text:
Election 2016 is our chance to demand a better version of politics
We are now watching the politics we deserve, with all its empty chicanery and arrogant, dismissive guile. A little effort, a little commitment, and we might force it to be something better, writes Jonathan Green.
I wonder what it is we think we're voting for?
Not for much, on the evidence of Sunday night's debate, a series of cautious, anodyne platitudes with central policy positions that are broad gestural sweeps - lower company tax, boosted educational spending - defying any precise accounting of effect.
There is no evidence of a firmly held core of belief. No sense that either contender is driven by a coherent and enunciated vision of what the country might be, or become, other than some agreeable elaboration of the status quo.
The sum was to reduce what might have been a moment of national inspiration to some gauche pantomime of evasion.
Through this campaign there are ideas of course, but it's a disconnected litter of detail, much of it tagged special interest or particular constituencies, spending swayed either by electoral geography or the noisy expression of need.
Questions demanding sincerity or detail are met with empty phrases and the charade rolls on.
On Monday the most significant contribution to public discourse came from a pet rat.
By Tuesday came another story listing the routine excess of parliamentary allowances.
Yes, each MP living within 30km of the Parliament can claim $86 day for the simple act of getting to work.
It's better of course if you have a home base interstate. You still get to claim those $86 in expenses, but that's on top of a $270 daily allowance. Yep, the one many MPs claim while staying in homes rented from their spouses.
I know, I know, they work hard. Long hours, day by day in sitting-weeks wrenched from family and friends. But then, as Fairfax reports:
ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja, who lives about 17 kilometres from Parliament House has been paid about $10,200 between his election in 2013 and June 2015 to commute to his office there.
Labor's shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh clocked up more than $4300 before tax in daily allowances for travelling to APH from his home a few kilometres to the north between July 2013 and July 2015.
Does that strike you as fair? A reasonable outcome when the fundamental message of contemporary politics is caution, parsimony, concern and restraint?
How long will it be before the general sense of disappointed detachment so many feel for politics meshes with the nagging suspicion that we are also being taken for a ride?
How might that end? Disgust and disengagement, or more positively in a resolution that politics might serve us better. And what might we demand from these men and women who are, after all our servants, our employees.
Is it time that voters reasserted their control in the political process?
Somehow even this moment of national decision, this election, is framed as doing us a favour, letting us have a momentary say in the stuff and staff of government.
Well, no it's not. This is a moment of choice and delegation. We choose to second the administration of our commonwealth to the people we elect.
In return, might we possibly require both an honest public conversation based on open and sincere expression, and then, from these people when elected, a modest and dutiful period as our servants in our Parliament?
Our first step would be to take the matter seriously. To engage in the ideas of the public sphere, to propel them ourselves, to force seriousness and honest accountability on the people who seek to represent us.
We should weed out the shonks and chancers, perhaps even wrestle for grass root control of political parties to do it.
We are now watching the politics we deserve, with all its empty chicanery and arrogant, dismissive guile.
A little effort, a little commitment, and we might force it to be something better.
It's a system that thrives on our disengagement, and one that has schooled our expectations to a vanishing point of narrow self interest.
We need to make a connection between our broader suite of concerns - economy, ecology, defence, migration, schooling, health ... whatever they may be - and realise that politics, however momentarily degraded, is the process by which they will be addressed.
There must be a point at which we realise that empty dismissive anger will alter nothing, a point at which we will be reassured, in this suddenly connected and discursive world, that we are not alone, and that together we might force accountability and change.
There must be a point at which we realise that this politics is us.
Jonathan Green is presenter of RN Sunday Extra and editor of the literary journal Meanjin.
Topics: government-and-politics, federal-government, federal-election
Comments (176)
Comments for this story are closed.
31 May 2016 1:44:49pm
The party that wins will put victory down to it's cunning use of lies, slander and deception. They will continue the winning formula.
The party that loses will feel that they didn't do enough lies, slander and deception and will lift their game.
Nothing ever changes whilst there remains a polarised electorate who's politics is about as sophisticated as that of football hooligans.
My apologies to football hooligans
31 May 2016 2:24:31pm
Dove - "Nothing ever changes whilst there remains a polarised electorate who's politics is about as sophisticated as that of football hooligans."
Don't under estimate your fellow countryperson.
As the capacity of an individual to arrest the errant ways of politicians is limited, there is little value in trying to change things outside of an election.
That's where an ICAC, or an ombudsman could bring politicians to account?
It the polarization between the politicians, the lobbyists and those who have access in Canberra, and we the people that is of concern?
How can the disconnect be resolved?
31 May 2016 11:10:28pm
No donations AT ALL.
01 Jun 2016 7:57:38am
Or donations to the AEC with a note from the donor of which party it is intended for, but when handed over the donor is not revealed.
As for the 2 examples of allowances this should be on the headlines of the news media but strangely they are quiet.
If that was posted where everyone could see it then the people will ask questions.
The weed:
31 May 2016 2:38:53pm
Thank you Dove.
Abbott brought Australian politics to its all time low by using every nasty, destructive, self serving and immoral trick available to politicians; using influential media moguls, lies, slander and deception.
He and the LNP recon that all strategies that are effective in fooling our nation are a legitimate way to gain power.
31 May 2016 3:35:57pm
Abbott may well have done his bit for lowering the tone (no pun intended) but he's hardly been alone and it's hardly a Liberal vice. Every parliamentary term sees an incremental degrading of what we once thought was acceptable behaviour. Leaks, perks, rorts, politicisation of the apolitical, spying, every shenanigan from abusing the organs of state to the frolics of pre-selection. Each parliament sees an incremental lowering of standards and a pushing of the legal, ethical and political boundaries.
Both sides do it. Both sides seek to gain an advantage by any and every means short of being convicted of a crime. And the electorate lines up for either Pepsi or Coke every time without even wondering if there is another flavour
31 May 2016 10:42:19pm
That is right."Both sides do it"; so how about the remaining sides, I thought. But if we give the "other sides" a chance , they will become the
"both sides" and the dilemma resumes. Human nature!We are so primitive.
black belt:
01 Jun 2016 12:29:18am
Whilst I agree with your earlier statement.
I dont agree here.
There is no 'other flavour'. Not when politics is simply a cash cow...
Of higher pay rates way above inflation, above others' wages and conditions growths. Higher top pay pensions and ease of access to one, above all other pensions (length of time served shorter - double dipping by working elsewhere yet still getting a taxpayer funded 'pension' on top of it). Higher perks of, food, lodging, and travel costs than any other job in the land.
It all adds up to a whopping total of greedy little 'politician type' piggies all getting up into that big snouty trough...
And they will ALL continue to do this until the electorate finally stops them.
My suggestion is being a donkey vote nation. Just once. No vote - then no payment from AEC per vote either.
Oh? Did they not tell you that they ALSO get paid 'per vote' (above a certain amount of votes - to go back into their own campaigning coffers for the next round of narcissism) 2 or 3 dollars per vote that they get...
Probably not. They probably 'forgot' to tell you that bit.
Indi, major party, minor party, they all get that dosh for it per vote.
.....Until they get their own 'pay' and 'conditions' at least vaguely back into line with the normal rest of us, then it will all just continue to be a plush rort on the rest of us, by EACH and EVERY single one of them....
We, unfortunately for now, are but merely their cash cows....
The weed:
01 Jun 2016 12:12:24pm
Thanks Dove
I have to disagree with some of your impressive reply.
I don't think I'm a rusted on Labor supporter but I've never seen a valid reason to vote for the Liberal Party. Their stupid and discredited trickle down politics has never worked effectively and their reputation for being better economic managers are plain unwarranted.
We need a government that uses our best logic to look after all Australians.
The new world economic order has shown itself to be an ineffective and disappointing trap for all but a few people. When the new world economy falls we will still have our society and environment, albeit trashed by far right wing money worshiping extremists!
31 May 2016 2:56:03pm
Mr Green writes "...both an honest public conversation based on open and sincere expression..." and complains a bit about "allowances" and a lack of "...core beliefs..." - as if the bien pensants of the Left would ever allow them to have thoughts or beliefs that don't agree with theirs. A better article on the lack of conviction politicians can be found in the "evil" Murdoch press. We have the politicians we have because they're all too scared to stick their heads above the trenches. The Twitterati and cultural Marxists of the Left are all for free speech and honesty. As long as you honestly agree with them.
Out politicians aren't stupid - they're presenting a small target in the hope it gets them across the line while offending the fewest people. They don't believe in an 'us' let alone doing anything worthwhile.
01 Jun 2016 7:09:33am
Our politicians aren't stupid??? It would be hard to find any other place on earth to find the like. You're not going to get intellectuals as the country has always valued its administration more than them. The system itself is flawed as it is not based on outcomes but to protect no matter what lies or payoffs are needed to hide the truth. And then there is money, no country on earth loves it more and sees it as god just look at how our legal systems works. Nothing to do with right or wrong but who has the deepest pockets.
And then we have people, political Luddites who are normally A-political and vote based on short term personal benefits never looking at the future and then complain when they dug their own hole and played their children's future away.
Chris L:
01 Jun 2016 9:25:02am
It would seem the point of Mr Green's article went straight over your head Peter. There was no mention of one side being any better than the other, it was about voters retaking control and seeking answers other than the usual tribalism.
Then you contribute nothing but tribalism and your directionless hatred for everyone who doesn't agree with you (the bogeyman known as "the Left").
You perpetuate the problem.
the yank:
31 May 2016 2:57:04pm
Can Australians handle the truth? And more importantly would they know it if they saw it? All depends on where you are sitting I guess.
The key for me is to get politics to the middle and to dump the extremes.
I wonder what a Labor Xenophon coalition or a Liberal, I mean really Liberal, Xenophon coalition might look like after three years?
31 May 2016 3:53:21pm
yank - "Can Australians handle the truth?"
Do you mean the truth about how we are vulnerable should the economic winds blow down the doors to Parliament and expose the political elite as being only about their "jobs and growth" of their renumeration?
"I wonder what a Labor Xenophon coalition..... might look like after three years "
For that yank one needs a soothsayer. Xenophon is shaping to be a pivotal player in a anti-authoritan Senate. Perhaps there is a pipeline from pubs cash registers to poker machine lobbyists and on to other parties as fear of restrictions in respect of "one armed bandits"?
As a very focused pollie, his capacity for being present and simply conveying his messages is problematic for the majors?
Given indications of voting outcomes it is worth considering what complexion our politics will appear when reformed?
31 May 2016 10:37:30pm
"The key for me is to get politics to the middle and to dump the extremes."
In the past only men of privilege had a say in politics. The progression towards or regression from universal franchise is what we are referring to when we use the political labels left and right. Fairness for all is regarded as progressive, privilege for a few is regarded as regressive. Hence the further politics moves towards the left the fairer it is, and the further it moves to the right the more unfair it is.
