There is a disillusion and cynicism in the community about politics in general at the moment and I don’t think it has been helped at all by the sudden deposition of the previous Prime Minister recently.
There is a problem apparent here and people are smelling a rat. They might not be able to put their finger on precisely why it bothers them so much, but it really does – and continues to do so.
When people volunteer negative or uneasy remarks about something to do with the government, you know there is something deeply bothering them and that isn’t good for any government. My own view is that when you notice the government too much it is not a good thing for you or for that government.
I think the problem is at bottom a moral one, personally, and it is becoming increasingly obvious in the way our new Prime Minister is trying to quickly sort tricky problems out.
To govern for popularity is morally empty; there should be a consistent moral underpinning to every decision. We are being bamboozled by this weird, haphazard quick-fix way of government by expedience.
Surely governing ought be done methodically, with forethought, skill, a realistic sense of the possible aligned with the courage sometimes to pursue the apparently impossible or unpopular if adjudged necessary.
Government should not serve only the best interests of a government that wants to stay in power just to keep the other guys out, as it appears to be the case at the moment, but the best interests of the people governed.
My main worry at the moment is that one side of the federal parliamentary chamber has on its front benches predominantly career union officials or union lawyers who see their seat in parliament as a cut and dried career step forward and power as their right.
On the other side are people of more disparate walks of life, business people, people with families, some with very young families, and mortgages, who have felt the alarming sting of sudden drastic pay cuts and have had to restructure their finances, just like lots of us.
Not saying they are better or worse, just that the level of experience in the world most of us inhabit seems greater on one side than the other.
I feel more confidence that MPs who have ‘walked the walk’ of ordinary life would understand the great difference a small change in income or increase in expenses can make in a family, the challenges and sacrifices involved in balancing work and family life, the burdens of caring for children or sick family members.
My instinct is that they would more clearly understand the interests of the ordinary people they hope to govern and see these interests perhaps as more important than the other side does.
The fact that our present Prime Minister is not married and has no children doesn’t bother me; the fact that she does not seem to have around her anyone who notably has the interests of families foremost does bother me.
The apparent lack of voice for many, many points of view that are out there in the community on many, many things is still notable in the present cabinet.
For example, the fact that the opposition wants to engage in direct community based action to improve the environment bothers me much less than the fact that the government still apparently fully embraces belief in human-induced climate change when the scientific evidence of this is becoming increasingly tenuous and contentious, and may soon introduce burdensome and punitive measures to reflect this belief.
The fact that one side has a leader who honestly tried to explain in a TV interview what truth was and how politics and politicians functioned bothers me much less than the fact that the other side had a leader whose deputy was complicit in every poor decision made – a deputy who is now leader. And who avowed loyalty to her Prime Minister until the moment she rolled him.
I hope people think very carefully about our nation’s current leadership over the next few months.