A letter to Bill Shorten, Richard Di Natale, Independents, Senate Cross-benchers (and recalcitrant Backbenchers)

You did NOT win the election. The Liberal National Coalition did. Granted, it was by the slimmest of margins but, it doesn’t  change the fact, you lost, they won. 

As for the recalcitrant Backbenchers, whilst you were on the winning side take a hint, this applies to you as well. Stop acting like the opposition. 

Now to put it into simple words. That means the majority of  Australian voters, voted for key initiatives to be actioned. 

We voted for the Sex Marriage plebiscite. If the decision is yes, then the Government is duty bound to   action. 

We voted for Superannuation reform as per the policy presented. That isn’t to say all of us are thrilled by some Of the proposed changes. But, those of us with an ounce of intelligence understand we have a problem and we all need to contribute to fixing it. 

We voted for Budget repairs as per the policies presented. 

We voted for the reintroduction of the ABCC. 

If the electorate truly believes they got it wrong then it's up to the electorate to change it at the next election. It is not up to you. It's our decision. You are OUR servants we elect you we pay you we fire you. Now it's your responsibility to make sure  the will of the majority of people is acted upon. Just DO IT. 

Stop the politics, stop the argy bargy and get on with supporting the decisions and getting this country moving again. I am sick and tired of the posturing, the grandstanding, the ego trips the power plays and, the “this is what I want utterances.” Being a politician does not grant you cart-blanch to force your will upon the majority. I would “bet London to a brick” I’m not the only who thinks as I do. 

As for the voters who ad nauseam bleat on about the Government is this, the Government that. The Government is composed of people other people elected. If you aren’t happy with the collective mix blame the people who put them there. Stop the whinging. 

The bottomline is this. Politicians work for us, start doing your job. That means implementing the decisions of the majority. If that requires minor adjustments fine, but blocking this, blocking that to flex your muscles is most certainly NOT. Senators, you sit in  a house of review. You are not the Government. It's your role to ensure the Government delivers what they promised.  By all means argue for your pet initiatives but holding an elected Government to ransom to get your way is not on.  

Voters if we as a collective have delivered the wrong result; Government and policy mix  that's our fault. We better lift our game, educate ourselves and do a better job next time. But when I see an Essential Poll which highlights even now on key issue after key issue 40% don’t have an opinion, that tells me a lot of people need remedial instruction and urgently. 

Rant over. 

Revenge v's Justice & Grace

Jennifer Oriel’s column in the Australian today titled, Federal Election 2016, electing Labor would have dire consequences. I thought it was an insightful and sensible piece. Her last paragraph had meaning. It reads; 

“In the wake of his ousting, Abbott has demonstrated the qualities of character that earned him the office of prime minister: humility and generosity of community spirit. The political power he lost has been replaced by ­something greater: the Christian gift of grace. Instead of seeking vengeance against Turnbull or his team, Abbott took the higher ground. Conservatives too must choose between vengeance and grace in the upcoming election. Don’t leave two graves behind you at the ballot box.”

From reading the comments it appears there is a groundswell of people who are seeking revenge. Their decision of course, but I wish they would reconsider. That reminds me of a recent piece I read, written by Leon F Seltzer Ph.D. He refers to the confusion between revenge and justice. This piece is particularly relevant

. 

"Revenge is about retaliation; justice about restoring balance. The motive of revenge has mostly to do with expressing rage, hatred, or spite. It’s a protest, or payback, and its foremost intent is to harm. In and of itself, it’s not primarily about justice but about victims’ affirming their inborn (but non-legal) right to retaliate against some wrong they perceive has been done to them."

Some of those commenting in response to Jennifer Oriel’s column are disillusioned with politics. I get that. It’s those who profess to be avenging Tony Abbott’s ousting as PM, or who consider the action a betrayal of their values that intrigues me. 

The only person who has a legitimate claim to being wronged is Tony Abbott. He is openly supporting the party and campaigning to help deliver the return of an LNP government.  He has continued to fight for the values LNP supporters say they hold dear. He is about restoring balance with a workable parliament; both houses. Something his government and the Turnbull government didn't have. Let's not forget it was voters who delivered that outcome. Many are a advocating a repeat of that. I find that hard to believe but it's true. 

