Hawaii’s House of Representatives is at a tipping point.

The toxic pay-to-play culture that puts helping friends and punishing enemies ahead of implementing good public policy must go.

The practice of individual legislators having the unilateral power to kill legislation, without a public hearing and without a public vote, must stop.

Voters in every district and on every island are aware, disgusted and no longer willing to look the other way.

House and Senate rules must be changed to require that passage or failure of legislative proposals be based on a public discussion, held during a public hearing, followed by a public vote.

What a concept.

Imagine if new laws could only be passed or killed after they have been reviewed and discussed in a public hearing process, and a public vote taken by the legislative committee members.

Imagine further that the public is actually allowed to testify in person at these hearings, that the public testimony is made available to the public when it’s submitted, and proposed changes to the legislation are disclosed publicly in writing prior to the vote.

Sounds like a basic democratic process that should be standard operating procedure. But it’s not. Not in Hawaii anyway.

Today state House and Senate rules allow certain individual legislators to kill legislation without a public hearing, and without a public vote.

Bills are sometimes substantially amended without prior notice or public discussion, and changed further in back rooms after the vote is taken.

Some committees prohibit in-person public testimony, and contrary to the state Constitution (Article III Section 12) meet in private for the purpose of making a decision.

In addition to reforming House and Senate rules, campaign spending reform must also be at the top of the agenda.

Allowing incumbent legislators to bankroll the campaign accounts of their friends under the duplicitous guise of “buying two tickets to a fundraiser” must cease.

Hawaii must follow the model of other states, cap the war chests, and prohibit candidates from using campaign funds for any purpose other than paying for their own legitimate and direct campaign expenses.

These reforms are not radical leftist pie-in-the-sky, overly complicated dreams.

Requiring candidates to spend money they raise during a campaign period only for campaign expenses directly related to the campaign during that campaign period is not some punitive draconian rocket-science proposal.

In addition, clean election laws provide a base level of public funds to credible candidates who agree to strict spending limits.

Arizona, Connecticut and Maine have already paved the way and offer qualified candidates basic public funding sufficient to run a successful campaign.

Clean election programs allow candidates to run for election without the need to seek big money donors, and remove a huge barrier to entry for new candidates.

The term-limit question should also be put before the voters: 12 years serving in the House or Senate is more than enough time to make a difference, and then to move on.

Yes. The message sent by the House-rocking vote on Aug. 10 — by Kim Coco Iwamoto’s win over House Speaker Scott Saiki — is unequivocal. The time for meaningful reform is now.

It’s up to the House majority to choose new leadership, and it’s up to us as voters to hold our district legislators accountable for the choices they make — and the speaker they choose.

Will they support a reform agenda and back a House speaker who shares that position? Or will they support business as usual and a speaker who seeks to preserve the system now in place?

I’m hopeful that a new House speaker backed by a new House majority will step forward to lead in an open and collaborative manner — and embrace the critical reforms needed.

We’ll know soon enough.

Gary Hooser, formerly a state senator and Kauai Council member, is executive director of the Pono Hawaii Initiative.