Unfortunately this simple sense of political direction is too hard for most people to grasp. Consequently there is an absurd belief in the middle as being an ideal balance between extreme privilege and extreme fairness. Supporters of 'middle politics' are actually conservatives declaring, " this fair and no fairer".
01 Jun 2016 10:29:28am
"Hence the further politics moves towards the left the fairer it is, and the further it moves to the right the more unfair it is."
That only holds true as long as the Right holds a dominance over the political process. As soon as the Left reaches parity, that idea of supremacy of fairness of the Left will instantly evaporate. And if you keep going in that vein after reaching parity, the Left will in fact become the new political ogres.
31 May 2016 3:09:23pm
"The party that wins will put victory down to it's cunning use of lies, slander and deception."
I think that you are being overly pessimistic in assuming that the Tories will win. The chances of this happening appear to be diminishing rather than increasing and, if this trend continues, Labor will win with a respectable majority. If this occurs, the credit will rightly go to Shorten for adopting a strategy that we haven't seen used in Australian politics for at least forty years: basic politics.
I suppose that there are many people reading this who were not even born the last time a major Australian political party turned its back on spin and spent the time and effort required to develop and prosecute a comprehensive set of policies, without resorting to personality-based politics or being distracted by confected wedges. But this is precisely what Labor under Shorten has been doing, and it is clearly working.
Of course, if the Tories win, they will congratulate themselves pretty much as you suggest. But, if Shorten's strategy does bear fruit, it will not just the Labor Party that will owe him a debt of gratitude, because he will have succeeded in beginning the rehabilitation of our political debate and putting politics back into the hands of the people.
So the choice we have this time is even m ore important than usual. We are not just choosing a government, we are deciding what sort of political debate we have in the future. We can choose to vote Tory and endorse a continuation of negative, personality-based, "small target" politics, or we can choose to turn our backs on the past forty years of pointless point-scoring and get back to building a nation and to a political debate based on issues and the real needs and wants of the Australian politics.
As always in politics, the choice is ours.
31 May 2016 4:26:25pm
"the choice is ours"- No. It isn't. Two private political parties have taken a stranglehold over our political system. Their processes are deliberately opaque, their funding deliberately obscured. Through their continual control over parliament they are able to abuse every instrument of state to keep themselves in power. Any attempt to create a new political party is met with closed ranks: rare partisanship which reveals much of their real agenda. The electoral processes are created to ensure that all votes end up back in the hands of the majors. The deck is stacked. The odds favour the house. The playing field isn't level.
But I guess if you think that the current crop of Labor politicians represent some golden age of policy then you're on your own in la la land. If only you were on your own
31 May 2016 5:05:03pm
"Two private political parties"
There are a few "private" political parties in Australia, but none are ever likely to be in a position to form government. We are still haunted by the ghost of the PUP, and out of the ashes of the PUP, we have the Brick With Ears Party. And then we have the Look At Me I'm Nick Xenophon Party and the Mad Katter Tea Party.
But the major players are all open to new members and are not owned by anyone - although it should be noticed that John Howard effectively turned his party into a franchise of the NewsCorp group. If you want to join the Liberal Party, or the National Party, or the Labor Party or the Greens, all you have to do is meet the membership requirements, pay your dues, turn up to a few meetings each year, and Bob's your aunties live-in lover.
Now, of course, you will have to accept that, as an individual member, you will not have a lot of say in decisions made by the party. You will have as much say as most other members, but this, in itself, means that the level of influence that you own individual vote carries is minimal. This is the nature of collective decision-making.
So, if you really want to make a difference, you have to start focusing on a few things that are really important to you and concentrate on building a support base within the party for this to be reflected in party policy. Sometimes this will require you to support other things that are not so important to you, or are even sometimes contrary to your own agenda, in order for you to achieve the required level of support for what you want to achieve.
All of this takes time, and most of those who do become involved in party politics never achieve much of what they would have liked to achieve. But it doesn't make the major parties "private". In fact, they are all very keen to recruit new members.
01 Jun 2016 8:45:38am
You are right in that we need a greater level of activism, and fight the battles that we are individually passionate about. The trouble is, that for every personally legitimate battle there is a raft of lunatic policies that needed to be traded off against that passion.
For example, if I am a small business owner, I might reasonably believe that Sunday penalty rates for workers should be aligned to Saturday rates. However, I'm then obliged to give a public face to not supporting same sex marriage or voluntary euthanasia or denying the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
Then we get to a substantial portion of the electorate that seems to have no comprehension of the voting system. It still astounds me that many people believe that whoever you cast a primary vote for (in the House of Representatives) then gets to distribute your vote as they please. Do they think that those extra numbers are just for decoration?
The fact is that the two major parties trade on ignorance - and while we remain ignorant we will remain powerless.
01 Jun 2016 12:41:56pm
"The fact is that the two major parties trade on ignorance"
I think that it is fair to say that the two major parties operate in a political environment in which many constituents are largely ignorant of the fundamentals of political organisation, let alone the specifics of the Australian electoral system. But I think that you are drawing a rather long bow in suggesting that this is the result of a deliberate strategy employed by either major party. I think that the responsibility for the general level of ignorance of political processes in the population is more widespread and cannot be limited to the major political parties.
Much of the "dumbing down" of the electorate has been achieved by the efforts of foreign-owned media corporations, whose interests in industries including fossil fuels, tobacco, mining, educational service provision, private health services and shipping provide them with a strong vested interest in weakening national governments and eroding democratic freedoms.
This is not a new phenomenon. The ANZAC myth that Howard worked so hard to revive, was the creation of a media baron by the name of Keith Murdoch, in cahoots with a right-wing manic politician by the name of Billy Hughes. And Howard's "history wars" were all about replacing any sensible understanding and debate of our history as a nation with a sanitised national myth that glosses over and ignores inconvenient truths like the central role of organised labour in our development and defence, or the dreadful atrocities perpetrated against the traditional owners of the continent.
While the conservative side of politics definitely has a vested interest in a "dumbed down" electorate, they do not have to do much themselves. They can leave the dirty work to their friends and sponsors who control the news we hear on television and read in the papers.
31 May 2016 5:45:01pm
The thing that peeves me is that the entire party comes to power, not just the individuals who won the vote. The country ends up being governed by an unknown and unaccountable party bureaucracy doing god knows what with heaven knows who.
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 3:25:53pm
The question is Dove, why do they behave like that?
Virtually none of them started off like that. They started off with high ideals and good intentions. But the longer anybody spends in a system built on hierarchy and warfare, the more they find it hard to resist the influence of the system.
After a while, everybody gets sucked into it to some extent and as we now have a mature rep dem, we see it in all its glory - the desire to get to the top, the desire to win at all cost.
31 May 2016 4:00:30pm
DW, IMHO self promoting people are dreadful people. Politics self selects for the ego, the self and the accumulation of power and authority for its own sake. The very worst personality traits seek politics and the very worst of them do whatever trick they can to get pre-selection- often the nastiest and grubbiest of affairs.
These shifty pieces of work who now get to sit in a parliament then spend the majority of their time trying to worm their way to the top. There is no loyalty, no ideology. Only personal ambition. Those that make it to cabinet have been selectively bred and are comprised of the most egotistical, the most two faced, the most ambitious and the most corrupt.
This is generally true of any power structure. Politics, with its rewards is just the worst example. It's like one giant telesales conference with prizes for the worst behaviour and shonkiest sale. And they behave like that because its in their nature. Than can't do anything else
31 May 2016 4:50:31pm
"Virtually none of them started off like that. They started off with high ideals and good intentions"
Yes, as hard as it is for most of us to accept, politicians are just ordinary people like the rest of us, who have chosen to serve their community through politics. As you say, most of them enter politics for all the right reasons. But you can't get far in politics without accepting that it is no place for purists. You learn pretty quickly that you can't win every argument and that, even when you do, victory is never complete and often Pyrrhic in nature. And you also learn pretty quickly that you are not going to get anywhere by telling the voting public that they are wrong.
Politicians work within a party and a parliament, and this means that they have to fit their own principles and ideology into the overall culture of the party and parliament. This does not mean that they have to abandon their principles, simply that they have to wait for the right opportunities to promote the agenda dictated by their principles.
The problem is that we don't see much of this. All we see is what we allowed to see by the media barons, and the most powerful of these is located on the other side of the world and has no interest or regard for the future of Australia or its people. And it is in the interests of the media barons to promote a general distrust of politics among the voting public and to keep as much distance between the people and their elected representatives as possible.
All you have to do is to read the large number of ill-informed posts here, in which everything is blamed on the supposed personal failings of politicians, to realise just how effective the efforts of the media barons have been in almost completely aliening us from our elected representatives, and them from us.
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 5:25:50pm
v, I agree with much of that but not all.
In particular, while some of the media barons do their best to put us into conflict with our pollies, for obvious reasons of $, that is far from the whole story.
It has been noted with every example of rep dem that over time, a psychological distance grows between the reps and the represented. Even in countries where people fought and died to get rep dem, it doesn't take long for the gap to be perceived.
They are ordinary people but we elect them to a different status and we hand over to them, responsibility for the coordination and control of our lives. I know we have all sort of mythologies about our role and letting govt govern etc, but the fact remains that for a species such as ourselves, it is not satisfactory to hand over much of the direction of your affairs to somebody else. We are happy to share that responsibility but govts do not share.
That psychological distance has become much more marked here over the recent past, again for good reason, but we are now at the point I think where we should be considering a more mature and participative form of govt, one that better fits with today's culture and our purposeful nature.
31 May 2016 7:09:42pm
Of course nothing will ever change Dove. Not while we have a MSM focused on sound bites and a brainwashed electorate.
We have both parties arguing on a budget based on assumptions which I suspect the electorate is ignorant enough to think those assumptions are a done deal .
An aware and informed electorate would be demanding that the politicians qualify their policies and promised that all are subject to those assumptions being half right , which they never are and what is plan B.
I want to know if Turnbull would still give a $50B tax cut abs still build $50B subs if the assumed growth does not happen. Would Dhorten still increase spending on health and education?
31 May 2016 1:53:10pm
A very accurate description of what I believe is general discontent within the voting public, particularly about the parliamentary expense rorts and all of the other bells and whistles that go with them.
The question is, how do we as the public change that? It doesn't matter which party we do or don't vote in, none of them will change laws to exclude them from the perks.
31 May 2016 2:34:18pm
FYI Xenophon is petitioning for politicians only to be allowed economy class airfares. He is currently set to get 22% of the primary vote in SA for obvious reasons. There are more than 2 parties. There are the Greens, the Nationals and various micro parties like NXT. If voters are unhappy, they have choices.
31 May 2016 2:34:58pm
Stevem - "The question is, how do we as the public change that?"
A valid question Stevem.
A representative democracy isn't littered with lobbyists and those who cause distortions with political contributions to parties.
Was it peoples juries that were discussed recently on Q&A?
How might they be able to consider issues and require politicians to argue as to why the people's will on a specific issue is to be disregarded?
Party politics is an ill that suppresses debate and adds to discontent.