The majority of those who seek to slap Malcolm Turnbull down are out for revenge and retaliation. Many are honest enough to admit that is the case. Others hide behind “I will not betray my principles BS.” These are people who by their very actions are willingly heaping their desires to avenge what they consider past wrongs upon "innocent generations” who will follow. They are doing it handing government to Bill Shorten and Labor. Or worse still they risk the control of the country by placing it in the hands of a gaggle to self-interest micros or Greens. Principles? 

We have others who openly declare they are “true blue” Liberals but they are voting for Bill Shorten. True Blue? Never. No true blue Liberal would ever vote for Labor and particularly not modern Labor who wrecked havoc on this country for six years. AND, who will do it again. Bill Shorten has no economic plan, just a huge spending plan. 

These people profess to be voting for Labor in the hope it will be short lived. Then hope springs eternal again with the desire for a new conservative party to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of defeat. That’s their idea of justice. Well I suppose that's OK if you believe in mythical creatures. But I wouldn’t be relying on hope to save ‘us’. I'd add lumbering the rest of us with Labor, Greens or a mishmash in either house is anything but just. 

"Revenge can masquerade as justice, but it frequently ends up perverting it." Yes it does. 

The question for all us genuine true blue Liberals is; what is the risk and can we really afford to take it in kicking the Libs out. Or, do we stick with what we have and help change it? I’m opting for the latter. I can’t rely on hope and I’m not into revenge. I'll stick with justice and grace. 

Question: How much are you prepared to pay?

Question: How much are you prepared to let the government spend for changes to our refugee intake policy. I have assumed (possibly dangerous) you don't want to see our debt position worsen as a result of the proposed Labor & Greens increases. What are you prepared to give up byway of benefits? Or conversely, what are you prepared to contribute byway of increased taxes and charges to pay for it? 

Remember this proposal isn't general immigration. This is for increases to the humanitarian refugee intake. This will means people from third world countries; predominately war torn. 

The LNP have committed and budgeted to spend $700million to cover the cost of the increase of 12,000 one off uplift. This is besides our current intake of 13,750; this increases to 18,750 by 2018 - 2019. 

Labor's proposal is an annual increase to 27,000 at a cost of $2.7billion over four years. 

If we adopted the Greens proposal of a staggering 50,000 annually the cost would be $7billion over the same period. To put this into perspective. That equates to housing a city approximately the size of Wagga Wagga every year. That doesn't even touch on the special needs of those people. 

It's easy when it's someone else's money conjured up by the mysterious government money fairy from the pot at the end of the rainbow. But it's yours and mine. We pay. 

So, it's a simple cost based question. What are you prepared to pay in increased taxes and how much are you prepared to give up byway of current benefits? Or, are you simply prepared to see the country go into more and debt leaving the legacy for future generations to deal with? 

A couple of comments on the Peter Dutton issue. A lot of people condemned him for what he said. Completely ignoring the fact that he was talking about the likely profile of our humanitarian intake today. Not the profile 50-40-30, even 20 years ago. In many cases a profile very different in both their religious and social maturity than those who came here following the Second World War. Whilst our country has developed, grown and matured economically and socially, the same can't be said for all countries. Particularly those where the bulk of humanitarian and boat people have come from. You may not like what he said and, many called him unAustralian. If anyone's acting in an 'unAustralian' manner it's the people attacking him. We have to be mature enough to debate thorny issues no matter how unsavoury and confronting the facts are. If we can’t then we forego the right to call, ourselves a mature and intelligent society. 

Research commission and published by the then Labor government back in 2011 confirms what Mr Dutton said. Although I'm not sure I totally agree with his comment about taking Australian jobs. As the jobs taken by people who come into the country are often those shunned by locals. The facts with respect to literacy, welfare and employment prove what he said is right. No amount of bullying or slurring Peter Dutton or those who defend him will change that. 

Can We Afford To Gamble With The Election

Now that Malcolm Turnbull has signalled the Double Dissolution and a July 2nd election date, it's a good time to reflect on where we are politically.  It's important for two reasons; 

1. To try to understand what led us to this point

2. And, to make sure we don’t make the same mistakes  

The Liberal National coalition sweep into power in 2013 after the six year nightmare under the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments. Tony Abbott was riding high as the elected PM and swiftly went about delivering on promised key objectives. We have talked about those ad nauseam.

