A long time ago, around the weeks where the election date was about to be announced, a one Samuel Gordon-Stewart announced that he would run in the seat of Fraser, on an independent ticket, for the House of Representatives. After announcing, the young Canberran realised the daunting task of a campaign and opted out of the race, citing financial and scheduling reasons. An amicable effort, and one I would like to see replicated (in full) further down the track.
Samuel and I disagree on many things in terms of politics. I think it’s safe to say that by the reactions expressed over the election gone. To quote Samuel:
Congratulations to Kevin Rudd and Labor on an emphatic victory. They have clearly gained the support of the vast majority of Australians and therefore deserve to be in power. I’m obviously disappointed because I disagree with Labor on a number of issues, but so be it. As I said after I voted yesterday, I am but one person in a country of millions.
As is evidence, Samuel appears to be of the centre-right persuasion of politics (with a leaning to the outright-right, if I dare say so – correct me if I’m wrong Samuel). I, on the other had, upon seeing Labor had won the election, copy and pasted “RUDD!!!” hundreds of times, over and over again, to make up a whole post. As you could probably tell from that, I was rather excited. Of recent times, I’ve taken a centre-left position on politics, with a leaning on the centre.
As a result of these conflicting views on certain topics, all those weeks ago, when Samuel Gordon-Stewart published his ideas and policy views on his blog, I read them with extreme interest. I think sat down and read them with a clear mind (on a trip into university mind you, thus on a train, and therefore without clear lungs) and began to annotate them as I saw issues arise. Sometimes I would have messages of support in the margins, but more often than not, I would have big red underlines and circles through a paragraph.
Eventually I sent along a request for some of Samuel’s time (as he was still a candidate at that point) to answer a series of questions that I devised. Graciously he accepted and said he would have them answered. Time passed, and the questions were forgotten, however, before the election, I received the answers from Mr. Gordon-Stewart! I was rather excited to read them, see what he was thinking, and how he would respond to some of my critique (based on my centre-left thinking) of his centre-right policies.
Instead of doing anything that could muddy the waters or shade any clarity that Samuel and I may have had in our writings, and to also show you the exact questions that Samuel was answering, I copied below, ad verbatim, the email between us. However, before that, I’d like some input from my readers. Samuel said that he quite enjoyed the question and answer exchange that we had, and that if I had other questions, he’d be more than happy to talk some more. This got me thinking, and I asked him if he would want to do some sort of semi-constant thing like this where we ask one-another politically charged questions, and we both front answers. Sort of a two-man point-counterpoint series. It wouldn’t be weekly (I suspect) as we can be both very busy, but certainly at least once a month.
The idea is one that I would like to see carried through to action. There’s a new government, new policies, a new approach to the issues, and this is a way to keep an eye on things, keep some issues at the front, and two eyes on Australian politics. But what to you guys think? Do you want to see something like this? Would it be interesting? Dull? Stupid? Please leave a comment as to what you think, and from there we (Samuel and I) will assess whether to carry on with the question and answer series or not. Thanks.
Here then follows the questions and the answers. The answer Samuel gave me are indented and what he wrote unchanged. There were some very interesting and enlightening points he countered with, some things I agree on, and some I don’t. But that’s politics for you.
Question: In your policy outline, you state that you will be able to “truly represent the views, needs and concerns of Fraser, and Canberra, in general.” As an independent, I’m sure that you foresee the problem of not being backed by one of two major political parties. Have you considered how you might be able to actively represent your constituency if one of the two parties gets a majority on the House without the need of ‘third party’ candidates?
Honestly, no, I didn’t consider that. I strongly believe that we will not see a majority in the House of Representatives on this occasion, however this doesn’t change the fact that there could be a majority. If I had been elected as an independent amongst a majority government, the only things I could do would be to make an awful lot of noise, and to vote and have that view on the record. Not ideal, but I would have had to make do with the situation.
Question: Some of your policies are contrary to what polls in their respective fields, or research, suggest that Australian citizens want. For example, you don’t believe in man-made climate change, and you do believe in a national curriculum. If you are called on to vote on a policy such as these, and a majority of the people you represent don’t share the same beliefs that you do in these respects, are you prepared to put you personal convictions aside to cast a vote that reflects your voters? Or would you rather represent a minority of people in a majority-rules democracy? As an example, a study by the BBC stated that over 90% of Australians interviewed (as part of a 21, 000 person interview that included the USA, UK, France, China and India) said that they believed in man-made climate change. Would you vote according to your personal convictions on any bill that was supported by data that also shared the man-made climate change belief?
21,000 people in a country of 21,000,000 is 0.1 per cent of the population, but as that is not the issue, I’ll answer your question.
I went (not effectively at the time, but I would have worked on that) to the electorate with a fairly clear set of policies. I’m sure you would agree that people don’t just vote for any random nutcase in the hope they can influence them once they get in to power, rather people vote for somebody who they can generally agree with. If I had been elected, it would have been on the basis that, at least to start with, my views reflected the views of my electorate. It would be very important to keep in close contact with the electorate to remain representative.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if I felt that the electorate disagreed with me on an issue, and wanted me to vote a certain way, it would be my role to vote according to their wishes.
Question: Concerning your beliefs for the drought, you propose that we should pump water inland. Where do you propose the water is obtained from? A primary concern of the farming sector is that if they get water, they have nowhere to store it. Do you propose the building of new dams, when a simple spillway to prevent damage to Warragamba Dam, the dam that supplies 80% of Sydney’s water, cost $95 million?
