Remember Craig Thomson? The MP whose alleged dirty deeds threatened to bring down a government?

Whose alleged conduct was the reason for an abundance of articles, a small forest’s worth of papers printed, plenty of examples of poor tabloid journalism, an equally distressing number of ‘stories’ told, lawyers briefed, and police dispatched?

All over, a disputed sum of $52,000. And 173 charges. That’s about $300 a charge.

Doesn’t really sound all that bad, does it?

I mean, it’s not as though he took the nation to war or anything.

“Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls. Firstly, I recognise the local land on which we meet, and thank the traditional owners for all their hard work on local issues. Your welcome this evening has been a touching and moving one.”

“I am so glad to be here tonight, on what I know has been a big day for those of you gathered here. You have fought long and hard to right the many injustices that do exist, and on behalf of those who often can’t fight for themselves, I say thank you.”

“I stand before you today as Prime Minister of this great nation, a nation that has for so many years built a reputation for being tolerant, inclusive, and above all else, fair.”

“For decades, whenever we have come across discrimination, we have done our best to stare it down. To fight it. To right the wrongs that unfortunately, infiltrate our society.”

“In the pursuit of a fairer go for all, we seek to right those wrongs. Sometimes, this occurs quickly. Other times, the progress has been a little slower.”

“I’ve previously stated that our Party, this Australian Labor Party, has a vision. It is a vision premised on opportunity and care.”

“Opportunity for all who seek it, and care for all who need it. I’d like to think however, that as a Party, and further, as a nation, there is a third premise that fits neatly with those other two:

“Fairness.”

“For years, decades, centuries even, people have faced discrimination based on race, colour, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Slowly, many of those forms of discrimination have been removed. Over the years, it has been Labor that has introduced legislation to remove many of those imbalances.

“In 1973, it was a series of amendments by the Whitlam Labor government, that essentially brought an end to the White Australia policy. These amendments prevented the enforcement of racial aspects of the immigration law. Amongst other things, these amendments legislated that all migrants, regardless of origin, would be eligible to obtain citizenship after three years of permanent residence. The amendments also ratified all international agreements relating to immigration and race.”

“In 1975, the Commonwealth parliament, again during the Prime Ministership of Gough Whitlam, passed the Racial Discrimination Act. This landmark legislation made it against the law to discriminate based on race, in areas such as employment, housing, even the provision of goods and services.”

“In 1984, the Hawke Government passed the Sex Discrimination Act, which gave effect to Australia’s international obligations towards eliminating all forms of discrimination against women. It promoted equality between men and women, and sought to eliminate discrimination in a range of areas, including on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy.”

“We look back on such milestones, and like many social justice reforms, today, we consider them to be the norm. As they rightly should be.”

“One type of discrimination, however, continues. And it is one that I know is very dear to those of you here today. It has been a topic of conversation across the country, indeed, the world.”

“It has been a conversation that I have had with many people. Some of these people have been friends, others colleagues. Others have been Australians I have met on my travels as Prime Minister. But one thing is for certain, they - we - are all Australians.”

“In 2008 and 2009, it was under a federal Labor government that legislation was passed specifying that same-sex couples would have the same legal rights as de facto relationships between a man and a woman. Because de facto couples now enjoy many of the same legal rights as married couples, this has allowed same-sex couples to be entitled to the same treatment when it comes to health care, child support, workers compensation, veterans’ entitlements and social security.”

“Since July 2008, both heterosexual and same-sex couples are treated in the same way in terms of superannuation when a member of that couple passes away.”

“I have previously stated that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, on the grounds that Australia’s laws are based on Christian principles. For many people, ‘marriage’ is a concept that has some strong tradition and religious belief behind it. But the more I’ve thought about it, I’ve pondered: should not one of the most basic, the most fundamental of Christian principles, be that of fairness?”

“My views on marriage equality have been well publicised. But with time, those views have softened. They have progressed, just like we, as a society - as a nation - have progressed.”

“As I’ve travelled across this country, from Darlinghurst to Dulwich, from St Kilda to Subiaco, people have shared their thoughts with me. Some have been personal, but all have been heartfelt, sincere and honest.”

