‘I feel so powerless,’ a friend said.
It’s an understandable sentiment in the face of tragic situations out of our individual control, but there are things people can do to effect change, especially when we come together as a community.
There’s no need to throw up your hands in despair and perhaps opt out. You have a considerable amount of power, even within the current flawed system, and need to use it.
When I was a member of the NSW Legislative Council, representing everyone in the state, I received very few representations from constituents.
If just half a dozen people contacted me spontaneously on an issue, I knew it was really important and my team and I swung into action.
It’s not surprising people are turned off by politics, and don’t participate as much as they could. The slanging match and point scoring between the major parties is so divisive and off-putting.
Also, there’s the smell of corruption around political donations.
Traditionally, about 70 per cent of voters vote as they always have. It’s quite tribal. They identify as Labor, National or Liberal and vote that way. Ironically, they so often vote against their own interests.
This is so obviously the case, for instance, for those who support Donald Trump. He pretends to care for battlers oppressed by ‘the elites’ and yet, he is an archetypal member of those same elites. He’s (currently) a billionaire, who lies constantly, and is facing 88 criminal charges. His key support comes from those he cares least about!
Fortunately, in Australia we have the preferential voting system that gives minor parties and independents a chance to be elected. The major political parties rely on blind loyalty, and when elected to government, are heavily influenced and funded by lobby groups.
MPs, when in government, are no longer individuals representing constituents like you and me. They toe the party line.
Labor MPs who vote against the party in a division are liable to expulsion. Liberal and Nationals MPs are at least allowed a conscience vote, but rarely use it.
As a Democrat and then independent for seven years, I didn’t have to toe the party line. I could make decisions on behalf of constituents and propose amendments to legislation on their behalf, many of which were successful.
You may have noticed how young people, wanting their futures to be taken into account when it comes to decisions about the climate emergency, didn’t go to the government or opposition, but to independent Senator David Pocock.
Senator Pocock is not bound by party discipline and shares the balance of power in the Senate.
He can speak out on behalf of young people and others, without fear of retribution. It’s the same with other independents and Greens. They don’t take donations from fossil fuel giants and other dubious large corporations.
Nearly a third of voters now no longer support a major party.
Despite Albo fending off the reactionary forces in the Dunkley by-election, and retaining the seat for Labor – partly because of his politically bold tax changes – Labor may have difficulty in retaining majority government at the upcoming election.
Gina Rinehart and the ‘Advance Australia’ organisation she supports reportedly wasted $300,000 trying to get voters in Dunkley to put Labor last on the ballot paper. They didn’t.
No doubt, she will invest a modest few millions of her 30 plus billion dollars to protect her interests and those of other billionaires at the next election. That, and the scare campaign Peter Dutton will drum up, may well cause the Labor vote to dip.
It’s quite likely the teals and Greens will end up holding the balance of power in both houses. In my view, that would be a great outcome for democracy. The voices of ordinary people will be louder and taken into account more under that scenario.
At our local level, we have the community coming together en masse opposed to the shocking Wallum development.
Will they succeed, as the community did at Bentley, when fracking was stopped in its tracks?
How many of those councillors who effectively voted to allow the development to proceed will be reelected at the local government elections on September 14 this year? That will be an interesting test of public sentiment.
We do have power, as citizens, to make change, whether it be on the climate crisis or vital local issues.
Corps need customers
As I said to this friend who despaired at being powerless, we also need to remember that corporations can’t exist without customers.
So make your custom count. McDonald’s has been hit by a combination of boycotts and budget-squeezed customers. Cage egg sales have plummeted, as fewer customers support cruel hen batteries.
Corporate renewable investments declined last year, but individual householders are leading the renewable power revolution.
As the revolutionary saying goes: ‘The People United Will Never Be Defeated!’
♦ Richard Jones is a former NSW MLC and is now a ceramicist.
Would Richard care to comment on what happened to the Green’s vote in Dunkley?
And why?
Jimie, maybe you can share your wisdom on QLD ALP’s performance in the two state by-elections – the seats Ipswich West and Inala – last weekend.
