As is by now well known, if One Nation senator Rod Culleton is knocked out by the High Court, the seat will likely go, by virtue of recount, to the next One Nation candidate on the Senate ticket in July, who happens to be Peter Georgiou — Culleton’s brother-in-law. If, perchance, Georgiou is unable to serve, Culleton’s wife, Ioanna Culleton, is next on the ticket. One Nation’s commitment to family values is certainly unimpeachable.
Even so, it doesn’t do a lot for One Nation’s pretence to somehow be the party of authentic Australians, of a “silent majority”, to use Pauline Hanson’s term (more accurately, a tiny minority that never shuts up), when it serves up representatives like the Culletons. How many “real Aussies” spend much of their time in court or in creditors’ meetings over debts of millions of dollars? Most Australians, you’d like to think, regard it as a matter of honour, as well as law, to pay what they owe people. And how many, in a nation that looks down on politicians, have their family running for the Senate?
Ex-senator Bob Day falls into a similar category. It turns out “Family First” — to whom Day gave a considerable chunk of his personal wealth despite the developing problems of his housing companies — is, unfortunately, not the order that creditors will be paid from what’s left of Day’s housing empire: the dozens of families staring at massive losses and incomplete homes will have to take their chances like every other creditor.
[Family First loses sugar daddy as money-bags Bob Day hits the skids]
The election of the likes of Day and, especially, One Nation, were supposed to reflect the alienation of Australians from politics as usual, the dislike of professional politicians and self-interested careerists that allegedly make up the mainstream parties, the preference for more genuinely representative voices in parliament in touch with how the electorate really feels.
But the genuine representatives repeatedly turn out to be altogether unlike the community. Senators aren’t even compelled to engage with or please constituents — the basic requirement of even the safest seat holder in the House of Reps. And many of the current crop of minor party representatives are hardly comparable to your average Australian. Pauline Hanson, after all, has earned millions from being a serial political candidate and television celebrity — not exactly the stuff of Struggle Street. Or take David Leyonhjelm, a man profoundly out of touch with the views of mainstream Australia: a gun obsessive, Leyonhjelm’s vocal support for dramatically loosening Australia’s gun laws reflects just 6% of Australians who think gun laws are too tough. Then there’s Malcolm Roberts, who occupies a fringe space of conspiracy theorists who believe in global plots and vast, omnipotent cabals, a man more at home in a chatroom with anonymous handles than at a suburban barbecue.
[Will One Nation’s second-wackiest senator try to prove the High Court is null and void?]
In comparison, the bulk of mainstream party politicians appear far more in touch with community sentiment and far more reflective of community values. But the fiction of real Aussies versus careerists persists.
Part of the problem is that politics skews in favour of the extreme. Jacqui Lambie, who rails incoherently against Muslims, was re-elected while Ricky Muir didn’t even come close (ditto Glenn Lazarus). Lambie earned some multiples of the media coverage that Muir and Lazarus received courtesy of her Islamophobia and the ensuing outrage. The media rewards extremism with coverage, and name recognition is fundamental to political success — a key reason why Pauline Hanson has cunningly made sure she was never too far out of the public eye despite her longs years out of Parliament.
Thus, extremists have an in-built advantage over quiet centrists like Ricky Muir, who rapidly matured into a thoughtful senator prepared to consider bills on their merits in his short time in politics. The alternative is Nick Xenophon, a centrist who is highly and necessarily adept at publicity. But lashing out of the minority du jour needs less skill and thought when it comes to publicity. There’s no “silent majority” here.
“In comparison, the bulk of mainstream party politicians appear far more in touch with community sentiment and far more reflective of community values.”
You left out the other “extremists'”,The Greens.They have support hovering around 8.5-10%.They are not “in touch with community sentiment” nor are they “far more reflective of community values.”
Their refugee policies are soundly rejected.
Their climate change extremism is soundly rejected.
Their bizarre economic policies are soundly rejected.
They are firmly in the camp of “wacko’s” that are not “average Australians”.
I think the relationship between your beliefs and evidence is about as tenable as Malcolm Robert’s.