“With time, I have grown to understand how important it is to people that are directly impacted, but also those indirectly impacted.”

“Most of us will have a colleague, a friend, a neighbor, or a family member who, despite being devoted to their loving partner, is currently unable to commit to that partner for the rest of their lives in the way a man and a woman can. I know that in my life, I have friends, colleagues, that are in same-sex relationships and who are lovingly raising adorable children.”

“The time has surely come for all people to be treated equally, and that we treat others the way that we in turn wish to be treated. As a society, we should always be moving in a direction where more people - not less - are being treated fairly and equally.”

“As a leader of this Party, a Party that has always stood for the fair go, for progressing society, for moving it forward, it is time that we did all we can to bring this form of discrimination to an end.”

“I’ve come to learn that this is something that is important to many Australians. It is something which extends well beyond the views of one particular person.”

“It is a choice that should be left to the individual couple - not to government.”

“People wishing to declare their love for each other and commit to spending the rest of their lives together through marriage, should have the choice to do so. This doesn’t weaken the fundamental tenets associated with marriage - rather, it strengthens them, and with it, bolsters the broader concept of ‘family’.”

“And that, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is why we, this government, will go to the election in September seeking a mandate to amend the Marriage Act so as to also recognise a marriage between a same sex couple.”

“In this current parliament, it was the Labor Party that was the only major party to allow a conscience vote on this matter. While that was a step in the right direction, we need to do better. We can do better. In Labor, we stand for fairness and equality. As a result, in the next parliament, we intend to take that one step further.”

**

“For too long, I have listened to Australians say that the two major parties are the same. That we’ve become so similar that it matters little who they vote for. To these people, I say this: “look a little bit closer”.”

“I urge those people to consider the policies of the two major parties, whether it be in relation to education reform, disability services, climate change, a National Broadband Network, or now, marriage equality.”

“There is plenty that we do not agree on. In some of these areas, the difference could not be more stark.”

“On education, only Labor is truly committed to increasing education funding, to give Australia’s children of today and tomorrow, the best opportunities to be ready for the challenges of the future. Further, only a Labor government is committed to equipping our children as best as possible for those challenges, arming them with a world-leading broadband network, one that will serve us well for decades to come.”

“On disability services, it has been a Labor government, this Labor government, that has had the foresight and policy to tackle the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, and turn it into DisabilityCare Australia.”

“This is no longer just talk….. this is not spin: this is happening, and it is happening right now. Trial sites are rolling out in a matter of months, and commitments have already been made with the South Australian, NSW, Tasmanian, ACT and VIctorian governments to roll out DisabilityCare Australia, in full in those jurisdictions. Ladies and gentleman, the difference this will make to Australians with a disability, as well as their families and carers, cannot be understated.”

“The differences continue, though. Only a Labor government is committed to truly tackling climate change, in the best and most efficient way possible. Despite the unfulfilled hysteria from those that oppose it, we now have in a place a carbon price that, as it rightly should, charges those who pollute the most.”

“This in turn provides an incentive for polluters to emit less, and further, to consider and invest in greener, leaner production. It is rarely reported, but since the commencement of a price on carbon, brought about by this Labor Government’s Clean Energy Future package, emissions in Australia have already begun to fall.”

“And now, on marriage equality, we will be seeking a mandate from the Australian people to take our conscience vote one step further, and to make marriage equality part of government policy.”

“This is about fairness for all. Much like the big social reforms that have come before it, whether it be the anti-discrimination legislation of the 70s and 80s, Native Title in the 90s, or the formal apology to the Stolen Generations in the last decade, it has often been Labor moving us forward.”

“Same-sex marriage goes to fundamental values of family and society. It represents tolerance, inclusion and optimism. And above all, it represents fairness.”

“And to quote the words of one former Labor Prime Minister, ‘it’s time’.”

“Thank you.”

xavierpost:

Leaders like to define things, and they really like to define their organisations. This is fine when we are talking Steve Jobs and Apple, but not when we are talking about the Australian Labor Party (ALP).