Perhaps online voting by each electorate which permits voters to see how their representative has deviated from their positions might cause politicians to be more representative?
There are many ideas Stevem that are worth considering?
31 May 2016 3:48:07pm
Sailor and Kerrie, both very valid points, but unfortunately that isn't the reality of our political system, at least not at this stage.
This election WILL be won by one of the 2 major parties, not independants or any other party, including the somewhat paling into insignificance Greens.
My point still stands in my opinion. None of the parties that carry power will change anything that gets their snouts out of the very fruitful trough.
31 May 2016 5:04:22pm
Stevem, one way is to get in the face of your own MP. Find out who they are, find out where they will be, and strike up a conversation so they invite you to their office to talk further. Don't make a pain of yourself, but find out what they are doing about topcis that matter to you, and keep on checking up on them. Or, you could write to them, either old fashioned letters or emails, and seek the same info - what they are doing about things that matter to you. You could sign off such correspondance like a friend of mine did, with the wonderful flourish: "And you shall always remail, My faithful servant ..." At least they wouldn't be in any doubt about who serves who in your neck of the woods.
31 May 2016 2:43:34pm
Well I suggest that we start by voting for a hung parliament. We must end the duopoly by bringing new ideas to the table.
Major hazard:
31 May 2016 3:02:50pm
Nope I don't think a hung parliament will cut it but it would be an improvement some of labours policies are bad for the country and most of the coalition policies are truly terrible for almost everyone except millionaires
We need a new policital party it's now the 21st century things have changed or more to the fact things need to change and the policital parties we got simply cant hack it. Good grief they can't even tax a packpacker what hope do they have with taxing, for instance BHP? That's right None!
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 3:43:54pm
Major, any new party will probably look like any other party over time.
The system encourages them to win at all cost and push the party line. These dynamics crowd out the original purpose which was to do the best for the country and its people.
What we need are unaligned people who have no loyalty to anything but the country. With a non-adversarial system we would have people discussing which solutions really were the best for the nation without the distractions of party and competition.
01 Jun 2016 10:15:11am
Yes indeed, DW, a modern country should be run on modern principles and be truly representative of the people. Shoring up a dodgy property market by giving tax breaks to big banks et al is a recipe for economic and social disaster. We need to be planning into the future for sustainability in all things, - education, agriculture, business and social security. I have often called for a job application type selection process for our representatives and I believe it is sorely needed.
01 Jun 2016 10:53:01am
"We need to be planning into the future for sustainability in all things, - education, agriculture, business and social security."
I agree with that - our system needs to be redesigned with circularity in mind, in which is embedded the concept of a limit.
Sydney Bob:
31 May 2016 2:48:44pm
It is a shame that there is this level of disconnection with the voting public, because there is a very big issue at the heart of this election.
The LNP party want to cut taxes and remove itself from providing services; this is supply side economics (Reaganomics). The labor party wants to increase spending on Health and Education by maintaining taxation.
Australia could look very different in 10 years times depending on who wins this election.
31 May 2016 3:38:31pm
I will vote for health and education any day for without both our country will truly go backwards.
The "user pays" system is not working in USA either, everything is extraordinarily expensive and when people have to buy their health drugs from another country, then something is horribly wrong.
The way to change politicians is to write to them.........a lot........often......and then they just might get the message that we are sick of them being "elite".
Cut out all the money for getting to work and use a car you own. Forget about claiming for living in your spouses unit (which is paying it off most likely), fly economy (and save the country money) and get rid of "fact finding missions" overseas (use teleconferencing instead). There's a few ideas to start with :)
31 May 2016 5:39:37pm
You are correct, send them emails regularly, you may not get an answer back all the time ,but some pollies reply , even if they just stretch their views . But if you take the time to complain someone in the office will get the message especially if it is the same one coming from multiple sources.
I am a great believer if everything is OK then the status quo will remain , you know the squeaky wheel will always get the oil.
We have too many voters who are apathetic and not prepared to push for change on their own behalf.
31 May 2016 6:41:55pm
"Australia could look very different in 10 years times depending on who wins this election"
If you mean Liberal or Labor then you couldn't be further from the truth. They are ostensibly the same beast now and particularly since they feed from the same troughs. The Greens have fully stepped into the social justice void left by Labor and have all but abandoned environmental principles.
If anyone is serious about positive change they should be looking at Sustainable Australia
31 May 2016 3:38:15pm
"The question is, how do we as the public change that?"
Good question. But it is one of those questions that has a very easy answer that is quite difficult to actually achieve. It sounds quite straightforward and it is quite straightforward, but it requires an awful lot of people to do this very straightforward thing at roughly the same time.
What we need to do as individuals is to remember that we are not mere customers of the political process, or even just its owners and proprietors. We are its creators. We don't just own it, we create it through the ways in which we relate to each other and the way in which we react to what we are told in the news.
Representative democracy does not remain representative for long if we see our part in it as being limited to turning up to a polling place once every three years. It does not work if our first thought about any problem begins with "They should...". It can only work when our first thoughts begin with "We will....".
If you honestly believe that anything you can do at the ballot box on July 2 will do anything to change the nature of Australian politics, you are kidding yourself. The only way in which we can lift the quality of politics and make it truly representative is to get involved and stay involved. Join a party and work to make it better. Get involved in your local residents action group, school P&C, environment group or whatever takes your fancy. Turn up to council meetings and make a nuisance of yourself.
Parliament is not an autopilot and democracy has no "set and forget" switch. If we want better politics, it is up to us to make politics better.
01 Jun 2016 9:28:48am
In my country area people are starting to discuss politics far more openly than in the past - and are looking outside the major parties. There was a group discussion among older people in a medical waiting room in one case. It will be interesting to see if they carry out their intentions. This would certainly weaken the Coalition vote.
31 May 2016 3:58:19pm
I thought Jonathon started well and ended just barely, and that the bit in the middle was a hobbyhorse in the wrong place.
You picked up on the hobbyhorse.
I think we need to pick up on the much bigger points.
Son of Zaky:
31 May 2016 2:00:56pm
"There must be a point at which we realise that empty dismissive anger will alter nothing..."
I passed that point long ago when I discovered the beneficial properties of empty dismissive humour.
And as far as the thrust of the article goes (Lots of "we must" stuff yet again I see), I'll kick the ball into play by suggesting Jonathan Green and his pals at the ABC take the lead with this one by (a) giving up wasting his/their time writing unlistened-to opinion pieces in the same old format on the same old platform, (b) took it upon himself/themselves to use the exposure granted to them by their very job to start seriously chasing the answers to these questions rather than just engaging in pointless hand-wringing, and (c) accept that the present way of covering election campaigns is a charade and a circus and started showing some intelligence and initiative in how they do their work.
Mr Green, people in the media who hide behind the plaintive "we" (used almost 20 times in this article alone) as a way of diverting attention from their failings fool only those who want to be fooled. Lift your game son.
In case you've missed the occasional polling that crops up about these things, you belong to a profession deemed just as useless as the people you're here ranting about.
31 May 2016 2:35:19pm
Spot on.
31 May 2016 3:12:53pm
Great post. Problem is SoZ that so many people are all so fearful and compartmentalised, or so un-involved and disenfranchised, that we (the public) need a total rethink of strategy. The 'b*tch and moan' strategy currently employed hasn't done very much so far.
While many 'opt out' of social discussion, development and planning, other interests are taking to their vision of society and making it happen - hence the increase in security cameras, monitoring of online activity, increases in taxes, fines, penalties, cost of living, cost of learning in times of stagnant wage growth, increasing wealth division, capsicum spraying benign protests, failure of trickle-down economic imperatives, wealth offshoring for tax evasion... The orwellian police state is being built around us under the guise of a mandatory security requirement, but if the time comes where the public needs to take real action, watch that security turn against us.
31 May 2016 4:09:54pm
What SoZ says, I second.
EricH :
31 May 2016 4:29:42pm
All very well Son of Zaky, but the minute ABC staff start writing thoughtful analyses, the accusations of "left-wing bias" start crashing around their heads.
That's why the ABC has always (and I'm going back to my earliest ABC days in the 60s when we commissioned independent analysts to present commentary on the news of the day.
Besides there's the old axiom to consider: the journalist's job is to ask the questions, not provide the answer. I'll willingly concede that there are few today who know how to ask the right question, structured in such a way that the "talent" has little option but to actually provide a relevant answer. Therein lies the real problem with our modern "celebrities".
31 May 2016 6:54:41pm
Sorry, part of my second para got lost in the ether. Here's what it should have read:
"That's why the ABC has always ruled (and I'm going back to my earliest ABC days in the 60s when we commissioned independent analysts to present commentary on the news of the day)that we should separate news from comment. Unfortunately these lines have become blurred in all forms of journalism and the ABC has felt it necessary to join the mob. I am still unsure about the wisdom of the move, but Aunty is unlikely to revert to the old ways."
31 May 2016 4:45:17pm
'There will be no Revolution whilst there are sofas in Australia'.
Jean De Fishensea:
31 May 2016 2:01:06pm
If you wish to be a prudent crook, even a petty one, you get into politics, police, military, law, finance, etc, areas of likely safe gain, networking, insiderisms, fraternities, clubs, brotherhoods, milking systems, etc. Many are in it for the game, the gain, the glory, the satisfaction of getting there, being a someone, get even positions, for vanity. Will it ever change and can it be? In Australia, not likely. No.
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 2:41:53pm
It can't be Jean with the current political system. Nothing will change until the system does.
It was conceived and built at a time when much less was known about the dynamics of an adversarial system over time. We now know that such hierarchical and adversarial systems inevitably produce competition where the fight becomes the thing. The original purpose is lost in the midst of the never ending and all consuming battle to win.
Selecting our reps by pulling them out of a hat is the only totally reliable alternative. Electing a lot of independents is the next best.
R Supwood:
31 May 2016 3:40:21pm
You are on the right track. I've theorised for years about representation only from jury type lists, drawn randomly, one year only, no consecutive terms, local groups of fifty, after one month electing fifteen based on qualities revealed and perceived, etc with a rotating non voting chair each for one week, . Just local based, casually drawn, take it or leave it honest people's representation, as a DUTY, and paid as befits a one off conscription, with lobbying forbidden but public and private professionals available and remunerated for advice, drafting, consultation, etc. There, democrats.
31 May 2016 6:18:27pm
I agree 100%. Our current political woes are caused by faceless donors to political parties manipulating government policy to their own advantage at the expense of the majority. To make one person richer other people must be made poorer. Replacing professional politicians with ordinary citizens recruited for a limited period of time is the way to go. This would break the current corrupt model.
31 May 2016 3:45:46pm
Desert Woman.
It is strange that you object to the adversarial system on the grounds it is divisive, but think a system with two hundred individuals arguing their respective cases would somehow be an improvement.
No credible nation has used sortition for centuries. And if people are currently unhappy with their chosen representation in Parliament, why do you think they'd be any happier with random ones they never got to elect in the first place?
