AUSTRALIA'S GOVERNANCE CRISIS

Australia's traditional system of government is at risk. This document briefly outlines various interconnected sources for concern related to:

• declining practical potency of democratic institutions;
• weakening of the administrative support to elected governments;
• inadequate evaluation of Australia's strategic interests;
• lack of literacy related to strategy and methods of East Asian societies, which are central to the most significant current 'clash of civilizations';
• federal - state financial imbalances that lead to irresponsibility, buck passing, duplication and complexity;
• politically motivated appointments to the Judiciary;
• politicization of the head of state ('Crown)' whose apolitical character is the foundation of the Australian constitution;
• erosion of the moral foundations needed for a legal system that assumes individual liberty; and
• abuse of the power of the press to undermine constitutional stability.

Such potential and actual governance failures are particularly serious at a time when external threats seem far greater than they have for two generations [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

If such dysfunctions in Australia's system of government are not corrected, then:

• the political stability that Australian's have long enjoyed would seem likely to be lost (eg if a breakdown in effective government leads the community to support authoritarians who promise solutions by suppressing disagreements);
• severe economic reversals and external challenges to Australia's national survival can be expected.

May 2003

• Complexity
• Globalization
• Hacking into the Machinery
• Epistemology
• Populism
• Lack of Institutional Support

CHALLENGES TO Australia's democratic institutions

While the following discussion of problems affecting the democratic process focuses on Australia's situation (and relies heavily on Queensland examples), the diagnosis appears to have more general relevance.

Democratic institutions (ie the effective power of elected representative government) have been under challenge for at least two decades.

Symptoms of this decline include perceptions about:

• the adoption of a global perspective by elites who do not then act in the interests of their communities, or provide leadership in civic society (as suggested in the mid 1990s in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy by Christopher Lasch);
• reduced community confidence and participation in the party political process [1, 2];
• growing indifference [1];
• the emergence of a 'democratic deficit' (ie of a gap between expectations about the political system and day-to-day experience of it [1]);
• dominance of the political process by insiders [1];
• suppression of free expression of some ideas in the guise of anti-discrimination laws [1]
• the political instability created by the One Nation phenomenon as a reflection of economic uncertainty [1] - see also Assessing the Implications of Pauline Hanson's One Nation;
• apparent deliberate political deception of the public [1, 2];
• Australia's integration between Parliament and the executive allows abuse of power, because there is no independent investigation of such misdeeds [1]
• Propaganda, spin, overstatement which makes people inclined to disbelieve what they hear [1];
• heavy public spending on advertising which has political implications [1];
• an unwillingness by governments to provide access to information [1, 2, 3] - without which effective public policy debate, the cornerstone of democratic government, is impossible;
• the weakness of machinery for developing public policy [as well illustrated by the 'republic' debate];
• a lack of machinery to research and engage the public in debate about longer term policy issues [1];
• erosion of political talent due to factionalism [1, 2];
• minister's unwillingness to accepted responsibility for anything - and a tendency to blame staff [1]
• populist government [1], which is seen to have been professionalised and mainstreamed in Australia;
• a loss of public interest in substantial policy issues - and a tendency to be concerned only with the way policies affect themselves and whether politicians reflect their values [1];
• the increasingly difficult questions governments have to deal with which require ever higher levels of technical information [1];
• an unwillingness to impose fiscal discipline - because politicians have learned that surpluses are  simply used by their successors to benefit their favoured interests [1];
• the emergence of (so called) 'junk politics' - which reduce debate from substantive issues to distractions such as personal histories and moralizing, and prefer symbolism to substance [1];
• extremists possibly holding the balance of power [1];
• an increasing 'revolving door' between politics and business [1];
• dysfunctional parliamentary debates, and institutional abuses [1, 2, 3, 4]; and
• political leaders being good at winning elections - but at little else [1]

• public cynicism about politicians because of: abuse of power  which compromises rights;  partisan public service appointments; and spending money for political advantage. Courts are little interested in democracy / justice. Parliamentary supremacy is critical to the rule of law. All parties continue to resist the constraints that real democracy would pose to unfettered use of power [1]

Within one party (the ALP) there has been extensive debate about the need for fundamental reform. It has also been suggested that solutions can not be found through internal reform - because the real problem may be that the national political process is losing its relevance to local and global arenas [1]

At an international level questions about the effectiveness of democratic institutions also include:

• loss of power by parliament in the face of globalization and autocratic government, and the corruption of institutions for political advantage;
• the effectiveness of democracy in managing a society's collective knowledge;
• perceived conspiracies by elites;
• suppression of rights; and
• philosophical fashions which have made it difficult to challenge autocratic leaders

Several causes can be suggested for these symptoms (eg increasing complexity; globalization; lack of support from a competent Public Service or independent policy institutions; post-modern cynicism; a descent into populism).

