The cynical politician and the lost tribe

Updated September 04, 2013 12:48:05

When is the last time you heard anyone say during an election that the electorate seems really engaged this time? Certainly the ever growing professionalisation of politics has worked to accelerate disengagement, writes David Hardaker.

Reality can be a shocking thing, as the political editor of the Sydney Morning Herald and Peter Hartcher seems to have discovered last week.

His account of attending a focus group of uncommitted Labor and Liberal voters had a flavour of the modern day anthropologist coming across a lost tribe for the first time. The report faithfully chronicled the gamut of unalloyed political views from western Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.

For all the efforts of the party machines over the election campaign it boiled down to a few pithy perceptions: "Tony Abbott is a giant wanker"; "Kevin Rudd is a bigger wanker."

It seems shudderingly unfair to two men who, whatever you make of them, are intelligent, hard-working and, yes, committed to a cause. Can they at least have some credit for trying?

Some in the group exhibited a basic knowledge of big policy initiatives, such as Tony Abbott's Paid Parental Leave scheme, but the most chilling feature of Hartcher's encounter was the passive-aggressive quality it revealed in the "average" voter.

Said one: ''How long do we have to accept this shit, as people? Why can't they be held accountable for what they say?''. Said another: ''If we were Europeans, we'd be in the streets protesting. It's because we're Aussies that we just cop it.''

"We just cop it". We can't do anything about it. We're helpless. All we can do is get mad.

I had a similar experience a few weeks ago when I attended a focus group in outer Sydney. That group, too, was made up of non-committed voters who it seems are the most prized political possessions in the country.

It was an intelligently - and respectfully - run process which involved teasing out the detailed opinions of eight people over two hours. By the end, scrawled across the top of my notepad in large letters, double underlined, was the following: "COMPLETELY DISENGAGED!!!".

My strongest recollection is of Celine (not her real name), a 30-something hairdresser who asserted that she was too busy running her salon to read newspapers or watch TV news, so she knew what she knew from talking to her customers. Proudly uninformed, this did not stop Celine from slagging off any and all politicians.

Julia Gillard was a prime target as it was for Hartcher's group. Tony Abbott was not liked, but was admired for his fitness regime, again as it was for Hartcher's group. What a wonderful coincidence then that we should be constantly assailed by images of the Opposition Leader in various sporty poses.

The group was, ultimately, a depressing experience. Descarte's proposition - "I think therefore I am" - represented a breakthrough in our understanding of ourselves as a species. In 21st century political Australia it might be fruitfully recast, "I crack the shits therefore I am."

What are we to make of this? What came first? The cynical politician? Or the disengagement?

To be fair, for all the claims that voters in the current campaign have stopped listening to our politicians, I for one, find it hard to remember a time when politics was on the lips of all Australians. The clear exception is the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government and the subsequent Fraser government election, events so filled with drama you couldn't escape them.

But other than that, when is the last time you heard anyone say that the electorate seems really engaged this time? It seems more to be a case of degrees of anger, rising in direct proportion to a sense of helplessness.

Certainly the ever growing professionalisation of politics has worked to accelerate disengagement.

What we have out of all of this is a Bermuda triangle for the quality of public debate, with the three points occupied by politicians, undecided voters and the media, all kicking around the same small issues in ever-decreasing circles of unreasonableness. Exhibit one: the asylum seeker debate. Exhibit two: the budget "emergency".

It makes for a mosh pit of misinformation, serial distortion and pugnacious untruth. It doesn't matter what you say as long as it cuts through... and the simpler the better because, as we know, Celine and her focus group friends don't have the time - or the interest - to formulate a considered view based on the facts. Goodness, there's not enough hours in the day to watch the news or read the newspapers.

It does appear perverse that in an era where there has never been more access to information people are making their decisions on a diet of simplistic slogans for complex issues: "Stop the Boats", "Cut to the bone". As Peggy Lee sorrowfully asked, "Is that all there is?" But, heck, that's the reality so deal with it. Peggy Lee's got nothing on Graham Richardson.

It raises the truly awful proposition that national policy is crafted around pleasing the very people who care the least about policy and politics, as long as they're not angry with you.

If the focus group lesson is that the people are disengaged from politics, perhaps the deeper truth it reveals is the disengagement of politicians from the people. Why else is it necessary for political parties to appoint professional polling organisations to tell them what people think? It is as though the politicians have outsourced one of their most basic responsibilities: to be in touch with their electorates and to know what the people want. If an elected representative doesn't know the sentiment of the people he or she represents in the parliament surely this is a failure of democracy at the most fundamental level. Maybe it's time to rewrite Abraham Lincoln's characterisation of representative democracy. How about "government of the people, by the focus groups, for the politicians"?

The most successful of those who are in constant touch with "the average Australian" have a well-honed instinct for what really counts. Maybe it's time for politicians to let instinct flourish and to back it with passion. You never know: it might just rekindle that sense of engagement with the lost tribe.

David Hardaker is a television producer and a Walkley award winning journalist. He is a former ABC Middle East Correspondent and has lived and worked in Egypt. View his full profile here.

Topics: federal-elections

First posted September 04, 2013 09:23:32

Comments (200)


  • Colmery:

    04 Sep 2013 9:39:01am

    Politics are as they are because the system is designed as it is. It was designed when horses were the primary form of transport and tweaked ever since to suit politicians.

    We now know enough about human nature to design a much better system, but, we also know enough about human nature to know that the politico-media complex will fight to the death opposing the evolution of democracy because their livelihoods depend upon it being as it is.

    Alert moderator

    • the yank:

      04 Sep 2013 10:19:54am

      Agree but where does your comment and its sentiment place us?

      We as the voter from all parties should be demanding a change.

      I read an article in the AFR yesterday from its weekend edition where it talked about Hawke's attempt to form a new approach to IR issues engaging buisness and related labour groups.

      Why can't we do something similar with our electorial process. Put the politics aside, have all parties, voter groups, business, labour and any other groups with a strong interest and work through the problems and come up with an election process that actually fits the 21st century.

      Alert moderator

      • Colmery:

        04 Sep 2013 11:05:42am

        You ask a big question yank.

        Hawke's Accord was a smart political mechanism. He traded off benefits for stable wages growth. It cost peanuts compared to what would be needed in a trade to get the media-politico complex to surrender their vice-like grip on power.

        There are mechanisms in various democratic systems around the world that offer some hope. However, before they can be considered a prospect, concern about the system needs to become a burning issue and that's not even close to happening.

        Alert moderator

        • Emmy:

          04 Sep 2013 12:00:00pm

          And don't forget Hawke's comment that "you can never underestimate the intelligence of the Australian people", which the uninformed interpreted as praise.

          Alert moderator

        • the yank:

          04 Sep 2013 12:23:35pm

          One can only try and I for one am fed up with Australia's election process. Maybe others will join.

          There always has to be a first step.

          Alert moderator

        • The Other John:

          04 Sep 2013 1:36:18pm

          Ok, Yank. Let's try YOUR way of totalitarian dictatorship headed, of course, by the ALP. We can wipe out any other parties and pesky independents and the election can be between two pre-chosen ex union thugs every 3 years in a kind of puppet show for PM under the Presidential eye of Dear Leader Kim Jung Rudd.

          We can take the necessary steps to ban any dissentful media, expand the ABC to also take over education(brainwashing), lock up anyone who protests and most importantly, everyone will be equal (except for all the ALP luvvies like yourself who will of course be more equal than everyone else).

          Sounds like Utopia, Yank. Count me in.

          Alert moderator

        • Miowarra:

          04 Sep 2013 4:10:20pm

          This response, dear readers, is a typical example of the extreme partisan approach taken by this well-known dedicated adherent of the Far Right.

          Instead of attempting to engage with the serious concepts raised, the response attempts to ridicule the concept and to bully the original poster into silence with the vehemence and venom of the reply.

          Of course, throwing in a few epithets ("Labor luvvies") is a diversionary tactic, intended to provoke responses refuting the abuse, thus pushing the original question of electoral reform away.

          Don't fall for this cynical tactic.

          Alert moderator

        • Trev:

          04 Sep 2013 6:13:31pm

          Miowarra, this is your opinion, right? It's not like it's been proven by your peers, is it?
          So I could say, just another labor luvvy's opinion and make as much sense as you.
          I can't wait for this election to be over, you lot get a sound thrashing and we can get on with business, not the crap we have had to put up with over the last six years.

          Alert moderator

        • DethLok:

          04 Sep 2013 8:50:35pm

          Yep, get on with business.
          So don't come complaining when that business makes you a casual worker. No sick leave. No holidays. Probably no super, either.
          And likely no work, unless you work at a moments notice, never complain and work more hours than you get paid for, regularly.
          And of course you'll be renting forever because no bank will lend you a mortgage, you don't have a steady and reliable income!
          Yep, business makes (a few) Liberals wealthy and the other 95% of the country are just lazy bludgers who can be tossed a few weeks work here and there to keep them in booze, ciggies and Foxtel.
          Remember "workchoices"?
          It'll be back if Liberals get in, there can be no doubt of that.

          Alert moderator

        • Evan Elpus:

          04 Sep 2013 6:14:44pm

          The Other John, try and understand that purple-faced indignation and name-calling immediately identifies your post as tiny-minded and inconsequent. Using Cold War rhetoric only reveals you to be mired in the past. Nobody wants to read the political equivalent of "when I were a boy, we never had no fancy computers"? And stop looking under beds. Nobody's there. Not a single Commo, Socialist, Pinko or Green. Take off the blinkers. Look, its the 21st Century! Broaden your outlook by reading more widely. Erudite, remember, is not a brand of glue. Think for yourself. Soon you will br dealing with arguments on their own merits, rather than responding parrot fashion with the simplistic, crap-by-numbers slogans of Abbott-style conservatism. ("Union thugs! Squawk!Great Big New Tax! Squawk!")

          Alert moderator

        • WhaleHunt Fun:

          04 Sep 2013 8:30:34pm

          "Abbott crap by numbers" works, so there is no need for him to change what he is doing. The current system delivers to him what he wants so it will stay. No one will trust you if you want to change the system. There is and now will always be total cynicism and utter mistrust. Settle in for more of the same forever.

          Alert moderator

      • patarus:

        04 Sep 2013 11:40:00am

        The mentality is in the vernacular and is as you put it because that is the easiest and most oblivious way to think.

        To track politics and engage albeit in these forums by subject enables you to comment with perhaps better language - but it is still much the same - and with a few scant details.

        We after all dealing with "mentalities" at least there is a measure and an expression of perception.

        But at the end of the day it does come down to personalities and not the detail of politics.

        This election is "different" because we have had six years of Labor government which has been a stain on the parliament and labor has not been able to articulate its case in "detail" as it has been a sea of debt government.

        The only case that Labor has been able to prosecute is that Abbott has been doing his job, so well in fact he removed Labor people from the top job on three occasions.

        But back to basics - most of our lives are basic - the majority get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, go to bed and eat somewhere in between five days a week.

        The basics are of concern - the rest is intellectual plagiarism.

        Alert moderator

        • Colmery:

          04 Sep 2013 12:38:22pm

          I can't make sense of your argument patarus, I did try.

          On the matter of personalities; does it help to know that the Constitution made no mention of party leaders - they are made the focus of elections by the media. A matter that the big parties are more than happy to play along with.

          Alert moderator

        • the yank:

          04 Sep 2013 1:50:17pm

          No leades? Now that would make things interesting.

          Alert moderator

        • ingenuous:

          04 Sep 2013 2:22:40pm

          patarus, why did you mix your observations on politics and personalities with that nonsense dump on Labor?

          Labor as a government has been fine these last few years. The policies you complain about are those that are essentially the same as Liberal policies. Personally, I am opposed to a bunch of other Labor policies that, surprise again, are the same as Liberal policies.

          Labor's primary flaw is internal division, and most of that is directly or indirectly caused by Mr Rudd. For Mr Abbott, this has been a dream run. He will get elected with no policies except the promise to destroy stuff Labor built, and that's due to Labor people hating other Labor people so openly and so publicly.

          But even this awful result won't make much difference. As you observe, the majority get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, go to bed. That is the part that should concern us all: that people find the fundamental structure of our governance so unappealing that they a) do not know how it works, b) do not want to know how it works, c) have unrealistic expectations of how it could work, d) vote for some random guy over another guy based on how he looks on TV.

          Alert moderator

        • colin67:

          04 Sep 2013 4:56:15pm

          .I have been looking for policy and costing's at and also at PBO all I can find are labour and green costing's I went to the liberal site found some but they were only there own figures anyone tell me where they are or where the PBO costing's may appear

          Alert moderator

        • Pan:

          04 Sep 2013 10:27:15pm

          LNP won't release them until tomorrow. They're waiting until after the blackout, where political advertising is banned until the election. But Abbott says "trust me" and apparently that's enough. I read that Rudd did the same heading into the 2007 election. I don't care which party you represent, like any job or contract or agreement, all cards should be on the table BEFORE a decision is made. It's underhanded and supports the OP's view the system needs change.

          Alert moderator

        • patarus:

          04 Sep 2013 11:31:36pm

          how can you believe Labor's costings when on their return - you know Rudd - they declared the infamous $30 billion deficit in three months since the may budget.

          How could you honestly look at anything Labor proposes as a serious budget proposition - everything is in the forward estimates - or so far down the track it just doesn't make any sense.

          Alert moderator

      • colin67:

        04 Sep 2013 1:36:12pm

        For starters everyone should be using electronic media to send message that all parties should put there policy and costing's out at least 1 week before voting day, the last week can be for scrutinizing and for politicians defending policy, law to be passed in parliament..