The ALP is not a corporation that sells the Jesus Phone, it is a living organism made up of tens-of-thousands of people across Australia. It is a movement.

Read More

A few weeks ago, I went along and watched ‘Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea’, a documentary produced by barrister and refugee advocate Jessie Taylor (@taylor_jessie). It looks at some of the circumstances that often lead individuals and families to make the decision to become what we in Australia loosely describe as ‘boat people’. Tucked away in the inner-city surrounds of The Standard in Sydney’s Surry Hills, we watched stories of people thousands of miles away, risking everything they had, in search of a better future for them and their loved ones. A decision that is not taken lightly, it ultimately leads them on a treacherous, dangerous and often fatal voyage, from Indonesia to Australia.

These are people who through no fault of their own, but often because of war, or persecution due to faith and race must flee their homeland. It is a situation that is truly unimaginable to most of us. They flee, looking for safer and more secure surrounds. For many, this sees them turn to Australia, in the hope of brighter days. (Here’s the promo: http://vimeo.com/6328019)

My watching of the documentary was timely, coming days after the Shadow Minister for Immigration, Scott Morrison, aired his notion of ‘behavioral values’ for those seeking asylum in Australia and on community release. His comments almost beggar belief. In the dog-whistling world of modern day Australian politics, where xenophobia is not only alive and well, but seemingly actively campaigned on, his comments are hardly surprising. The manner in which the debate on asylum seekers is conducted in many parts of the mainstream media is so misleading and misinformed that it would be funny, were it not so hugely disappointing.

Scott Morrison - and it would seem the Liberal Party, the party that purports to believe in freedom and liberty - think people should know when asylum seekers move into your neighborhood. Why? Morrison feels that as they should be in detention centres, but as a result of increasing numbers, are instead on community release, then we should seemingly have tabs on them. 

But what of the countless people that arrive by plane to Australia, overstay their visas, and slide into Australian life? Why no concern about the backpackers that cram into the  hostel down the road from where I live? Is there no risk to us because they happen to be European? Or is it because they are white? Or is it because they arrived by plane? Or is it all of the above?

Morrison’s position, and that of the Liberal Party, overlooks an inconvenient truth: those seeking asylum in Australia have done nothing wrong. They have committed no crime, and seeking asylum is certainly not illegal, despite what the media might tell you. But on the back of an isolated incident at Sydney’s Macquarie University, Morrison talked it up, radio commentators were drawn to it like moths to a flame, and there was outrage everywhere. 

In many respects, the asylum seeker debate has become a race to the bottom. Morrison’s comments do not struggle to find company in a debate laced with loads of hate, fear and falsehoods - and so little in the way of facts, sensitivity and at its most basic, class. In a world where radio shock jocks and tabloid journalists thrive on fear and negativity, his comments are an affront to sound and informed political and social discourse. Deep down, I’ve no doubt there are those in the Liberal Party who know that. But politics has become a win at all costs game. The price paid, including overlooking the truth, seems to matter little anymore.

That said, the government is hardly without fault in this debate. While its members may not stoop to the lows that Morrison regularly does, for a progressive party, it could do better. Much better. It is one of the things I find most disappointing about this, a Labor government. Rather than trying to rise above it though, in many respects, the government follows suit, even if it does trail some distance behind on the sheer outrageousness of its vitriol. 

Its messaging isn’t as offensive as that of Messrs Morrison, Brandis and Bernardi, but it does not do anything to fix this debate; rather, it just feeds into it. The more recent policy announcements by the PM on the clamping down of 457 visa usage, is but one example.

**

From a young age, my parents raised me to not judge people by how they looked, what they believed in, or from where in the world they’d come. While my Dad has always been hugely patriotic of his mother country, his ‘patrida’, always quick to share an anecdote of a Greek-Australian that made it big, it never got in the way of fundamental concepts of  opportunity and fairness for all. Concepts that, we were told, were part of the Australian way of life.

