In The Rise of the Insiders, I made the point that many Australians are concerned that they no longer have a say in the major decisions that are being made in their name in Canberra and in the state capitals.
This exposes a deficiency not only in the civic and political culture of the country, in that the parameters of public debate are being patrolled by a relatively small but influential group of institutions in politics, the media, business, and so-called civil society. But also in democratic institutions themselves. Representative democracy means nothing if the institutions that are designed to represent a community of electors are, or are perceived to be, failing to act on their priorities. This was revealed by further Institute of Public Affairs research, in which it was found that 77 per cent of Australians believe that the political agenda “is set by those employed inside the political system” compared to 15 per cent who believe that the political agenda is set by those in the general community.
In The Rise of the Insiders, I analysed the occupational and educational backgrounds not only of the current federal parliamentary cohort, but also the backgrounds of parliamentarians at various points in our history back to 1901. In the first parliament, only 15 per cent of parliamentarians were insiders—meaning their employment immediately prior to entering parliament was in the public service, a political party or union, in consulting or lobbying, in the media (such as a journalist) or in publicly funded research or academia. In 2025, however, 60 per cent of federal parliamentarians were ‘insiders’, meaning the outsiders who are subject to the regulations and rules made in parliament—those in private sector businesses, tradesmen, farmers, doctors, and engineers—are being crowded out of parliament by the insiders.
Those driving the political debate in Canberra are increasingly disconnected from the experiences and priorities of mainstream Australians. Perhaps no issue better illustrates this divide than the Voice referendum in 2023. After several years of deliberation about what form ‘constitutional recognition’ would take, there was a ‘First Nations National Constitutional Convention’ in 2017, comprised of delegates who were selected (not elected) at ‘regional dialogues’ from which the participants themselves were ‘selected’ according to the Referendum Council’s arbitrary criteria. The outcome was the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which called for Voice, Treaty, Truth: the first element was the subject of the referendum and, if supported, would have amended the Australian Constitution to include a new section establishing a body to make representations to the federal government on behalf of indigenous Australians. The push from Canberra to make the Voice a reality occupied a significant amount of time and resources over the following years, particularly during the Albanese government, which made the Voice referendum its first priority.
The Voice was overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people in all states with 9,452,792 Australians voting No against 6,286,894 voting Yes. IPA research identified that the reason Australians voted No was because they believed establishing a separate and parallel system of political representation would permanently divide Australians (Roskam, 2024). That the political class in Canberra was unaware of this and pushed ahead with the referendum should also serve as a wake-up call for Australians about how Canberra operates and its capacity to understand and represent mainstream Australia.
This disconnect is in part cultural: politics has become fully professionalised, and this in effect deters non-professionals from entering it. There is only so much time and resources that a small business owner or a farmer can devote to challenging a machine that does politics for a living.
And yet a significant cause is structural. The political system itself operates to the benefit of professional politicians, and in effect ensures that politics in Canberra represents the priorities of Canberra rather than the broader Australian community.
Take for instance how voting actually takes place in Australia. Compulsory voting combined with preferential voting plainly produces perverse outcomes. In practice, in order to lodge a valid vote in most Australian jurisdictions, an elector must not only vote, but must list in order their preferences from first to the very last. This means that in almost all cases, even when an elector chooses candidates not from the major parties, they will need to give their vote to one. This diminishes true democratic decision making and operates as a shield for the political class.
Despite this, many Australians accept as normal—or even desirable—the way we do democracy. The survey I mentioned earlier also asked people whether they believe voting should be compulsory for all voters or a voluntary choice, allowing voters to choose if they want to vote or not. The research indicates two thirds of Australians believe voting should be compulsory. This illustrates that improving Australia’s democratic character is not just a political issue but a matter of public awareness as well.
The purpose of the IPA’s Reinvigorating Democracy Project, of which this paper is the most recent publication, is not just to lament the decline of genuine participatory democracy, but to generate awareness that this decline is neither inevitable nor unavoidable. More pointedly, it’s goal is to educate Australians about the flaws in the present system and to generate debate about reform to reinvigorate democracy in Australia.
To this end, when the Reinvigorating Democracy Project was launched, I sought out William Coleman, who is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Notre Dame Australia and was formerly Reader in the School of Economics at the Australian National University. Importantly, Dr Coleman edited Only in Australia: The History, Politics, and Economics of Australian Exceptionalism, published in 2016 about the unique direction Australia has taken on various economic and social policy fronts. His chapter, ‘Australia’s Electoral Idiosyncrasies’, relevantly describes Australia’s peculiar attachment to policies such as compulsory voting and preferential voting, which many Australians consider normal but are regarded as unusual in most parts of the world. Not only do we practice democracy strangely, but as Dr Coleman noted in 2016, ‘none of these idiosyncrasies seem to breathe the spirit of democracy.’
That ‘sprit of democracy’ is what this paper is seeking to cultivate. Democracy is more than just turning up at a polling place once every three or four years. The test of democracy is whether Australians have the freedom and the opportunity to participate in debate, and to have their views and values adequately represented in the major institutions of society. Reform must focus on how the political system can be improved so that it represents the views and values of ordinary Australians.
This paper then is not intended to produce the IPA’s list of silver bullets that will reverse democratic decline, but to give voice to Dr Coleman to kick start debate about ideas for reform that could be adopted. This is a debate that is long overdue.
The Institute of Public Affairs is delighted to publish William’s 12 Ideas for Reinvigorating Australian Democracy as a critical first step in an important public debate about Australia’s representative institutions.