        Alert moderator

      • Aquila:

        04 Sep 2013 11:21:05pm

        yank, aside from the grammar, what does "We as the voter from all parties should be demanding a change" mean?

        Our system has deficiencies. Paraphrasing Churchill, it's the worst system except for most of the others that have been tried.

        yank, suggest some improvements rather than bleating because your preferred party looks like losing. Feel free to actually make an argument rather than alternately spitting poison (yank on Drum yesterday) and waffling vague and platitudes like this effort.

        Alert moderator

    • llanfair:

      04 Sep 2013 10:59:41am

      Agree. Maybe we need to introduce Real Democracy.

      A Neighbourhood Representative appointed/dismissed by 500 voters in that neighbourhood.

      A Community Council comprising 10 Neighbourhood representatives - one appointed/dismissed by the Community Council to be the Community's Regional Representative.

      A Regional Council comprising 20 Community Council Representatives - one appointed/dismissed by the Regional Council to be the Region's National Representative.

      A National Parliament of 150 Regional Representatives.

      (This would cover an electorate of 15 million people.)

      1. No need for costly elections.
      2. No need for political parties.
      3. No need for lobbyists - everyone is 3 steps away from their National Representative.
      4. No opportunity to drop in celebrity candidates - the only entry point is being selected by your neighbours.
      5. Limits scope for career politicians - your neighbours can simply boot you out.
      6. Direct line of responsibility back to the electorate.
      7. Can abolish the Senate and State Governments.
      8. Provides a Governance Framework to plan nationally and execute locally.

      Of course it will never happen, but as an advocate of People Power, I can only dream!

      Alert moderator

      • carl:

        04 Sep 2013 2:52:23pm

        Wasn't the scheme proposed a "real democracy" in Yes Prime Minister

        Alert moderator

    • blax5:

      04 Sep 2013 11:10:07am

      No, the current system was designed after WWII. I know it is a verboten topic but I will try anyway.

      Disengagement comes after disappointment. We do not govern the asylum seeker issue (and the billions it costs), international obligations do. The WTO in Geneva make the decision on apple imports from New Zealand. Deregulations, privatisations, and outsourcing are always 'recommended' when a problem occurs or even when there is none. They seem to come from the rating agencies, the WTO, the IMF, but the details I have not really monitored. The politicians always declare that to be their original idea and latest wisdom but when you look at other countries it looks very much like a coordinated campaign. You can talk about pot legalisation until the cows come home, be passionately engaged, but the suborganisations of the WHO in Geneva determine which legislation we are allowed. I only mourn the principle here.

      Why would people, young or old, be passionately engaged when too many parameters are determined by a not so public web of 'international obligations'?

      Alert moderator

      • Colmery:

        04 Sep 2013 12:04:29pm

        The political tweak after WWII that subjected the Senate to elections was a positive, but nothing like a re-design. There remains no mechanism to foster informed self-interest, indeed mechanisms for obfuscation, like above the line voting, have been introduced.

        The rest of your argument against global accords does not take into account the extent to which our lives have become globalised. If for example atmospheric regulation is to occur, how else could it be done?

        Alert moderator

        • blax5:

          04 Sep 2013 1:06:38pm

          Yes, air pollution, ocean pollution and fishing issues are indeed those where international organisations have a place. But in many other areas, they have not. For instance apples from New Zealand or more generally food imports which lead to part of our agriculture being closed. There is for instance an argument for not selling brown sugar water in a package with pizza or chicken. Let the customer ask for it. Now you try to suggest this and the free market principles from the WTO will come down on you like a brick. Germany actually had to change legislation to allow 'gifts' with purchases.

          Who'd want to spend their time, energy, and resources on this, that, or the other issue only to discover that nothing can be done without an international organisation shifting guidelines. None of us likes 30 year battles.

          Alert moderator

    • Stirrer:

      04 Sep 2013 12:32:46pm

      Good post Colmery- and like the politics- economc theory and social structures have passed their used by dates.

      I would include the fossil fuel,finance and the arms industries in with Governments and the media which will fight to the death opposing the evolution of democracy-because their GREED depends on it.

      Alert moderator

    • the yank:

      04 Sep 2013 1:53:29pm

      Last time I look there were over 700 comments regarding the article relating to Christianity and politics and only 70 on this article.

      That says a lot about the Australian focus.

      Alert moderator

      • Miowarra:

        04 Sep 2013 4:12:59pm

        More about the perceived threat to our well-being, I thought. The threat from religion, organised to lobby politicians, is more immediate and dangerous.

        Alert moderator

      • Aquila:

        04 Sep 2013 11:03:12pm

        Oh yank. Perhaps it says something about how controversial the article is or, arguably, the quality of the article.

        Having worked in your homeland I'm confident that the religious article would have gone ballistic compared to this one.

        Alert moderator

    • brindafella:

      04 Sep 2013 1:56:16pm

      Dear Colmery,

      Winston Churchill had several things to say about democracy, which I was able to find, and so share for your enjoyment.





      Alert moderator

      • Colmery:

        04 Sep 2013 3:49:11pm

        I have a lot of respect for Winston Churchill. He considered people who lock themselves into one perspective and reject new evidence as fools. He swapped political sides and within limits he understood about himself, he was flexible It allowed him to make colossal mistakes yet also achieve greatness.

        If he was alive today and knew what we know now about how the media-politico complex has evolved, and what science has discovered about group behaviour, I have no doubt whatever that he would support the need for fundamental changes to democracy. But certainly he would not discard democracy, and neither should we, it just needs maintenance.

        awas able to see that as

        Alert moderator

  • pennywise:

    04 Sep 2013 9:44:43am

    Interesting points you make here. And it opens the whole idea of how to appeal to the disengaged. I don't know if passion would do it. Getting inside their world might help - what do they do day by day? Hairdresser- well small business- cut small business tax to 30%? Maybe that would boost employment and get small business owners to wake up?

    Also, pretty awful if Abbot won because he goes running. I have always supported compulsory voting- your article makes me question that.

    Alert moderator

    • Ragey:

      04 Sep 2013 10:33:59am

      "what do they do day by day" you ask;

      They mindlessly consume everything and anything in front of them, be that goods, services or infomation. They don't apply reason or logic to their thoughts, opinions or actions. They are sheep, they think and act alike, they herd together with others who are the same. Their day to day consists of worrying about where they can get more and who is going to give it to them. So in a nutshell, if you want them to like you, give them more stuff, outwardly be like them and whatever you do don't say anything to complicated.

      Alert moderator

      • frangipani:

        04 Sep 2013 1:47:11pm

        @Ragey - that seems indeed to be the attitude of a lot of our pollies. And that's why the public is disengaged: it doesn't much care for being treated with contempt by politicians and their staff, and by rusted on supporters of those politicians. The public is perfectly capable of applying reason and logic, and of thinking independently, but when its conclusions disagree with those of its political betters, the public is assailed for stupidity or for being "sheeple." And then those political betters wonder why the public is disengaged.

        I know who's the dumber of the two categories, and it ain't the public.

        Alert moderator

    • MT_Syd:

      04 Sep 2013 10:42:27am

      pennywise, the company tax rate is currently 30%

      Alert moderator

      • Sceptical Sam:

        04 Sep 2013 12:49:41pm

        Well, we the disengaged know that.

        It's the faux-intellectuals who are the truly disengaged, MT_Syd. Like pennywise and so many of the other try-hards that have commented here.

        Alert moderator

    • Colin:

      04 Sep 2013 10:45:45am

      The business income tax rate is already at 30% for all sizes of business, isn't it, not counting mining taxes, etc. The LNP want to lower it to 28.5%, but then impose an extra 1.5% on larger companies to help fund their Paid Parental Leave scheme.

      Alert moderator

    • Eskimo:

      04 Sep 2013 11:24:09am

      The Corporate tax rate is already 30%. So long as a small business operates as a company, rather than as a sole trader or partnership, the 30% rate applies. Abbott is proposing reducing it to 28.5%.

      Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      04 Sep 2013 11:28:04am

      You are talking the wrong language.

      I would suggest the hairdresser is like a lot of businesses under 5 people. We do what we do because we like it. It just so happens if we do a good job, we make more money. We are not driven by money but by the other bits. Additionally, when money becomes the goal, its time to get out.

      Below is the problem.
      Communists ensure compliance by taking away. If do not tow the party line you have something removed. Gradually over time you have enough things removed as to make life impossible.

      Capitalist governments do the same but with a carrot and not a stick. They present things in front of you that you need. If you do not accumulate the things you are left out.

      A prime example is professional development points. You need these things to be in an association which is needed for some sort of industry recognition. Professional development sessions are a massive impost. You waste half a day getting a few points in sessions that are usually completely useless. I personally waste at least a week in a year on useless point chasing.

      Of course it is entirely my choice to engage in PD or not. Having half a brain, I understand the ramifications of pursuing the or not. I note politicians do not do PD.

      From the perspective of this small businessman, this is why they are treated with utter distain. They continually forget to mention the unflattering facts that do not support their case and they game the system to make professional life increasingly difficult.

      Rudd or Abbott, who cares? In three years time there will be further compliance impost on me in a professional sense.

      Alert moderator

    • James:

      04 Sep 2013 1:22:56pm

      Small business getting a tax cut doesn't automatically mean they'll employ more people. All those that I know will slip the cash in to the 'Ol Sky Rocket, or top their self managed Super Fund.

      The powerless are disengaged politically, the powerful are very engaged. All you need as a look at the selfish video questions to Rudd on monday night's QandA.

      Alert moderator

    • Colin:

      04 Sep 2013 11:35:13pm


      Alert moderator

  • Forrest Gardener:

    04 Sep 2013 9:52:49am

    Engagement is difficult to discern. There are some 60% who are never going to change their minds. In their own way they are engaged and won't hear a good word said about the other side or a bad word said about their own side.

    Then there are those who can be swayed one way or another. The polls regularly report these as undecided. This time the polls also report that the undecided group is shrinking as it usually does.

    What this article unwittingly suggest is that undecided voters aren't engaging with any of the points identified by those running the focus groups. That is a failing of those running the focus groups, not a sign of disengagement.

    Even the "all politicians are bastards" brigade will agree that all bastards are equal, but some are more equal than others.

    Alert moderator

    • the yank:

      04 Sep 2013 10:21:11am

      No matter what your politics it is time for Australia's election process to change.

      Alert moderator

      • EVAN:

        04 Sep 2013 12:08:23pm

        "it is time for Australia's election process to change."

        Changed to what Yank?.No I think compulsory voting is great it forces the disinterested to think about who runs their country at least for five minutes every three years.
        That keeps the fanatics like the Greens where they belong at the bottom 10% of the electorate.

        Alert moderator

        • Bev:

          04 Sep 2013 1:44:16pm

          I would suggest the opposite. Compulsory voting compounds disinterest. People know their voting preferences are being traded around. Many know they are in a safe seat and an vote against the siting member is wasted. Non compulsory voting makes most every seat marginal as it should be.

          Alert moderator

        • Half Past Human:

          04 Sep 2013 6:55:59pm

          And I would suggest the opposite, Bev. Compulsory voting is better for all of us. Otherwise we can end up with a prime minister voted into the office by only 19% of the population, as it had happened in the 1980 US Presidential election when Ronald Reagan was elected.

          19% of the population is hardly the majority rule in a democratic nation.

          Alert moderator

      • Sceptical Sam:

        04 Sep 2013 12:55:01pm

        I agree.

        Get the unions out of it.

        Reform the structure of the ALP so that the disproportionate union influence is constrained. Make the ALP a democratic political party. Let local branches have full say on pre-selection. Ban captains picks.

        Sack corrupt union officials and apply the same standards to the governance of unions that apply to corporates.

        That would be a start.

        Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          04 Sep 2013 4:55:38pm

          But the ALP was designed as the politcal wing of the Labor movement. You're talking about a new party.

          Neither will happen. The old one has been supping too long and too deep from the corporate cup to ever reform, and new parties are muscled out by the big two every time.

          Alert moderator

        • Sceptical Sam:

          04 Sep 2013 11:00:00pm

          Sadly, you are probably right.

          But then, what the devil was Kevvie promising to do, again?

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          05 Sep 2013 11:56:14am

          No idea. I don't follow or believe the promises of politicians.

          Alert moderator

  • mushroom:

    04 Sep 2013 9:59:34am

    You don't have to go to deep it's actually quite simple some of the young understand if your not on the electoral roll you don't have to waste time voting.

    Alert moderator

    • rosieam:

      04 Sep 2013 11:33:58am

      My son, aged 32, is not on the electoral roll and says probably never will be. 'What's the point', he says.

      I'm 64 and sometimes I wish that I also wasn't on it.

      Maybe it's time for non compulsory voting ??

      Alert moderator

      • The Other John:

        04 Sep 2013 1:38:50pm

        Then your Son has absolutely no right to complain about anything that our politicians do or decide on his behalf.

        Perhaps you could point him to the citizens of those countries where trying to cast a vote is akin to a suicide mission. Zimbabwe perhaps? Or, like the Yank proposes we become, North Korea?

        Alert moderator

        • Scotty A:

          04 Sep 2013 4:16:52pm

          Im voting informal, does that mean I am also not entitled to an opinion? Who do you think you are Robert Mugabe? Our political process is broken, I dont know why but I do know I dont want any part of it until the opportunity comes to reform it in a meaningful way. When that happens. I will be there.

          Alert moderator

        • The Other John:

          04 Sep 2013 9:18:04pm

          What do you know of our political process, really? In practice, I mean. Have you ever contacted your local member? Have you ever thought that as your elected representative, he/she is best able to represent you when they know what you want from them? Have you ever bothered to make a public submission in relation to legislative proposals when they are called for?