People tend to vote very differently in by-elections, knowing that they rarely change governments. Voters often use them to “send a message” to the government and that’s why incumbent governments often lose them. In a sense the Dunkley by-election was a tick of approval for the tax changes. Often too people take a close look at the actual candidates and decide not to support them for whatever reason. By-elections are more local affairs.
I’m rather bemused by your parting invocation of “the revolutionary saying..: ‘The People United Will Never Be Defeated!’” as the coup de grâce for a piece championing the benefits of independent or minority representation. This cry, and it’s variation, “The workers United will never be defeated” is surely a call to arms to the discipline and cohesion of collectivism.
I think you’re a little confused but there are clearly pros and cons to both party political representation and independents. You seem to ignore this and oversimplify things Richard – also to blur the line between true independents and minor parties.
Party politics obviously has its origins in a desire to influence policy for a big picture, with the implications for the common wealth (space intended) rather than one’s own little milieu in isolation. The earliest parties in our federation were formed around the economically and nationally significant issues of free trade and protection.
Of course the situation is not all straightforward and rosy. Political parties can be influenced by powerful donors and fear of our concentrated reactionary media. They can fall prey to factionalism that is more about getting on the front bench, preselection or the big jobs, than policy idealism. Of course tribalism rather than objective analysis is also undesirable. I’d suggest none of these is a singular failing of the majors.
Contrary to your view that – “MPs, when in government, (or a party?) are no longer individuals representing constituents like you and me. They toe the party line” – large parties are a lot more nationally answerable to their constituents than an independent who is there at the whim of a tiny minority. There are also structures within political parties to allow grass roots input through networks of branches, state and federal conferences. Rather than your “power to the people” mantra, I personally can’t think of anything less empowering to influence outcomes on pressing contemporary issues, than voting for an independent (no matter how individually meritorious) or a minor party with insufficiently broad credibility to determine state or national directions.
Proponents of the minors and lone rangers, often point to the balance of power possibilities – a significant consideration. It’s only likely to become less so however, with a continuing drift from the major parties. It’s less likely to be predictable or influential with a huge proliferation of independents and minor parties constantly in flux. We already bemoan the lack of long term planning promoted by populism and the political cycle. It’s also wonderful only if the balance of power falls to your preferred outcome – and much more difficult to influence concentrated and unrepresentative power.
It’s wonderful to think of an individual voting on each bill according to its merits and unfettered by party discipline. But the unprecedented numbers on the cross bench since ‘22 have also raised some flags for me. An important bit of news lately has been the “politically bold” rejigging of the stage 3 tax cuts. While this move was unlikely to be in danger in the lower house, there was considerable journalistic interest in how various new “independents” intended to vote, particularly the Teals who tend to represent some of the most affluent electorates in the country. The answer I recall was along the lines of needing to consult with the relevant (my) constituency and to consider how some (many?) would be adversely affected. Is this how policy with major national implications should be decided?
Another red flag – remember the outrage when the Albanese government cut the independents staff from its heights of eight (introduced by ScoMo) to five? Clearly, to get across the complexities of contemporary life and the correspondingly complex legislation, vast numbers of researchers and analysts are desirable. Is the best use of resources duplicating these services across all 150 MHRs?
You’re big on the evils of those who seek to form government Richard, the biggest bogey man being the caucus discipled Labor Party. Any wonder given its origins in collectivism and the greater good? But I’d suggest that those whose intentions are more about simply increasing their vote, regardless of outcomes, can be counterproductive as well. All promise and no accountability. Look at the Greens propensity to hold valuable initiatives hostage to spruik their untestable purity and assert their relevance.
I get the impression that the purpose of this bit of spin – like the questionable aside about “councillors who effectively voted to allow a development to proceed” – is more about a particularly narrow agenda than a thoughtful, objective and comprehensive analysis.
I realise that no-one will read my first post so here’s a summary.
What Richard seems to be telling us here is that minor parties and independents are good. Major parties are bad because their MPs they vote in blocks – the Labor Party are badder because they impose more caucus discipline.
People who vote for independents and minors are thinking and discerning voters. People who vote for the major parties can’t think properly and are slavishly tribal.