Mum and Dad migrated to Australia in the late 1960’s. My Armenian mum from Cairo, Egypt, my Dad from the island of Kos, Greece. Their parents brought them here so that they, and their children could have the opportunities they never had growing up. My parents met a few years later at work, got married, then built a life that provided my sister Maria and I with the opportunities they and their parents never had. Their sacrifices, their teachings, and their hard work have all contributed greatly and made me into the person that I am today. 

But here’s the rub: my parents today, understand that what these so-called ‘boat people’, these incorrectly and unfairly labelled ‘illegal arrivals’ are doing, is not much different from what they did more than forty years ago. This leads into what is, for me, one of the most disappointing aspects of this debate; namely, the number of immigrant Australians, and their children, that take the very different view, namely that these ‘boat people’ are in fact ‘illegals’ and ‘queue jumpers’. They believe the myths, peddled by a mainstream media that stopped doing its job properly, quite some time ago. Such myths feed into a narrative that makes Australians - including immigrant Australians - feel they’ve been hard done by on asylum seekers, that they are rorting the welfare system, costing millions in taxpayer dollars, while ordinary Australians continue to do it tough. This viewpoint of many immigrant Australians is disappointing, as one can’t help but think they’ve forgotten what it was that brought them, and their parents, to Australia in the first place.

I’ve no doubt that some families are doing it tough across the nation. But the media has managed to pit people against each other with an ‘us versus them’ mentality that is divisive and destructive, posing asylum seekers as some kind of threat to the fabric of Australian society. It’s garbage, especially when one need not look far to see the benefits of a multicultural Australia. 

The failure of so many media outlets and journalists to report the facts in this debate has become a huge blight on our modern day Australian society. It has left a stain - an indelible one, whose roots are xenophobic, if not racist. This is however beyond politics - the stain is far deeper than that - and will outlive not only this election campaign, but the one after that, and the one after that. 

Until those in the public spotlight - journalists, politicians, our so-called leaders, commentators, hell, even celebrities - begin replacing fiction with fact, then the end to this horrid and ill-informed debate, and the awful stench that comes with it, will never be in sight.

Solving the problems associated with people fleeing war torn nations will not be solved overnight. And it is not a problem unique to Australia. (By global comparison, the numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Australia are quite moderate. Pick up a tabloid Australian daily though, and you’d think we were being swamped by an armada, with people ready to steal our jobs and our women.) 

But our current policy mix is neither fair, nor particularly functional. I don’t profess to know what the best solution, but we must do better than this. We need to realise that there is a better way,  and that starts with facts, not fiction, and that leads us to a more compassionate approach to a worldwide problem that is not going to just go away. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to our nation.

A Sunday afternoon spent listening to a group of politicians speak isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Truth be told, I don’t really drink tea, but as I don’t mind me a bit of politics, I headed out to Parramatta, to hear the Prime Minister speak at the University of Western Sydney.

The speech was to kick off what has become a much talked about week for the PM in western Sydney. The PM will be staying at the Novotel in downtown Rooty Hill. The fact that her choice of accommodation has even been newsworthy says a lot about how poor a service many in the Canberra press gallery are currently providing. One can’t help but think that they may have bigger issues to discuss. Ideas. Policies. Maybe a vision. Certainly not the trivial details of hotel choice? Some ‘commentators’ have poked fun at the PM’s decision to stay at a hotel, rather than staying at her official Sydney residence in Kirribilli. Mind you, if she’d chosen that option, she’d probably be criticised as being out of touch by the very same people.

Choosing to stay in Rooty Hill has also provided fodder to those who claim that the trip deserves to simply be written off as a stunt. Mind you, the Sunday evening news reportedly had footage of Margie Abbott, the Opposition Leader’s wife, riding a bike….but no talk of stunts. Given where current political discourse appears to be however, the PM can’t seem to do much right, and she rarely gets credit for it when she does. As I’ve openly quipped previously, she could cure cancer tomorrow - and she’d be criticised for putting oncologists out of work.

Nevertheless, the Sir Ian Turbott Auditorium was packed; inside, a who’s who of the NSW ALP. From state members, to federal Ministers, and everyone in between - including the much maligned faceless men, this time *with* faces. Acting as a nice foil to these dreadful faceless men however, loads of young women proudly wearing “Women for Julia” t-shirts. Overall, it was a good mix of people, with the 1000 seat venue packed with people across age, race, gender, and dress code.

