organised cyber-crime, climate change and pollution, huge refugee numbers, gross overpopulation, wide-spread unemployment and technology, which makes mass deception easy.

Calls for anti-corruption body

Most Australians want practical checks on the abuse of power, especially the powers of the executive and legislative branches which determine the nation's laws and control its purse strings.

There is broad public support for an anti-corruption body, an independent parliamentary ethics and privileges commissioner with investigative powers and a multi-party parliamentary committee with power to impose penalties for breach.

However, up until now the dominant parties have been united in their opposition to effective supervision of political behaviour and their parliamentary dominance enables them to prevent reform and, even if an anti-corruption commission is established, to limit its effectiveness. That has already happened in the states.

There are some signs that one of the dominant parties might change its position but change threatens those whose benefits and privileges are at risk. Major reform is always difficult and almost impossible without strong leadership.

Ironically, the dominant parties' "whatever it takes" mindset generates internal turmoil and makes leadership extremely difficult as rival factions battle each other for control of the party.

There were five prime ministers in the 35 years from 1972 to 2007 and there have been just as many in the 10 years since then. Three of the last five were removed from office by their colleagues and the incumbent is under constant attack from members of his party, including his predecessor, and seems to be struggling to survive.

How hard is it to commit publicly to ethical behaviour?

There's no point in the rest of us whinging and saying somebody ought to do something. We can do something collectively. The key is sustained public pressure.

We need individual politicians to recognise that membership of a political party doesn't excuse them from their personal obligations to act honourably, and political parties to understand that voters will only vote for politicians who make and keep promises to act ethically.

Earlier this year, Government members initiated a discussion on "Australian values". But in May, the Australia Institute asked federal parliamentarians seven simple questions about their own values.

Some politicians were affronted.

One Government senator delivered a diatribe: "There is not a politician ever elected .... who would not answer 'yes' to all of your juvenile questions." In fact, not one of his colleagues did so.

Indeed, although quite a few other politicians answered, not one of his colleagues answered "yes" to any question.

The failure of ministers, even the Prime Minister, to take the opportunity to commit publicly to ethical behaviour is troubling, especially when a "Statement of Ministerial Standards" mandates "conduct… that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety".

Significantly, ministers do not personally undertake to act in that way by their oath or affirmation of office or otherwise, and breaches commonly have no consequences. It all depends on what's best for their party.

All candidates at the next election will be asked the same questions and voters will be informed of their responses.

Many — especially those in marginal seats — will commit to ethical behaviour and in doing so publicly take personal responsibility for their future decisions and actions. Reform can be built on those commitments.

Tony Fitzgerald is a former judge, who led an inquiry into corruption in Queensland.