One key conclusion that will emerge is that, as governments' challenges have become too complex for simple solutions to be identified, democratic societies have tended to support political elites who unrealistically declare that the only issues are 'values', promise simple solutions and re-engineer government machinery and other institutions to ensure that tame 'experts' tell them what they want to hear.

The core requirement to overcome these challenges seems likely to involve:

• better machinery to enable the community generally to understand policy debates about complex issues;
• re-creation of competent apolitical Public Services to support the community's elected representatives;
• development of apolitical community-based capabilities to reduce the complexity that elected governments have to deal with to manageable levels by (say) improving community / economic support to individuals / enterprises and reducing the need for complex regulation.

The prospect of providing better institutional support to Australia's political system is considered further in Restoring 'Faith in Politics'.

However there is also a need to recognise the challenge to democratic governance from competing paradigms in East Asia - where a radically different approach to power is adopted (see below)

Weakening administrative support

For more than a decade Governments have been tending towards ineffectual or risky populism - a problem which is considered separately in the Decay of Australian Public Administration.

This partly reflects a decline in the ability of Public Services to competently support executive governments in policy development and implementation as a result both of the politicisation / de-skilling of senior appointments and of attempts to remodel governments as pseudo 'businesses' in order to hopefully gain better value for money by increasing production efficiency.

National Competition Policy appears to have had a role in weakening administrative support to government because the side-effects of seeking to apply business-like methods to fundamentally non-business-like functions were not considered (see Review of National Competition Policy Reforms: A Commentary).

The effect has been to remove the steadying wisdom of experience from the sometimes shallow thinking of political populism. It has also become essentially impossible to manage the delivery of public goods and services as a whole, because they involve functions that can not be coordinated satisfactorily through market mechanisms. The latter problem is illustrated particularly by emerging concerns about infrastructure deficiencies (see Infrastructure Constraints on Australia's Economy).

In the process of 'reform' the dominant goal of Public Services also shifted from helping the public by ensuring good government, to helping the government of the day to retain political power.

INADEQUATE INTELLIGENCE AND STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

There is a serious weakness in Australia's ability to assess its national strategic interests.

This is clearly revealed, for example, by the public debate concerning weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as the basis for participating in military action in Iraq in 2003.

An evaluation of the strategic environment related to the problem of dealing with the risk of terrorists with WMD strongly suggests that the US's strategic response linked to regime change in Iraq was based on very complex considerations (eg see speculations in The Second Failure of Globalization?).

In brief: key issues that apparently needed to be explored in the background to that situation include:

• the political and economic failure of numerous states, a problem that has many causes and gives rise threats to neighbours and to global society;
• the loss of confidence in multilateral action by the US, which had originally sponsored and long supported that system, and the emergence of proposals for unilateral US action

However in Australia there appear to be no governmental or independent institutions able to make and communicate such assessments to the public - or even to the government (though one observer pointed out that advice may have come behind the scenes from PM&C, DFAT and Defence Departments [1])

Prior to Australia's commitment to the campaign in Iraq, the public case for regime change was based only on its WMD programs - though this issue was probably only a 'marketing' tool.  And even after the event, the assessment of the case for participation (by a parliamentary committee and the media) focused only on weaknesses in intelligence about the WMD issue and those institutions proved entirely incapable of addressing Australia's strategic interests generally (see Strategic Assessment). This is particularly significant in that it appears that the strategy being pursued by the US administration, whose lead Australia has followed, may be flawed (again see The Second Failure of Globalization?).

Another example of apparently inadequate intelligence and strategic assessment involves the imbalances in the global financial system (see Structural Incompatibility Puts Global Growth at Risk) which apparently closely relate to the challenge that East Asia's neo-Confucian styles of governance poses to the democratic capitalist style of global order that Western societies have established in recent centuries (see East Asia in Competing Civilizations).

A significant decline in the ability of Australia's overseas representatives to access and assess information has also been suggested [1], as has a lack of reliance on systematic professional advice in relation to the commitment to intervention of Iraq. [1]

It is noteworthy that Daniel Ellsberg showed how intelligence presented to the US government about the Vietnam war could be distorted to meet political expectations and then used to justify pre-formed assumptions about desirable strategic policies [1]. Australia at that time would have been less likely to have been susceptible to such 'group think' because it had a professional Public Service who could safely express independent opinions. However politicisation in recent years has presumably reduced this protection.

The problem of identification / protection of the national strategic interest is complicated by exposure to rising powers in East Asia whose strategic methods and means for exerting power are radically different to those of Western societies (eg see below).