Members of the press corp were there in force. ABC, Fairfax, and network TV stations. But no-one it would seem from News Limited. Guess those at the Daily Telegraph and The Australian have already made up their minds. Not sure how those outlets filed copy without being there though.

Chatting with a few of the locals before the speeches kicked off, the common theme that kept emerging was what many perceived to be an unfair portrayal of the PM by sections of the media. “She’s done plenty for us, but they [the media] write her off as being all bad. It’s not fair,” one said to me. “They’ve just got it in for her,” another said. Despite suggestions to the contrary, it seemed that here, in western Sydney, the PM would be amongst friends.

NSW ALP President, Michael Lee, took up MCing duties, introducing a local Dhurag elder for an Indigenous welcome to country and song. In a heartfelt and at times stirring performance, “more than 200 years ago, we were the ones to lead you to water”, she praised the importance of strong women in Indigenous culture, and reflected on her own pride in being able to perform before the nation’s first female PM. It was a nice moment. The rendition of the national anthem by a local schoolgirl that followed shortly after, was a belter, delivered with some serious gusto.

General Secretary of the NSW ALP Sam Dastyari was up next, talking of western Sydney being comprised of suburbs that “the ALP will never turn its back on”. Dastyari reminded the crowd of all that the ALP has done for western Sydney, “from sewers of the 1970’s to the broadband cables of 2013”. He reflected on effort and on values, and called for “respect and recognition for those that do the right thing by their community”, and that being from the west should never be considered second rate.

Whether it is treated as second rate is one thing, but the fact is that our media - and our politicians - do seem to treat western Sydney differently. The reaction to the PM’s visit is consistent with that. If she’d visited Darwin for a week, would it have been considered a stunt? If she spent 5 days working up and down far north Queensland, would that be a stunt? Arguably not. Politicians travel, it comes with the territory. But for western Sydney, it was almost like she wasn’t allowed to visit. Sheer nonsense.

Dastyari took aim at sections of the media for writing this week-long visit off before it had even begun. He said the constant negative portrayal of the government should be called for what it is: ‘A crude attempt at regime change’, and then criticized the ‘snobs and elitists of the Liberal Party [that] keep talking western Sydney down’. He urged the crowd to be hopeful: “don’t write us off, listen to your heart, don’t listen to the shock jocks.”

Next up was Jason Clare, the federal member for the western Sydney electorate of Blaxland, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, and according to some on Twitter, also the Minister for Handsomeness. Listing many of western Sydney’s success stories, from the Waugh brothers to Michael Clarke, Harry Kewell and Betty Cuthbert, and of course, Paul Keating, Clare talked of Prime Minister Gillard being made of the same stuff as those in the west: toughness. Clare warmed the crowd up with absolute aplomb, and the PM in turn received a rockstar welcome. She was amongst friends, and it was obvious. For all the talk of western Sydney opposition towards the PM, at this point, it was nowhere to be seen. People can claim this wasn’t a campaign event all they like, but boy it felt like one.

The PM delivered a strong and passionate speech. She talked up the government’s economic credentials, and told us that ‘modern challenges require modern solutions’, including both pricing carbon and the rollout of the National Broadband Network, the latter being key to the region’s future prosperity, the former to the nation’s competitiveness. (How those on the Right continue to fail to recognise that, is beyond me, even if they are just playing politics.) One of the loudest cheers from the crowd however came when she mentioned that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) would be kicking off in July. This is a momentous occasion for the history of our nation, and the biggest single social reform since Medicare - it too a Labor construct. Where’s the Liberal plan for NDIS? Is there one? The PM went on to say that western Sydney suburbs “should never be viewed as being second rate” and that, “for far too long the community I made my home, the communities I represent, have been the kind of places people hurried through, not places where you stopped to stay.” It was time, she said, for this to change.

It was a theme that continued through her speech:

We don’t accept that hospitals in other suburbs should be better class than the hospitals here. We don’t accept that you should feel less safe, or have less opportunity, or worse infrastructure than other parts of this city or our nation.”