          Just saying "the system is broken" is such dull cop out, and yes, it is a kick in the guts to anyone, anywhere who for reasons beyond their own control, is denied the opportunities we have in this country to influence our own government. if the system is broken, what are you doing about fixing it?

          Alert moderator

        • MJMI:

          05 Sep 2013 11:57:47am

          Voting informal is having an opinion - maybe that none of the parties deserves your vote.

          I live overseas and for the first time since 1977 (when I was also overseas) after making huge efforts to vote in 2007 and 2010, I have chosen not to vote this time.

          I have recently read that the informal vote is growing. Maybe if enough of us keep abstaining or casting informal ballots the major parties will start thinking about us. It seems to me to be clear that a large number of people want neither Rudd nor Abbott as PM and only when the ALP and LNP grasp that simple fact will some of us re-engage with the election process.

          Alert moderator

        • graazt:

          04 Sep 2013 4:30:29pm

          Choosing not to vote doesn't abrogate your right to complain. Indeed that attitude cultivates the disenfranchisement and apathy the author speaks of. Any form of political activism and interest should be encouraged, not made contingent on a formal process that disenfrancises the 90% of the country that lives in a safe seat.

          Alert moderator

  • Skeptic:

    04 Sep 2013 10:02:27am

    My partner once witnessed just how good Bob Katter is as a people person. On a flight from Sydney to Brisbane, Bob went to every passenger and spoke to them, for just a few moments. The impression he made was tremendous, no one argued or disagreed with him. Perhaps this is why he is so popular in his electorate!

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      04 Sep 2013 11:07:42am

      Make no mistake, Katter is an outstanding politician.

      Alert moderator

      • Colmery:

        04 Sep 2013 12:56:17pm

        Certainly he is good with voters, but we have a parliamentary system. He needs to learn how to work constructively with a majority of his elected colleagues to be effective.

        Alert moderator

        • OUB :

          05 Sep 2013 10:36:04am

          I don't think Bob is interested in Parliament. How often does he turn up? Not very often I gather.

          I don't feel guilty for writing him off as just another half-smart Queensland show pony.

          Alert moderator

  • dubious the third:

    04 Sep 2013 10:02:34am

    It's inevitable that "voters" will be disillusioned. The politicians speak as if they will serve their constituents, and voters believe that that is what politicians are supposed to do.

    But nothing could be further from the truth.
    Since Governor Phillip, to the self governing colonies, to the self governing Federation, all politicians are elected to serve the British Monarch, not the people who elect them.
    Sure they try to appeal to voters with policy populism, but that is to secure an over-paid job with a non means tested pension for life. Some people would say anything to win such a life long sinecure.

    Alert moderator

    • frangipani:

      04 Sep 2013 11:08:18am

      Our politicians do not serve the British monarch; that's a ludicrous misrepresentation of what our democracy is. That's not to say we shouldn't become a republic, nor is it to say that our MPs presently serve the people very well. It is to say that claiming they serve the monarch is a total red herring which ignores the real issues.

      Alert moderator

      • dubious the third:

        04 Sep 2013 1:18:50pm

        There exists a Catch 22 frangipani.

        Because all politicians in this construct must swear allegiance to the British Monarch, as specified by the Constitution, they are unable to change it, and since the only "entity" that can write a Referendum Question are "the government of the day", it seems pretty much set in stone, or is that quarry.

        Certain public office holders in Australia such as the Governor General and members of both houses of federal parliament are required to make one of the oaths.[2] The words of both the oath and affirmation are attached as a schedule to the Constitution.[1][3]

        The Oath of Allegiance reads as follows:
        The Affirmation of Allegiance reads as follows:
        As per the schedule in the Constitution, the words "Her" and "Queen Victoria" are substituted as required with the pronoun and name of the reigning monarch.

        Alert moderator

        • frangipani:

          04 Sep 2013 3:20:47pm

          And so?

          That oath has nothing to do with "serving the Monarch" as a person, but with serving the democratic, constitutional system of which the monarch is the symbol. Centuries of legal and constitutional precedent establish exactly who Parliament serves, and it is not the monarch. If you think otherwise, consider the fate of Charles I. Or, for that matter, James II.

          Why not address the real shortcomings of our current system - the disengagement of politicians from the public they supposedly represent and/and serve - rather than worry about imaginary ones? No Westminster democracy has placed service to the monarch above service to the people in four hundred years.

          Alert moderator

        • dubious the third:

          04 Sep 2013 7:28:53pm

          I am trying to. Our politicians serve the empire, and themselves, not the people who elect them.
          Get it?

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          05 Sep 2013 11:28:56am

          Monarchies can't serve as a symbol of democracy. It's a contradiciton in terms. In democracy we get a choice. Monrachs arev hereditary. How have you missed this one?

          Alert moderator

      • dubious the third:

        04 Sep 2013 2:28:06pm

        When people are elected to Her Majesty's Parliament, first off, they must swear allegiance to Her Majesty.

        It may be an unpalatable fact, but it does help to explain many of the decisions of our politicians.

        Alert moderator

  • Cherna:

    04 Sep 2013 10:06:39am

    I for one find this election engaging. For me it started from the time Rudd first got into power, stuffed it up and before we had a chance to vote him out Labor had him politically assassinated and replaced him with Gillard.

    From that point in time ears pricked I followed the ensuing shemozzle with great interest to see if there was to be any improvement. There was none and my resolve turned from a need to punish Rudd07 to a need to punish Labor of its total dysfunction.

    As things evolved both my wishes were fulfilled - I can now vote, not only to remove Labor, but to fulfil my desire to punish Rudd for all the stuff ups in this first iteration that had him politically assassinated for incompetence.

    I would suggest most of the electorate have evolved to this sort of thinking. I think you are wrong to suggest most of us are not engaged. Watch the result com Sunday to find out just how engaged the electorate is to have Rudd tumble from euphoric highs mere weeks ago to Gillard lows as it currently stands.

    PS - Is there enough time to bring back Gillard so I can also punish her for the Carbon Tax lie...

    Alert moderator

    • tonyM:

      04 Sep 2013 4:56:40pm

      Cherna, Stop it! You had me in fits.

      Nice way to let off pent up frustrations. Better than a massage!

      Alert moderator

    • Metoo:

      05 Sep 2013 9:08:21am

      Cherna, I couldn't have put it better myself!

      Alert moderator

  • antipostmodernism:

    04 Sep 2013 10:14:59am

    The author has particular scorn for the asylum seekers debate which he derides as a 'small issue'. The people overwhelmingly don't think this is a small issue and are engaged with it. We are being criticised for not being engaged in issues that the author supports. In other words, he supports open borders, and we shouldn't pay any attention to it. He also implies that if we had hold of 'facts' on 'complex issues' like 'stop the boats', we would change our minds. Wrong. The people are not stupid, fact denying, racists; there are important common sense principles here. A modern sensible, confident, stable, sovereign nation does not allow anyone to just wander in to start a new life whenever they feel hard done by living in a third world country by turning up without invitation in a dodgy boat, full of lies, offensive passive-aggressive tactics, and queue jumping; we do not accept responsibility for everything that goes wrong in the world. We also have rational reasons to fear an influx of people from certain religious/cultural backgrounds that are difficult to integrate, a security risk, and an economic drain.

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      04 Sep 2013 12:57:15pm

      My brother hates boat people.

      According to him they take our jobs. If asked if there are any other factors he retorts with yeah, but none but count. I know my brother and that is code for yeah, but I am not about to waste any time finding them out.

      It just so happens that they do not take our jobs. If anything they are a burden on the unemployment system.

      My brother votes.

      My brother is also in my favourite category ? that is the almost half of the population that is functionally illiterate. In his case its not that he cant hold more than two concepts in his mind at once. Its that he cannot be bothered. He chooses stupidity through laziness.

      Like I said before, he votes and he also has the same say as me who has investigated this to the point of knowing that there are at least 12 interrelated issues at play.

      A modern sensible, confident, stable, sovereign nation does not do anything other then make evidence based policy. We are lacking that at present.

      Alert moderator

      • antipostmodernism:

        04 Sep 2013 2:41:20pm

        Asylum seekers are in the overcrowded market for unskilled jobs so they must take jobs from locals. The more recent ones are not allowed to work but who knows where that will end up.

        Asylum seeker ideology is not about 'evidence based policy'. It is about values. Its a sentimental thing. Some people feel good for apparently saving foreigners who appeal for help. I say there is nothing special about people who arrive by boat uninvited compared to a world full of les miserables. Evidence suggests that 'compassion' is gamed for economic enrichment. Evidence suggests that a tougher approach will stop many drownings. What about queue jumping? What about Australia's interest in regards to integration and the cost? Do you think an open border is sensible? Otherwise, name how many? Sometimes people who consider themselves intelligent make a simple decisions complicated by getting caught in a bind between a false belief system and reality. It's an irrational shambles. Knowing the facts does not help the asylum fanatics argument. Just say no.

        Alert moderator

        • sdrawkcaB:

          04 Sep 2013 6:21:14pm

          I note you often counter any sort of sympathetic position for asylum seekers as open borders.

          One or the other , black or white. Of course that is sheer stupidity.

          As for name how many. Why of course I have at my disposal the data and modelling of numerous government departments to make such a decision.

          Alert moderator

        • OUB :

          05 Sep 2013 11:02:01am

          I am not interested in having a shot at you (you can just as easily make the same suggestions about me) but perhaps you are retreating into a form of laziness similar to that you discern in your brother in refusing to flesh out your thoughts by dealing with the likely consequences of your preferences on dealing with asylum seekers. By doing so you leave your attitudes open to speculation and misinterpretation. From the other side of the debate I used to get just a bit frustrated in continually pointing out the likely consequences of Labor policy to bloggers supporting them and being brushed off with replies from moral high ground, all practicalities ignored. I respect your thoughtful approach to blogging but perhaps we all need to try harder to engage on the issues rather than resort to the distract and evade practices of our politicians.

          Alert moderator

    • Dove:

      04 Sep 2013 4:58:40pm

      They don't just rock up and get in. The spend some time in detention and then they are assesssed by the department of immigration. If you think that they are too lax in their assessments, please feel free to read the criteria for yourself and then complain to the new government.

      The second question is not whether they are deserving, but whether you happen to be able to get along with them. They seem rather willing to integrate here, so I think the onus is back on you.

      Alert moderator

      • John:

        04 Sep 2013 9:45:03pm

        Not really the case, Dove.

        We've seen very recently, several people arrested for people trafficking, and some of them came here as boat people. One has been charged with trafficking Thai girls for prostitution.

        A group of Sri Lankan boat people were arrested in West Australia for running a criminal enterprise faking credit cards, withdrawing cash from people's accounts and sending it back to the Tamil Tigers.

        Two boat people now living in Brisbane have confessed to committing several hundred murders.

        Two Iraqi boat people have been arrested for organising and running a heroin import ring.

        Police busted a racket in the Dandenong area run by Hazara boat people involving smuggling, money laundering and counterfeit identity documents, all run under the cover of a group of small retail shops.

        Captain Emad was a consistent people smuggler, came in as boat person himself, falsified information as to his alleged wife and daughter, then set up four families and occupied four Government houses.

        None of those people were found out by the investigative processes. None of those people is trying to get along with us.

        They do just "rock up and get in" because we allow them in on the "we cannot prove that you are dishonest" basis instead of insisting on the "you prove that you are honest before you get in" basis.

        Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          05 Sep 2013 10:43:32am

          I didn't say some of them weren't criminals. I said that the complaint lies with the department of immigration and their processes. It's beside the point but your examples might be brought into perspective when you find out that the crime rate is lower among refugees than the overall population. It's beside the point but your examples might bet an even clearer perspective when you find out that they represent but a fraction of the whole. Citing a couple of crimes and then trying to tar the lot with the one brush is faulty reasoning.

          Alert moderator

    • Jungle Boy:

      04 Sep 2013 5:54:49pm

      So it's okay for you to have your opinions but not okay for the author to have his?

      And on what basis do you claim to speak for "the people"?

      And where does the author expressly state he "supports open borders"? Do you think it's okay to put words in other people's mouths, or do you just make stuff up?

      When you claim that immigrants could have mysterious "religious / cultural backgounds", you are clearly implying that Australians already have such a background, and this can only be Christian. In which case, Australians have nothing to fear from foreigners, because Australians would know and duly implement the parable of the Good Samaritan, and if worse came to worse they would turn the other cheek.

      Alert moderator

    • azdrubal:

      04 Sep 2013 7:19:59pm

      You may disregard my previous reply.
      I was merely attempting to demonstrate an equivalent degree of irrationality.

      Alert moderator

  • EJJ:

    04 Sep 2013 10:21:19am

    David ? I believe that you are focusing on too much of the detail of election issues rather than the process. I do not think that any-thing is wrong or incorrect in the way people are engaged in the current political debate or not.
    Here in Australia we have real freedom ? even freedom from a legislated ?Bill of Rights?, freedom from religious dogma and freedom from dictatorship. Freedoms from the press because we do not have to read the articles or even believe that what is written is true.
    People may be cynical or disinterested in that this may mead that they are happy with the system. They may not be happy with the elected government. They may not be happy with the outcome or even the performance of the government.
    In fact even if the government of your choice is in power you can still be unhappy with their performance or some of the impacts of their policy implementation.
    In Australia ? we get the government that the Australian people elect (for what-ever reason) we do not lose our freedom ? if that happened then we would see a real interest from the Australian people as we are fearlessly independent and proud to be Australians.

    Alert moderator

  • RoxyR:

    04 Sep 2013 10:24:38am

    My feeling is the third leg of that Bermuda triangle has a large negative input.