LACK OF ASIA LITERACY

There is very limited understanding of the challenges to Australia's system of government that are implicit in the rapid progress being achieved under neo-Confucian styles of government, as goals and strategic methods are radically different in societies with an ancient Chinese heritage, rather than the West's classical Greek heritage (see  East Asia in Competing Civilizations and 'Asia' Literacy).

In brief: In East Asia abstract ideas are not regarded as reliable, so methods for problem solving and managing change have been created that do not depend on individual rationality or political debate. 

For example, power in Asia is equated, not with making decisions as Australia's political elites expect to do, but with having social subordinates who make decisions for the powerful.

This is significant because, for example:

• the problem of complexity that now bedevils Western approaches to political power is dealt with differently, and this is one of the reasons that:

  • the obstacles to authorities in guiding faster economic development are less severe than in Western societies - so economic 'miracles' are observed;
  • the civilizational 'clash' with East Asia seems more significant than that with Islamist extremists. A prominent Japanese bureaucrat argued, for example, that the complexities of social and environmental issues would, in fact, destroy the idea of 'progress', which has been the unique and characteristic goal of Western societies [1].
• power is exerted by providing information to influence others' thinking rather than more directly; 'war' is fought through deception and encouraging others' to weaken their position rather than by overt opposition; and ethnic business / organised crime combine with governments in pursuit of nationalistic goals (see Art of War);
• Australia's weak strategic intelligence gathering and assessment capabilities make it vulnerable. Examples of the impact of such methods seemed to have emerged in the 1980s in relation to the influence of apparently-ultranationalist Japanese groups on Queensland's political economy.

The implications of these challenges is speculated more comprehensively in China as the 'Future of the World'?, An Invisible Clash of Financial Systems?, Understanding East Asia's Economic Models ,  Creating a New International 'Confucian' Economic and Political Order? and Babes in the Asian Woods

Very substantial strengthening of support to Australia's democratic institutions may be required, if they are to remain viable in such an environment.

Federal - State Fiscal Imbalances

Australia's federal system concentrates tax powers in the federal government and responsibility for service delivery in state administrations (including local government).

This imbalance appears to have come about largely because over the past 70 years the High Court (which lacks the technical ability to fully evaluate the economic, public finance or public administration effect of its decisions - and has always been appointed by Commonwealth ministers) has concentrated ever increasingly fiscal capacity in the Commonwealth Government [1].

This imbalance has seriously distorted public administration in Australia over many decades.

Moreover these distortions may now become unsustainable because of what appears to be a potential imbalance between aggregate public revenues and expectations about public spending.

At the same time that these pressures have developed, Commonwealth revenues have surged into large surpluses as a result of a rapidly growing economy [1] - a phenomenon which seems unlikely to be sustainable  (see The Potential for Economic Instability).

In the medium to long term, it would appear highly desirable for revenue capacity to match spending responsibilities of each level of government so as to reduce the economic, revenue and administrative costs of current imbalances.

One suggestion about this has involved restoring personal income tax power to states [1]. Others have suggested that the problem could be resolved if the federal government assumed responsibility for hospitals (and perhaps other functions) [1, 2].

In any effort to match revenue and spending responsibilities, preference should probably be given to increasing state revenue capacity (eg by transferring GST and personal income taxes and perhaps reinstating death duties) rather than increasing federal operational responsibilities because:

• while there is little doubt that reported Commonwealth concerns about state incompetence [1] are valid (see The Growing Case for a Professional Public Service), it needs to be recognized that centralism is not a solution because: 
  • the reasons for state incompetence arguably lie in:
    • Commonwealth-state fiscal imbalances which (especially since the explosion of special purpose funding in the 1970s) have made it essentially impossible for states to really take responsibility for their functions (see above);
    • the elimination of the Westminster tradition of a competent independent Public Service in the search for 'quick fix' solutions to perceived problems  (eg see Towards Good Government in Queensland).\
  • the Commonwealth adopted similar 'quick fix' concepts for reform of public administration (especially from 2000 on) and is now well on its way to achieving the same level of administrative incompetence as the states (see The Decay of Australian Public Administration);
  • Commonwealth administration is centred in Canberra which is physically isolated and primarily involved in government and other services which makes it difficult for those who live there to gain 'real world' information about what is happening.
• there is a requirement for coordination amongst different functions on a regional basis (see above) which states (as Australia's de-facto regional administrations) should be best positioned to address;
• states have responsibility for economic development functions - which is a primary determinant of the quantity of public finance which is available. If states lack appropriate financial incentives (because the federal government ensures equal outcomes no matter what) their approach to economic strategy may be amateurish (see Comment on Review of Grants Commission Arrangements);
• community engagement in (and thus understanding of) 'big picture' questions is vital both to provide an informed electorate, and also to the quality of leadership that can be provided within the community (see Queensland's Weak Parliament  and Pauline Hanson's One Nation: Assessing the Implications for accounts of what can happen when a community lacks such engagement and understanding). Communities who are not part of the solution are likely to become the problem (as illustrated also by welfare dependency concerns);
• proposals that have been advanced for a federal take-over of all health services seem to contain serious practical defects - which imply that other alternatives need to be considered to fix obvious difficulties in health services (see Is a National Health Model the Best Remedy?). 