As for the random parliamentarians, what's to stop them forming voting blocs with others who share their views? That's how political parties came to exist in the first place. Or would you outlaw them from associating with each other?
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 4:11:24pm
Zing, this subject has been explored in depth as you may have noted from some of my comments before. You always seem to respond but not in the sense of ever having learnt anything.
instead of having set individual speeches which often bear no relation to each other, the reps work in groups to arrive at the best answer to the problem or solution. Because there are no party affiliations, people are free to engage in task oriented work without distraction. That has been going on as long as history.
Yes coalitions may form but they will be shifting coalitions depending on the issue. No one but perhaps the anencephalic ever follows a 'party line' or fits well into a box called left, right or XYZ.
31 May 2016 6:08:38pm
"Because there are no party affiliations"
Let's assume they form parties anyway. What happens next? And once you answer that tiny question, we can move on to the other ones.
31 May 2016 11:54:08pm
so what if they join a gang, humans do, we feel the need to be part of the herd.
but we will soon go over there with those guys when their herds ideals are closer aligned to ours.
and anyway, they are only going to be there for a very short time, and then they get culled out of that herd so who cares?
I think I think :
01 Jun 2016 1:37:43am
Zing, you obviously do not understand the part that political parties play in an adversarial system. Two hundred random people negotiating their individual viewpoint is not adversarial. Having only a choice between two parties that only define themselves as not Labor or not Liberal is.
Randomly selected individuals would form voting blocks. But they would only persist until the next lot of representatives were brought in. Unlike the two voting blocks that have lasted for over seventy years, that have shored up their own power and undermined our democracy in the process. What sort of person wouldn't prefer dw's suggestion?
You are a big fan of suggesting that we get to vote on government surveillance on its citizens, the removal of their democratic freedoms and illegal wars, even though we don't. So it is clear why you bat for the status quo.
01 Jun 2016 11:46:44am
"Two hundred random people negotiating their individual viewpoint is not adversarial."
You're joking, right?
"Randomly selected individuals would form voting blocks. But they would only persist until the next lot of representatives were brought in."
What makes you think they wouldn't bring party affiliations with them? Or that these parties wouldn't simply operate behind the scenes? The problem is that you're assuming the representatives will be some kind of mythically unaffiliated person.
Your system won't remove parties from our system. It will just mean that parties get a random level of power every term, as they roll the dice and see how many of their loyalists get randomly selected to Parliament.
"So it is clear why you bat for the status quo."
I bat for the status quo, because it's western democracy. Whatever you're batting for, it clearly isn't. Which means you won't find many people interested in it.
dr dig:
31 May 2016 5:46:00pm
DW, where is your evidence that conscripting people to decide on nationally relevant policy and legislation is in any way (let only infallibly) a reliable alternative?
I don't want my illiterate unemployed neighbor deciding our health or defence policies thank you very much.
Random conscription also means you are just as likely to get an entire group of morons as you are any other combination of people as well. How do you protect against that?
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 6:07:49pm
Protect against it Dig? Against getting a heap of morons? Well how did we get the present lot?
Seriously, in a well educated country like ours where so many people display extraordinary talents and creativity, we are wasting huge amounts of human capital by restricting our choices for reps to those who are sufficiently egocentric to think they are a cut above the rest.
The last Senate showed just how well our ordinary people brush up when given the responsibility. They were a credit to us and serve as an example.
dr dig:
31 May 2016 9:13:49pm
DW, that is a fair point. I am genuinely interested though if there is evidence of such a system actually working. I have heard proponents pushing the idea but know little about it. On first blush it seems even more unwieldy than the system we have now and would seem to require the same level of oversight and choices as to who advises the groups. Hence there would need to be a hierarchy still in place with people in charge of the system and choosing advisors. Wouldn't there?
31 May 2016 7:22:00pm
The effectiveness of random selection depends on your priorities, Mister Dig.
Is your priority to have effective government? Then random selection is the last thing you'd want.
Is your priority is to gridlock the parliament so new legislation never gets made? Then you might want random selection. But that assumes they endlessly squabble with each other.
Is your priority to send the country into chaos, so anarchists can exploit it to overthrow the current political system? Then random selection of Parliament would be exactly what you'd want. Not because it would work, but because it would fail spectacularly.
dr dig:
31 May 2016 9:16:43pm
I admit zing, my critical disposition is as you suggest and suspects this would be close to anarchy and it is difficult to imagine a country being willing to adopt it.
01 Jun 2016 12:07:23pm
My conclusion is that only three kinds of people would support sortition.
1) The kind of people who reject western democracy. They want to tear down the system, so they're proposing a deliberately bad form of Parliament hoping it will fail spectacularly. Then they'd exploit the anarchy which follows.
2) Vocal minorities. Their way of thinking would be "I'm always outvoted by the majority. If I can't get my way, nobody should be allowed to vote at all".
3) Soapbox prophets. They know sortition will never get implemented. So that leaves them free to lecture and complain - without the fear of someone actually doing what they say and proving them wrong.
I think I think :
01 Jun 2016 1:42:40am
You already have some pretty stupid people in politics, dr dig. A random sample of people would be more representative of Australian values than the crop of pop stars and power elites we have at our disposal now. What you mean is, you couldn't bear the chance that the unwashed might have an equal say in this country's future.
31 May 2016 8:36:08pm
Even if you could come up with a system that has no major problems or flaws, Desert Woman (based on your past writings I foresee no danger of that), how do you suggest the Australian voters be convinced to vote in the required constitutional amendment that would turn it from your personal thought bubble into an actual, functioning, legal system? You are, of course, free to have your thought bubble, but you are not free to impose it on the Australian people against their will. If you have no plan to convince the public to support it then what is the point? No shortage of other people have also come up with "perfect", utopian plans for political systems and what good have we gained from the vast majority of them? The answer is none at all.
The weed:
31 May 2016 2:51:24pm
Hi Jean
I agree, it seems our leaders have their own agenda rather than doing what's best for Australia.
But I will put my money on a team interested in looking after the good of all Australians, including the rights of workers, rather than a bunch of self serving fools who feel they owe more to their sponsors than they do to the Australian population.
R Supwood:
31 May 2016 3:41:06pm
Social democracy, yes, put people before excess profiteering.
31 May 2016 3:53:11pm
You must have missed the fair work decision regarding a dodgy deal between coles and the shoppies union, that left workers worse off.
Now who was that you are voting for again?
31 May 2016 3:21:24pm
I wouldn't be joining the Police or the Military to be a crook. These institutions have more oversight than all Parliaments.
A constable in SAPOL has 3 different and independent layers of oversight not including his own management.
These are the Police Complaints Authority, the Police Ombudsman and ICAC.
How many other occupations have this many independent levels of oversight on top of management??
This is on top of the management rank structure and the independent of everyone bar the Commissioner Ethical and Professional Standards Branch where the IIB investigators work. There is also SAPOL's Anti Corruption Branch as well. You do not get far being a criminal whilst working for SAPOL as it always gets out somehow. Last lot were found out by a joint operation between ICAC and Anti Corruption where they set up a sting operation to catch a team who was going off the rails.
We have had corruption found in our ranks, but never has it ever been endemic amongst the ranks as it is cleaned out before it spreads too far.
31 May 2016 2:02:39pm
"How might that end? Disgust and disengagement, or more positively in a resolution that politics might serve us better. And what might we demand from these men and women who are, after all our servants, our employees."
Interesting point. Optimism lends itself to politics serving us better, but one has to wonder how things were allowed to get to where they were:
- City housing unaffordable for average income-earners compared to previous generations
- Tertiary Education expenses now so great that youth commence their adult lives with a huge level of debt compared to previous generations
- Infrastructure projects (eg NBN) so short-sighted that there is no long-term objective anymore, and national pride in these sorts of projects non-existent (imagine thye built the Harbour Bridge with 2 lanes either way, as that was the capacity requirement of the time...hello underdone NBN)
- Cultural/racial divides at their worst, and constantly brought to light by a media machine obsessed with negativity, outrage and fear.
- Aging population with diminishing health service availability and funding
- Non-existent revenue base due to privitisation of public assets and services
The best thing we can hope for in our political system is to have a little more investment in the future, a little more thought and a little less slogan.
The media is the most unreliable it has ever been as a narrative on the state of society, their divisive reporting methods and outrage peddling keep people in a state of perpetual outrage, fear and disallusionment - because it is more profitable to operate this way.
They did show us Malcolm communicating with rat though. Malcolm seemed very comfortable in the presence of the rat.
31 May 2016 2:54:43pm
"The best thing we can hope for in our political system is to have a little more investment in the future, a little more thought and a little less slogan. "
Re slogans....who can forget Turnbull's promise an end to three-word slogans after he toppled Abbott, only to bombard us with "jobs and growth" on a daily basis since he visited Cosgrove.
Maybe he has realised that the average Aussie has a very short attention span.
31 May 2016 2:03:55pm
Politicians' perks are something to be watching and revisiting. On the other hand, let's not expect our politicians to work hard on difficult issues that will affect the lives of millions for peanuts. We don't want monkeys in Parliament, do we? But beyond this, I think that Jonathan is missing what's at stake here. The two major sides of politics have now differentiated their vision for this country well enough, for us to be able to distinguish each other quite clearly.
Liberal Party: Neoliberal economic philosophy with Conservative social policies.
Labor Party: Social Democratic Mixed-Economy with Progressive social policies.
Copy-and-paste for future reference.
31 May 2016 2:50:11pm
Whichever party wins the election will declare that they have a 'mandate' to implement every far-fetched notion that was never presented to the electorate. The electorate didn't vote for Rudd to get rid of the 'Pacific Solution', or to produce an NBN.
We can have plebiscites on same-sex marriage, but can't have the people's option taken into account on issues that will cost us (the taxpayers) billions?
31 May 2016 3:14:50pm
The program of the ALP couldn't be clearer... before the election. Governments are allowed to change their program only as a direct (and truthful) response to objectively changed circumstances. If there is a Global Recession in 2017, what do you expect the ALP Government to do: Ignore it and continue with the program as explained before the election, because doing otherwise would be "deceitful"?
In any event, as we have learned from the genuinely deceitful 2014 Abbott's Budget (the Budget from Hell), the Senate will be there to stop any attempt at taking the People of Australia for a ride.... I am happy and relaxed thinking that the future Shorten Government may not to have full control of the Senate.
31 May 2016 3:30:28pm
Rudd did campaign on getting rid of the Pacific Solution in 2007.
Both the Liberals and ALP had policies on extending broadband coverage in the same election but the ALP changed theirs once they got in due the companies involved in the RFP for their original version of the NBN were unable to meet the tender requirements nor raise capital due to the GFC. In April 2009, Rudd announced that they were going to bypass Telstra completely and build the FTTP network now known as the NBN.
So the ALP did change their policy mid term and started rolling it out in June 2010 before the election but most of the legislation and work done has been post election 2010 onwards where the public did vote on it.