    Continually we have big headlines siezing on some minor point or slip that a politician makes as if it was of significance importance. We have this continual 24 hr cycle that has to be filled with 30 second grabs; I think it just wears everybody down until we are just sick and tired of it and just want it over, that's how I feel about it anyway.

    Consequently its no wonder politicians say the bare minimum. If you were continually bashed around the ears you'd do the same.

    I think Julia setting a date so far out did not help, it focused the minds on the election, but I don't believe that was the main cause of the malaise.

    Alert moderator

    • citizen smith:

      04 Sep 2013 5:23:55pm

      We have ended up with 'policy on the run' decisions to feed the 24 hour news cycle and a media and society that will not accept that government is not excluded from the adage that 'Those that never make a mistake never made anything'.

      Alert moderator

  • nitronaut:

    04 Sep 2013 10:26:15am

    The first thing that came to mind reading this article is that, yes, maybe we should review whether compulsory voting is relevant or good for the country. Other major democracies don't have it and Australia seems unique in this. Democracy is about being active in our political process, this means spending time and effort to being involved and informed about politics and economics. People seem to spend more time researching to buy shoes, they'll spend hours on the Internet, researching and comparing prices, than they do debating or contemplating politics. The half hour every three years they spend to go to the voting booth is a real drag for them. And yet they'll complain about how bad politicians are.
    Compulsory voting was a move made by this nation's founders to strengthen the democratic institution they were building. If they could foresee the laziness of their descendants, who take their liberties for granted, maybe they would not have been so keen on it.

    Alert moderator

    • Bren:

      04 Sep 2013 11:51:54am

      Actually it was in response to a federal election where voter turnout was less than 25% (sometime in early 1920's I think).
      To avoid being run over by single issue and extremist but well organised political factions (not sure but maybe they meant facists; Leninists; Bolshevicks etc) if close to 100% of the voters had to attend a polling booth they would vote and the above groups would find it difficult to win government without a large % of overall Australian support.

      Alert moderator

      • Dove:

        04 Sep 2013 4:59:54pm

        I think it was stop the "other" side being more organised than them and it was passed through a deal between the Country and Labor parties.

        Alert moderator

        • Sceptical Sam:

          04 Sep 2013 8:02:03pm

          Compulsory voting?

          It's not compulsory to vote.

          All you need to do is turn up, get your name marked off, take the papers to the booth and inadvertently make a mistake like writing something pleasant on them, take them to the box, stuff them, and go to the pub.

          It's only compulsory to get your name marked off and to go through the motions.

          Unless, of course, Dove, you're advocating a voting supervisor who checks your papers to see that you have voted correctly.

          Now is that what the lefties want? Sounds like them.

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          05 Sep 2013 10:45:39am

          I didn't mention "compulasory voting". That was mentioned in the post above. If mentioning something the Country Party did makes me a lefty (whatever that means) then it speaks deeply of your lack of political education.

          Alert moderator

        • Sceptical Sam:

          05 Sep 2013 12:03:49pm

          Agrarian socialists. That's what the so-called Country Party was.

          Just like any other socialist, they thought the world owed them a living. At tax-payers expense.

          Why would anybody be surprised that at times in our history the socialists stuck together.

          Now, what is it you're trying to say, Dove?

          Alert moderator

        • Dove:

          05 Sep 2013 2:06:15pm

          I couldn't care less, either way. I was repsonding to Ben's comment on how compulsory voting came about. It's a matter for the historical record, not political opinion. If you want to play with others who share your care about domestic party politics, this blog is your oyster.

          Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      04 Sep 2013 12:18:57pm

      nitronaut I would not like to see the end of compulsory voting as it forces people to a least think about who runs our country and it keeps the fanatics at bay.
      Without compulsory voting parties like the loopy Greens would be far more influential than they are.

      Alert moderator

      • Bev:

        04 Sep 2013 1:47:41pm

        One time only. You can be sure if a party introduces loopy policies the voter turn out next time will be large.

        Alert moderator

        • Sceptical Sam:

          04 Sep 2013 7:48:17pm

          European political history of the 1920s and 1930s doesn't support your case, Bev.

          Alert moderator

      • frangipani:

        04 Sep 2013 1:51:27pm

        I'm ambivalent about compulsory voting, having voted both in Canada and here. One thing I do dislike is the preferential system, or at least compulsory preferential, which forces me to put a number, however low, beside a politician I despise, and which leads to very undemocratic processes like "above the line" voting for the Senate.

        Alert moderator

      • nitronaut:

        04 Sep 2013 3:10:34pm

        And what we have now is better? Where two political parties each take turns running the country, mirroring each others policies, until the country faces real economic problems and they end up merging to prevent an alternative economic movement from overthrowing them. Just like what happened in Greece.
        I was not advocating getting rid of comp voting, but it would be interesting to see who'd win and what voter turn out we'd have if comp comp voting was abolished. And what is this fear over 'loopy extremism'? Both the ALP and the LNP have 'die hard', jealous followers who stick to their colour like footy club supporters, and who are now indulging in the worst hate mongering i've seen in my life time. Over what? Ideology? What's even worse they stubbornly follow their colours regardless of the contradiction in ideology versus behaviour.
        That's loopy.

        Alert moderator

        • EVAN:

          04 Sep 2013 6:08:33pm

          "what voter turn out we'd have if comp comp voting was abolished"

          Well nitronaut I guess would be the US and what is their turnout about 30%?.

          Alert moderator

    • goodvibes:

      04 Sep 2013 1:57:47pm

      If elections are now being decided by the willfully uninformed and disinterested "Celine the hairdresser and her friends" in a few marginal electorates then surely it is time for either voluntary voting or some sort of "voter's license test" where electors must show some degree of understanding if not interest in the vitally important process in which they are participating. After reading this article it is easy to understand why almost every democracy on earth embraces voluntary voting as a better representation of the will of the people.

      Alert moderator

      • Sceptical Sam:

        04 Sep 2013 7:54:03pm


        In a democratic country even the disengaged have rights. In this case they have the right to be disengaged.

        That's democracy.

        It's only the authoritarians of the left or right who wish to have things changed, as it is they who think such a change will benefit them.

        Perhaps we need a "Disengaged Party". It would be a bit like Labor I suppose, in that it wouldn't give a stuff either about what it did to the economy or anything else.

        Alert moderator

        • goodvibes:

          05 Sep 2013 10:46:06am

          And in a true democracy (that is every other one except Australia and a few tin pot tiny states) you have the right to take your disengagement further if you wish and choose not to vote rather than go through the charade of having to turn up at a ballot booth and get your name ticket off and then vote informal or donkey. The main reason politicians treat us like sheep is that they are allowed to round us all up every three years by enforced voting by which they then claim their mandates. No true concept of the word democracy exists in a system where it is illegal not to vote and perpetrators are fined.

          Alert moderator

        • Sceptical Sam:

          05 Sep 2013 12:09:42pm

          Well, no.

          The beauty of compulsory voting is that the disengaged can demonstrate with their informal vote just how poorly the political strategist have performed; and hence how irrelevant they have become to a section of the Australian community.

          There is great value in knowing that metric.

          Alert moderator

    • Andrew:

      04 Sep 2013 5:57:50pm

      I would take it a step further than abolishing compulsory voting. Voting rights should be earned. There should be a course and a test that would give people a licence to vote.

      Alert moderator

    • Michael E:

      04 Sep 2013 8:05:39pm

      Well said nitronaut.

      People should be as free not to vote as they are free to vote.

      Why compel people to attend a polling place and go through the motions of voting if they are indifferent as to who wins, or comfortable whoever wins, or if they don't like anyone who is standing .

      Compulsory voting breeds indolent political parties and a debased political debate aimed at catching the attention of voters who are uninterested and see no reason to become interested.

      It was not introduced by the "nation's founders". Our first 43 federal elections were conducted under voluntary voting. It was introduced for federal voting after almost no national or parliamentary debate in 1924.

      Alert moderator

      • Michael E:

        05 Sep 2013 2:06:20pm

        That should be our first nine federal elections were conducted under voluntary voting.

        Alert moderator

      • Jono:

        05 Sep 2013 2:11:39pm

        Why not take it a step further? People should be free to disregard any law they don't like if it was passed by politicians they didn't (for whatever reason) vote for.

        At least compulsory attendance at a polling place forces us all to "own" the result of an election - you can't say "it's nothing to do with me because I didn't vote".

        Alert moderator

  • Fred Borbage Junior:

    04 Sep 2013 10:28:53am

    Abbott's dummy spit over the past three years and his disgraceful win at all osts attitude has destroyed any interest in politics for many. He has scape goated refugees, vilified climate scientists and generally trash talked anyone who has disagreed with him. He has gauged the fundamental ignorance of the electorate brilliantly. Both major parties are now prepared to jettison values and long held policies in an effort to gain government. Possibly four year fixed terms may help parties have the guts to get something done. Abbott will practise the Conservative tradition of slashing and burning for two and a bit years and then throwing money via middle class welfare in an effort to get re elected in his last year in office. The OECD determined that the most wasteful spending in Australia's history was under Howard. Abbott will be the same.

    Alert moderator

    • frangipani:

      04 Sep 2013 11:14:21am

      I think you could substitute Abbott's name with Rudd's, and make exactly the same points. His dummy spit over losing the PMship to Julia and his subsequent undermining of her government; the vilification of asylum seekers via the PNG solution; the trashing of about two thirds of the ALP front bench; and the extraordinarily fake folksiness of his approach to constituents; and of course the policy reversals every time the polls dip; have together destroyed any interest many Australians would take in democracy.

      We're being asked to make a choice between two unsavoury major parties, an economically illiterate third party, and a bunch of single issue, fruitcake minor parties, and the author wonders why people are disengaged. I'd have been amazed if they weren't disengaged.

      Alert moderator

      • Peter of Melbourne:

        04 Sep 2013 12:23:13pm

        Nicely summed up.

        Alert moderator

      • RosieA:

        04 Sep 2013 9:43:16pm

        I agree with much of what you say frangipani, but I disagree with your view that the Greens are economically illiterate. The problem is that the dominant view in society is still that we are dependent on the economy......quite understandable because mostly we buy food and clothing and everything else these days, and we have constructed a society in which it dominates our thinking. The subsidiary of this view is the one that Abbott stated the other day, "that you need a healthy economy to have a healthy environment".

        Those who understand ecology, the natural world and the human population as an animal species, are well aware that like all species, we are totally dependent on our environment, for all that we might like to think that we are separate from, and have control over, it. When you are aware of our dependence on the environment, the issue becomes what can the environment afford us to have.

        A healthy environment being dependent on a healthy economy is clearly illogical when you think about it. If we didn't damage and degrade our environment in the first place, then we wouldn't need a healthy economy to restore it......with this illogical type of thinking we will always be trying to repair damage. As has been pointed out with respect to climate change.....preventative action will have less impact on our economy than the consequences of not acting. (Is this really too hard a concept for a Rhodes scholar to grasp?)

        The difficulty is that we (humans) face limits.....a large proportion of the population is still trying to prove humans are above limits......that we are omnipotent, that we can have and do whatever we like. Such people deride those with the humility to see the destruction we are wreaking, ultimately to ourselves. Perhaps before calling them economically illiterate, it would be a good idea to check your own environmental and ecological literacy. Our economy is man-made and can be changed; natural laws are not man-made and we try to change them at our peril.

        Alert moderator

    • Alice:

      04 Sep 2013 11:20:33am

      "Abbott's dummy spit"?? Must have missed that one. I was not aware that Mr Abbott either spat the dummy or had a "disgraceful" attitude towards winning arguably the most important election for some time.

      Alert moderator

    • Bren:

      04 Sep 2013 11:56:10am

      Takes two to tango.
      Rudd and Gillard, with their supporters (Thomsen, Slipper) have added to the general cess pit of the past 4 years.
      arguably far more responsible than the LNP if you start taking account of ALP behaviour in QLD (admitted false corruption charges against political opponents) and NSW (ICAC - not sure thats over).
      And lets not forget the internal ALP squabble over the AWU in Victoria where one unionist accuses another of fraud.

      Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      04 Sep 2013 12:23:57pm

      I do like the way the ALP luvvies think the electorate is ignorant when they finally wake up to how incompetent the ALP are.

      Alert moderator

      • In praise of Abbott:

        04 Sep 2013 5:19:25pm

        Yes Evan, those ALP Luvvies better get used to Abbott as Prime Minister, the scum always rises to the top.

        Alert moderator

  • MT_Syd:

    04 Sep 2013 10:44:52am

    Politicians have a lot to answer for.

    But then again it's unlikely people would be so cynical if the Murdoch press (ie the telegraph) wasnt so ridiculously biased

    Alert moderator

    • Bren:

      04 Sep 2013 11:57:03am

      They do it because it sells papers to their readers, who keep buying suggesting the Tele is following its readers opinions, not leading them.

      Alert moderator

    • Peter of Melbourne:

      04 Sep 2013 12:04:10pm


      As opposed to the Fairfax press?

      Get a grip. If our the people who make up our political parties were in the slightest way had integrity and were competent then we would not be in this mess. However since our politics are decided behind closed door at either the LNP or Labor offices that is just a pipedream.

      The whole system needs to be completely overhauled so that the two party system is pretty much neutered... not much different from how the duopoly which now controls the majority of our retail sector needs to be neutered (and it is only policy decisions by the LNP and Labor which allowed that to happen)

      Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      04 Sep 2013 12:25:48pm

      But then again it's unlikely people would be so cynical if the ABC wasnt so ridiculously biased.

      There fixed it for you MT.