The honeymoon ended with the 2014 budget and we were on a steady slide for months. In August 2015 I penned a blog to ex Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. It was titled Dear Prime Minister Abbott. What I wrote, wasn’t only about how I felt. A lot of us felt the same way. I know that from personal conversations and chatting with people on several forums. It was supported by the overwhelming response I received on posting this piece on Twitter. 

Things sadly didn’t change so the party changed leader. In came Malcolm riding high on the crest of a wave. But things turned sour fairly quickly and now we are plunging rapidly back to where we started. Cue Turnbull’s big play. It took guts to do what he did calling for a DD. I believe the intentions are sound but the risk of it turning pear shaped are high. That said, I believe courage deserves support. 

Perhaps if Mr Abbott had listened and made the called for changes things may have been different for him and us. But we won’t know, so we have to deal with the cards we’ve been dealt. Malcolm Turnbull will lead us to the election. I don’t mind admitting I’m not overly enthusiastic about that.

But it is, what it is. 

I accept and understand why many conservatives are unhappy. But that isn’t new. There were many unhappy conservatives when Abbott was leader. This unrest steadily increased throughout 2015. But most of the moderates were not comfortable sharing how they felt. They were slammed when they did. Now we have the DelCon movement. The major difference between the DelCon's and previously unhappy Liberals  is, many of the DelCon's are hell bent on payback. As a result, we risk being in a worse position than we find ourselves in now. The consequences of that are alarming. 

If we were in a solid position financially and the global market was buoyant, we could run the risk of experimenting. That is, send the Liberals a very strong message. But, we aren’t financially solid and the global market is particularly volatile. Due to Labor’s recklessness we are swimming in debt. Our mining boom has fizzed and we need time to build new industries. The warning bells are ringing on another market crash. We have NO cookies in the jar to buffer us (thanks to Labor). The odds for taking a gamble are not in our favour. 

Given the above I’ll be helping the LNP win government. I wasn’t over the moon with the change. But I’m just as angry with Tony Abbott as anything else. He could have done something he didn’t. So he gets no sympathy from me. I’m no different to many others I’m a Liberal and through gritted teeth I’ll vote for Turnbull’s team and work my butt off to help keep him honest.  The only thing which will change my position is a shocker of a budget. That coupled with a plan that lurches far too far to the left. If that happens there's no hope for any of us. I may as well pack up and move permanently to my UK home. 

I’ve said before Tony Abbott achieved a significant majority in the lower house but people didn’t trust him in the senate. His senate result was the worst ever. So claims he achieved a landslide are overstated. Unless the electorate delivers you a senate that works it's no victory as we’ve discovered.We can blame the ‘vote whisperer’ & I have. BUT if people had given Abbott the vote to enable him to govern we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now. It's that simple. 

The scary thing is, the micros and independents are still re-contesting. In addition, there will be many new ones running; all untried and untested. So the question for me is? Can I trust the new ones to do what they say they will? No. Do I trust the current backbenchers? Hell no. For me, it a matter of can I afford to gamble. I seriously don’t think I can. 

In the absence of an alternative to the Liberals a number of unhappy conservatives have stated they will donkey vote in the lower house. Their right of course but if enough people do it, they will effectively hand the seat over to Labor. One donkey might not seem much but if 100, 200 plus people do the same, it's a huge risk. Remember, Clive Palmer won by 53 votes against a Liberal candidate who scored 41.3%  first preferences against Clive’s 26.5%. Look how that experiment worked out. 

Adam Bandt said yesterday if we end up with a hung parliament the Greens will hold the balance of power in both houses. Just think about what that means. They want to increase the asylum seeker intake to 50,000 per year. They want to bring back a carbon tax (but so will Labor). The list goes on and on. If through our actions we give Labor a ‘leg-up’ the risk of a hung parliament is real. Queue left, in walks the Greens. 

All elections are important but this one more so. This one is about reforming (cleaning out the senate) stability and prudence. I’m not convinced it's the time to protest or to gamble with our future. Whilst I am but one vote hopefully I can convince a few unhappy conservatives to rethink sending a protest vote. To ask them to give the government an even chance of getting back with a workable parliament in both houses. To ask themselves the question; can we afford PM Shorten and his union controllers? Can we afford the Greens controlling both houses? Can we afford another unworkable senate? Can we afford taking a risk on single issue micros and independents? That includes the Australian Liberty Alliance.