31 May 2016 3:30:02pm
I don't expect MPs to work for "peanuts". But given the overall contribution many of them make to the community, when all their allowances, free vehicles,travel and other "entitlements" (a number of which are tax-free) are added, up they do quite well.
Then of course, there is the old corollary to the " monkeys and peanuts" comment, namely: "If you give the monkeys more peanuts, all you get is fatter monkeys".
31 May 2016 2:04:35pm
I have no problem with politicians claiming living away from hom eallowances if they stay in a motel or similar when in Canberra but the claims for staying in a dwelling owned by a spouse or a trust that they have interests in is taking it too far . As for travelling , I dont get paid to travel from home to the office every day , nor can I claim my parking or bus fairs etc . If they live in Canberra they should not be able to claim travel to APH .It is snouts in the trough , no toehr way to put it , and all sides of politics are doing it , throw in their usually well in excess of CPI apy rises and you can understand why people see them as double or triple dipping when in parliament . Time to put a stop to the perks , if they are truly in it for other than personal gain they should not be too concerned about losing perks that are well above those available to the average person
31 May 2016 3:00:55pm
" Time to put a stop to the perks "
I remember this same discussion was aired during Howard's years in office and the usual reply was that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
Sad to say even if you pay extremely well you still tend to get monkeys.
And there was Hockey lecturing us on "leaners and lifters"
If the welfare bill is becoming unaffordable start cutting were it is obscenely generous....pollies perks.
31 May 2016 4:08:14pm
Unfortunatley with all sides of politics dipping into the trough there is little hope that any of them will lead the way with abolishing these perks , it woudl make them very unpopular with their peers , to hell with the plebs , let them eat cake so to speak , of course it will be a very bland cake with little or no toppings or flavors or flour for that matter , too expensive with the 15% GST that Turnbull will bring in during the the next term if elected
31 May 2016 8:43:32pm
That, Marty, is why we, the voters, should elected different representatives. When "all sides of politics" have their snouts in the trough we need to get rid of "all sides" and come up with some new ones. Anyone who votes for Labor, the Liberals or the Greens are doing nothing more than voting for the trough to be re-filled at their own expense yet again.
31 May 2016 2:05:13pm
"Is it time that voters reasserted their control in the political process?"
Yes it is.
But how can the people cause their employees to do the right thing when they are answerable to the people for only a month in every three years?
An impeachment process based on a court being able to compel a politician to be accountable to the people might be worthy of consideration?
Avoid the politicians being able to short circuit any method, if necessary have a three strike standown for false rhetoric?
But surely a Federal ICAC body is overdue?
31 May 2016 10:31:58pm
Vote informal.
An intentional informal vote is a valid vote of dissatisfaction.
The political parties label all informal votes as being a wasted vote to deter voters from doing this.
A very large intentional informal vote would force them to radically reassess their tired, unimaginative, lowest common denominator driven platforms.
To shake the system up:
01 Jun 2016 10:57:12am
I agree with that - I voted informal in 2010 and I might just do it again this time. Just voting for one of the two parties is placing a weapon in their hands that they use against us. Whenever the big parties declare they have a mandate, worry.
31 May 2016 2:09:03pm
Maybe the only way we " mere mortals" can force change in our political process is by voting for good independents whereever we can at least they are more likely to listen to the needs of their constituents than the party machines
31 May 2016 2:44:59pm
Agree completely
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 2:45:49pm
Yes Maggie, voting for Indies would do us a lot better than sticking to big parties which breed career politicians.
Not only do they listen more carefully to their constituents, they are also more likely to consider the national interest rather than the party interest by definition.
31 May 2016 4:06:05pm
You're hot on the idea of a parliament comprised only of independents DW, but have you considered the likely reality of such a situation.
Imagine 226 politicians, each with their own agenda and priorities, none of whom have to answer to anyone but themselves once elected. I think the word is anarchy. How would anyone govern in those circumstances? Who would be the PM? Who would choose what portfolios were given to who?
At least career politicians have to adhere to their party's policies which are well known. An independent can change their stance like their underwear.
31 May 2016 5:12:53pm
rendo, a house full of indies could hardly be more chaotic than what we have now with the corrupted 2 party system.
The constitution mentions nothing of parties. At least electing indies will clean out the career polly and get thinking people to run the country, the banning of lobbyists and dontions would be a big help too.
No doubt Mr Turnbulls underwear will be very fresh if he changed his with along with his policies.
01 Jun 2016 10:25:24am
If you ban political parties and ban donations then the only people who will be able to run for Parliament are the semi-retired, independently wealthy.
It's all very well to say "the system would be so much better if..." and then fail to take into account how people actually get elected.
Depending on which state/territory you live in, the number of people who live in a electorate is between 40,000 to 100,000. The geographic size on an electorate can range from a few suburbs to 2/3rds of WA.
How on earth are people going to find out who they're voting for? Most people do not have the time or the resources to buy advertising in local papers, or local radio stations or local tv stations. It's all very well to say "well, door knock or telephone or hold town hall meetings..." and unless you've got an army of volunteers you're still only going to reach a small portion of your electorate. Less so if your electorate is the size of a small European country.
If people want to see the small scale democracy in action, I suggest they run as an independent for their local council. See how they go with resources, see how many people they can actually interact with (and a sponsored facebook post doesn't count) and then multiply it on a factor of 10; or more if you're thinking about a Senate spot.
See, that's the problem with democracy - you don't solve the problem of "for the people" unless you can ensure that "by the people" doesn't go by the wayside.
Desert Woman:
31 May 2016 6:48:23pm
rendo, iprawn is right when he writes about 'thinking people'. In the case of all or many Indies, policies would be decided by groups putting their heads together and working out what was best for the country.
That is actually what they all sign up for but because we have parties and members have to follow the party line, very little thinking is actually done.
As we have seen on every occasion when we have had a few significant Indie or a hung parliament, legislation gets a much more thoughtful examination and comes out in much superior form. The climate change legislation is an example - it was heralded as just about the best in the world. That is the power of human thought and negotiation. Don't knock it.
31 May 2016 2:10:53pm
Imagine this as an electoral platform:
I'd vote for them but I'd probably be the only one.
Selfishness and greed drive the majority of us. It will NEVER change until a decisive leader emerges from the pack and makes very hard unpopular decisions in the interests of the common good. A Margaret Thatcher 'iron lady' (or man) is what's needed to get us back on track.
31 May 2016 2:21:19pm
You probably would be indeed.
Many others would prefer well funded services than running some small austere Govt thats run as a business rather than for the people.
31 May 2016 3:05:09pm
That is fine until the government can no longer borrow funds at an acceptable interest rate to fund such services. Asks the Greeks what that looks like. Now we are not in that situation in Australia but the longer we put of the task of budget reform the nastier that process will be when it is forced upon us. Unfortunately neither side is doing much in this area - one focuses their attention in the spending side (OK but missing the revenue problem) whilst the other will deal with the revenue problem (OK) but will also spend the proceeds.
31 May 2016 8:14:29pm
Greeks have a culture of tax avoidance, and suffer from lack of revenue. totally different to Australia.
As for tax reform, do you know when the USA repaid its financial burden incurred from WWI? It was never.
31 May 2016 2:43:01pm
Dreadful pun there, Geoff. After the British Conservatives sold off their hitherto magnificent rail system everything did fall off the track including trains. The purchasers milked the railways for all they were worth with no spending on maintenance until the government had to buy it back.
It ought to be a lesson for every deluded government that tries to tell us privatisation will bring us great wealth (as long as we don't get sick or want to go anywhere).
31 May 2016 4:19:36pm
you will find that public management of services which are natural monopolies such as water, railways, energy networks are acceptable for many from the right. It is when a public service is in competition with the private sector like Medibank Private, Telstra, QANTAS and the Commonwealth Bank that the privatisation conversation should be had. People in Victoria, SA and WA have had major issues with governments having businesses in competition with the private sector and losing scarce taxpayers money, things like the State Banks of SA and Victoria costing taxpayers billions of dollars and the WA Inc scandals which cost the WA taxpayer nearly a billion.
There can be big issues with featherbedding public service departments with unnecessary staffing levels as well.
Many jobs are overclassified as well, there is an position in SA Health for what the job description describes as a storemans job but paid at AS03 rates which are $57k to $61 k when a storemans job in the private sector is $47k for basically the same job.
Forrest Gardener:
31 May 2016 2:16:10pm
Quote: There must be a point at which we realise that this politics is us.
Jonathan, I hope you are not including me in your "us".
In my submission those who inhabit their ABC and yet pretend that they are not part of the media will be first to answer questions come the revolution.
Seriously Jonathan, think about the impact that your organisation, their ABC, has on contemporary politics with its gotcha questions and endless barracking. You and the rest of their ABC are part of the problem. You will not be part of the solution.
31 May 2016 3:06:26pm
"You and the rest of their ABC are part of the problem. You will not be part of the solution."
The ABC is part of what problem?
God help us if the only way we can enlighten ourselves is with the Murdoch rags and commercial radio/TV.
Credlin and Bronnie are enough to make Fauxtel a dirty word.
Forrest Gardener:
31 May 2016 7:16:07pm
Clotho, the problem was clearly described in the article. Sorry you missed it.
Better Aunty? Why censor?
31 May 2016 3:07:11pm
I suspect your right FG. Mind you my view on that applies to the media as a whole - I get the feeling they are largely irrelevant when it comes to politics. That leaves reporting on sport and light entertainment (arguably one and the same).
31 May 2016 2:19:29pm
This article written by Jonathan Green is just another "very negative article" presented to Drum readers.
We all live in a country that has one of the highest standards of living in the world, so why can't people be even a little proud, of what Australia has achieved. Where are the positive stories?
If voters have "turned off" from the talk of the coming election, it is partly because of the pathetic press coverage we have, of the coming election.
31 May 2016 3:29:36pm
I'd go further Sayman. I reckon the media has a lot to do with the disengagement, and it's not entirely accidental.
The media, all the way from the amoral power hungry media barons and senior management down to the most junior starry-eyed cub reporter (do they still have these??) are all part of the problem. The top level players misuse their media influence for their perceived advantage. It suits them that the public become disengaged by the trivialisation, better to enable the barons to exert their influence over the political class without being noticed.
The rest of the pack are for the most part, vapid mischief-makers, judging their success by their "gotchas", revelling in their perceived proximity to power and affecting a phony air of cynicism and superiority. They actually pretend to be "bored" by the campaign, and "long for" a serious debate about something they call "policy" and demand "serious, unrehearsed" political debate. But when a politician or party comes along that actually attempts to do a bit of that, just watch them demolish them with ridicule, selective quoting or just ignore.
I happen to think that in this election, Labor and Shorten are trying to be a bit courageous and actually cobble together a real plan with real policies, generally consistent with their party ethos. You'd never know it looking at the mainstream media (and that includes the increasingly pusillanimous ABC).
Yes Jonathon, you and your ilk are definitely a part of the problem, not the solution.
