We already have some idea of the kind of election campaign we’re going to get — one filled with scare campaigns and personal abuse as the government seeks to claw back a massive Labor polling lead. But what kind of campaign should we get, if we had a half-decent polity and serious leaders?
Transparency
What we should get: real-time disclosure of all donations above $1000 from corporations, individuals and trade unions, and lists of attendees at all political party fundraisers over the past year so the public can see who is seeking access to and influence over politicians.
What we will get: limited lists of donors above $1000 on 1 February, 2023, with the Coalition refusing to report donors donors below $14,500, and a thick veil of secrecy over who is influencing elected officials.
Integrity
What we should get: a powerful, independent public watchdog over the federal government to investigate claims of corruption, state capture and misconduct and to intimidate politicians tempted to rort and pork-barrel taxpayer funds via election commitments.
What we will get: unchecked pork-barrelling from both sides given the lack of such a body. If the Coalition wins, no such body will ever exist.
Major issues
What we should get: a coherent vision of how each party sees Australia’s major challenges, how they relate to each other, what they want to do about them, and how they’ll do that — and how much it will cost.
What we will get: banal, motherhood statements of policy coupled with heavy reliance on slogans (welcome “Because Labor Cares” to the ranks of the three-word slogans) and micro-level policy announcements pitched at winning key seats.
Actual debate
What we should get: the key process of Australian democracy should also be the key moment for serious debate about major issues.
What we will get: while shadow minister debates are still a thing, we’ll be lucky to get more than one debate between the leaders and that will be controlled by the press gallery — thus required to follow a media-friendly format to showcase senior journalists. Both leaders will stick to their talking points while journalists try for gotcha questions.
An ideal format for leader debates would be three of them — one moderated by journalists, one a town-hall debate, and one in which the PM and opposition leader sit down at a table by themselves with one camera, unmoderated, and talk through an agenda of issues without interference or help from a media personality. While media-unfriendly, the format would force the leaders off their talking points and a dependence on media conventions.
Coverage
What we should get: media coverage that focuses on substantive issues rather than race-calling, does not provide a platform for the major parties to provide staged images for evening news bulletins, explains and examines policies and announcements and represents the public interest.
What we will get: shallow, image-based coverage from the discredited institution of the leaders’ buses, relentless focus on alleged “gaffes” or anything that could possibly be portrayed as a “gaffe”, and an obsession with who is deemed to be winning and losing (and mounting a late comeback). Also, News Corp and its determined campaign to keep Labor out of office.
Advertising
What we should get: limited advertising that acts as a cap on campaign expenditure and prevents billionaire participants from skewing results purely through colossal advertising spend, and a toughened-up version of South Australia’s truth in political advertising laws that actually impose a significant cost on parties for lying during campaigns.
What we will get: a brain-numbing barrage of advertising, much of it deeply misleading, as parties seek to spend their way to victory and Clive Palmer once again devotes the best part of $100 million to getting unengaged voters to lend him their support.
Cost-effective campaigns
What we should get: since much of the cost of campaigns is provided by taxpayers, we’re entitled to parties treating that money with respect and seeking to minimise the impact on the taxpayer.
What we will get: parties delaying their campaign launches until the last possible moment to take advantage of political funding rules, and the Coalition abusing government advertising rules to spend millions funding election ads for itself.
Tomorrow: the major issues that we should be hearing about but won’t.
While I totally endorse every point that you make Bernard, I just wonder how things would work if the election campaign was conducted according to your “what we should get”, criteria? I say that because there is so much ignorance and apathy amongst voters in the electorate.
I live in a blue-ribbon Liberal seat. We have a strong independent candidate running against the Liberal incumbent. At a ‘get-together’ for the independent candidate last Wednesday, one of the women who is prominent in the campaign for the independent mentioned that the biggest problem was not the sitting member but the apathy and complacency of so many voters in the electorate. And I should add, that this is very much a middle-class, well educated electorate.
When it comes to politics it seems that there are a significant number of people right across Australia who are not willing (or able?) to cope with anything beyond a “three-word slogan”. Serious politics requires some deep thought and deliberation. Unfortunately, too many people seem to be more preoccupied with with mindless trivia (and pardon my cynicism, but that is exactly how the plutocrats who really run the show in any ‘western capitalist democracy’, prefer to have it).
There were, until this election, three toxic topics that cannot be debated in any serious or meaningful way in Australian federal politics. Taxes, national security and climate. Once again Labor has been gutsy enough to tackle one of the three (climate) but only in a halfhearted fashion – let’s not forget what happened last time when they tried to be honest and brave. Now the two remaining toxic topic again get left to foolish promises like 18000 more troops (from where? To achieve what? Nuclear subs – when, how, what cost?) tax cuts for all – when actually some tax changes and increases are clearly need as the population demographic changes and impacts the country’s ability to provide for itself. Time federal politics returned to debate, ideas and important issues indeed. Enough of the bribery, corrupt-practice and announcements for announce to sake.
And the lying scare campaigns——
Morrison has decided to spend $121 billion on nuclear submarines. Taking into account that Australia does not have the handling facilities, technological expertise or engineering back up to run these vessels, perhaps the electorate will take all this into account when voting-or did we all just fall off a Christmas tree?