I’m keen to see what's in the budget and the plan for the next three years. Government is about compromise. No government can satisfy everyone's demands. It's a matter of weighing up what's important to us as individuals. That said, it’s equally important to acknowledge what's best for the country as a whole. I didn’t agree with all of Abbott’s policies. I won’t agree with all of Turnbull’s either. The lead up has been messy but I’m not going to hang the government for that. It's the substance that counts not the theatre. 

If Malcolm Turnbull does anything stupid then by all means we should demand they kick him out. As with Tony Abbott, Malcolm is the leader he needs to prove he deserves our trust. If he fails, don’t let him get away with what Tony got away with, blaming everyone else but himself. It's the leaders bums on the chair. Perform or get kicked. I'm counting on Turnbull performing.

What Is Our Vision, Where Are We Heading?

Oliver Cromwell said “no one rises so high as he who knows not whither he is going.” Then adding the Peter Principle “Every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” We appear to have a combo of both as this relates to Canberra. 

This describes the last four Prime Ministers from Rudd to now. Turnbull is yet to be tested, but current indications are he is in the same camp. I am praying like mad Turnbull can pull a rabbit out of a hat and set a clear path to secure our future. It will be a bleak few years ahead if he can't. 

Yes, I am including Tony Abbott. He stopped the boats (with the help of an excellent Immigration Minister and Services support). He removed the carbon tax. He signed Trade Agreements (once again driven by the Minister responsible). But, then he lost his way and I for one had no idea where we were heading. After reading some of Tony's recent ramblings I can’t help thinking he suffers from an inflated opinion of his achievements.  This is particularly true when it comes to fiscal management. Add Tony to the delusional list. 

People voted for loopy Clive Palmer. In a media release on February 15 Clive claimed the credit for saving the country from austerity. He has also claimed he kept the North Queensland economy going. I'm sure the 200 plus who just lost their jobs wouldn't agree. Clive also stated "There has been little discussion or attack at any policies of our party.” Clive also mentioned there were no attacks what he’d achieved in Parliament. Correct and there are reasons for that. He doesn’t have any policies only grandiose plans and mission statements. None of which could ever be delivered. As for the positive achievement side, he hasn’t any. Based on recent reports Clive is trying to do deal with crossbenchers to form another party. Are we that stupid to vote for this again? Clive is another one for delusional list. 

I can’t muster the will to start on Labor, Greens and the rest other than to refer back to Cromwell’s quote. It describes just about every one of the useless lot we have in Canberra. There are  a couple of exceptions, but that is all. I'm fast forming the view we need to turf the whole lot out and start again. But then, I guess there is no guarantee we'll end up with anything better. After all, we the people voted them in. Senate wheeling and dealing being the exception. 

I could go on and on but to be frank, I am making myself more depressed thinking about the state of the nation. I wouldn’t mind betting I’ve depressed you as well. That said, we do deserve better than we are getting. 

We need a strong government as well as a strong opposition. Less of the personal power plays. Less of the fractional wreckers. Less of the negative media. More of the what, when, why and how. More things being delivered. Less of the politics for politics sake. We certainly need a whole lot less of the blackmail driven self interest. There has to be some acceptance that not everyone will get everything they want. Above all we need a clear vision of what we are doing, when we are doing it, why, how and very clear indicators that we are on track. At the risk of depressing myself even further,  I just don’t feel confident we have the people in place to do it. I hope to hell I’m wrong. 

The Greens Peril

Politics have become very poll driven over recent years. I, like so many eagerly await the poll results and then accept or dismiss the results depending on how our political party fares. When we are ahead, great. When we are behind, they are rigged. 

But, and there is a but, if we spend time analyzing the answers to specific questions or look closer at the detail, they do tell a story. I've commented before on social media, that the answers to specific questions (Essential Poll in particular) often don't correlate with the overall results on voting intention. 

Using a recent Essential Poll as an example. The poll asked a specific question ‘ who do you trust the most’  out of the two major parties. The results rated the Conservative Government as more trustworthy than the Labor opposition on the bulk of questions but, the Government was still behind in the overall poll. Now there are reasons why that might be so.