31 May 2016 4:10:22pm
Still waiting for one of the leaders to do a Hewson and end up waffling along digging themselves deeper and deeper , guess who I think that will be ? Hint it is in the waffling :)
31 May 2016 4:16:18pm
I agree with all that, but they are only doing what they know will sell papers. It's 'we the people's' fault. If we didn't consume it, they woudn't produce it.
I saw a show about Jack the Ripper a while ago. One paper started publishing lurid details, gossip about the cases, garphic illustrations, ec. It's sales quickly outstripped more worthy publications that just stuck to the simple facts. So this is not new. People like gossip and scandal and sex and simple goodies and baddies. That's what sells.
And I agree wih the first post. The vast majority of Australians have it far better then billions of others, but it's all whinge, whinge, whinge we hear.
31 May 2016 7:00:49pm
So, Sayman, you are arrogantly asserting that Australians (apart from you) can't think for themselves and everything they read, hear or watch determines their viewpoint.
Stone Motherless Last:
31 May 2016 2:20:36pm
Noble sentiments Jonathon, but I feel all is lost. I have been posting comments on these pages for several years arguing that the electorate is part of the problem. Despite some acid replies of denial, I stand by my conviction.
The electorate is lazy, with at least 70% voting for the major party of their choice, regardless of policies. You only have to read the inane rants by the party faithful in the Drum to see how shallow is the electorate's intelligence.
If you want to shake up the cosy party duopoly, you need to cast your primary vote elsewhere.
31 May 2016 3:10:30pm
" You only have to read the inane rants by the party faithful in the Drum to see how shallow is the electorate's intelligence."
I go by the viewing habits of the 'average' Australian to form the same opinion.
Mind you " intelligence" is not the word I use in conjunction with the electorate.
Mark D.:
31 May 2016 2:24:15pm
Listening to animal behaviourists - I garner a lot about politics. There are so many similarities - which is hardly surprising as we have evolved with this skill from our same evolutionary ancestors.
You cannot stop politics. It is part of our evolution. I also see that it must be useful to us.
But sometimes I look and wonder "would we do better if we did not have the political aspect to our lives?"
This is a time where the choice is tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.
It is hardly an awe inspiring example of the supposed superiority of our species.
31 May 2016 4:22:44pm
Had similar thoughts Mark D, politics is part of our evolution.
Somewhere along the line, organizing village life got too complicated.
So the peasants settled on the idea of getting others to represent them in running the collective.
The way it turned out looks like a mistake today but, in evolution, there are no mistakes.
At one level, the process of becoming political was really the process of becoming irresponsible.
Only the individuals can regain responsibility, it can never be conferred by the collective.
The first responsibility? Be grateful for this which is. There's a start.
31 May 2016 2:25:12pm
It seems to me that it's time we implemented a formal "None of the above" voting option (not an informal vote) like they have in some Canadian provinces.
It enables Canadians to make a proper assessment of the candidates abilities or suitability for government and make their feelings known.
It would avoid the "least worse" decision that we so often have to make.
Major hazard:
31 May 2016 2:38:43pm
No need to be so severe David. Just take out preferences one person one vote.
31 May 2016 2:40:04pm
A good idea
Also the American Primary system( although a mess at the moment) could give us the leaders we want, rather than given no choice
Mossman Mal:
31 May 2016 2:30:52pm
I wish that voters in their droves would shun the two parties and all elect independents into the parliament we would see who was the best negotiater. I personally will be voting for neither of these parties in the senate and it depends on the offering on hand in my electorate for the lower house
Phil 1943:
31 May 2016 2:34:45pm
Sad, Jonathan, but very true. I don't know what we voters can do about it other than to vote for 'the other team' and hope it works out better. Or vote for an independent or a Green and somehow perhaps they'll be able to change the system. The system under which we are governed is at its very core corrupt and those we elect can manipulate it to their personal advantage without fear. Why do we get rulers and not leaders? Why are critically important issues such as health and education being sidelined to pay for submarines and other defense materiel we don't need now and are unlikely to ever need? Why has TAFE been cut back to a dying stem of its former self? Very depressed and not seeing a way out. This country's going down the tubes and is being flogged off to higher bidders overseas. Somehow we have to find ourselves again; identify as Australians, be proud and be governed accordingly. Turnbull, Baird and their ilk are selling us off, pocketing a share of the profits, and will live comfortably ever after. The rest of us, especially younger Australians, have every reason to be worried about their futures.
31 May 2016 2:36:05pm
It sounds like you should be in America, that's got politics on testosterone.
This is Australia, everything is subdued not too much excitement, not good for you but we get stable government which is probably more important than a lot of hype.
Mark O:
31 May 2016 2:39:37pm
It should be illegal for parliament to legislate any more changes to Superannuation whilst their scheme sits apart.
If they want to fly 1st or business class, they should pay for their upgrades.
No more "political class".
No more media advisers and spin doctors. No advisers under 40 years old. Get rid of the 24 hr news cycle - politicians should give one interview every week each. Journalists should ask them intelligent questions and stop seeking to create scoops, gotcha moments and headlines.
No more 1st amongst equals. Parliamentarians work for us. Special interest parties can bugger off as well. No wonder outsiders are getting the votes.
Bring on the independents in both houses.
01 Jun 2016 11:19:17am
"No advisers under 40 years old."
Interesting comment that I agree with 100%. Advisers under 40 can be guaranteed to be largely ideologically pure and experience free. That must result in a deterioration in the concept of the will of the people being properly rendered by their politicians.
31 May 2016 2:41:53pm
Maybe if a larger proportion of voters refused to participate, there'd be groundswell for real change.
As I see it: if you vote formally, regardless of who you vote for, you are tacitly supporting the current political system, complete with it's corruption, secrecy, maladministration and hidden agendas.
If you loosen the criteria and to formal voting for minor parties, the two-party preference system automatically means that regardless of who you vote for, it will end up in either the big red bin, or the big blue bin. Again, in tacit support of the current system.
And at the end of the day, the real agenda is going to be implemented whoever is elected.
Stop engaging with this circus. If your vote is worth so much, why are you giving it to people who doesn't deserve it?
Forrest Gardener:
31 May 2016 2:57:41pm
The closest thing to a voter boycott in recent memories was the somewhat successful campaign to write "no dams" on the ballot paper.
Unfortunately if all but one refused to vote, there would still be a winner. Not only that but they would boast that they had received 100% of the primary vote.
31 May 2016 2:45:01pm
"There must be a point at which we realise that this politics is us."
Another way of saying we get the Government we deserve?
Fair enough.
We have been dumbed down for years and now we suddenly should realise we have been sold a pup ?
I'm afraid the average Aussie has turned off.
The readers of our rural rag are more concerned about the issue if there is a god or not. Not much time left for politics I'm afraid.
And the Murdoch rags are too busy demonising asylum seekers and poking fun at Labor to do an in-depth analysis of any policies on offer.
Even the ABC is getting slack....how on earth did Tony Jones let Lambie get away with the 50 cents surcharge on a litre of milk?
Didn't he realise that the cost of every milk product would go sky high?
31 May 2016 3:07:13pm
"Didn't he realise that the cost of every milk product would go sky high?"
Well the cost of milk actually went down when Coles & Woolworths cut their prices in conjunction with cost cutting by the milk companies. Did the price of products made from milk drop then, no it didn't.
A 50 cent a litre is a good idea to help the dairy farmers, as Barnaby Joyce's scheme of low interest loans is useless & puts them further into debt.
31 May 2016 2:49:21pm
Complacency has reached new heights. I used to work next to the APH and I was not paid $86 to get there. On the contrary, workers are now charged $8.00 a day to park there in an attempt to fix the deficit. That is $2,000 a year or a pay cut $3,500.
There has been no strike action. Nothing, zero, nada. Weaklings!
31 May 2016 2:52:36pm
Not only do the major figures in this election fail to instill any sense of confidence, they do not even get to answer simply questions with a yes or no. They even dont put counter-arguments with facts (REAL facts) to any argument.
Bill Shorten was asked about redefining what size of turnover would qualify as small business. His answer was nothing short of political spin about protecting jobs when a simple "yes or no, because...." would have been a better answer which other could not reasonably argue against.
I would like to see if anyone would collate all the questions put the the politicians and see if ANY of the answer were put forward which an average person would see as being answered. I am likely to think that the percentage would be less than 5% (and even that is ambitious).
31 May 2016 2:57:08pm
There are two treads to this article - one I agree with, one I don't. The former is the entitlements issue. They aren't sustainable and don't wash with the electorate. And when the crunch comes (and it will) they will look even worse.
The latter is summed up by the author when he makes this comment:
"There is no evidence of a firmly held core of belief. "
I think that is totally incorrect. All of the major parties do have core beliefs that they stand by. The proposal to reduce company tax is a core belief of the Libs who are of the view that such a move will stimulate economic activity. The ALP has a core belief that a greater investment in education will produce this outcome. One can debate the merits of each (for another time/forum) but to argue that neither have core beliefs is erroneous. When I read comments like this from the author (and he does this time and time again) it smacks of a whinge that neither of the major parties are running arguments/policies that HE likes. frankly that sounds like the usual holier than thou argument that the author regularly runs (usually it is in respect to boat people policy). And you wonder why some think that certain ABC commentators are out of touch?
31 May 2016 3:08:42pm
Shorten is anti business which makes Turnbull anti children, old people oh and sick and poor ones as well. These are the folks paying for the Business tax cut.
Well done Malcolm and keep up the good work.
Sam Spade:
31 May 2016 3:10:02pm
I blame "the media" for much of which you complain. After all, it is the media that controls the discourse between politicians and people.
31 May 2016 4:28:36pm
That is true. Mainstream media are complicit in not exposing the weak lines of arguments and dodgy policies being offered by the major parties. But then look at who they do represent.
31 May 2016 3:14:12pm
One of the questions raised at the leaders debate on Sunday night was "can we trust you?". After the 2013 election where Abbott made all sorts of promises & then promptly dumped them all & gave us a draconian budget in 2014. Do I trust the Turnbull mob to be any different, no I don't.
The Coalition is still Abbott with a new mouthpiece & the policies are still the same. If they get the balance of power in both houses of parliament, watch out for a budget from hell again, probably disguised as a mini budget around Sept. or Oct..
31 May 2016 3:18:38pm
I don't watch TV, read newspapers or listen to commercial radio.
Who are these people you talk about - these politicians - never met one.
31 May 2016 3:32:13pm
No ICAC no vote.
I'll not be changing my mind.
That said, I'm off now to see how much hydrogen the excess home power has produced today.
the munz:
31 May 2016 3:57:33pm
We get the politicians the CPG support would be more accurate.
Proof, Mr Abbott performed as PM exactly the same way he had for the entire time before he became PM.
Crocodile tears now from the CPG without acknowledging their own failure is derisive.
The press constantly moans about lack of policy debate while hunting for a "gotcha" headline. What do you expect.
Do your job and stop blaming your audience.
