Independent essays on government, institutions, public policy and the ideas that shape Australia.

The Australian Commons is a place for considered argument about how Australia governs itself, how our institutions work and how they might work better.

About The Australian Commons

The Australian Commons is an independent publication exploring government, public policy, institutions and the long-term challenges facing Australia.

It begins from a simple belief: a healthy democracy requires more than elections and political parties. It also requires citizens willing to think seriously about the institutions, rules and assumptions that shape public life.

The Australian Commons is not aligned with a political party, campaign or organisation. Its purpose is not to tell people how to vote, nor to defend one side of politics against another. It is a place to examine ideas, question established practices and consider whether there may be better ways of governing ourselves.

The essays published here will sometimes argue for particular reforms. They will also try to take seriously the arguments against those reforms. Good public policy rarely comes from pretending difficult questions have simple answers.

Where possible, factual claims are supported by primary sources, official data and credible research. Opinion and argument are presented as such.

The focus is deliberately long-term. Political personalities come and go. Governments change. The institutions, incentives and financial decisions they leave behind can shape Australia for generations.

The Australian Commons is an attempt to contribute, in a small way, to that longer conversation.

Publication Principles

The Australian Commons operates according to the following principles.

Ideas before parties.
Arguments should be judged on their merits rather than on which political party, government or ideology happens to support them.
Facts before rhetoric.
Important factual claims should, wherever reasonably possible, be supported by reliable evidence. Primary sources, official statistics and original documents are preferred.
Argument should be distinguishable from fact.
Analysis, interpretation and opinion are legitimate parts of public discussion, but they should not be presented as established fact.
The strongest objection deserves an answer.
Serious arguments should engage with the strongest reasonable case against them rather than only the weakest version of an opposing position.
Institutions matter.
Public debate often concentrates on personalities. The Australian Commons will generally be more interested in the systems, incentives, structures and rules within which those personalities operate.
The future has a claim on the present.
Public policy should consider not only immediate benefits and costs, but the consequences our decisions may create for Australians who come after us.
Corrections should be made openly.
Where a significant factual error is identified, it should be corrected. The credibility of an argument is strengthened, rather than weakened, by acknowledging when something was wrong.

Editorial Voice

The Australian Commons should be serious without being academic, confident without being arrogant, and argumentative without being partisan.

Articles should generally be written for an intelligent reader who does not necessarily have specialist knowledge of economics, law or government. Technical language should be used when it adds precision, but explained when ordinary language will do the job just as well.

The publication should avoid outrage-driven language, partisan slogans and exaggerated claims. Governments should be criticised for decisions, policies and institutional arrangements rather than treated as morally defective simply because their policies are disputed.

Where an argument is uncertain, that uncertainty should be acknowledged. Where there is a legitimate counterargument, it should be presented fairly.

The Australian Commons does not need to pretend to be neutral about every idea. These are essays, and essays should make arguments. The distinction is that the argument should emerge from evidence and reasoning rather than political allegiance.

The preferred question is not:

Who should we blame?

It is:

Why does the system produce this result, and could we design it better?

The Australian Commons is written and edited by Jason Gay in a personal capacity. The views expressed are his own and do not represent any employer or organisation with which he is associated.