The dysfunctions associated with Australia's federal system can probably only be solved by (a) eliminating fiscal imbalances and (b) providing constitutional structures that oblige state and federal government to collaborate (eg making the federal Senate a true state house - with members appointed directly by state governments)

Political biases in the Judiciary

The technical competence of the Judiciary is critical to the administration of law (and to Australia's reputation as a place to do business in particular), while Judicial independence is vital to safeguard citizens against abuses of executive power. 

Numerous allegations, whose validity the author has no way to assess, now suggest that the quality and legal competence of the Judiciary is being compromised by appointments based on political rather than merit criteria - in a manner similar to that which has undermined effective public administration.

• Constitutional Origins
• Putting Political Stability at Risk?
• An Assassination?
• Options

Politicization of the 'Crown'

Under Australia's current constitution the Governor General (on behalf of the 'Crown') carries all the power of executive government, and makes it available for use by the democratically elected government. The effectiveness of representative democracy has now been de-stabilized and seriously damaged by politicization of the 'Crown', as:

• a Governor General used the position to advocate a particular political agenda [1, 2], and continued doing so after leaving the position [1, 2]. A state governor has announced an intention to pursue a similar practice [1] . In 2009 a new Governor General also took a public political position [1]
• the Federal Opposition leader broke the convention which had treated the Governor General as being outside of the political game [1];
• a Governor General (G-G) resigned in the face of populist pressure involving allegations, a flawed Church inquiry, a biased media campaign, opinion polls, a Senate resolution [1] which also breached constitutional conventions and a weak Federal Government - pressure which one observer described as the worst case of 'trial by media' since the case of Lindy Chamberlain and which ultimately led to a virtual political 'assassination'; and
• similar 'media frenzy' seemed likely to follow any other appointment of a Governor General - thus discouraging good people from being prepared to take the position [1]

Ensuring that in future the holder of this office should be a person who has popular support (or perhaps even has a definite political agenda) seemed a major motive for the latter campaign [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. One legal observer implied that political support was a vital requirement of the position [1].

However politicisation of this position (ie requiring popular support, and a political agenda and networks) is totally incompatible with Australia's existing constitutional system [1, 2] and would lead to instability unless preceded by a referendum to appropriately change the constitution. Even thoughtlessly subjecting this institution to populist pressure has damaged Australia's system of government.

Constitution Origins

Australia's constitution was derived at the start of the 20th century from the system of governance that existed in Britain at that time.

That system was the product of a long period of evolution whereby the power and privileges which monarchs had acquired through through military leadership were shared first with a military 'nobility' and ultimately, in the mid 19th century, with the broad mass of the community through a system of representative democracy.

This steady transfer of power from military to civil authorities involved the emergence of a constitutional monarchy under which eventually:

• the Crown delegated power to make laws to an elected Parliament, and the power to interpret the law in civil, criminal and administrative matters to an independent Judiciary;
• an executive government was formed by the party with the majority support of a democratically elected Parliament;
• the Crown retained all the executive power of the state, but agreed not to use this for their own purposes and to act on advice from the head of the government; and
• the Crown oversaw the government's day-to-day actions to ensure that they complied with the constitution.

In Australia's version of this system the British 'Crown' was represented by a Governor General (or Governor in the case of the states).

Apart from ceremonially 'planting trees', the role which the G-G used to play was to enable the democratically elected government to govern by exercising the same restraint in the use of executive power as the British Crown.

Putting Political Stability at Risk

A G-G who has their own political power base and agenda will either be a political supporter of the elected government or an opponent.  

If they are an opponent then they may  make it difficult at the very least for the elected government to govern [1].

It can be noted that the Constitution allocates all executive power to the Governor General and does not even mention the Prime Minister. Those powers include vetoing legislation. With an independent political mandate a Governor General would be able to oppose the will of Parliament and claim that they were acting in the people's interests in doing so [1] 

The constitutional crises that are likely to emerge where an elected head of state had their own political agenda, power base and electoral mandate can be illustrated by the 1975 sacking of the Whitlam Government by the then Governor General. Whilst the Governor General was presumably acting to resolve what was seen as a constitutional crisis related to the blocking of supply, the fact is that the 'sacking' was: (a)  political popular - as illustrated by the large subsequent voter preference for a change in government; and (b) widely seen itself as a constitutional crisis.