31 May 2016 3:59:29pm
So what do we want instead? And how can we get organised to get it? There is real information on the Internet, so crooked media is not the problem ultimately. Are we too comfortable? Do we really care? I ask myself this question, and find myself guilty of apathy, but then if I could find enough other people interested in change I think that would change. I went to a globalisation rally, no one was there, but I was impressed with the level of analysis. Here was a group with a worked out agenda. There are others. When are more of us going to get behind them in Australia? Or if existing forms of people power are deemed inadequate, what are we all doing to bolster them, change them or to form new forms of collaboration. If we really allowed ourselves to see, really see the world we live in, we would run out into the streets and start demanding change now. Why isn't this happening? If we get together we can be buoyed up in a tide of fellowship, taken out of our isolation. Tell me I'm naive, but if you look at history, many great changes happened just because people got angry and went out of their houses and MADE change, they don't go home 'til they get it. It's not complicated. So not sure we really need much more than a healthy burst of total outrage at what is happening in the world. And a healthy dose of humanity for our fellows.
31 May 2016 4:08:54pm
Let the powerful off the hook.
Blame the less powerful. Moralise at them and don't give even a hint of how they are to change the awfull system under which they suffer.
This is plain awful.
Lehan Ramsay:
31 May 2016 4:16:48pm
Actually it's not that bad, if you remember the kinds of coaching that plagued Julia. They're not being forced to be half as artificial as that. Then, if you remember Kevin and his stiltedness, that was pretty painful, and we were never able to fully guage the depths to which Tony would plummet. To some extent they get to be themselves, it's just that themselves are pretty formulaic.
It's not exactly unexpected, they are politicians after all. What I would like to see is their advisors have their own debate, that would be pretty good.
Big M:
01 Jun 2016 4:41:59am
Yes, Lehan, Rudd and Abbott were like stiff, badly programmed automatons, striving to mimic humans, but, failing miserably.
The automaton programmers would be the ones to interview. They probably know what's going on, or at least what they had intended.
Alison Cann:
31 May 2016 4:28:27pm
We are voting to save the Great Barrier Reef.
If we vote to change Climate Change and change ourselves from polluting the oceans and the air then we are attempting to save ourselves and our way of life from extinction.
The air temperature and the ocean temperature is rising, and the rise will kill certain animal and bird species. The warmth and the heat is killing the Reef.
When we change from coal-fired power stations and find an alternate clean alternative we then have changed our mind from polluting our own nest to saving the planet.
31 May 2016 4:39:01pm
nothing will change until we educate people to read the front page before the back page
31 May 2016 4:46:32pm
The debate did not mean much to most viewers - I found it very staged but still there were important areas of difference.
Unfortunately life is not fair - nor is politics as we do not get what we expect from politicians.
Rather than let politicians run our life why not just ignore them and get on with living as best you can?
Lehan Ramsay:
31 May 2016 4:47:10pm
But how do we reassert our control in the political process?
I'd like to suggest that we chase them round and do outrageous things to them like call them out when they're artificial. I'd like to suggest we placard, a lot.
31 May 2016 4:53:44pm
Unfortunately, Jonathon, people who read these pages and contribute comments are not your average voter. I work with people who know nothing(and I MEAN nothing) about politics and whose only concern is whether they're going to lose their weekend penalty rates and whether their electricity prices are going up.
However after reading the story about Bill McKIbben in Saturday's Herald it made me think if enough of us get of our backsides and ACT we may be able to change things. EG Using civil disobedience to shut down the CSG industry. Meanwhile we can expect the vote for minor parties and independents to continue to rise.
BTW, I live a short walk from my place of work. I look forward to claiming my $86 a day allowance.
31 May 2016 4:55:54pm
Really Aussies are only interested in The Election. Not the actual governing.
This article typifies the whole sorry mess.Not one jot about how to increase our revenue to pay for everything. Just another bun-fight about minutia.
Lehan Ramsay:
31 May 2016 4:56:21pm
Then, I think we should shop around, find a bunch of people they went to school with. Get them to spill the beans on things like pet names, other silliness. Get that information circulating. It wouldn't be that hard to get the calibre of debate really dropping, and then we'd hit them with the same Leigh Sales questions but would probably get some different answers.
Lehan Ramsay:
31 May 2016 5:09:29pm
It's clear to me that now that there is 24 hour news, the media can't afford to treat them like buffoons. Then there are restrictions, internal ones, on how real politicians are allowed to be. That's the basic problem, there.
31 May 2016 5:33:58pm
The civil servants must be running the country. Everybody else is in permanent election mode, with these short 3 year terms.
31 May 2016 5:28:01pm
I don't think for one moment that we get the politics we deserve.
The LNP (and to a lesser extent, Labor) has carefully gone along with the narrowing focus that the media has created.
And this focus narrowed because media ownership is held tightly by moguls with political preferences, mainly to protect their own economic and political domination.
Increasingly coverage of politics has shrunk as a proportion of 'news'.
This has lead to an increasing focus on 'sport, food, entertainment', whether it is in newspapers, or on the television.
And the LNP has also conducted a careful campaign to 'tame' the national broadcaster, the ABC, by its selection of people to be on the board, and by limiting how ministers are prepared to answer questions.
Nowadays ministers are so carefully scripted that any divergence from the 'line' is not tolerated.
(Witness Barnaby Joyce's blunder about live exports and asylum seekers boats last week. Julie Bishop immediately hosed down the furore, and then 'nice guy' PM slam dunks the topic out of existence.)
So between the magnifying of 'pap', and the elimination of reporting any views outside the party 'spin', the public is starved of real information.
The LNP has capitalised on this.
They get away with 'operational secrecy', and refuse to discuss what's going on in Manus Island and Nauru.
Voters have no idea on how much it costs to 'stop the boats', let alone how the operators of offshore detention centres go about their 'business'.
Abbott often dragged navy officers into media interviews, to face questions about how the LNP was administering asylum seeker policies.
This should never occur: there is supposed to be a separation of government and executive powers.
The LNP agenda of privatisation, combined with 'operational secrecy' has effectively removed ministers of any responsibility for their actions.
And it doesn't matter which ministry voters ask about, the LNP approach is the same: stick to the 'line' and throw mud on the opposition.
And sometimes the mud-slinging based on lies: for example Morrison and Coorman talking of massive 'black holes'.
Other times it is more insidious.
Denis Muller reports (in The Conversation) how free speech is being threatened, questioning the influence of the government over organisations which should be independent.
He cites three recent cases when the AFP has become involved in pursuing vocal opponents of government policies.
These factors - the deliberate limiting of the scope of public debate, and intimidation of opposition - are the real causes of the pathetic charade which our political leaders are playing in today.
You could also add the despicable route, chosen by Abbott, to attempt to humiliate those in public office who opposed the LNP's policies.
The most notable of these was Emeritus Professor Gillian Triggs, the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
31 May 2016 5:37:55pm
I know not what Green thinks he is voting for, but I know exactly what I will be voting for: something other than the Greens, Labor or the Liberals. If you vote for the same then you will get the same and thus will have no legitimate cause for complaint. If you want something different then vote for someone different.
31 May 2016 5:39:22pm
All very self evident Jonathan but you haven't offered one suggestion as to what we punters can do to remedy the situation. Also, you ignore the contribution made by the media - all media. It's you people that never ask a follow up question. Typically journalists ask a politician a question, get an answer that everyone who follows politics knows is rubbish, often a straight out lie, and just leave it at that. Here's one example. Everyone who has ever filled out a tax return knows that if a business invests in growth activities like more staff or equipment, it comes from PRE-TAX MONEY. AFTER TAX PROFIT goes straight into the pockets of owners or shareholders. So a tax cut for business does nothing to encourage reinvestment of profit. In fact the reverse is the case - the higher the tax rate the more incentive there is to put money back into the business rather than write a big cheque for the tax office. As far as I'm aware and I read widely, not one journalist has pointed that out to any government MP when they spruik how their tax cut will lead to businesses reinvesting their extra profits.
31 May 2016 5:50:33pm
I thought the Q and A programme last Monday evening was the way that political leaders should have to front up to present their policies.
The members of the panel were from the major political parties and some Independents and the audience asked the questions which are vetted by the programme but nevertheless required those on the panel to respond to matters which actually concern the public. Allowing journalists to ask the questions and to have a journalist adjudicating is just providing us with the same old, same old.
When confronted with what was obviously polly waffle, the audience dealt with the panellists as they deserved to be dealt with. I thought that the leaders debate was a disgrace and did not deserve the air time afforded it.
01 Jun 2016 8:29:31am
Agree. Bring back the days when party Leaders had to open their campaigns in Town Halls and answer questions or respond to hecklers even if they did plant their own hecklers in the audience.
Perhaps the use of TV should be banned for the first two weeks of a campaign.
31 May 2016 6:19:30pm
I wonder how many of this article's readers - or commenters - are members of a political party? I suspect about the same proportion as the rest of the country.
Therein lies the problem - practical disengagement or laziness - which means the party membership bases become narrowed into the extremes, and peopled by those with a driving passion to see their perspective implemented.
And ultimately - the future gets written by those who show up.
I'm a member of a political party, not because I have the time or burning desire to see my viewpoint writ large, but because by showing up I help to ensure the party has moderate voices to keep it grounded and centred.
While I have plenty of other things to do with my time, I must say I have never found a meeting boring. They are engaging, informative, challenge my preconceived notions, unquestionably human with everyone having the same motivations and everyday challenges in their lives (including the elected officials), and show me a side of political life which is sadly not often portrayed in the media.
If we had more Australians who saw the un-media-ted inside of politics - and brought the outside viewpoint in with them - then perhaps we would not have the self-fulfilling level of disrespect, disagreement and disengagement we do now.
So... I don't mind which party you join, but I ask that you do join one - and bring to it an openness that everyday Australian life is and should be civil, open, peaceable and generous. Us vs Them is not helpful, nor correct. The members of your party are just like those of the others. Stick with the contest of ideas, and respect others for at least having the decency to also put their shoulder to the wheel of our democracy so it doesn't grind to a halt.
Please be the one who shows up.
The future will be written, without - or preferably with - your involvement.
31 May 2016 11:44:37pm
I have joined the Sustainable Australia Party and am proud of that.
At least they have a vision, and policies, for a sustainable future which no other political party does.
Consider this:
31 May 2016 6:19:30pm
Hmm well you can lay the blame for our crap politics squarely at the feet of the media (ABC included!!!).
When I was in politics I did a god job and did so without fanfare and fuss; I just got on with it but the media could have cared less about how good I was at my job (or the other pollies who did likewise). All the commercial media as interested in was "tits and bums" in other words for all the good works I did I got no media attention at all but if I had turned up naked in the House I am sure it would have been leading news; in other words the commercial media are only interested in sensation and controversy.
Conversely while the ABC journos waited with baited breath at the press release boxes for the next Greens press item because I was not one of the left luvvies the ABC was not interested either in me (unless they could damage me!). Their policy was simply to ignore anyone who was not of the left persuasion regardless of how well they did in serving the people of this nation!