In some respects, it was a pitch to the blue-collar heartland.

The speech was also heavy on anti-gang rhetoric, with the PM following up a launch earlier in the day of a new national anti-gang taskforce modelled on a similar body set up the US FBI. Misplaced or not, there’s a perception that crime, law and order are important politically out west, so her announcement out here was fitting at best, although arguably feeds into the hysteria that it matters more out here than anywhere else. Surely not. The taskforce will have $64 million in funding and be cross-collaborative between state and federal police forces. (On the other hand, the Liberal Party yesterday simply announced more CCTV.)

Overall, the speech went down a treat - although given it was delivered to Party members and supporters - that’s hardly surprising. The real test for the PM in western Sydney will be over the next five days, although she’s given herself a tremendous start. I have no doubt she’s brought her cheque book, a positive outlook and a steely resolve to interact with the people of western Sydney on as personal a basis as much as possible.

It is often reported on social media that everyone that meets the PM walks away from the experience liking her. As a politician, that’s handy - to say the least. And while I’m reluctant to discuss opinion polls, it would seem that at the very least, the PM has got a few people to win over.

*

(On a completely different topic, and only because you probably wont see it on TV or in the Daily Telegraph, here’s footage of Tony Abbott falling over yesterday. When the PM had a heel mishap while in India some months ago, it was BREAKING NEWS and received a frightening amount of coverage. This on the other hand, barely got a mention yesterday:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LLNq3JK6qfY/UTK3ToWmqdI/AAAAAAAAC-8/Ed7vVvS6Ax0/s1600/Tony+Slips.gif]

Australia’s dance music scene is in mourning, with the tragic death on Thursday of Sydney DJ Adrian Thomas, better known to his many fans, as Ajax. Thomas was hit by a car in Melbourne’s northern suburbs.

The outpouring of emotion amongst the electronic dance music community since then has been immense. Ajax was a quality producer, DJ, but most importantly, one of the nicest blokes you’d meet in the scene. His influence on Australian music in the mid ‘noughties’ was overwhelmingly positive, and his passion for it, unwavering.

He will be sorely missed.

Melbourne producer and DJ, Jamie Stevens - also one of the nicest blokes you’d ever meet - was a friend of the late Thomas. In the past twenty four hours, Stevens has produced a piece of musical brilliance.

Stevens has written this on his Soundcloud page:

“When I learned that my friend Adrian Thomas (DJ Ajax) had died yesterday, it hit me very very hard as it did with anyone who knew him. I felt the urge to create some music in his memory so here it is to share. The world has lost a genuine, kind, talented and sincere individual. RIP Adrian x”

This is what he created, a piece of emotive musical brilliance.

https://soundcloud.com/jamiestevens/for-adrian-with-thanks-to-arvo

RIP Adrian. The dance music family mourns as one.

xavierpost:

Over the last decade what we define as news has changed, and changed in ways that serves the interests of those who seek to sow doubt and maintain the status quo. News now frequently consists of false dichotomies that are served up as hard hitting debate between two equals. The journalism has abdicated its analytic responsibilities, abdicated reason and fact.

This is not an indictment on journalists individually, but the environment in which they now operate. “If it bleeds, it leads” mentality has been around for some time of course, but now the question of whether the person is actually even bleeding at all is not asked as often as it should.

Researchers, fact checkers and journalists are being fired all over the industry, the time and money for critical thought is not being invested. Instead we have infotainment, talk shows or worse still, panel shows with “both sides” of the debate represented equally.

But what if that so called ‘debate’ is whether or not the world is flat or round? Because that is where we have been taken by false dichotomies that masquerade as news these days. It is much worse in the USA than it is here in Australia, but it is still pretty bad here too. The two most pressing examples that come to mind are Intelligent Design and Climate Change, I will talk more about the latter than the former.

I don’t want to offend anyone out there, but the world is not 6,000 years old. Nor is the world’s environment staying exactly the same, it is changing, and faster than we thought, and we are the cause.