1. On primary votes Labor still trails behind the LNP in most polls but win the two, party based on preferences. The Greens preferences are making a big difference to the overall result.
2.  The 'don't know' percentage was high which indicates people are still waiting or are unsure. With all the rubbish printed in newspapers and promoted via radio and TV I can understand the confusion.
3. Or perhaps people trust the policies and are comfortable with the results the government is achieving but are unsure about or don’t trust the LNP Leadership. That said, in many polls the LNP are rated more highly on leadership but it's fair to say the Prime Minister isn't popular. 

Which brings me to the point of this update. As a conservative, there is an even more troublesome trend emerging and that is the rise in Green support. It's no secret Labor and the Greens are welded at the hip. In a move that defies logic, even the so called staunch conservative Clive Palmer has given preferences to the Greens. So the Greens are effectively the game changers at the next election.

The Morgan Poll of this week really set the alarm bells ringing for me and reminded me that as conservative 'political' social media activists we have to start paying a lot more attention to this group. Whilst we have been spending all of our time focusing on Labor and the Unions, the Greens are working away in the background slowly but surely picking up 'the vote'; both Labor and Liberal swinging voters. Whilst the numbers highlighted in the detail are state based, they are an indication that can't be ignored. 

Greens Leader, Richard Di Natale appeared on the Bolt Report on Sunday. It was intiguing viewing. 

Mr Di Natale's Greens party has benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars Union money. Mr Di Natale himself benefited to the tune of $200,000 of Union money in his election bid. When quizzed on what did his Union benefactors expect in return, he stated nothing other than support jobs. Why? Because Greens support jobs? Really!!! If they supported jobs, why are they supporting Labor's 50/50 climate plan that will result in the loss of thousands of Australian jobs? The same plan the CFMEU backs!!! 

Richard Di Natale nailed his flag to the pole last week, with his confirmation that Greens senators will support a petition to the Governor General, to ask him to remove Royal Commissioner Heydon, if it is tabled by Labor on Monday. This is a massive waste of time. The Governor General does not have the power under his reserve powers to remove the Commissioner. This petition, if tabled, is nothing more than a cynical political power play and no sensible Senator would entertain it. 

Mr Di Natale made a good point when he stated Unions protect employees. Yes, some do. Just not the ones who are being exposed as a result of TURC. Those Unions, clearly put themselves and their Labor mates first. So if Mr Di Natalie really cared about employees and jobs, why wouldn’t he be supporting Commissioner Heydon against the cynical, politically motivated self-protectionist game Labor and the major Unions are playing?  It's appears obvious that by his very actions money buys support. Why else would Unions be adding to the Greens 'war chest' and Mr Di Natalie be supporting them and throwing unfounded accusations at the Commissioner? 

Mr Di Natale highlighted his naivety in stating, “If you find a few bad apples get rid of them.” Seriously, half the stuff that is materialising from TURC would have remained buried, so how do you get rid of what you don’t know? Or, is it a case of out of sight, out of mind. Mr Di Natale even went as far as to accuse Commissioner Heydon of being of a ‘clear political persuasion’ and having a clear agenda!! The same Judge that NSW Labor appointed to the NSW Court of Appeal. Grubby stuff Mr Di Natale, grubby stuff. 

So if the Greens cared about jobs, as referenced earlier, why are they supporting a Labor plan that will wipe out thousands of Australian jobs? Why are opposing ChAFTA & why is Peter Whish-Wilson calling on Labor to refuse to pass the agreement because of ISDS? And why are they demanding the Government send the agreement back to the negotiating table?  For heaven's sake, even Labor's Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, said on September 3rd, “We want to see the China Free Trade Agreement implemented. Those concerns can be dealt with by the Government. They don't need to go back to Beijing and renegotiate.” 

The China Free Trade agreement has been 10-years in the making. This agreement will deliver an increase in beef exports, dairy products and even insurance and healthcare services which means desperately needed jobs growth and the Greens play games.

The Greens agenda is very clear, they are about supporting Agenda 21 and driving green plans that will result in thousands losing their jobs. They will open up our borders, they will bankrupt the country, they will oppose anything Tony Abbott tries to do on climate, border protection and trade deals that deliver economic recovery and jobs growth. They will take Union money and side with Labor (so they can control the agenda behind the scenes). Whilst Labor play at being ‘light green’ and betray their heartland the Greens are increasing their support and using any ploy they can to do it. 