So as Julius Caesar said "we get the government we deserve" but its probably more true to say "we get the government the media deserve".
Regional Australia:
31 May 2016 6:53:29pm
Two important things need to happen to Australian politics. Firstly all large donations should be banned and carry jail time for the person offering the donation, and whoever within a political organization accepts the donation. Then the elections should be funded from the Federal Budget. Secondly, rather then spend all their time in front of a microphone, or yelling and screaming like a bunch teenie boppers at a concert, in Parliament. Every month they should have to go to an electorate, to talk to the people, and to come away with answers for the community. They need to disengage from the murky world of corruption with secret donations laundered through secret companies both by Labor and the Liberals to hide who donated large sums of money. The thing that NSW Labor should have taught the Federal arena, is that people are now watching more closely where money comes from. Politics in this country, is on the nose, as the only time they will walk the street, and talk to you, is to ask for your vote, and talk about themselves.
We need democracy to return to politics. I don't care what side of politics a politician comes from, so long as they can sit down, shut up and listen, then work on a solution to help a particular part of a community. We have politicians who are like zoo animals, they are kept in captivity, they and only fed and trained by their handlers, and people have to look from a distance. They have isolated themselves from the truth, and as they have all the media airtime, they want to control all the messages going out from pollie world. And Pollie world is a weird place. Rather then see them step into a community, snarling as they see those who do not vote for them, as sworn enemies, they have to work to win the trust and the respect of the people. This election is just the Blitzkrieg of politics, move as quickly as possible, get your photo opportunity, with a few party mates, then off to the next stop to do the same all over again. Even election campaigns, are planned like a military invasion. Insert, get the job done, and leave just as quickly. Meanwhile everyone stands around, trying to work out what it was all about. People would warm to politicians, if instead of Parliament Question Time, they picked a different community twice a month to visit, not their own electorate, and listen to the community, and do a couple of days walking around talking to people, not their mates, not their minders. People would respect that, and it would bring home, to politicians, they want to be liked, however they have to do something that has meaning, substance, and shows they can listen, then people will respect them for having a go, and admitting they don't know everything, and they need a different perspective, to see how they should make decisions, and years ago, this would have been hard, given modern communications and transport, it is easy.
31 May 2016 6:56:10pm
Pollies perks need to be removed, like any other employee you get paid a wage /salary and you live off it. Canberra is not like it was when first built. The pollies can also sit even in winter and limit there holidays,sickness benefits and super benefits that are in line with the rest of the community.
We get the politicians we deserve because they are chosen by the party in the electorate concerned unless Head Office wants to overrule the local branch. We then make a choice out of these party selected representatives. The Voters say really is minimal. If there is a solution it may be that more people join political parties, but then pigs might fly. I think most people prefer to get on with their lives.
31 May 2016 7:23:31pm
be nice to earn the new increased minimum wage. It is more than I get now which is nothing.
Guess nothing will change even if there is a new government.
why bother voting for a pack of underachievers who's only aim in life is to rip off the Australian voters by lying to get the job and lying again after they do get it.
Then ripping us off by spending our tax dollars to waste away on their trips and meals while doing nothing themselves.
31 May 2016 7:23:57pm
Now that we have progressed to the era of professional politicians, I really don't care anymore. I now vote against whoever is in power, regardless of party or policies. We have ended up with a senate, which was supposed to be "the house of review" that just votes along party lines regardless of the merits of any particular piece of legislation. This is what happens when virtually every candidate from both parties:
1. university degree in politics or law.
2. Worked as a party or union staffer.
3. Works their way up the party or union ladder.
4. Never had a real job or run a real business.
5. Only goal to get on the political gravy train.
They say that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Well as we all know, it seems to me that we are still getting a hell of a lot of monkeys.
Every time pollies get a pay rise we seem to get more monkeys.
01 Jun 2016 12:01:17pm
In general terms, agreed, although the senate has always been manned by party representatives.
We have some friends whose daughter is an honours university student. She worked a holiday job as a researcher for a political party at state level and the latest news (rejoice, rejoice) is that she has now been offered a permanent job as an advisor. This is a kid who has never had a job, has never even lived in her own place, and now actual MPs will be taking actual advice from her on actual policy that affects actual people's lives. That is an appalling state of affairs, in my opinion. Of course, the family is cock-a-hoop because, being already placed within the machine, it will mean that she gets the inside track on pre-selection in a few years. Doubly appalling, in my opinion, that this is the kind of system test we have set up, wherein a person can spend their entire adult life entirely cocooned within the political world, and make decisions that affect the rest of us, when they have never done anything in their lives except politics.
31 May 2016 7:52:05pm
This whole election can be summed in 80% by your opening paragraph - and for those who missed it - here it is - "We are now watching the politics we deserve, with all its empty chicanery and arrogant, dismissive guile. A little effort, a little commitment, and we might force it to be something better, writes Jonathan Green."
Spot on!
31 May 2016 8:35:24pm
The only answer Malcolm can give to any question is "Jobs" and "Growth"
And that's the only justification he can give for giving only wealthier Australians a tax cut.
Poor effort.
31 May 2016 10:07:04pm
I don't know why people are complaining, We have the best politicians money can buy!
31 May 2016 11:16:52pm
I think people would become much more connected were they allowed more influence in decision making.
Why has there been no efforts put towards direct internet voting on issues? They can make secure banking, secure centrelink, secure ATO taxation portal, the list goes on. But for some odd reason, this simple, cost effective method of direct voting, which would make sure anything the electorate disagreed with was thrown by the wayside, has not even made a blip on the radar!
I have a fair suspicion why; the lobbyists and other groups would be out of the game, and that just wouldn't do.
The more people that come around to realising direct voting via the net on substantive issues (any issues really), is when true democracy will arise. It will then be up to elected officials to enact those decisions by the electorate.
Until then, expect the disconnect to continue downwards, as more people become disillusioned by the vaudeville show we have on offer.
01 Jun 2016 6:08:16am
Is it any wonder that most people you speak to will be voting for minor parties, if only as a protest against the appalling state and quality of politicians, the majority who have never worked in the real world. their complete and disgusting robbing of the public purse by them and ex PMs for their own benefit is surely enough reason.
01 Jun 2016 8:37:55am
I support your views, but every election for the last ten years there's been calls to lift politics out of the gutter.
It won't happen because that's where Aussies feel most comfortable.
We're a masochistic bunch - kick us & we ask for more (or complain we weren't kicked hard enough).
We need a shift in our national culture to shift our political culture & Aussies are still too comfortable & complacent to speak up about abuses in power.
Unfortunately it will have to get far worse before it gets better.
01 Jun 2016 8:47:37am
" ... we deserve, with all its empty chicanery and arrogant, dismissive guile. A little effort, a little commitment, and we might force it to be something better ... " are you talking of politians or journalists - the fact is journalists lead the way in all the traits you've listed.
01 Jun 2016 8:50:35am
Interesting article and well written. How do we engage though I wonder? As you point out the political parties aren't very democratic so membership probably doesn't give you the chance for a say.
Are we ready yet:
01 Jun 2016 10:02:01am
The simple answer is to get rid of compulsory voting.
We are getting this kind of politic from both parties because they HAVE to try and appeal to the largely disinterested voters who are being forced to vote.
These are the same voters who will make their minds up in the last few days of the election and even on election day itself - on a whim. They have little understanding, or care, for the political process and structure - but their vote counts, and is sought after.
As we are seeing in almost every other country, non-compulsory voting is letting the politics truly represent their genuinely interested constituents - resulting in clearer policies and starkly contrasting choices.
Compulsory voting in Australia has led us to this blending of all the different ingredients to come out with the one un-palatable mushy political dish.
Yes, we deserve it.
Hector Protector:
01 Jun 2016 10:35:55am
Gotta love the gall of the Australian media. They have spent the last 15 years building up a rubbishy Gotcha culture in public life, with every reporter in the joint sitting around sweating on a slip-up or a mis-spoken word or an ambiguously expressed sentiment, so that they can all pile on and take part in a ritual public humiliation. Every second headline in our news outlets is about some poor soul who used the wrong forms of words to say something or other, or who unintentionally offended so-and-so and I'd now being "called out". Then they have the nerve to criticised political leaders for being safe and unadventurous in a debate.
pedro pesce:
01 Jun 2016 11:39:50am
Spare us the "it's all our fault" Mr Green! There is something inherently wrong if a system requires us to run it instead of the people entrusted and paid generously to do so on our behalf, and if that's the case, it needs the flick.
If you allude more to the general lack of engagement, then perhaps consider that a significant part of problem of disengagement and disempowerment is that there is an increasing cohort of us whose interests and views are no longer being represented by any of the major political parties as they strive to out politically correct each other for appearances sake (for the media) - which you do a pretty good job of perpetuating yourself Mr Green - rather than political substance (for us).
Who represents the left leaning but conservative voter who I would wager forms a goodly part of the increasingly ageing population? I for one feel disenfranchised. For the first time in 50 years I cannot vote for either of the major three parties because in my view they all have serious flaws in their major policy initiatives antagonistic to what I want to see as desirable for our nation's direction and development.
No, its more a case of being severely let down. I am seriously considering voting informal for the first time to stave off feeling hypocritical and used. There is no longer the 'lesser of two evils'. They are all on the nose. They all serve self interest, not the people.
I bet my wife and I are not alone in our thinking! If any one of substance (forget the Palmer and the Hanson types) ever decides to form a new party representing the cohort I speak of, it will be the biggest shake up and shock to the political system since federation.
But alas, many of us think its already too late. It would be pretty tough for the individual who did step up. So we're not holding our breath. Hence the tuning out in droves as we cannot bear to watch our nation slowly ooze down the drain!
01 Jun 2016 11:58:15am
Start by getting rid of the current crop of politicians, select new candidates and vet them for their integrity, intelligence, innovatation and desire to represent the best interests of all the people of Australia. Introduce the Death penality for any corruption whatsoever, as it should be regarded same as treason. Give us leaders / innovators that we can look up to !! Yes and Pay them very well for this above and beyond commitment to serve all Australians.
Rashid Mostafa:
01 Jun 2016 11:58:52am
The election will result in a weak government. How on earth can this produce a better version of politics? The basic adversarial form of government we have will only give us more popularist politics.
01 Jun 2016 12:08:19pm
The media have created the political environment and now they demand a better standard of politics what hypocrisy. If the media stop exaggerating every perceived error, tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and adopt a balanced approach to reporting our politicians might be less risk averse. Politicians act as they do, in a scripted and boring manner, because to do otherwise would be political sucide in today's media environment. The more we celebrate media thugs engaging in ambush journalism the more politicians will protect themselves through stage managed politics. It's not going to change because todays media feed off controversy.
01 Jun 2016 12:10:44pm
Probably could have stopped at ...
"We are now watching the politics we deserve ..."
Doubly so in the USA.
(and IDIOCRACY wasn't even a good movie)
Comments for this story are closed.