During a long career working for the United Nations and for the Red Cross in hell zones such as Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Australia's place in the world and how we treated those less well-off became more important to me. In particular, how we treated asylum seekers and refugees became the main yardsticks I use in judging Australian society. I was disgusted by the events surrounding the Tampa and the 2001 federal election. I was deeply involved as a Labor candidate in a marginal Victorian seat. No matter how much John Howard seeks to rewrite history and say the Tampa had little to do with the result, it did. Labor tied itself in knots after 2001, losing focus on its position on asylum, and missing an opportunity to put alternative policies to the people. This is a complex issue that does not lend itself to slogans. Just as it is too simple to say, ''Stop the Boats,'' so it is also too simple to say, ''Let Them Land''. After election in 2007 and again after Julia Gillard took over as leader, Labor missed the chance to lead Australia in a genuine, well-thought-out debate on an alternative policy. Labor could have reset the national mood to one of ''how do we safely and securely control entry to genuine asylum seekers?'', instead of continuing a negative dialogue around ''how do we stop illegal entry and excise territory from our migration zone''. Hence, when my Labor membership renewal form arrived in the post in 2011, I could not see principled leadership challenging the Australian people on the issues that matter to me. I could not in all conscience find a meaningful difference between Labor and Liberal. I decided to quietly let my membership lapse and judge the two parties afresh.

So why speak out now? Excising the mainland from Australia's migration zone is an additional slap in the face to core beliefs of mine. It means that I no longer wish to leave the ALP quietly. The asylum-seeker issue now defines our national character. It sets the tone of how we wish to be perceived by ourselves and by others. I have had friends say that I have been disloyal to the Labor Party for leaving. But to me, loyalty is to principles first, party second and leadership third. Many in the Labor Party appear to have forgotten this. But Liberal Party apparatchiks should not rejoice in another member leaving the ALP. Labor's current dysfunction hides very similar problems inside the Liberal Party. Social justice doesn't belong just to the labour movement. The philosophical liberalist tradition is about the freedom for people to attain their potential within a community, while recognising the need to look after those in genuine need. This is why some in the Liberal Party also speak out against the current asylum-seeker policies.

The old ''worker versus boss'' divide that historically characterised the two parties no longer seems to be the divide on the social issues of the day. It is not just asylum where this can be seen. Take gay marriage. Under a liberalist philosophical tradition there would be sympathy for gay marriage. Under a conservative political tradition there would not. So what of the Liberal Party? The current conservative-leaning leadership has the Liberal Party objecting to gay marriage, even though many so-called ''wets'' from a liberal philosophical tradition would like to support the change. The Liberal Party is split along a conservative versus progressive divide. Same in the Labor Party. Many in the religious right of the Labor Party - especially from the Catholic union base - oppose gay marriage. On the other hand, many from a social justice but non-union background in the Labor Party support gay marriage.

So, two unusual alliances are forming within Parliament: the pro-gay marriage camp from both the social justice (non-Catholic ALP) and liberalist (wet Liberal Party) traditions; and the anti-gay marriage camp from the Catholic Labor and conservative Liberal sides. In other words, the anti gay-marriage push is made up of some Labor and some Liberal MPs. Likewise the pro gay-marriage push. And there is a similar divide on asylum and many other issues. Australia has elements of bipartisan liberalism and bipartisan conservatism, where the parties no longer represent the ideological divide. What does this mean for party politics? There are many in the ALP who come from a non-unionist background but who joined the party on the basis of a belief in social justice. They are not so interested in the worker versus employer divide of the Cold War days. There are those in the Liberal Party who are also philosophically interested in social justice rather than the employer versus employee divide. The major parties no longer debate different beliefs, they just debate power. And neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott inspires us to follow them. Instead, they try to scare us about the other side. No wonder people are confused. The truth is we don't need just new leaders of the two main parties. It is not about changing Abbott or Gillard. What we need is new parties.

Australia needs a conservative party to represent the conservative views in our community on gay marriage, asylum, the monarchy and so on. We also need a liberalist, progressive party to represent the alternative views. If we do not have parties that represent the ideological divide in our community, then where is our democracy? Where is our choice? Australians should get to choose on belief, not personality. Perhaps then we might get better government. Andrew Macleod was the ALP candidate for the federal seat of McEwen in 2001, and is a former chief executive of the Committee for Melbourne and the author of A Life Half Lived (New Holland Press). Follow the National Times on Twitter