I remember being at my father’s many years ago. He and I were in his garage, cleaning down a large wooden outdoor setting, getting it ready for painting. From the corner of the garage, the voice of a local shock jock jarred whatever peace we might have enjoyed. The shock jock was about to interview a green politician and was looking forward to dismantling her political positions and showing her up as the obvious nutjob she was. Time and again he demanded to know how she could justify this or that just-so-obviously crackpot policy. Time and again, the green politician answered calmly that the Green’s policy was formed by this or that independent expert or scientific opinion and advice. In the face of his Fox-style free-floating disconnected lunacy, she was calm and rational and supported her statements with facts. Even so, at the end of the interview, immediately after the call was disconnected, the jock excreted a disparaging and derogatory laugh and repeated his earlier judgments about the Greens being a party of crackpots. It was as if the conversation never happened. I felt that way watching poor old Brian Cox trying to deal with Malcolm Roberts on Q&A. I felt that way when I read your rant tonight. Please, at least try and stick to the facts. The world would be better off.
In reality, the contemporary Greens are the most centrist mainstream party and in basically the same policy space as Hawke/Keating Labor – and pretty much the only one who still have a “fair go for all” philosophy.
It was Keating who introduced mandatory detention.The greens are a party that has the likes of Stalinist Rhiannon and who put up a Trotskyist at the last election,who wanted Tony Abbott elected so he could start the socialist revolution.The greens are nowhere near the policies of Hawke/Keating and are on the extreme left,whilst accepting donations from the criminally led CFMEU.It’s a pity the Trotskyist wasn’t elected so that Stalinist Rhiannon could send around an assassin with an ice axe.
You left out the other “extremists’”,The National party.They have support hovering around 5%. They are not “in touch with community sentiment” nor are they “far more reflective of community values.”
Their refugee policies are soundly rejected.
Their climate change denialism is soundly rejected.
Their bizarre economic policies are soundly rejected.
They are firmly in the camp of “wacko’s” that are not “average Australians”.
TOO TRUE
Silent majority = noisy, squawking minority, couldn’t agree more.
As for Nigel’s comment, the Greens economic policy is more closely aligned to rational economics than either major party, and to a lot of clear thinking people. Their climate change strategy has clear majority support, and the braindead LNP do nothing, or pay companies to do nothing policy, is at the very far end of the spectrum.
I only sometimes vote green, mainly because of their politics rather than their policies, but at least they have real policies, and in two out of three of your examples you are plainly wrong, and I suspect the third is less clear than you imagine.
But they aren’t in line with the squawking minority, of which I suspect you are a member.
At 8.5%-10% the greens are clearly a “squawking minority”.I think you are confusing the acceptance that climate change is happening ,by the majority of Australians, with Green policy,clearly not accepted by the majority.Polls ,for the past 16 years ,have shown around 70% support for strict immigration policies and for no illegal arrivals by boat.Where’s your evidence to support any change in that position? “I suspect”,doesn’t cut it.As for their “politics” you’re welcome to Stalinists like Lee Rhiannon and the attempted election of a Trotskyist, in Albanese’s, electorate in 2016.That’s “progressive” for you!
Jeez, that carbon copy of the RWNJ talking points from which you transcribe (no thought required) must be pretty ragged by now.
Maybe if you were issued with a new one you might not come across as such an obvious astroturfer.
But I doubt it.
Yes this is a sad phenomenon, recall Uncle Clive the 80s advisor to Sir Joh being the great anti-political hope. Trump in the US being an Outsider after actual decades of being one of the biggest Insiders around.
I think voters don’t really care to make a distinction between the likes of Pauline and the various centrist careerists. These people show up, with various policies, but one thing remains constant, they are spanners you can throw in the machinery of parliament, and if you believe the hype, this is the same as throwing them into the machinery of the government and the state itself.
To me, it is a poor strategy.
If Bob Days’ election is seen as unconstitutional then his votes will be discarded and a recount done which will most likely elect another ALP Senator. The position won’t automatically go to the next candidate on his ticket.