      Alert moderator

      • MT_syd:

        04 Sep 2013 1:25:22pm

        yes, because any media that isnt extreme right wing must therefore be communist propagandists

        reality is that Fairfax and ABC are centre left, Murdoch is far right

        Alert moderator

        • EVAN:

          04 Sep 2013 2:25:55pm

          MT we all see life through our own pair of rose colored glasses.

          Alert moderator

        • antipostmodernism:

          04 Sep 2013 3:29:12pm

          The Syd Tele is far right wing? In that case most of Western Sydney (traditionally Labor voters) is too because they choose to read it over the SMH. Explain how Labor voters are far right wing.

          Alert moderator

        • Jono:

          05 Sep 2013 2:14:35pm

          People choose to read the Tele because it's got lots of pictures, lots of sport and no long articles with big words like those in the SMH or Age.

          Alert moderator

  • grandmother:

    04 Sep 2013 10:48:09am

    The media has a case to answer, in the disengagement factor. It chooses what is "news".
    It also chooses what is constantly brought before the public - in the headlines, on the TV news, at the top of the internet page - and what should be further down the list and easily overlooked by all but the serious followers of current events?
    Who made the decision, for example, that there should be something reported about politics, no matter how trivial and bitchy, every day? No wonder cynicism is the ruling political mood!
    Who decided that the hairdressers of Australia need the stockmarket news every night on their TV news? The media has decided that money is very important news.
    Who decided that sport deserved daily reporting, while environmental matters only occasionally get into the headlines. (This is surely the biggest real issue of the 21st century, with our ongoing destruction of the world as we know it.)
    Is it any wonder that it is easy for politicians to convince the public that we have a financial crisis, while they're happy not to feel the need to address the far more pressing environmental one.

    Alert moderator

    • Bren:

      04 Sep 2013 12:02:17pm

      Media follow their readers / viewers interests.
      Lots of research done on focus groups, internet search engines, to find out what is important to readers / internet users / tv and radio viewers.
      The media than follow the audience because they sell advertising, not news or education.
      The media will try and pretend they 'lead' opinion but rarely do they (e.g. 1999 Republic debate-ABC, News Corp and Fairfax all said yes to a republic).

      why do we have to have politics 365 days a year no matter how irrelevent the 'story' ? My fear is they need vision and a modern politicain will do anything to be in the media if only because it means there opponent is not.

      Alert moderator

    • John:

      04 Sep 2013 9:51:41pm

      The same answer applies to all your questions, grandmother.

      And the answer is the readership. The readers put their hands in their pockets to hand over the price of the newspaper they choose, and as long as they keep confirming, by handing over the price of the newspaper, that they are content with what is published, then the publishers will keep giving it to them.

      If they withhold payment, choose something else or stop buying altogether, then the publisher will find whatever else it is that will catch their interest.

      Alert moderator

  • Steve:

    04 Sep 2013 10:48:48am

    I would make three points. First, our society has atomised and has far fewer collective shared outlooks and experiences. The population is far less homogenious than in previous times.

    Second, in terms of the public switching off media coverage, we have too many journalists writing for too many outlets and all trying to find the 'gotcha' moment or human interest angle that breaks through. The public are truely swamped by too much trivial information and they see little point trying to wade through it to find something concrete and reliable.

    Third, governments have far fewer means of really improving peoples' lives these days. Globalisaton and a more-market economy ties their hands.

    Alert moderator

  • havasay:

    04 Sep 2013 10:52:05am

    The unprecenedented level of disinterest in politics in Australia is matched only be the unprecedented level of deceit exercised by the current Leader of the Opposition.

    He went out into the Electorate and shreiked that the Carbon Tax would WIPE WHYALLA OFF THE MAP and THE COST OF LAMB ROAST WOULD BE $100, and it was ALL LIES. The Carbon Tax came in and the effect on the CPI was as Treasury forecast about a 9% one off hit, and most people were adequately compensated.

    Noone in the media was much interested in calling out such lunatic statements for what they were or indeed even disagreeing with them. There isn't any more political disaffection than normal in Australia but there is an unprecedented level of anger that such a campaign of deceit was expedited by a media that has never before so completely abandoned it's responsibiliy to the public interest.

    The same media sit and ponder the disaffection, pontificating on it's depth and origins. While those who can clearly see what has happened and is still happening sit and fume. It won't be long after this media determined election before those fuming individuals coagulate into a tsunami of white hot rage.

    Then we will see if this champion of the Christian right is good for business.

    Alert moderator

    • Bren:

      04 Sep 2013 12:13:55pm

      Not sure where you have been but I recall emerson singing about Whyalla quite a bit and the LNP getting a lot of stick for it.
      The problem is the ALP, for many reasons, did not stay disciplined and focused on the issue of the exaggerated impact of Carbon tax (which was not the issue, it was the changing of the mind and not explaining to the electorate properly why the Carbon Tax was being brought in).
      instead they got distracted by themselves and started talking about themselves, which became the more regular quote and discussion from ALP politicians to media.
      Right or wrong there was a war inside the ALP and it distracted everyone including the media, and none of it was LNP fault.
      So before you go all white hot fuming between 2 white male christian candidates, have a good hard look at the way the ALP has conducted itself. Blaming someone else might make the pain less intense, but failure to recognise the internal shortcomings and fix them will leave the ALP in the political wilderness for a long time. Not the media's fault and the election result has not been predetermined by the media or anyone else. Childish self absorbed and ill disciplined over 4 years is the cause and where your tsunami of white hot rage should be directed.

      Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      04 Sep 2013 12:32:04pm

      You seem a bit steamed up your self havasay but relax after Saturday Tony will be in charge.No more carbon tax,no more boat people,money in the bank whats not to like.

      Alert moderator

    • Dare I Say:

      04 Sep 2013 4:25:34pm

      Spot On ! Yes the "Aussie Political Well" was poisoned (deliberately) years ago. It coincided with the Abbott ascendency and has been a continuous screech ever since.

      With most of the dirty work done, Abbott is masquerading now as Prime-Ministerial (all calm and reassuring - a bucket please...) His fellow head-kick Howard Ministers have all now gone quiet as their evil deeds come to fruition.

      Demolition of character and purpose has worked splendidly for the Murdoch-backed heretics. And they know they can get away with it because the majority of the "Swingers" are too thick or lazy to see through it.

      It's the perfect storm of active ignorance with the age of self-promotion. Instant gratification and poor attention span for the younger set, whilst the older just get angry and return to self-interested type (with a baseball bat to swing).

      Yea...really intelligent politics. Just when we thought we were emerging from the primeordial soup of the "lazy Ossie Battler" we get the "disinterested Ossie cretin"- young or old.

      To "use" them as dupes on which you base your success, is an indictment of the state of politics degenerating to new levels of disgrace.

      And yes the "tea party" Conservatives are to blame. Sadly the're pleased... And so the saga continues...

      Alert moderator

  • Philip:

    04 Sep 2013 11:02:23am

    Skeptic, I attended a rally in Cairns a number of years ago and Bob spoke about the ridiculous free trade policies LNP and ALP follow and up until that day I had always thought Bob was a bit of a nutter. Even the hard core unionists gave him a cheer
    I totally changed my mind that, it is small wonder he is so popular in North Qld after he finished speaking he got around LISTENING and giving his opinion whether or not it was agreeable to the person he speaking with.
    I have voted ALP all my life. This time around his candidates for The Senate will be getting mine

    Alert moderator

  • Tucker:

    04 Sep 2013 11:03:57am

    I think this issue is a complex one. Most people today are used to information being given to them, not having to find out for themselves. However, the bulk of the media tell people what to think rather than presenting the facts. For some people it is just easier to switch off, rather than actively seek out information so they can make up their own mind rather than being told what to think. I remember some years ago, before another election I was working with an 18 year old girl, who when facing her first election was apathetic, rather than excited about exercising her right to vote for the very first time. I expressed my surprise at this and then proceeded to explain to her that voting was a right and a responsbility. You cannot complain about government if you refuse to have a role in the electoral process. I told her she needed to seek out the policies of the relative parties, sit down and work out which one aligned best with her beliefs and then vote for that party (I wanted her to make up her own mind rather than me telling her what to think). I think my enthusiasm for the process did the trick, she did what I advised and engaged in the process and I hope is still doing that.

    I think people feel helpless and when they are like that, they do not engage. But it is up to all of us, the media included to remind them what a privilege it is to live in a democracy and that we have a responsbility as citizens of that democracy to engage in the political process and express our political beliefs through the ballot. People need to seek out information and make up their own minds.

    Alert moderator

  • David:

    04 Sep 2013 11:15:40am

    Disengagement begins when politicians stop being representatives and start becoming celebrities. The door knocking and listening has been replaced by focus groups, imported campaign specialists and soundbites borrowed from U.S campaigns. Even the t shirts (Women for Gillard) are direct copies of DNC or RNC inventions.

    The political process is so smooth, so controlled and so removed from the actual people in the electorate that voters see no common ground between them and the politicians. The same thing happened when police stopped walking the beat and talking to people and moved into cars. Politicians used to be 'us' and now they are 'them'.

    Alert moderator

  • Hudson Godfrey:

    04 Sep 2013 11:25:35am

    I suspect part of the reason why the electorate is disengaged is because the government likewise has retreated from influencing those factors that most concern and affect people's lives.

    The doctrines of smaller government and privatisation have lead to a situation whereby faced with the "great moral challenge of our time" far from having a controlling interest over power generation our utility bills and business overheads are at the whim of a market mechanism.

    We understand that the RBA controls interest rates, and that even then outside influences are afoot that means your mortgage rate seems further from anyone's control, much less the government's, than ever.

    Both parties give lip service to so many of the same policies that we're reduced to talking heads on cooking shows (sorry Annabel) and some esoteric arguments over who we can trust to give us a straight answer about costings. Whereas most of us suspect the money they're fighting about comes straight out of our pockets in the same amounts regardless of how they spend it in ways that barely impact on us unless we are ourselves pensioners or welfare recipients.

    In short the more things change in politics the more they stay the same, and that's why a lot of people don't feel engaged.

    Alert moderator

  • Huonian:

    04 Sep 2013 11:35:15am

    Overseas, people are risking their necks for the right to vote. Yet, here in Oz, many of us whinge about voting as though it's a huge burden.

    We are behaving like the over-indulged and petulant child who whines endlessly about his good fortune.

    Most Australian pollies are good people whose workload would bury most of us. Sure, they are not saints or superman, but isn't it the whole point that the people we send to the Parliament are people just like us?

    And why is it the pollies' fault that so many of us are not engaged? Have we become so weak and pathetic that we can't put in just a little bit of effort ourselves to make our democracy work? Do we really need our pollies' to pull stupid stunts to attract our attention? If so, that says more about us than about them.

    Abbott, Albanese, Bowen, Burke, Hockey, Gillard, Wong etc etc are all good people. The demands we make of them are quite unreasonable.

    If we are not engaging usefully, that's our fault, not theirs.

    It is so easy to whinge and whine from the sidelines. Any idiot can do that - and most idiots do.

    Sure, the 2013 election campaign has been a bit dull. Certainly very boring when compared with the way they are sorting out political differences in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere currently !

    Alert moderator

    • Kate:

      04 Sep 2013 12:54:24pm

      Hockey a good person? I've met Joe and let's just say that you should judge people by how they treat waitresses and receptionists - those they feel are inferior to them.

      Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      04 Sep 2013 1:53:14pm

      Let us be blunt.
      A politician is not a nice person. They are typically control freaks.

      Pick on any one ? Bishop. Argued against asbestos victims being compensated. Nice people do not wind up in that position.

      Pick another ? Rudd. Nice people do not spend three years undermining others.

      As for engaged. What is there to be engaged about? They both have largely the same policies and outlook. Sure, one fudges a bit here and the other a bit there but essentially they are the same centre right party with the odd right winger thrown in for variety.

      On Q and A two nights ago we had some real questions being asked. I have not heard such questions for a very long time.

      That level of debate should be happening every day. They should be availing themselves at the local shopping centre every weekend be open to be given a complete spray. They should be getting a spray because they are doing a rotten job.

      Yesterday on the state parliament steps a disgruntled teachers aid bailed up the state education minister. He (the teachers aid) was moved on. He tried to engage and he was moved on. In my opinion Collier has the duty to stand there for however long the constituent deems. Collier is a servant. He is not serving.

      They are not nice people.
      They shield themselves from real people.
      They are not nice people.

      Alert moderator

  • Lehan Ramsay:

    04 Sep 2013 11:47:41am

    People seem pretty excited about it, there's a lot to learn about. There are exposes of slips of the tongue, probably there will even be the odd wardrobe malfunction by the end of it, what's not to get excited about?

    Alert moderator

  • MJLC:

    04 Sep 2013 11:51:18am

    "What are we to make of this? What came first? The cynical politician? Or the disengagement?"

    A very silly string of 'questionlettes' that come about when an argument is reduced to 'A' and 'B' in isolation. The answer, Mr Hardaker, is that both emerged at the same time - because the driver is neither of the two options you've put forward.

    In this corner of Planet Earth in the year 2013 the air is filled with the fruits of the "Information Age". More correctly, it should really be referred to as the "Distraction Age". It's not a recent phenomenon, as I can easily see its roots extending back as far as the invention of the wireless, but the pace and breadth of its reach is certainly galloping ahead at a fair clip in today's world. What you have is two evolving entities side by side - humans and their means of distraction, and the respective rates of evolution aren't synchronised. We now live in a time where not only is the opportunity for distraction a 24/7 possibility, it is now necessary to CHOOSE which of the other competing distractions you must set aside in order to be distracted in the way you'd like.

