Australians are lucky to have one of the world’s best-functioning liberal democracies.   However, our government processes have lost efficacy, being too focused on political power instead of helping the community understand complex issues and committing themselves to “common-good” solutions that often have both “givers” and “recipients”.   A classic challenge is the expectation of some in the community for more government services than revenues can sustain and rising individual spending power without increased taxes and productivity improvements. Our governments are not courageous or trusted enough to resolve such dilemmas.   A community-wide dialogue is required, using trustworthy and transparent processes.

Our politicians fail to effectively address the growing problem of delivering affordable and appropriately located housing for the community.   The initial discussion focused on how to help young families commence home ownership. Focus is growing on affordable properties (either to purchase or rent) for low-income earners, people on social benefits and front-line service providers who should live near their work.   Given that all three levels of government impact the housing supply and that our constitution does not provide a mechanism to bring about a harmonised approach to the issue, a Royal Commission seems the best option for breaking the inertia.

Need for balance, can’t do everything, resistance to paying more tax…the excuses for budget shortfalls against community expectations are increasing in the lead-up to the annual budget release by the federal government.   This situation gets worse each year as the distrusted political class attempt to persuade a cynical electorate that they, and only they, can manage the complexity of our country’s budget.   There is a ready solution to help end this annual political agony – ask the public to help sort through the trade-offs in a transparent deliberative forum such as a citizens' assembly. After all, they consume the services and pay the bills!

Allegra Spender is attempting to catalyse a conversation on holistic tax reform and get the government to move away from piecemeal change.   Jim Chalmers claims to use a “staged, methodical approach” to tax reform.   There is a problem for them both. The average Australian does not trust the political class or the elites to fairly and equitably manage tax reform.   We need to engage everyday citizens in a deliberative forum to answer the question: How do we fund the Australia we want? Then all can understand the required trade-offs to government services and taxes and the reasons for them.

Refreshing to see the bipartisan commitment to a revised protocol for referendums. This includes producing and distributing an explanatory pamphlet.   Our democracy would be even better if it were compulsory for all political parties and independent candidates to issue an evidence-based policy document ahead of each election.   For the Lower House, this could cover the fundamental principles by which the parties and independents will address policy issues and the specifics for the term following the election. Senate candidates could say how they will seek to influence key policy issues and how they will work to uphold the integrity of government.

Jim Chalmers has suggested businesses should justify price increases.   The government should justify why they take our money from us and spend it on what they call “essential services” – including a large and expensive bureaucracy.   The government should have an open zero-based budget approach in annual expenditure planning, justifying every dollar spent. Explaining their revenue-raising plan to fund the expenditure – including revenue raised from bracket creep.   It is the “peoples” money the government takes and spends or re-distributes. We are owed a clear and transparent rationale for all taxes and spending – not obfuscation and political doublespeak.