With a popularly elected Head of State, conflicts between the latter and the also-elected but-less-powerful government would presumably be a regular event, and shatter Australia's reputation for political stability. 

On the other hand, if they are of the same political persuasion, then the scope for autocratic power to emerge will be huge as:

• the same faction would have control of the legislature, the executive government and the reserve powers of the 'Crown' (which could be interpreted as being almost unlimited); and
• the judiciary, whose independent powers are delegated from the Crown, might have limited ability to act as a counterbalancing force.

The author recalls a paper (but can no longer locate it) which argued out that countries who had political head of states separate from governments tended to have periodic revolutions.   

A Vice Regal Assassination?

The political 'assassination' of an incumbent G-G has undermined and exposed the rickety foundations of the institutional core of Australia's constitution (and this may well have been the intention of the campaign) - but has not shown how to create a solid foundation. It seem certain to impact on whether Australia emerges as a future republic. It might result in either:

• future G-Gs who have their own popular / political agendas - and thus contribute to political instability until a re-written Australian constitution is approved at a referendum (see below); or
• damage to the republican goal of making the position of Governor General into one that requires popular support - if the attacks on Peter Hollingworth as G-G are eventually shown to have been unjust thus demonstrating that (a) popular opinion can be misled especially if the subject is not an experienced politician and (b) any experienced politician could be unable to provide the apolitical attitude the Governor General's constitutional role requires.

Practical Options

Presumably Australia could seek to have an elected G-G who has a political agenda, but for stability and to protect against autocratic power it would then seem desirable to rearrange a large number of other aspects of the constitution - perhaps to something like the US system where the executive and the head of state are combined but separated from the legislature. 

Implications? Adopting a US style system in Australia would seem likely to:

• increases the intensity and sophistication of political debate because both the executive and legislature would presumably be well resourced to support policy research - which would seem highly desirable given the deplorable standards that have emerged as administrative machinery has been politicized; and
• encourage a much 'smaller' role for governments - because (a) under British Law the state does not seek to represent the community as a whole as in European (Roman) Law traditions and (b) the separation of executive and legislature would inhibit the coordination required for governments to play a strong interventionist role. 

Interestingly it appears that Prince Charles as king might guarantee Australia's transition to a republic because his reported desire to speak out about public policy issues - rather than continuing the traditional practice of doing so only in private [1] - would seem very likely to destroy the apolitical character of the British monarchy and thus its constitutional usefulness in the UK and elsewhere.

• Evidence
• Restraining Liberty
• Consequences

Moral foundations of individual liberty

For something like 1000 years in Western societies, a 'put-others-first' ethical ideal which derived from Christ-ian traditions has seemed to be a settled basis for a morality driven by individual consciences.

This allowed a separation between affairs of state and the religious basis of that individual morality. That separation was immensely important to building a legal system which incorporated individual liberty and thus to the economic prosperity and strength which Western societies achieved relative to others particularly over the past 500 years (see Competing Civilizations). The latter argued that:

• individual liberty could became the core of Australia's antecedent legal system in Britain, because it was taken as given that interpersonal relations would be guided by a Christ-ian 'put-others-first' ethical ideal that was deeply embedded in the consciences of individuals responsible to God;
• in societies without this 'embedded' ethical ideal, legal and governance systems invariably are deeply involved in determining the nature of, and enforcing, moral interpersonal relationships - and this has a major impact on scope for political liberty and the economic models that can be used, Moreover;
• government can be far more effective in dealing with complex and constantly changing social and economic systems, when it does not seek to do so simply on the basis of religious principles that are meant to apply to individual behaviour.

Evidence

It now appears that challenges to the 'Christ-ian' philosophical and theological foundations of Western societies have weakened the embedded ethical ideal in Australia to the point that it can no longer provide the foundation of moral interpersonal relations and thus a system of law and government based on individual liberty. This could be the case if child sexual abuse is anywhere near as rampant within the community as some have alleged (see About Child Sex Abuse). The breakdown of up to 50% of marriages (which in itself can be a form of child 'abuse' because of the stresses it may create, and which seems to have created the basis for the escalation of sexual abuse) as well as various other indicators of social dysfunction can also be noted.