I think it’s not quite that simple. People formed parties that imposed some voting discipline because that was the way to get stuff through parliament. Voters with similar sympathies were attracted to the idea that they were voting for broader areas than those relevant just to their little patch.
Independents are answerable only to their electorate and these demographics vary wildly across the nation. Do we want policy based on a state or national view or what’s best for the good citizens of the Harbourside mansion ilk?
That old saying “The people united will never be defeated!” is about the power of collectivism. Of people with a common vision, using the power in their numbers to achieve results against concentrations of power. It’s a curious parting salvo for such a one-sided defence of rugged individualism.
About an hour before reading this comment I was telling someone about how much one can achieve when holding the balance in Parliament and gave her significant examples.
When I first stood for Parliament in 1972, for Mackellar on Sydney’s northern beaches, on a pressing environmental issue, I looked at which party to join and chose the Australia Party because it was the only one that seemed to care authentically about the environment . That morphed into the Australian Democrats.
When finally elected 16 years later I held the balance during both the Greiner and Carr administrations. Our little team moved more amendments to legislation successfully than anyone had ever been done since the NSW Parliament was established. We worked with both sides of the House not just one side,
I had Labor friends almost in tears voting against what they truly believed in because they had to. Janelle Saffin was there then and she was superb, one of the most genuinely caring people I’ve met.
Sadly it is true that so many identify with a particular party and always vote for it. You may remember the “a drover’s dog could have won that” comment back in 83? Those days have changed a little as party loyalty gradually disintegrates and roughly a third have no loyalty to one of the majors.
This weekend’s Tasmanian election may prove interesting.
In the question of the Greens holding up the housing bill, you conveniently forget the billions added as a result. Fact is no Australian should be homeless in one of the richest countries in the world – no excuses.
I acknowledged that the balance of power is a powerful position, but it depends on the cards falling just the right way, a situation which can become way less predictable the more diversified a parliament becomes. It can have, depending on your personal perspective, good or disastrous consequences and can be antithetical to democracy.
I recall the federal election when John Howard took the GST to a federal election, was returned to government – despite receiving less than half of the two part preferred vote – and managed to squeak his contentious policy through with the help of the Democrats. They didn’t last that long after that.
I’m not suggesting independents and minor parties shouldn’t exist and can’t serve a role. I was objecting to your reductionist view that those who vote for major parties mainly do so out of unquestioningly blind loyalties. Adherence to a particular party usually involves a hope that they reflect a set of values and a visionary program, one that may involve some long term planning, and compromise to achieve. I certainly think they have a role to play. What do the less aligned stand for: what’s in it for me?
There can be a tendency for the major parties to take their supporters for granted – which all have learnt to their peril. Parties that aim for the balance of power as a strategy – rather than government – can be guilty of treating their targeted support like idiots, pretending they can promise everything to everybody without consequences. Look at Max Chandler Mather’s latest housing policy as a prime example.
I didn’t specifically mention the HAFF as there have been others, and threats of others – including most recently the Stage 3 tax cuts amendments. The HAFF investment was increased but simultaneously, so did the budget surplus. It’s also a curious example given that the Greens were all over the shop with it. A terrible idea- not the way to fund housing, gambling with tax payer funds etc etc. why would you push for more if it wasn’t just about staying in the headlines? It’s all on repeat now in the reaction to Labor’s shared equity fund. Watch Max being excoriated by David Speers on Insiders on this very posturing.
Blocking the HAFF for so long delayed some housing projects that were ready to go. We’re in a housing crisis no? Better to get on with it than keep repeating that “ no Australian should be homeless in one of the richest countries in the world – no excuses”. The current situation didn’t mushroom overnight and will take time to fix. Hint – promising everyone (unmeans-tested) that the government will build them a place to buy or rent (tomorrow.) won’t cut it.
I predicted that no-one would read my longer post and it seems that included you Richard.
Yrs I’m sure people read your posts. Perhaps they’re too busy to reply.
The real problem with the two major political groupings is they are absurdly conservative and this is exacerbated by lobby groups and their funding.