    "Engagement" actually requires effort. When there is no distraction it naturally follows that engagement is easy to achieve - in effect, the act of engagement becomes a paradoxical form of distraction in itself. Those days are long gone, and it's a characteristic of human existence to, more often than not, take the easier and more comfortable of options placed before you. And thus the quickening downward spiral proceeds apace.

    So, "What came first?" you ask - the 20th century seems to be one easily identifiable thing that springs to mind.

    Alert moderator

  • EVAN:

    04 Sep 2013 11:56:23am

    David a good proportion of the electorate have been disengaged for three years just sitting oiling our baseball bats and waiting and on Saturday we are going to use them to get rid of this incompetent lying government.

    Alert moderator

    • MDG:

      04 Sep 2013 1:06:46pm

      And right there is a good example of why voters who aren't card-carrying barrackers are probably getting jack of it all. No engagement with policy issues. No engagement with questions. Just blind, ideological, emotionally-driven certainty with no room for doubt or introspection or any actual information whatsoever, tacked almost randomly onto any topic that could be turned into an opportunity to sledge the other side.

      Incidentally, if you oil a baseball bat, wouldn't that increase the risk of it slipping out of your hands?

      Alert moderator

    • Iswide:

      04 Sep 2013 1:17:03pm

      Evan, and replace it with another incompetent, lying government.

      Alert moderator

  • Paul W:

    04 Sep 2013 11:59:20am

    Gone are the day where the national debate via the media actually focuses on issue where the content of those issues matter.

    It's a national debate like a battle of slogans. Repeated with emotion.

    Sense, logic, teasing out the issues to find the under lying bits of fact is just lost in the mess.

    When you go to the details and then go to the overall out come both Liberal and Labor are "straw men".

    The NBN is real and valuable but the debate about it is rubbish. do it once and do it right is what I say. By the time the fixes happen to the Liberal's cheap deal it will cost more.

    The boats stopping is real enough but not by crushing the lives of the asylum seekers. We just need to better fund the camps they go to in Indonesia to send them somewhere once their docs get checked. That is the low cost way for all concerned.

    The carbon tax is a real issue with science clear. It's the low cost way of completely changing the power source over a decade or two in time to allow civilisation to survive the climate change.
    The debate about it is just rubbish.

    Don't vote liberal dont vote labor, vote a minor party that you can trust.

    Alert moderator

    • frangipani:

      04 Sep 2013 1:14:09pm

      You have a lot of easy solutions - and none of them are based on reality. The NBN is a great concept - but the corporate plan is a crock. We don't need to crush asylum seekers, but funding camps in Indonesia and simply leaving them there is indistinguishable in my mind to funding a camp in PNG or Nauru and leaving them there. The carbon tax is a real issue all right, but both majors have walked away from it, and the Greens don't have a clue about how to deal with the impact on business.

      Bottom line: there are no parties, major or minor, we can trust.

      Alert moderator

      • Paul W:

        04 Sep 2013 2:34:18pm

        Funding the camps in Indonesia to relocate the asylum seekers to countries who want them is a perfectly economically viable way to do our part. It's the most humane and the lowest cost. Much cheaper than a silly boat buy up scheme one polly thought of.

        The economic cost to business is trivial for your standard business. I own and run one. I know what it costs to go carbon neutral. It's not that much. 3 % of profits is what it costs me. It's a trivial cost.

        Bottom line is you have not read the Greens policies to a point where you understand them.

        Alert moderator

    • Peter of Melbourne:

      04 Sep 2013 2:07:49pm

      +Agree. It is a piece of national infrastructure that also needs to be controlled by the public and not turn into the mess we have had since private enterprise have put their finger in that particular pie.

      + They are not the citizens of Australia's problem as much as bleeding hearts want them to be. They are running from problems they have created by themselves with their failure to create and maintain functioning societies. Speak to NGO's about your proposal as Australian taxpayer funds should not be being wasted on this non issue.

      +An absolutely pathetic meme. Australia as a whole has no impact at all on CO2 emissions let alone any of the other greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere by humans. We should continue the way we are without bankrupting our economy by purchasing shoddy Chinese made products as you Labor allowed to happen and you seem to be advocating. Your little solar panels have a limited lifespan and cannot in any meaningfull way provide a baseload power supply which is vital for a 1st world economy to stay as a functioning 1st world economy. You want to fix the CO2 emission issue, look to Eurasia and North America who are responsible for between 85% and 95% of human emissions.

      +Since there are no minor parties who can be trusted the best bet is to just spoil your vote by writing a nice big "NO" on it. It is the only message that our bottomfeeding politicians will understand.

      Alert moderator

      • Paul W:

        04 Sep 2013 6:26:07pm

        The Greens are trust worthy. They said they wanted a carbon tax and they forced one into being.

        The said they want to increase the funding to UNHCR camps in Indonesia to get the boat people seat;ed so they don't have to risk their lives by coming here by boat and they will do it if given the balance of power in the senate.

        There policies are fully costed and on their web site well before the election.

        That means that they can be trusted to do what they say no matter what the nutters through at them.

        Alert moderator

        • Peter of Melbourne:

          05 Sep 2013 10:52:16am

          And the psycho Greens also have a policy of opening our borders with no control over who enters our society. Which is why there is now a major backlash against countryshoppers who are using the flawed UNHCR treaty to lodge asylum claims within our country.

          They also have a policy of wanting to pay artists a full wage at the publics expense! Give me a break, there is a reason the phrase "starving artist" came into being. Those who starve find real employment leaving the field to those with talent. Then again my wordsmith talents are pretty damn good so I suppose if the do *chuckle* ever form a Government, even as a minor party, again *gales of laughter* I can always claim a full adult wage on the dole.

          They also want to send $10's of billions of Australia cold hard currency to the Europeans and their flawed Carbon Trading Scheme (which has been defrauded by all and sundry) when 5% of Australia's 1.5% global contribution amounts to 0.07%. Is that worth throwing $10's of billions of dollars away for, expecially when the cash is going to those who are a main contributor to global emissions responsible for around 40%, rather than demanding they cease their emissions.

          Alert moderator

    • EVAN:

      04 Sep 2013 2:30:39pm

      "Don't vote liberal dont vote labor, vote a minor party that you can trust."

      Oh Geez Paul just filed another keyboard with coffee.
      Do you mean a crazy minor party like the Greens no thanks the ALP is crazy enough for me.

      Alert moderator

      • Paul W:

        04 Sep 2013 6:31:38pm

        Both Liberal and Labor keep trying to silence climate scientists who say that coal has to go. Coal costs more than it brings in.

        Being crazy is trying to keep coal when it does so much harm.

        A doctor in Newcastle maintains that the illness caused by coal to the national health bill exceeds that export income from it. It's very poisonous to be near a coal mine like so many are. The cancer rates are right up.

        If you read the Greens policies they are good policies. I don't agree with all of them but I can talk about the issues with Green pollies. It's democratic unlike the two big parties.

        Alert moderator

    • tonyM:

      04 Sep 2013 5:47:58pm

      Paul W
      For a business person it is a surprise that you really miss the point. Many of these issues are not about you so your personal situation is of no consequence.

      Carbon Tax:
      The science is not clear at all - at all!!!
      Even the IPCC in its new report will drop the claimed T sensitivity from 3 deg C to 2.3C. Quite a big difference. Much further to go to fit in with reality. Not one of their models has worked.

      The tax is designed to get rid of industries. Go read up on it. Ask Bob brown. Ask Treasury whose forecast a drop of 1.5% of GDP or about 250K jobs.

      Most of aluminium will go. It takes 17 tonne of CO2 when making one tonne of Al.

      Cement is just as bad. Half its CO2 comes from the intrinsic chemical process.

      Manufacturing can't get the monkey off its back no matter what they do ? unless we go nuclear.

      Asylum seekers:
      I agree we should not harm them. But they must be stopped.

      I suggest the best way is with a deal with Indonesia. Agree to take all the people lured there by our honey on the table policy, provided we get a strong border protection agreement with a return of all boat people (temporarily).

      Can't agree.
      If FTN costs $29Billion then the FTP will cost far more than $90Billion. This is just fruit loop economics where capital productivity concepts are just thrown out the door.

      Fibre does not last forever as has been suggested - that is nonsense. The manufacturer only guarantees 20 or 25 years.

      Even though future developments will ultimately deliver all fibre it needs to be assessed on a net present value basis i.e. there is a time value to the money. This is how a capex is evaluated.

      In addition with FTN the LNP are saying they can complete by 2016. That is a winner. I am surprised.

      FTN prices its 25MBits/sec at the same price as NBN Co at 12 Mbits/sec. FTN can get to 100MBits per sec with VDSL.

      If you want or need much more pay for the full fibre installation. If a business cannot afford an amortised charge of $500 p.a. I suggest that business is not worth worrying about and should not be imposing on the public purse.

      Alert moderator

      • Paul W:

        04 Sep 2013 9:52:04pm

        It's clear to me that both the need to go nuclear is obvious and the harm to the climate from fossil carbon is only getting clearer. Fourth Gen nukes are cheaper at making electricity than coal so I'm not worried about Aluminium long term. GE Toshiba can turn coal powered generators into to fourth Gen nukes at a reasonable fee.

        The price in carbon is needed to allow the market to find the best way forward. I don't agree with direct action as it's a waste of money for CO2 abatement.

        The IPCC is only a clearing house that reviews recent science. Both of us know that science never proves anything, it builds a picture of what is happening and that picture is getting clearer and clearer.

        The recent peer reviewed publications are still saying 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

        The contrarian claims about a drop in climate sensitivity are still not making mainstream climate science. Its a gambit claim.

        The businesses that are struggling with climate science and the carbon tax that it brings are only the very big CO2 emitters. There are work arounds or they go. That is what needs to happen with industries that do great harm.

        The Liberals claim that business cost in general are too high with a carbon tax. Both you and I know it's not business that can't cope with a carbon tax but big CO2 emitters. So my low carbon experience still holds and it does not cost much for most businesses.

        The addition of externalities needs to happen with big CO2 emitters.

        The temperature for only CO2 forcings is 1.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2 however since we live in a water world and H2O is the main greenhouse gas we have to add in all the other positive feedbacks which comes to 3 degrees as the best figure with quite large errors.

        Until we get a satellite that can measure aerosols the errors get to stay. That's how science goes.

        Alert moderator

        • tonyM:

          05 Sep 2013 9:38:49am

          The reductions of CO2 here are predicated on elimination of power plants and industries like aluminium. Where are our plans for 4th Gen nuclear. More pie in the sky thought bubbles on the never never plan while our industries go under.

          Of course Al does not worry you; you don't work there! Typical of Greens.
          I guess you will suggest we just use sand and spittle in lieu of cement. Real bright competitive alternative.

          Your statement about sensitivity (3 degC of CO2 plus H2O effect) is a hypothesis which has never been validated empirically. If I am wrong then point to the experiments supporting it rather than make excuses with more waffle. Simple.

          That's the way in science; the only way. Anything else is junk science.

          Contrary to your views there is a significant number of authors questioning that sensitivity. Their merit is not dependent on whether they agree with your religious views.

          There are many peer reviewed papers in 2012 and even as late as this August all of which show modes/medians of 2 deg C or much less.

          You really should brush up on it.

          Direct action may or may not achieve its aims. But it sure beats throwing billions down the gurgler chasing a chimera and ideology. At least we retain jobs.

          Alert moderator

      • Paul W:

        04 Sep 2013 10:02:01pm

        As far as the NBN goes I'm happy to wait for the full FTP. I want the whole of the country to have 1,000 Mbits/sec. It's our chance to have the country move foreword. I pay for fast internet now. The cost is unimportant to me. It just needs to be done well. That's what matters.

        The attack on the NBN is about defending Foxtel. We both no it's toast once the FTP is fully installed. It's about Murdoch defending his money maker. I finished with Foxtel when I discovered just how nice internet TV is and how much there is now free on servers to watch.

        It's like the building of the road net work. Do it right and the repairs are much lower. The FTN has not been costed for the extra power stations that will be needed to power all those nodes that will soon be obsolete and needing repairs and upgrades. The NBN FTP does not have an extra power need. I think we can both tell that the corrosion of copper is way faster than glass! No business guarantees anything longer than 25 years no matter how good anything is. You cant tell a break down rate from a 25 year guarantee.

        Alert moderator

        • tonyM:

          05 Sep 2013 8:35:35am

          You are making assertions about Foxtel which have no basis of fact or logic. The Reds are under the bed Rudd-a-dud-dud mentality. It is quite irrelevant.

          Now have a look around you.

          We wear different clothes. Some drive small cars and some like big ones and some want trucks.

          Why do you want me to force me to have a truck when I am comfortable and happy with something else.

          The problem I see is that you believe that what you like and need must be so for others. Before you use words like ?move forward? you should define more clearly what that means. You should also show us the supposed advantages in places like Korea where FTP has existed for over a decade. In any case FTP is available under the LNP plan.

          If you want FTP you can get it for yourself and you can pay for it. The estimates for a 1000MBit/sec dedicated line is about $20,000 per month. Please don't tell me I should have it too. Let me decide what I want for myself without you imposing your ideas and costs on me.

          No one will stop you if you want FTH with LNP plan.

          You have some weird concepts. Copper is not being installed. Copper is quite fine judging from my current experience with my very, very old line and 2.3km from the exchange. I get over 8 Mbits/sec. You are clutching at straws with your comments here and with the power needs which are like pocket change in the whole system.

          Show me your reference which says that power has not been incorporated in the FTN plan. In any case that is not your business as you don't have to run the operation or have you suddenly become the financier.

          It is with your mentality in mind that I ask this pertinent question:
          What sort of circus could blow the best trade period ever with fantastic terms of trade and turn it into the worst ever deficits, biggest borrowings and now higher unemployment than at the depths of the great financial crisis?

