Robert Durkacz laments the lack of serious discussion in the Monash election.
By Robert Durkacz
AS AN independent candidate for Monash I needed 100 signatures to nominate myself. It didn’t work out that way and I had to give up the idea. By dropping out I saved the $2000 deposit. But my candidature was only a means to an end. I wanted to take part in the election to raise one substantial issue that the other candidates ignore, thinking there is no public interest in it. The issue is the descent of the USA into anarchy, threatening to take the western alliance down with it.
Had the breaking up of the western alliance become a matter of public discussion in the Monash election, I would have thought a consensus might emerge that Australia should take an energetic position. We should be very straightforward and honest with the American people. We should have as little to do with the US administration as possible. We should wear tariffs without complaint – not ask for favours. And we should express solidarity with Ukraine, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Mexico, etc. We should accept the risk of retaliation that goes with that. My reason for standing as a candidate was to get these issues discussed.
AS AN independent candidate for Monash I needed 100 signatures to nominate myself. It didn’t work out that way and I had to give up the idea. By dropping out I saved the $2000 deposit. But my candidature was only a means to an end. I wanted to take part in the election to raise one substantial issue that the other candidates ignore, thinking there is no public interest in it. The issue is the descent of the USA into anarchy, threatening to take the western alliance down with it.
Had the breaking up of the western alliance become a matter of public discussion in the Monash election, I would have thought a consensus might emerge that Australia should take an energetic position. We should be very straightforward and honest with the American people. We should have as little to do with the US administration as possible. We should wear tariffs without complaint – not ask for favours. And we should express solidarity with Ukraine, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Mexico, etc. We should accept the risk of retaliation that goes with that. My reason for standing as a candidate was to get these issues discussed.
The first thing I did was get a flyer printed. The first recipient was Russell Broadbent's office. Following this I handed out flyers to passers-by in Warragul. I did not mean to reach the whole electorate with thousands of flyers, rather to get an impression what the people in the street think about the dire prospects of the western alliance. In Warragul in particular I found quite a decent level of awareness. I repeated the exercise in Wonthaggi, Cowes and San Remo. I had useful conversations in each of those towns.
From canvassing, I find people in the street are aware whereas candidates are not.
In the Monash electorate, our candidates are conducting the usual lowest common denominator campaigns. It is an advertising contest where most of the advertisements consist of nothing more than the candidate's face and name. Candidates make out that they can secure benefits from the federal government. If there is any truth there it means they hope to sell their votes in return for such gifts. From this we can infer that they are motivated by personal ambition since they take us to be motivated by self-interest.
Let’s go through the viable candidates.
Aldred is the likely winner, by virtue of being Liberal-endorsed. If she becomes an MP it will be without ever having to answer a question with political content. We simply don’t know what her attitudes and motivations are. Which faction of the Liberals does she belong to? Is she a climate-change denier, or is she perhaps an unannounced Liberal party reformer, determined to get the party to take climate change seriously when she gets a chance? We have no clue, and it does not suit her to tell us.
The only right way to have an election is through debate and discussion in open media. National newspapers serve this purpose but our constitution has us choosing MPs at a local level. In the old days, the debates would be held in a town hall or the like. Nowadays, with the benefit of the internet, it is so much easier to have them on-line.
This time it looks like there will be no debates at all in Monash. The local papers have internet presence but will not sponsor debates. I tried to contact all candidates to suggest we collectively organise public discussion or debate sessions. None got back. Russell Broadbent as the current MP is funded, equipped and capable of supporting community-based discussion. He didn’t even reply.
Local media coverage is nothing but publicity events organised by candidates, always associating the candidate with some local thing that has nothing to with federal-level policy.
All the candidates encourage people to complain about roads if they can't think of anything else. The roads are fine and they are not a federal responsibility. There are important economic issues facing us, as ever, but simply complaining about the cost of living is not leading to constructive policy, it is leading to stupid policy proposals. After all, this is election time.
From canvassing, I find people in the street are aware whereas candidates are not.
In the Monash electorate, our candidates are conducting the usual lowest common denominator campaigns. It is an advertising contest where most of the advertisements consist of nothing more than the candidate's face and name. Candidates make out that they can secure benefits from the federal government. If there is any truth there it means they hope to sell their votes in return for such gifts. From this we can infer that they are motivated by personal ambition since they take us to be motivated by self-interest.
Let’s go through the viable candidates.
- Russell Broadbent is well-known and by now we can see that he does not think about national-level issues except perhaps for his eccentric views on vaccines and climate change.
- The Labor candidate Tully Fletcher’s publicity is particularly vacuous. He is on about roads and the like.
- Deb Leonard is a generic Teal, meaning that she subscribes to orthodox views about climate change and probity but beyond this she is weak on policy.
- The Liberal candidate Mary Aldred was quoted as being in favour of dog parks in some locality - it does not befit a prospective MP to talk such nonsense.
Aldred is the likely winner, by virtue of being Liberal-endorsed. If she becomes an MP it will be without ever having to answer a question with political content. We simply don’t know what her attitudes and motivations are. Which faction of the Liberals does she belong to? Is she a climate-change denier, or is she perhaps an unannounced Liberal party reformer, determined to get the party to take climate change seriously when she gets a chance? We have no clue, and it does not suit her to tell us.
The only right way to have an election is through debate and discussion in open media. National newspapers serve this purpose but our constitution has us choosing MPs at a local level. In the old days, the debates would be held in a town hall or the like. Nowadays, with the benefit of the internet, it is so much easier to have them on-line.
This time it looks like there will be no debates at all in Monash. The local papers have internet presence but will not sponsor debates. I tried to contact all candidates to suggest we collectively organise public discussion or debate sessions. None got back. Russell Broadbent as the current MP is funded, equipped and capable of supporting community-based discussion. He didn’t even reply.
Local media coverage is nothing but publicity events organised by candidates, always associating the candidate with some local thing that has nothing to with federal-level policy.
All the candidates encourage people to complain about roads if they can't think of anything else. The roads are fine and they are not a federal responsibility. There are important economic issues facing us, as ever, but simply complaining about the cost of living is not leading to constructive policy, it is leading to stupid policy proposals. After all, this is election time.