If you think you can’t trust Labor then you certainly can’t trust the Greens. And Labor and Conservatives should be uniting to destroy this Green Peril before it takes a greater foothold. If they don’t, both parties pay the price and Australia pays the price. The question is, can we AFFORD to pay the price? That’s a question every thinking Australian has to ask themselves. I think you know my answer, it is a resounding NO, we can’t.  

Question of 100 Good Men & Women

The twitter post read. "The current two-party system is an epic fail." Suggesting what we need in Canberra is “100 good men and women." I would go one step further and say, they should ALL be good men and women, but that is another discussion. 

The 100 good men and women comment is intriguing, because it implied 100 independents. And so the discussion, albeit somewhat constricted by the limitations of Twitter ensued, what was best; try and fix the current two-party system or flood the parliament with one hundred Independents.

I think many will agree the current system is deeply flawed. Only a rusted on fool would conclude that we have an over abundance of the best quality 'good' people in Canberra. We clearly don't and that goes for all parties, including Independents. Although it is fair to say there are many good people there, not all the apples are bad, we just don’t have enough of them. 

I want to touch on the 100 Good men and Women (#100GMW) idea. 

Some of the questions that spring to mind for me are. 

Who determines what good actually looks like? 

You can define what personal values look like, but that doesn't always mean the person can or will deliver what everyone demands. So does, that make them bad? 

So is good based on personal values or doing what is best for the country, the electorate or us as individuals? 

Even within the electorate people have different demands, different wants and needs.  What is often in the best interests of the country isn't always in the best interest of individuals, particularly in the short term. 

So in electing these people is ‘good’ based on the majority view of policies or personal attributes? 

We could have the majority view now,  if we eliminated preference voting as per the UK and got rid of the senate. Personal attributes are sometimes harder to determine.   

How are #100GMW independents organised? 

Hundred Independents governing, who leads? How are roles divided up? How are decisions reached? Because I think it would be a fair bet the #100GMW all have their pet projects and personal beliefs. We see this in the senate now with our current group of Independents. And before you scream, but they are not 'good', well sorry to disappoint, but some people actually think they are. 

I consider a good person acts with integrity, honesty and fairness. But acting with fairness doesn't always mean you can be fair to everyone. Just consider the challenges the current government has battled in trying to address the budget deficit and welfare spending. Or the debates that erupt over mining. On one side the people who need jobs and on the other those who will not support mines because of their commitments to the green agenda. 

I am naturally cautious about independents ruling. I've seen the negative side of that with councils and the potential for that to be the reality on a bigger scale in the ‘House of the Law Makers’ fills me with dread.  

It also raises another question and that is, is the electorate mature enough to move to a more independent structure in Canberra. I'm sure this will get some peoples backs up, but I doubt that it is, but I'll save that for another day. The experiment of ‘self-managed’ work groups are rarely successful. 

I also have a sneaky suspicion that the advocates for the #100GMW are really just like the rest of us. They have their personal agendas and they don't see either of the two major parties delivering on those personal wants, so they think a bunch of independents who think the same way as them will. 

I'm squarely in the camp of, let's try and fix what we have, and then build on that to improve it. That comes from my natural tendency toward 'process improvement" leading to the creation of "Centres of Excellence". Yes I know it’s a motherhood statement, but it says what I think parliament should be. Anyone who is familiar with process improvement thinking knows, you have to identify the initial cause of the problem and work from there. So where to start. 

For me there are glaring issues that should be looked at.   

These are not necessarily in order:

No 1: Fix the initial selection process at the grassroots level. So often we hear the person who gets the jersey is the party pick not the members pick,  

No 2: Eliminate political donations and that definitely includes Union donations,

No 3: Get rid of preference voting,

No 4: Get rid of the senate,

No 5: All political advertising to be subject to existing Truth in Advertising laws,

No 6: Any initiative that impacts on our sovereignty needs to explained very clearly and perhaps in some instances it should also to be subject to referenda, 

No 7: Increase the house of reps term to four years and preferably five, 

No 8: Have a robust feedback system so the the voice of the people is heard, 

No 8: Improved auditing of politicians performance.  