          Alert moderator

    • MJMI:

      05 Sep 2013 12:06:10pm

      Even if you vote for a trusted minor party, one of Abbott or Rudd will be PM. I like neither.

      Alert moderator

  • firthy:

    04 Sep 2013 12:07:41pm

    A very interesting article indeed. Not sure how one fixes this - one poster stated that non-compulsory voting might help but others have correctly noted that a significant percentage of voters who are engaged are simply rusted on to one side of politics or the other (probably in equal measure). And as another poster noted disinterested citizens can simply decide not to enrol to vote - the number of people in this country who could enrol to vote, but who chose not to, is staggering. Sad really.

    Alert moderator

  • PaulD:

    04 Sep 2013 12:11:50pm

    This is the best argument I have read for abolishing compulsory voting.

    Alert moderator

  • ViVaH8:

    04 Sep 2013 12:11:58pm

    Perhaps if more people got factual news reporting rather than the blanket brainwashing provided by a greedy American, there might be a greater engagement in the election process.

    Alert moderator

    • frangipani:

      04 Sep 2013 1:32:59pm

      So tell me, what percent of the voting public read newspapers at all? And of that figure, what percent read Murdoch papers? Looking at the circulation figures and doing a rough estimate, I'd say that maybe a fifth of the voting public read papers. And obviously, not all of them read Murdoch papers.

      Most people get their information from other sources - TV, the internet, etc etc. Murdoch is not the dominant figure his enemies project him to be, nor do his papers have the influence attributed to them. He certainly doesn't have the reach to "brainwash" the public.

      People have a wider range of source material than at any time in history. All of them have their biases, the ABC not exempted. Between them all, it's possible to get something approaching truth. The problem is, so many people assume that anything that doesn't agree with their own views must be distorted or wrong - and that applies every bit as much to Murdoch-haters as to Murdoch-followers.

      Alert moderator

  • Jack:

    04 Sep 2013 12:15:15pm

    Abbott has shown me he is a useful athlete, keen to expose his body just as far as can be exposed, a keen trainee driver, a keen trainee factory hand, a keen trainee soldier, a keen trainee whatever else many times over, that he wishes to be Australia's completion to Mr Putin, when all I am looking for is a competent politician.

    And you expect me to be engaged with the political process - ha ha ha ha.

    The politicians have no one other than themselves and the media to blame for a disengaged public, with the media having worked with the politicians to drive the public away by becoming commentators not journalists.

    Alert moderator

  • Rob :

    04 Sep 2013 12:26:03pm

    'but the most chilling feature of Hartcher's encounter was the passive-aggressive quality revealed in the 'average'voter"

    i find that passage equally, if not more,chilling.
    As the political editor of the Sydney Morning Herald Peter Hartcher had more to do with the undermining of Julia Gillard-and consequenty her Government and with the now seeminlgy disastrous return of Rudd as PM as than anyone.
    Whether he was the recipient of "leaks" by the Rudd team and an actual part of that team only he knows but for him to now criticise the disengagment of voters when he-like just about of all of MSM were focused on gossip rather than policy is damn rich.

    He and the rest of MSM did more to 'disengage' voters and encourage Celine not to find time to THINK about the issues than any politician could.
    After all the media was one side of the Bermuda triangle of politicians, media and I would say rusted on as well as undecided voters kicking around ever increading circles of unreasonableness- asylum seekers-budget emergency (where has THAT gone?) carbon tax.
    Even so- it still does not excuse the mentality of those who 'crack the shits' before they 'think'.
    The other chilling factor is that demagoguery will convince them to vote for a Government they-but but not we-deserve.

    Alert moderator

    • MJMI:

      05 Sep 2013 12:09:50pm

      You're absolutely spot on.

      I have refused to pay to get articles from The Age or the SMH simply because of what I read about Hartcher in Kerry Anne Walsh's book The Stalking of Julia Gillard.

      And I am refusing to vote in this election because of Rudd's undermining of PM Gillard. He lost a rusted on ALP voter.

      Alert moderator

  • Bone lazy Aussie:

    04 Sep 2013 12:34:34pm

    Here is an alternate view. The people are the government in Australia. What we see before us is simply a reflection of ourselves.

    If people are disengaged, then that is their fault. In Austalia, which is actaully a trully functioning democracy, if the politicians are crap and policy non-existant, it is because we voted for it.

    In summary, want someone to blame? Look in the mirror.

    Alert moderator

    • graazt:

      04 Sep 2013 4:58:03pm

      All I see is a bunch of right-wing, white, Christian, private-school educated lawyers. Talking across a gulf to reach the great unwashed via the bridge of PR / spin and other professional intermediaries.

      No vision. Just a layer of technocrats all singing from the same song-sheet with a few choice differences to provide some sense of membership in the process.

      Perhaps you're also wondering why people aren't getting engaged about the differences between Woolies and Coles?

      Alert moderator

  • Brian:

    04 Sep 2013 12:41:17pm

    It's not a popular opinion but I sometimes wonder if we should all just follow Canberra's voting lead -- it's an industry town and they're the ones who have to work with the pollies, so you'd think they'd have more of an idea who's worth your time, just as they should follow Newcastle or Kalgoorlie on mining issues or Cairns on tourism.

    Alert moderator

  • Disraeli:

    04 Sep 2013 12:52:26pm

    This article provides sound reasons for changing from a compulsory to an optional voting system ... at least for those of us that are not Aussie politicians or aspiring politicians.

    If you're a politician, then you'll agree with Bill Shorten. On QandA he said that an optional voting system would be terrible because the Parties would spend enormous efforts in "getting the vote out". My response is that actually this would be one of the main benefits.

    Alert moderator

  • Geronimo:

    04 Sep 2013 1:02:00pm

    The last time was when some political idiot confused engagement with endorsement.

    Alert moderator

  • Steve Mount:

    04 Sep 2013 1:12:26pm

    Quote : "Can they at least have some credit for trying?" Well, yes, of course they can. As with critical exams, 2 out of 10 for trying. They may well 'try', but to quote the corporate mantra, which by now runs most folk's lives : 'You're not employed, or paid, for effort : results are what counts".

    It's the BS pre-election 'promises', which they later discover cannot be met, that infuriate, and disengage punters, and the grandiose statements that flow forth after the election is won.

    'There will never be a GST...', yes there will.

    'There will never be a carbon tax...', yes there will.

    'Iraq definitely has WMDs...', no it doesn't.

    'We will....wah, wah, wah...'. 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me', is where many punters are.

    Alert moderator

  • Rossnhoj:

    04 Sep 2013 1:18:43pm

    your comment about lead of engagement in this political, mish mash is spot on --Rudd was a gasp of past failure'
    Rudd engineered and dismissed the chance of labor getting past the post in this election , by his political aggravation and political mangling that he initiated and exercised while hiding behind the skirt of Gillard while he had time and political Labor audience while sitting lazy and destructive on the back bench --
    The Electorate swinging voter knew of this, and all the hardened labor voters knew it too , they are so furious by the miss use their labor vote for personality politics that they have the donkey vote or another political punishment to be tagged to their labor vote -- Satureday the 7th will be RUDDS out the door vote from both side of political voters ??That?s for Sure??

    Alert moderator

  • I think and I vote:

    04 Sep 2013 1:26:37pm

    Thanks for an excellent article David. You've perfectly summed up the depressing reality of Australia's contemporary political culture.

    It is indeed a sad state of affairs where elections are won and lost by uninformed, uncaring, undecided voters in key marginal seats around the country, and campaigns are carefully crafted around this reality. I agree that this is very much a chicken and egg problem - do disengaged voters create robotic politicians who mindlessly repeat meaningless slogans, or vice versa?

    Unfortunately it's hard to see any way out of this other than sheer political courage on behalf of more visionary future leaders who simply say enough is enough, as unlikely as that appears at the moment. Sincere, truthful and meaningful engagement with voters could well turn the tide of modern day ignorance and apathy but I guess we'll never know until someone has the guts to try. One thing's for sure, as the old saying goes, the people get the government they deserve.

    Alert moderator

    • sdrawkcaB:

      04 Sep 2013 2:19:20pm


      I deserve better.
      This year, my eight choice in the house will be taken.

      I strongly suspect my 54th choice in the senate will be used but it might be the 58th choice depending.

      I have not chosen any government or opposition since Hawke in 1987.

      Every time I research the parties, the policies, and review their last terms performance. Every time in the last 26 years I have preferenced the two majors last. About half the time I get a senator up in my first five choices and I usually continue my support for the person I voted last time.

      These senators review legislation. I do not agree with every review they do but at least they look at it. That is what I deserve. As such, I vote for them again. I deserve as a minimum, 70 independent senators because that is how I vote. In other words, I deserve a proper house of review as a minimum.

      I rarely get it.

      I do not deserve the current cesspit. You might. I don?t.

      Alert moderator

  • SimonP38:

    04 Sep 2013 1:39:28pm

    The last politician tried to engage in a considered rational debate based on new ideas was Mr Hewson with his fightback policy document released 18 months out from an election.

    This allowed Mr Keating to run a relentless campaign of scare and mis information, whilst offering no policies himself (he had run out of ideas)

    Australia woke up after the election and though "what have we done?".

    Almost everything in the fightpack document has since been introduced as it was a very good set of policies.

    But the politicians have learned their lesson, and we will not have another real policy based election until

    1. the Keating generation of politicians has passed.

    2. the media stops reporting political spin and negative three word slogans as as news and starts demanding answers to questions.

    Alert moderator

  • yabba:

    04 Sep 2013 1:42:43pm

    Here we are happily (I hope) discussing policy, government and the political system in an open online forum.

    I think we will be happier with our system when our politicians and their parties start forming policy in a "many to many" space like this rather than telling us want we want and defending it in the slowly dieing lamestream "one to many" media.

    Alert moderator

  • Peter the Lawyer:

    04 Sep 2013 2:16:37pm

    I would like Australians to become less engaged in politics. The answer to our problems does not lie in government my friends, but in ourselves.

    By fetishisng politics and being 'engaged' we encourage the ideathat somehow government and the State are somehow the most imortant things in society. They are not. If everyone becomes engaged, I envisage a slow march to totalitarianism, as we let thegovernment take over more and more functions that should be left to society and private individuals.

    The problem is that the bigger government becomes, the less effective it is at its core purpose. The asylum seeker issue is a good example of that. Also the bigger the government becomes the more weak and silly become our citizens.

    If you want people to engage, you need them to be independent and free, not mollycoddled and stifled with welfare.

    So I think we all first need to become more disengaged from politics, other than demanding that governments reduce their size. We need to go out there and add value to society by our own efforts and stop dreaming that somehow the government is going to give us what we want without any effort from ourselves.

    Alert moderator

  • Victor :

    04 Sep 2013 2:24:54pm

    The donkey vote sits at about 2% officially but because we all have to vote it is probably more like 60%.

    People like Rudd who has a brain have to spend the entire campaign catering to these people and the whole process becomes trivialised. What we can expect from Abbott is more of the same bland nothingness that has characterised both sides of politics for the last 3 years.

    KR might not be much better, but on a good day he shows promise.

    Alert moderator

  • Alison Cann:

    04 Sep 2013 2:30:30pm

    Today when David Hardaker said it.

    The people and the politicians are polls apart and being so far apart all we hear is hot air and noise.

    Alert moderator

  • Leonard van Gaalen:

    04 Sep 2013 2:34:57pm

    Both parties are making unreasonable claims. We as voters have the right to pull them up if they don't deliver on a promise. Deliver what they state and make them accoutnable

    Alert moderator

  • The Citizen:

    04 Sep 2013 2:48:40pm

    Enjoyable article David.

    Your follow up could be on the way the media has perverted politicians into: 1) being overly defensive to avoid the 'gotcha', 2) avoiding of conjecture lest they be accused of a thought bubble, 3) necessitated politicians to stick to script so they cannot be quoted out of context.

    I think the media has been 50% responsible in shaping the current situation.

    Alert moderator

  • Lachlan:

    04 Sep 2013 2:59:05pm

    What a great article, captures how me and most of my social circle feel.

    As a voter i feel that every three years we get to see what our options are as their faces go up on power poles around the neighborhood and the flow of junk mail filled with politics increases.

    I try and watch the news or read the papers but all i hear is messages being shoved down my throat or media jumping of unfortunate slip-ups. i want to see the humanity behind the people i am chose to lead the country not a party machine pushing an agenda at all costs.

    i'll be happy when it's all over and the faces leave us alone for another 3 years and they got back to Canberra (or anonymity) and act like children arguing about how the country should be run...

    Alert moderator

  • kettles_away:

    04 Sep 2013 2:59:59pm

    I'm a lapsed engaged person. Believe it or not, with Gillard at the helm, I considered that there was a semblance of choice between two modestly different idealogies. With the ascension of Rudd, for me now, the upcoming election is a battle between two frauds and I couldn't care less who wins. While Rudd is...well, everything his colleagues told us us he is :-), Abbott for me is Australia's George Bush moment...the brash, right-wing, religious bully boy swaggering into town with his sneering smile and gaffs, backed and promoted by powerful media friends, lobby groups and mining companies. For Fox news in the US, read news Ltd in australia. All in it for their own selfish reasons of course.
    I recently contributed to a Getup fund to air a clever TV ad in QLD highlighting that the only available (news limited) newspaper was daily offering opinion as news. Now it seems all the TV networks refused to take the money and have refused to air the ad. Kinda sums up why people are going to elect the most unworthy PM ever to represent Australians. The best we can hope for is a hostile senate to tone down the excesses.
    By the way, on the NBN offering alone, the coalition shouldn't get near government because it highlights that they are willing to shortsell Australia by paying just as much (or more if you look at some recent costings) for a substandard offering purely out of the need to never acknowledge that the government got something right. On that piece of pettiness alone, they don't deserve our trust. Not that the other mob are much better...sigh, see the first line of my comments.