The “grand scheme” there would have been an artificial inland river. I suppose it would have to be sea water, and perhaps desalination and the use of the sale for domestic purposes could have been considered. The idea behind the plan was that an inland river would create more inland evaporation and lead to more rainfall. It would have required a lot of planning, a lot of environmental feasibility study work, and would most likely have cost a lot to implement. This was a truly long-term plan which would, in all likelihood, not be completed during my time in parliament, but would, once completed, increase inland rainfall levels making the area more useful, more environmentally sustainable, and may have even helped to move our excessive coastal population inland.
Question: Following on from the previous question, many of your policies are founded on increased government spending. For example, pumping water inland, your education policy, your health policy, your broadband ideas, and funding for radio ‘updating’. Where do you propose the money comes from, or which sectors of pre-existing government spending would lose their funding? Do you believe that a government should be spending for a surplus to pay off debts, or re-invest, or save, or should a government budget for a deficit?
I fell in to the trap of throwing lots of money at things without properly considering where the money would come from. I probably would have taken some funding away from, what I see, as an excessive amount of money given to the arts for little return (the arts deserve some funding, but I believe it gets far too much funding for things which don’t produce anything of benefit, and the funding could be more wisely targeted), and possibly moved to commercialise the ABC (whilst retaining it as a government entity)…but I’m not entirely sure where the money would have come from.
Some of the plans were overly ambitious (health for example), or when I think about them, just wrong to varying degrees (education for example). But in general I believe that when the economy is in good shape, the government should aim to do whatever it can reasonably do for the community, whilst maintaining a modest budget. The modest budget is an insurance package that can be used for urgent special projects, or help to ease the blow when the economic cycle sees the economy take a bit of a fall.
Question: Radio is the major point you speak about in your media policy. Why is radio more important that television, the internet and publishing in terms of funding? You say that the “biggest change to the media in the immediate future is the introduction of digital radio.” Some would argue that wider access to Internet access, particularly broadband, is more important, and thus would be the biggest change. Why shouldn’t the funding you would propose to give the radio industry, which is widely a privatised industry, be directed towards providing access to remote communities, school and further development? Radio is fundamentally useless to these people in terms of education and training, as well as access to a variety of information and sources, not to mention that a lot of radio stations are commercially-based and can become politicised. Why allocate additional funding to this sector at the expense of others?
I had other plans for broadband, and the reason I singled out radio is not necessarily to pump money in to thriving commercial stations (such as the Macquarie conglomerate etc) which can upgrade their own equipment. The plan was more to help the community sector, and some of the less profitable regional stations, as the stations in these categories tend to be running incredibly outdated equipment and would struggle to upgrade to the new digital radio standards.
Radio is for many people, especially in regional areas, an important part of the community, and is one of the few emergency broadcast systems that can be trusted to reach people and keep people in the loop during an emergency. It’s easily portable and part of the recommended emergency kit. It was for this reason, above all else, that I wanted to make sure that, as the analog spectrum, especially AM (which is used by the majority of ABC Local Radio stations) is encroached on by electrical interference, this medium was not left behind.
You are right that the majority of commercial stations would be able to manage the changes themselves, but it would be unfair to leave everyone else out in the cold.
To the same extent, if there was a pressing need for assistance in other media, I would be willing to listen.
Question: Some of your policies advocate the removal of powers from state governments to the federal government. What role do you fundamentally see for the state governments? Are there any areas of power that the federal government has you would like to see shifted to the states, excluding those that you outlined in your transport ideas?
Some things that I think would be better handled by the states are tourism (they already handle it to some extent, and they do a better job in my view…perhaps a national board for national tourism, but I see this as a state issue), Arts & Sport (what this has to do with the commonwealth I will never know), Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry is something I would like to see shifted towards the state governments, I see a national role there, but I think the states should have majority control of this.
Question: People within the education community and industry have spoken out against a national curriculum, stating that a universal education doesn’t cater to individual differences, nor does it account for varying resources, learning ‘climates’ and the problematic expectations a standardised education system poses for society. Do you accept that a national curriculum would have trouble overcoming these problems? What approaches would you bring to this issue?
I support a national curriculum on core subjects (English, Science, Mathematics, etc). The national curriculum would need to be a “bottom line” standard, so the state and local bodies can add their own quirks if they need to. Other subjects would be up to the individual administrations unless they saw a need for a national “bottom line” on them. I think this approach would appease the vast majority.
Question: What is you position on the current war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Australian-US relations?
I believe the war on terror has become a stale news issue, which means we only hear about it when something exceptional happens (such as an injury). We don’t, in general, hear about the progress being made, only the accidents. You’ve probably noticed that even the number of reports about suicide bombers has dropped, partially because the situation is improving, but more because the press don’t want to run a story which sounds the same day after day after day.
I believe that the raw statistics show that we are making progress in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we need a proper independent enquiry to show us the true, clear picture. At this stage I believe we have a responsibility to help in those countries, however would be happy to review my position based on the outcome of an independent report.
As for Australia-US relations. I have no problem with us being allied with other countries, so long as we maintain our sovereignty. I think there are a handful of things where we have not maintained this as well as we could have in relation to the Australia-US relationship, however I believe this has already changed following the US mid-term elections. A new US president will certainly change things, and I think both major parties here have received the message loud and clear that Australians in general do not want to be as close as we have been.
And there you have it. As always, I (and Samuel I suspect) both encourage comments and discussion. But, as per usual, comments helpful to any discussion are the types of comment welcome, not some of the other types that I had to bin over the past six weeks. Hope that this was enjoyable, and if it was, say so, and there may be more.
Thomas.
Recent Comments