These are the key areas for me, but first and foremost it gets back to the independence of the selection process. We have to get the right people in the party to start with. We have too many career politicians who are using parliament as a stepping stone toward their next career move and certainly too many ex Union organisers and Union lawyers who are not representative of the majority of the electorate. Their experience in the real world is limited. 

When it comes to political donations, there is no such thing as a free lunch and we are seeing all too clearly the negative impact of political donations. The level of corruption and manipulation that is being exposed in the Union Royal commission is testament in case as were the ICAC investigations. And independents are not immune, just look at the mess the Palmer experiment has delivered to us in the senate. Money buys favours and those favours rarely benefit us.  

How anyone can support preference voting is beyond me. It never ceases to amaze me how a candidate can achieve the highest number of votes in an electorate and not gain a seat in parliament because of preferences. That's like an Olympic javelin thrower ‘winning’ the gold medal, and losing out because the officials combined the distance thrown by the silver medalist with the bronze medalist and awarding  the gold the second place getter. The senate is even worse. People sitting in judgement who achieved less than a 1000 votes, but who got there because someone did deals with umpteen other micro parties; lunacy. 

We elect a party to govern and to deliver on the policies we voted for. Far too often they are thwarted in that endeavour by  a hostile or feral senate. I know many of us were stunned when we heard a bunch of independents supported the opposition to vote down the reintroduction of legislation to place better controls over Unions. Hence, increase penalties for misuse of members' funds and stamp out legal practices. 

The best example I know of a one house parliament is New Zealand. They don’t have a senate, they function perfectly well without one and they get things done in half the time.

It's insane that political advertising is exempt from the laws governing truth in advertising. In essence, anyone with a grievance can run an ad based on lies and fear and get away with it!!! And worse still, people believe it. The most recent proof is the Union ad lying about foreign workers and the China FTA. It simply shouldn't be allowed. Trust me, we will be swamped with Union ads like this leading leading up to the next election. It's frankly criminal behaviour in my opinion.  

Our sovereignty concerns many in the electorate. I’m one of them. There are two issues that come up with regularity because they do have the potential to impact on our future. One is foreign investment; what, who and the basis of (sale or lease of assets). Two immigration; who, what and why. 

I think all parties need to be more open about this. They need to make it very clear exactly what are they taking to the electorate and why. They certainly aren't as clear as they should be and this creates concern and suspicion.  They must address this. 

The question of the term in office needs to be looked at. Three years is not enough time to address many of the problems we face today. As an example, the Labor government left a minefield for the new government to deal with. Addressing the economic challenges created as a result of a Labor's out of control spending and unfunded initiatives, coupled with the significant decline in our resources market was never going to be fixed in three years.  If we have the right people in Canberra then four to five years shouldn't be an issue.   

Lastly, those we elect need to spend more time listening to their supporters and we have to have a much better process to assess performance. If we do get it wrong and vote in the wrong people or as recently discovered end up with people who abuse, taxpayer funds waiting for an election to get rid of them isn’t acceptable. Elected members need to be accountable to their local party members and that means greater disclosure of personal spending, achievements etc. If our representative isn’t performing them we should be able to remove him or her. 

Whether we like it or not, we are an island, but we can't operate as an island. Some people out there would like us to just close the doors to investment, immigration and being a global citizen. Nice idea but we wouldn't last long. That said, we have to ensure we do the best for our country, our people and our security and that means getting the fundamentals right. It starts with who we elect to represent us. That's where we need to start. Fix the basics and build on that. 

I think we have a man in Tony Abbott, who is trying to do that, at least in some areas. He gets little thanks for it, but he tries. Yes, he has many faults, but he is the only one who is endeavouring to clean up Union corruption, fix parliamentary benefits rorting and get the best deals on our free trade agreements. Let's not forget he also told the UN he would stop illegals flooding in on boats and he wouldn't buy into their green climate scams. As for the leader of the opposition, just rate him on these five key points and you come up with a big fat zero. Same applies to the Greens leader and independents. So my efforts leading up to the election will be helping the best of the two major parties get back into office. 

Let’s not create a bigger mess voting in a heap of independents that will achieve nothing. It’s the wrong time, for the wrong  reasons and it diverts our attention from the most important challenge that we face. Keeping Labor out and that includes their partners, The Greens.