Indicators of the decay of an ingrained put-other-first ethical ideal include:

• self-centeredness as the defining characteristic of the (so-called) ‘me’ generation (the 'Baby boomers');
• narcissistic (self-love) personality traits are increasing. 25% of students revealed such traits strongly in 2006 (up from 15% in 1982). 80% of people thought they were important in 1980s compared with 12% in 1952. An epidemic of poor parenting is seen as the cause [1]
• virtual freedom from family responsibilities which men have had the potential to enjoy since the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s - a freedom which now appears to be translating into (a) poor educational achievements by boys who lack of male role-models [1] and (b) low fertility rates as women find it increasingly difficult to find a man willing to commit to parenthood [1];
• emphasis on self-fulfilment, sometimes including veneration of self as a fragment of the divine (which seem to be the core of 'New Age' and growing (pseudo) Buddhist traditions);
• a perceived inability to make moral judgments [1]
  • Morality? What were once seven deadly sins (that led to spiritual death and damnation) - namely lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride - have all become behavioural problems requiring treatment, not punishment, except for pride that has become a virtue (as an antidote to the sense of low self-esteem that is seen as the source of many social and psychological problems). And what were once virtues (humility, kindness, abstinence, chastity, patience, liberality, diligence) are now also seen as requiring correction through counseling (Furedi F., 'The seven deadly ills',  Australian, 2-3/2/02)
• escalating drug abuse apparently expressing a desire to 'escape' from a unhappy lives [1];
• weakening of ethics in:
  • business [1] - which (a) erodes public confidence in commercial institutions that are essential to economic productivity (b) undermines the status that professionals gained by the ideal of putting community interests before one's own and (c) and requires significantly more complex and costly accountability procedures;
  • government - associated with increasingly lying [1]
• the breakdown of organized civil society (see Social capital);
• the emergence of dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (including:
  • general dysfunctions in families [1];
  • breakup of up to 50% of marriages, and the consequent 'distressing' (in varying degrees) of anything up to 50% of children [1]. Children from divorced families are twice as likely to drop out of school, become parents while teenagers or be jobless as young adults [1]. Such children may do worse on measure of life welfare [1]. Boys lacking male role models are seen to develop anti-social behaviour [1]
  • a substantial increase in the numbers of children living in one parent families, which is frequently associates with growing up in poverty and subsequent disadvantage throughout life [1];
  • more extreme abuse in not-yet-legalized ways of smaller numbers of children (eg sexual abuse - which might impact 12% of boys and 25% of girls), women (domestic violence [1, 2] is said to affect around 23%) and geriatrics [1, 2];
  • 250,000 children live in homes affected by domestic violence - which increases the risk of violence when they themselves form families [1];
  • contract killings in extreme cases [1];
  • formal contractual agreements for adult children to care for their aged parents because arrangements based on trust are too uncertain [1];
  • the abuse of children in foster home - which is seen to indicate a loss of moral capital [1];
  • attacks on ambulance officers attending to patients [1];
  • a 'toxic' environment for children (related to family breakdown, rampant individualism and inequality) that has been seen to contribute to: youth suicides; ADHD; risk taking; depression; autism; cerebral palsy; crime; insecure neighbourhoods; and drug-taking [1]. Moreover:
    • Health professionals have suggested that the way babies brains are formed is significant. As they get positive stimulation they effectively tell baby “this is the way to interact with the world”. But if positive stimulation is replaced with constant neglect or abuse, then the connections formed tell the baby - “the world is an uncaring place”. Thus the kind of care parents deliver to their infants is vital and all the indicators are that something has gone wrong with the connection. Learning and behavioural problems have increased dramatically. One in four teenagers now has a significant mental health problem. Youth suicide, mainly boys, has quadrupled in the last 40 years. Teenage girls are five times more likely to commit acts of violent crime than thirty years ago. ('The Science of Raising Children: Pt 3', ABC, 21/10/01);
    • children's health generally has deteriorated - a situation which is seen to be associated with lack of support for working mothers, and the ending of public health initiatives related to maternal and child welfare [1]
    • a large blow-out in welfare costs is expected because of the numbers of young people from dysfunctional family / community situations who will depend on welfare, and perpetuate their problems with their own children [1];
    • a Queensland teacher has highlighted concerns about large numbers of children who are uninterested in education, disrespectful, engage in petty crime and willing to steal from society - and have parents who are passively support such behaviour [1] 
  • children have problems (obesity, diabetes, asthma, autism, Down Syndrome, high suicide rates; increased difficult to treat psychological problems; girls match boys in aggressive behaviour), many of which are seen to come from socio-economic disadvantage - though they are more likely due to social dysfunction [1]
  • homosexuality - which a plausible though unproven case [1] suggests may often be an emotional / addictive disorder (as a reaction to childhood abuse and neglect), rather than a harmless alternative lifestyle option;
  • increasingly serious racial abuse in schools [1]
  • violent and bullying students in state schools [1]
  • very large economic costs as a result of workplace bullying [1]

  • bad neighbourhood relationships which have forced 20% of Queenslanders to move .[1]

• deterioration in community health associated with increased obesity, because children's outdoor activities are constrained by fear of strangers [1]
• Both Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition have expressed concern about the social consequences of changes in Australian values and culture [1]

Part of the social breakdown mentioned above (eg child abuse) is overly associated with disadvantaged communities (eg those suffering high unemployment, low education etc) [1]. However:

• the existence of a correlation between social breakdown and disadvantage does not show what has caused the correlation - though a key requirement for overcoming disadvantage for individuals is probably that they gain stronger support from responsible family and community members (see Commentary on Is the Smart State a Just State?).
• some indicators of social breakdown (eg in family relationships) are more widespread than serious social disadvantage;
• changes in attitudes which are likely to contribute have occurred, and the apparent scale of the social breakdown does not support the view that disadvantage is the major cause;

Part of the social stresses identified are also undoubtedly associated with pressure for harder work [3] - while it has also been suggested that the major cause lies in the failure of men to take on a larger share of household tasks as women have gained equality, and increasingly participate in the workforce [1]

Others have attempted to explain changes in the nature of relationships and the growth of 'rampant individualism' in terms of various consequences of globalization [1].

Others again have suggested that the worst of the problems are over and the situation is improving as a result of general economic prosperity [1]

Restraining Liberty

Unless a 'put-others-first' ethical ideal is re-established through religion which is separate from the state, entirely new concepts of law and government may be developed which regulate the nature of 'moral' interpersonal relations.

Indicators of the growth of, and pressure for, 'social / ethical' regulation include:

• the blurring of the line between individual and state responsibilities, and the predicted future increase in the use of formal agreements about behaviour that could be required in various circumstances (eg as has been done with indigenous communities) [1]
• political activism by church-based organizations [1], or by individual Christians [1];

• the reported loss of public interest in substantive policy issues - with concern only for personal impacts and whether politicians reflect their values [1];

• defining a set of moral standards for politicians by setting down a code of conduct [1];

• a perceived need to insert 'values' into public debates [1], and for the Deputy prime Minister to himself stress moral values [1]. And the ALP was said to believe that politics in future would be concerned solely with values - without concern for traditional political debates about programs and budgets [1];
  • Comment: Determining 'values' through political authorities would break the separation of church and state
• the perceived intent of an ALP leader to build an election campaign on religious values [1];
• proposals for state funding of chaplains in schools [1];
• 'antidiscrimination' legislation which suppresses the free expression of some ideas [1] or protects some behavioral choices that are traditionally seen as immoral, and lead to (sometimes quite unforeseen) social dysfunctions [1];
• the expressed concern that churches do not recognize professionally derived ethics, but have treated them as part of universal moral principles [1]. [An aside: The significance of 'professionally' derived ethics from the viewpoint of the churches (ie of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) is presumably embodied in Genesis 2-3];
• research by the Australian Computer Society into ethical standards that should be adopted in that industry [1];
• a political debate about the values taught in state schools, and in particular:
  • the adequacy of the values taught in state schools has been questioned by the Prime Minister and others [1], and provisions have been made for federal funding to be cut to university courses which the government objects to [1];

  • a study was commissioned by the Federal education minister on the values which should be inculcated through the education system [1];

  • it was suggested that state schools do not need religion to impart values like 'inclusiveness, respect for others, ethnic diversity and multiculturalism', and that religious education should be removed from the curriculum to make room for other subjects [1]
    • Comment: that writer's preferred alternative was not to regard any values as better than any others and treat all cultures equally - which would, in effect, constitute the core of a new official religion (which could perhaps be called 'Clayton-ism' - the religion you have when you are not having a religion). Superficially values included under Clayton-ism would be radically different to Australia's institutional traditions (and disruptive) because (a) many cultures that Clayton-ism would include do not endorse equality of individuals, (b) some regard racism as natural and (c) some are overtly intolerant of religious differences. However if it was then decided (on some arbitrary basis) that such features should be excluded, then Clayton-ism would be well on the way to becoming a prescriptive official state religion]
  • the federal government's efforts to promote values education can be seen as attempt by it to be regarded as having moral authority [1]
• a stream of initiatives by government in the UK aimed at improving people's behaviour [1];
• ALP proposals for government machinery for micro-supervision of the fairness of employee-employer relationships (see Fair Work Australia: Establishing the Machinery of a Socialist State?);
• a perceived need for a Statement of National Values (focused on: democracy; equality of all people; religious tolerance; rule of law; mate-ship) [1]
• advocacy of a Bill of Rights [1] as a means to establish moral rights [1] or national values [1], or because it can no longer be assumed that elected representatives will act in the general community interest [1]. Victoria is to follow ACT in establishing a statutory charter of rights and responsibilities [1]
  • Comment: advocacy of a Bill / Charter of Rights seems very strong evidence that authorities have felt the need to constrain individual behaviour. However in practice a Bill of Rights would seem likely to compound those constraints by limiting rights in future to those which are prescribed. Traditionally under common law individuals have been able to do what is not prohibited, but a Bill of Rights would seem to reverse this presumption or freedom and guarantee only the right to do what is specifically permitted. When an issue arises in future that no one has previously considered, it would reasonably be argued that the right did not exist because it was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights
• the establishment of Family Law, the Family Court and the Child Support Agency to enforce child support. In some respects the latter has raised the cost of 'free' love to a very high level.
  • Family law, it may also be noted, has been seen as a source of many problems [1], and (in Queensland at least) the Families Department seems to experience considerable difficulties. Moreover the cost of child support (combined with the high incidence of family breakdown) seems likely to act as a real disincentive to marriage and parenthood - at an inconvenient time for an aging population;
• legal action against institutions for the sexual misdeeds of their staff [1] - which creates a requirement for managements to try to control interpersonal relationships;
• checks on teachers in relation to child abuse - a practice which was seen as likely to be inadequate [1]
• the suggested creation of special courts or other arrangements to deal with sexual abuse of children [1, 2] - which mainly occurs when children live with adults who are not their biological parents;
• arguments by both state and commonwealth governments that the other needs to take responsibility for dealing with the massive problem of child sex abuse [1];
• the perceived need for:
  • restraining domestic violence [1] and violence in schools [1, 2];