    Alert moderator

    • GCS:

      04 Sep 2013 6:49:05pm

      Loved your post kettles- you hit on so many good and important points in a few words.
      I too contributed t o the GET UP ads-seems commercail TV does not want to run them because they do not wish to upset Rupert and I guess put their advertisjng dollars at risk- a battle between two frauds is right-the whole process is a FRAUD.
      I am NOT voting for any fraud-not in my name!!

      Alert moderator

  • oneman:

    04 Sep 2013 3:06:28pm

    " Celine and her focus group friends don't have the time - or the interest - to formulate a considered view based on the facts. Goodness, there's not enough hours in the day to watch the news or read the newspapers."The standard of journalism in mainstream media is so pathetic even if you find the time to watch tv or read the papers you get Ruperts opinion or some other vested interests opinion, not the facts. Witness the current situation where getup has a tv ad exposing and criticising Rupert murdochs interference in the Australian election and they cant get it aired even as a paid advertisement because the television stations are refusing to let Australia know the truth. There is very little integrity in Australian commercial media. Fortunately we still have the ABC and now the Guardian.

    Alert moderator

  • Geoff:

    04 Sep 2013 3:37:07pm

    You will always have a certain percentage of the population who are not interested enough in government to spend thier time informaing themselves and making up thier minds.

    It is a symptom of our democratic dysfunction that these people are in a position to decide the results of elections. Non-compulsory voting is not the answer, because it leads to just as many problems as it solves. A better solution would be to shift away from a two-party dominated system, because it is that system which trends over time towards a finely balanced 50/50 split, handing power to minority kingmakers and the disengaged.

    Alert moderator

  • mykael:

    04 Sep 2013 3:42:03pm

    They all lie

    We can't believe their policies - experience has shown that there will be a big difference between what is promised before the election and what is delivered afterwards. Hence the election is just to pick the best liar.

    When they get elected they will not represent me or my community. Some special interests in it, maybe, but mostly they'll just toe the party line and note give a damn about those they are supposed to be representing.

    Personally I don't think any of them are fit to run the country - but there's no one else to pick, so we have to pick the least offensive one. There really should be a 'none of the above' option on the ballot papers that would just create a caretaker government if it won.

    Alert moderator

  • Michael:

    04 Sep 2013 4:19:57pm

    You should have listened to the focus group. As you said yourself he person said "when will politicians stop lying". There you have the reason for disengagement in a nutshell.

    After years of abbott's constant bitching the voters loved kevin... then kevin started bitching too. His popularity plummeted.

    People want politicians to be honest and explain their policies without negativity. Abbott will get in this Sat purely because people want a change and no politician has been game enough to change (stop bitching and lying).

    Alert moderator

  • philly:

    04 Sep 2013 4:31:21pm

    You are correct about the increasing professionalisation of politics. A school I taught at received a visit from the then state minister for education and she arrived with an entourage of smartly-clad youngsters in their early 20s, armed with mobile phones, clip-boards and lap-tops, glancing around nervously on high alert like CIA agents protecting a presidential motorcade. I thought at the time, will these be our next generation of pollies- straight from University into a political career?

    Alert moderator

  • Peter of Melbourne:

    04 Sep 2013 4:37:38pm

    When you have politicians screaming out how an Australian Carbon Tax/Trading Scheme will save the world when it will not make one iota of a difference to global output since 99% of it is out of our control and of that final 1.0%, politicians are going to spend 10's of billions of dollars to reduce it to 0.95% by knocking off 0.05%.

    When people do the figures they actually begin to realise that it is just a scam that is designed to enrich the CO2 rentseeking industry as well as to boost the pathetic ego's of the clueless sheeple who run around bleating about how THEIR pollies are doing SOMETHING.

    Bloody ridiculous.

    Alert moderator

    • worrierqueen:

      05 Sep 2013 10:52:05am

      Why do you keep peddling these lies Peter? According to the recent analysis in Scientific American ( more than 75% of climate change is due to human activity, not 1%.

      And how selfish are you that you relish destroying our children's future just to satisfy your immediate excessive hedonistic superificial consumptive desires? Do you really need to drive a 4WD tank? Or live in a Macmansion? Don't forget its your kids that decide when to turn off the machine that goes ping when you're old and grey, and they might have the same selfish self-centred attitude towards you as you have towards them.

      Alert moderator

  • worrierqueen:

    04 Sep 2013 4:46:19pm

    Our clayton's democracy is a system designed by the major parties, of the major parties and for the major parties so is it any surprise the average punter is cynical and ill-informed? When you have a system that means 49% of the vote gives you almost 90% of the seats (as is the current case in Queensland) then we don't even have democracy, just a 2-party oligarchy.

    Voting is just an illusion to fool the punters into thinking they have some involvement in our twisted, sick political process. No matter how we vote, there is only one of two possible outcomes that are virtually identical, either we get a right wing tory government or a centre-right tory-lite government. Why bother?

    Alert moderator

  • citizen smith:

    04 Sep 2013 5:15:47pm

    May I suggest the Constitutional Anarchy Party (CAP).
    It has a one armed platform of 'Vote the Sitting Member Out' which is also its only slogan. Its only aim is to make all seats marginal/swinging seats.

    No membership fees, no meetings and it is open to all voters everywhere in the so called liberal democracies and politicians scared for their jobs.

    Alert moderator

  • MJMI:

    04 Sep 2013 6:05:39pm

    Where I live Australia Network has been showing Whitlam: The Power and the Passion with the last episode screening last night.

    I lived in Canberra in those heady days between 1972 and 1975. It was a truly engaging time for the electorate. So many changes.

    One problem nowadays is exactly the non-committed focus groups that the author writes about. Many of those the focus of such attention are ignorant and disengaged and proud of being both.

    But it is not just the non-committed. I am an older voter and have mostly been a rusted-on ALP voter, though I have voted for the Greens in the Senate. I, too, am disengaged because I want neither Rudd nor Abbott to be PM - in my view neither is a leader's bootlace. So on September 7th my ballot will not be cast.

    I read recently that the informal vote has been increasing with every election. Maybe the parties should start to think about those voters who insert their ballot form in the box unmarked, scrawl remarks on the ballot paper or, like me, opt not to vote. Our numbers are increasing to the point where we too might be making a difference.

    Alert moderator

  • Des des:

    04 Sep 2013 6:46:43pm

    The fact that Hartcher was surprised indicates,like most jounalists,he is out of touch with the average voter. Jounalists expressed surprise at the quality of the questions asked by voters at the sky news forums ,Brisbane & Rooty Hill. it will be surprising if jou nalists improve during Thursdays Rudd press club questions. A perfect example of the weakness of jounalistst when they ask Rudd if he will serve a full term if his government is defeated....Rudd refuses to answer saying the question is hypothetical and he is focused on the election.What a miracle if a journalist responded that the question is not hypothetical..on Saturday you will win or you will lose and the voters in your own electorate deserve to know if you lose they will be dragged back to the polls(a la Keating) weeks after the poll........Jounalists who do not demand answers from all politicians are killing ther own industry...Thank heavens for The Drum and the expression allowed. I strongly suggest jounalists scroll through these opinions of all sides to contact the real world.

    Alert moderator

    • MJMI:

      05 Sep 2013 12:15:10pm

      Hartcher was so out of touch that he reported all the Rudd leaks as if they were the truth and assisted the undermining of Gillard.

      I hold Hartcher and others who behaved in similar fashion (their names are all there in the book The Stalking of Julia Gillard) personally responsible for the current parlous state of Australian politics. They mislead and wilfully so.

      Alert moderator

  • Liberty Balance:

    04 Sep 2013 9:36:04pm

    By concentrating (naturally) on uncommitted voters party focus groups tease out one aspect of disengagement, but there's another. It's those who do understand the political process, have views on issues and may well have once even belonged to a political party. As all know, party memberships are in long-term decline for both main parties. Why? Because being a party member gains you nought these days, the parties being run by "operators" "numbers people" etc, who do not relate to real people.

    Rudd's Labor reforms wd be attractive (giving ALP members a say in determining the leadership), but I predict they will not survive his defeat and that the next Labor leader will be chosen solely by a (rather smaller) caucus. There is also the question of setting policy: I gather many of Labor's remaining rank-&-file party members are deeply unhappy about some policies (eg, refugees); while Liberals know that not even their party room, let alone the membership, was consulted on Abbott's parental leave scheme.

    So why, pray tell, should we bother getting enagaged? Been there, got the T-shirt but bugger all else.

    Alert moderator

  • ru4real:

    04 Sep 2013 11:48:48pm

    Tony Abbott, aided by the media, for the past three years verbally bludgeoned Julia Gillard, inside and outside parliament, using well-known 'hard-sell' techniques - simple words, three-word phrases, repetition.

    It's similar to what used to be known as water torture.

    The constant drip, drip, drip finally sends a person off their rocker.

    No carbon tax, No mining tax, Stop the boats sent us all off our rockers.

    In the end people capitulate, hoping that the 'No, No, Stop' messages will just stop,.

    Instead of rational debate - that Labor introduced a carbon price to reduce CO2 emissions and move companies and individuals in the direction of renewables - people are just dumbed down, or disengaged.

    They start thinking the messages are 'real'.

    So instead of seeing the results of the carbon price - reduced emissions, companies switching to renewables - they swallow Tony Abbott's message, hook, line and sinker.

    People start believing 'the carbon price is bad for me', despite the fact that Labor compensated companies and individuals as they made the adjustment.

    Tony Abbott gets away with suggesting that electricity and gas price rises are due ONLY to the carbon price, which is just WRONG.

    'Average electricity prices have risen by 70 per cent in real terms from June 2007 to December 2012. Spiralling network costs in most states are the main contributor to these increases, partly driven by inefficiencies in the industry and flaws in the regulatory environment. (Productivity Commission)' (

    Alert moderator

  • Vege:

    05 Sep 2013 12:44:09am

    Oh really, we are not so much disengaged but disinterested. An example of why. The mining Tax, bitterly fought out against Rudd. Simple facts, the West Australian news paper the most outspoken against the tax. State Premier Colin Barnett front page news quoting Sam Walsh head of Rio Tinto's mining operations in Australia and not so surprising revelation, who is on the board of directors of the West Australian paper. The argument " The tax will put thousands out of work". 2 weeks after Rudd's defeat Sam Walsh was providing Barnett a show and tell of the new nerve center for the development of robotic controlled mines, thousands will lose their jobs.

    We have a fair fax editor now in the fray and a lot of carefully placed opinions by Australia's most wealthy in the press, not to mention some vague opinion poles. the last election 1.7 million voted for the donkey. All bets are on it will increase to 2 million + this election.

    One day he will win and the lot of you will stand up and take notice of the people and their opinions, not the power of your own.

    Alert moderator

  • Whitey:

    05 Sep 2013 5:12:27am

    The reality is this. The GFC caused a situation where Australia started to borrow money. The ALP government kept borrowing money well past the end of the GFC, and now we have a fair debt, and we all know we will have to pay it back, sooner or later, and this makes bot alternatives, both parties, fairly unattractive. Do we take our medicine, vote LNP and start back on the road to recovery, or do we vote ALP, keep borrowing, knowing that the economy will still get worse, and we will have a bigger debt to pay back at the end. I think Australians have decided that it is time to vote LNP, and hope that in a couple of years we will have a real recovery, but we don't necessarily like the prospect of a couple of years of pain in the meantime. Therefore, no one really feels excited about this election. Usually, at least one group of supporters are really excited about change, but even LNP voters recognize that after three years of real mismanagement, we won't be enjoying the next couple that much.

    Alert moderator

  • smicko:

    05 Sep 2013 10:55:07am

    I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points made here, particularly the conclusion. Politicians in Canberra are becoming increasingly out of touch with voters because they spend too much time there and not in their electorates I suspect.
    Therefore they take the lazy route of focus group polling and the like, but the voter will always identify a phoney in the long run.
    It's about politicians who have got natural political instinct - only two politicians in my lifetime genuinely had the measure of the Australian people -Bob Hawke and John Howard, and they were the guys who got four terms in power. No coincidence, and conversely it explains why Rudd and Abbott suffer so badly by comparison -no political instinct except for political survival above all else.

    Alert moderator

  • lilly:

    05 Sep 2013 11:25:34am

    Out of curiosity, what is the benefit of democracy? It's hailed as the supreme form of government in the west but no reason is ever given. The only advantage I see is that it prevents those with power from going too mad because they risk losing that power come the next election (assuming the elections aren't rigged).

    Is running the country so easy that anybody, irrespective of their background, can enter parliament and potentially become a minister providing they can play the political game. To my mind, the parliament should be composed of professionals from a wide range of disciplines; not politicians. Lets have policies shaped by people with experience in the relevant areas. When a creating policy, they should publish a paper which examines the problem, does a trade off study on the possible solutions and proposes the optimum solution. Let the paper be peer-reviewed and then, once general agreement has been reached, put it to the vote. This method will at least generate policies whose foundations lie upon solid facts rather than the uninformed opinions of loudmouthed politicians whose only real interest is getting power.

    Alert moderator

  • Lindsay Nicholson :

    05 Sep 2013 12:30:37pm

    The observations acutely and depressingly made in this article are re-unforced by the aggressive tone of the majority of the comments, few of which attempt to engage in the debate raised by the author

    Alert moderator