It is truly unacceptable, for example , that our resources are shipped overseas by mainly foreign corporations with very little return to the Australian people. We are so behind in so many ways.
Both sides are still wedded to neoliberalism and the failed “trickle down” nonsense.
Two billion extra was squeezed out of Albo by the Greens for housing. The fund may or may not produce enough revenue to build the dwellings predicted.. it’s clearly woefully inadequate.
So much could be done and yet just baby steps are taken to deal with the various crises.
You see in the latest polls Labor is not being rewarded for its timidity.
Dutton is head currently and it would be tragic if these three years were squandered and nothing significant achieved.
It would be better to do a “Crash through or crash” Whitlamesque programme than very little. He and Lance Barnard changed Australia in just 100 days.
People will reward bold action but not timidity.
You sound much like a politician Richard. I suggested YOU didn’t read my post – because in your reply you largely ignored most of what I’d written to tell us what a fantastic job you did in your time as an MP.
The Greens love to take credit for everything but the two billion added to the HAFF was after the large surplus became apparent, was not part of negotiations with the Greens and added without any guarantees from the Greens, who waited until every last bit of grandstanding opportunity was extracted from the issue.
Why are the Greens obstructing the Government’s shared equity scheme? To put forward a policy where anyone who rocks up, regardless of means, will be eligible for a government subsidised purchase or rental?
But your theories about bold moves getting rewards? If Labor had totally abandoned the Stage 3s and pocketed the revenue they would have been crucified. The smart thing about the rejigging was that the vast bulk of the population were going to be better off and that’s when they pay attention and ignore the media outrage.
Why are they sliding again now? Most probably because of the successful “ute tax” scare. If what the Australian population largely wanted was “crash through” they have the Greens to vote for. While their representation is increasing, I haven’t noticed them scooping the pool across the nation.
The recent Tasmanian election shows the abandonment of the Liberals went in much the same meagre figures to Labor and the Greens. Who cleaned up? Jacqui Lambie. Was that bold policy or because the public like people who tell the Premier to “stick it up your bum”?
Sure, the Whitlam Government changed Australia but were there for only 3 (admittedly eventful) years. Their attempts to buy back the farm came unstuck but think about our sovereign wealth now if they’d pulled it off!
Then the 8 years of Fraser that followed, particularly the 11 years of Howard, then our recent decade of LNP debacle, changed Australia as well. Or didn’t change it in important ways either. Conveniently overlooked?
Labor into trickle down economics? Richard give us a break! And as for your future as savvy political advisor, I wouldn’t come out of retirement just yet.
Maybe I am too given to overly long posts but I attempted to reply Richard. Alas it got the 🪓.
I predicted that no-one would read my longer post and it seems that included you Richard.
My comments Richard ?
Where are they?
Yep got to get rid of party politics and have only independents eligible to be voted into power both liberal Labor greens and nationals are at the mercy of lobbyists and lobbying should be banned as should using consultants and out sourcing your job to planning panels etc politicians need to be accountable and not buck pass to some so called independent commission etc we also need yearly elections to get rid of bad governments this is essential and not the four year terms Dutton and albo want your kidding you just want power people is the way that’s for sure all Australians should strike until something is done about cost of living immigration and and the negative gearing and air bnbs it’s a con that we have a housing shortage we have plenty of housing but all the politicians have air bnbs and negatively gear their properties so won’t touch these subjects plus we must half the amount of bean counting bureaucrats and the ACCC which is a toothless tiger plus the ridiculous high court judges that made the stupid decision to let criminal illegal immigrants out into society insanity albo must take control of this stupidity and call a election immediately if he’s not scared plus yes locally will interested to see who survives council elections in September. power to the people not politicians or big business
Alan, ffs try googling some instruction in the use of punctuation in paragraphing. I’m not just being pedantic here; the discipline imposed on the mind by their usage, might mean your thoughts are more ordered in your head as well as on the page.
I’ve tried coaching him. It’s hopeless.
Yeah a bit loose in parts need to edit a bit lol but you get the gist Tasmania has shown the way independents and true independents not teal ones are the way to go .