In the event of a war, how about allocating a fraction of this cash to investing in our merchant fleet; after all, if we face an emergency, there are no Australian tankers to import and move fuel; no cargo vessels to import and move food, and a vital industry trashed at the altar of market economics. From a fleet of around 150 ships to approximately a dozen does not bode well for Australia’s security. Plus shout out to the Liberal government for reducing our fuel reserves from 90 days to 22 days, with 3 of Australia’s 7 refineries closed down.
The entire submarine debacle speaks so much about the sheer stupidity of our politicians (and our naval commanders?). I don’t believe the $100B+ figure for a second, probably at least double that plus the billions a year to keep them operational. All that for already old technology, but not even delivered for 20-30 years. Talk about seeing us coming. There’s already no such thing as ‘quiet running’, satellite technology already ‘sees’ deep below the water line and every sub type leaves it’s own signature.
In the mean time the world moves on. The US navy has been trialling drone war ships for years and has recently ordered 100 of them. We’ve seen how effective drones have been in anti tank warfare in Ukraine. Imagine the above/under water drone technologies in 20/30 years, both anti ship and anti submarine, probably anti aircraft as well. We could buy (I could say develop, but that isn’t the Australian way these days) thousands of them for a fraction of the price of these ridiculous subs.
There must be a gravy train out there somewhere for the Defense personnel. I can’t comprehend how many poor decisions are made, and no one is responsible. I also believe drones are a fantastic concept
I imagine a chain of command structure such as the ADF has involves quite a bit of sucking up to those above you in order to get promoted. Certainly not speaking up “out of turn” and annoying higher ups with difficult questions. To be fair this describes every large corporation in Australia.
The elephant in orbit, which no military nutter dare mention, is that drones this’n’that can be knocked out over half the earth with a very cheap, easily available and readily deployed EMP.
Or even a serious solar storm (no doubt caused by the evil russkies & assorte commiesd du jour) – the Sun has been unusually quiescent for the last decade or so.
As Samuel Clemens said, “Every talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it” and that was before it was know the effect solar weather has on this planet, apart from minor aspects such as climate.
Do you think maybe Mark Twain was being his usual humour self? The original Seinfeld with the observational comedy.
Excellent point, in today’s world. Something the Russians haven’t used though. Who knows what will be developed in the next few decades (assuming we’re all still around of course).
The technology is not new, well understood – think Faraday Cage – and a lot cheaper to deploy than all the toys it would turn into overpriced scrap metal.
The only disadvantage (like ABC warfare) to belligerents is limiting the effect to the enemy.
Personally, I’d like to crowdfund a private initiative and rid the world of the Net – don’t forget its origin as a post first strike communication system for the Cold Warriors hiding beneath Cheyenne Mountain.
Imagine no farcebuch, twatter, total surveillance and the obliteration of the unknowable billion$ that exist only in the ether.
Bring back barter, the only ungamable price discovery mechanism!
You missed out a much needed federal integrity commission, which Labor has promised.
“the Coalition abusing government advertising rules to spend millions funding election ads for itself”
Surely that has been happening for months?
Also, if LNP are campaigning, ALP are campaigning, The Greens are campaigning and Clive Palmer is campaigning, why don’t we already have an election date?
the biggest joke I’ve seen is the set of Government ads saying how much “we” are doing to deal with climate change. I’m seeing them on commercial TV in Melbourne. I wouldn’t mind guessing that they don’t get a run in National Party heartland in regional QLD.
Yes, I would also like to see a breakdown, of where the Positive Energy misinformation campaign is being shown the most. Especially since it’s a publicly funded campaign, and the justification for those campaigns, is that they inform and educate the public on how government initiatives affect them. My guess on where those ads are being shown, would be that the areas of Australia, that most need to be educated about climate change, are those areas that are seeing the ads the least.
It is time for the people of Brunswick and Newtown to step up and do their bit to fight climate change.
One less skinny soy latte per week ought to do it.
Palmer’s ads on SBS are non-stop and crazy making, and can’t understand a word be says
– not that isn’t a plus – but what is SBS thinking, it’s as though the support him.
Just guessin’ but it might have something to do with Scummo still needing to override at least a dozen local party preselections to parachute in RWNY religious maniacs?
If only more of the electorate were that interested.
Seems too many are happy to vote for disappointment.
Taking little interest in devoting time to research interest in policy, history and signs of commitment.
For a government they can complain about – and do nothing to change, like give a government a term to govern in the majority/greater good interest and if they don’t, bring on the replacement.
Relying on their gut and prejudices to vote.
Happy to vote for whom they’re encouraged to vote, by the political media they rely on to think for them : without reflection of their history.
…. Then getting pissed when they get what they’ve voted for
The constant anger and negativity fed to many Australians by what I call “the shouty news” reflects the sad truth that many of the power hungry recognise they can make money through feeding anger, bitterness, disaffection and resentment- polarising the electorate and inevitably our society. Then throw in genuine growth of income distribution and voila, we have Australians carrying Trump signs.
Like Americans, many Australians vote against their best interests without realising this.
Under What We Should Get in this campaign: Actual Debate, I am surprised that there is not more adverse comment on the circus that is the election “debate”. It is nothing of the kind, and is simply and extension of the spin cycle, with everyone trying for Gotcha moments. Stupid, shallow and pointless. Instead, the party leaders should take part in what was the norm in the UK in the past-each one singularly having 20 minutes or so in front of the TV cameras and explaining policy and party direction if elected. Imagine Morrison trying to blag for 20 minutes and you get the idea-stupid, shallow party hacks seen for what they are, and the likes of Barnaby Joyce auditioning for Funniest Home Videos.