  • preventing parents from smacking their children [1];

  • teaching school children to be nice to each other [1];
  • remedial strategies to prevent bullying in schools and homes [1], and at work [1, 2];
  • laws to ensure etiquette in people's behaviour on footpaths  [1];
  • authorities to remove a disruptive family from a neighbourhood [1];
  • governments to force men to take more responsibility for household duties [1];
  • governments to take a hands-on role in promoting and sustaining marriage [1]
  • Aboriginal elders to be given legislative powers to order addicted persons into rehabilitation, mediate between groups and hold parents responsible for juvenile offenders [1]
• the introduction of shared responsibility agreements designed to influence the actions of aboriginal parents [1]
• the introduction of legislation to protect the disabled from abusive carers [1];
• the creation in Queensland of machinery to 'keep government honest' in the era following the 1980s' Fitzgerald inquiry which:
  • was described by one expert observer as creating the most complex system of government in the Western world [1]; and
  • was seen 15 years later to require scaling back because the resulting 'red tape' made government ineffective [1]

There has also been:

•  a suggestion that a breakdown in civil society due to loss of trust is interfering with the effectiveness of economic transactions, and that this might need to be resolved by the churches [1].
• recognition by Christian leaders of the effects on Australia's values and institutions if its religious foundations are shifted [1]

Consequences?

The effect of a perceived need to apply external constraints to most aspects of individual behaviour would be to eliminate the liberty that has been central to past legal and political systems and to the economic success that has been enjoyed. Moreover externally driven morality (by moral legalism or social sanctions) does not seem very effective. 

A Chinese writer (whose work the author can no longer locate) commented on the difference between doing the right thing when others were watching - or all of the time when conscience was the guide. Islamic legalism seems to require threats of horrendous punishment.

New testament writers commented on the fact that 'no one could ever live under the Mosaic law'.  In earlier eras, blood sacrifice was one 'solution' that was found to the failure of moral legalism to prevent what leaders saw as rampant sin in a nation. Knowing how widely the moral law was abused, but powerless to do anything about it, community leaders could show how seriously they viewed the problem by arranging to sacrifice an innocent scapegoat. An interesting parallel may be drawn with the official blind eye that was turned to the problem of child sexual abuse in Australian families and the political 'assassination' of the G-G in 2003.

The erosion of the moral foundations of individual liberty is also a threat to national security because of the risks associated with possible terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists. This arises because making a convincing case for civil liberties in Muslim dominated countries is (probably) the key to defeating the ideology of the spiritual leaders who motivate militants to commit acts of terror - yet the social symptoms which have resulted from the loss of the ethical basis for moral interpersonal relations is a major obstacle to the credibility of any such case (see Combating Terrorism with Civil Liberties)  

Abuse of the power of the press

The power of the press appears to have been seriously abused in ways which have adverse implications for Australia's constitutional stability by:

• covering up the extent and implications of child sexual abuse (see About Child Sex Abuse) which, as noted above, implies a breakdown in the moral foundations which are vital for a legal and governmental system which assumes individual liberty. In this cover-up the media has been abetted by many community leaders who are also seem afraid to face up to the problem;
• a biased media campaign was conducted against the holder of the office of Governor General (which as noted above has contributed to instability in Australia's system of government by politicisation of that position). 

This is not to suggest that the media generally have not acted in good faith because (a) it is possible to make errors while acting in good faith; (b) over many years the author has observed that the media will seem to be biased at any particular time - but that the direction of their bias varies;  and (c) the public sometimes reacts against 'elites' who they suspect of trying to manipulate them.