With increasing frequency the people who have conviction (or paid conviction) in the opposite belief are presented as equals to scientists. Equals to a lot of scientists. If you put a person who believes that the world is flat on a television show with a scientist, you get debate, and passionate debate at that, but you also elevate the person and their issue. And this is where “news” is failing us now.

In order to be fair and balanced, journalists are putting these people on the same stage as the scientists and poking both of them with a big stick. This is happening time and time again, especially on climate change here in Australia, and on both issues in the USA (thanks to education decisions being made based on the outcome of elections- a topic for another blog post).

With declining readership of papers, and dwindling viewers of “real” news, the conflict brings in much needed revenue, and as a by product, strengthens the people who want to keep things as they are.

Read More

When it comes to political interviews on Australian television, ultimately we usually know what each talking head is going to tell us. Depending on their political persuasion, it’ll be this party good, that party bad. No huge surprises there. Has it contributed to the overall apathy that people feel towards politics? Undoubtedly. People across social media have been screaming for more policy based discussion, which until now has largely been absent.

Whether there’s one talking head or two, with the help of a moderator, what we end up getting is more about which talking head spins the best, has the best messages, the catchier turn of phrase. The moderator goes along with it, and we’re really none the wiser about much at all.

But where’s the real in-depth analysis of policy itself? Almost non-existent. The ABC’s Q and A occasionally sneaks a little in, but when those experts are flanked by politicians, they tend to be shouted out soon enough.

It’s time to see, on any of the networks, less politics, and more policy - from experts. Not politicians. Not ex-politicians. Not even people from think tanks, conservative or progressive, for we know what they’re going to say too. A group like the Institute of Public Affair (IPA) is hardly unbiased, given it has clearly vested interests, sponsored by big tobacco and big mining. Let’s move away from raw ‘political’ discussion of he said/she said, and towards a more policy-focused one. Let’s discuss ideas.

Engage some experts, whether they’re from industry or academia. Experts that can provide clear and unbiased analysis; discussing the pros and cons of various policies, why they might be good for Australia, and why they might not be so good.

While it challenges and flies in the face of the continued dumbing own of Australian politics, surely it is worth a try. If this is, as many in the media claim, to be the longest election campaign ever, it seems only sensible to take advantage of that, sit down with some non-partisan experts, and consider some policy properly. While we’re at it, why not also consider any alternative policies offered by other parties? Most Australians would know that the Opposition has promised to repeal the ‘carbon tax’. But do many know what may replace it? Do they know what that might cost?

On the topic of the National Broadband Network, we get soundbites dismissing it as an ‘unnecessary white elephant’ [sic], or watch as a party hack gets lost in the quagmire of discussing how many coffee machines NBN Co may or may not have purchased: do we really care? Surely it is possible to get a couple of experts on a show, somewhere, and for fifteen minutes, discuss what it might do for people around the country. While you’re at it, maybe also consider any alternative policies put forward by other parties. This should be a contest of ideas and policies, not just politics.

Such opinions should be provided by experts. Why ex-Howard government minister Peter Reith is always popping up on my ABC beggars belief. And that is not just because he is a Liberal Party spokesperson. His conduct while a minister of the crown - be it the $50,000 Telecard affair, or ‘children overboard’ raised more than just a few questions. Now ABC invites him on to pass judgement on members of the government? I certainly don’t expect anyone to be inviting the likes of Craig Thomson or Peter Slipper on to political talk shows in the future for expert analysis of what is or is not acceptable behavior. In that context, we don’t really need Peter Reith either.

We need experts. As for journalists, sure a reporter may moderate the discussion, but they should be there to do that and only that. We don’t need their opinions, that should come from experts.

Want to discuss the economy? Well instead of just telling us what each of the major parties is saying, how about - let’s throw caution to the wind here - getting some economists in? Want to talk about science and innovation: well, maybe get some scientists in.

Controversial it may be, but it’ll be a pleasant change to what our mainstream media currently dish up. Then again, maybe it’s a utopian view we can only dream of. Surely a better informed electorate cannot be a bad thing.

On Monday, the Federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek was in western Sydney. She was making a not insignificant announcement relating to medical research at Westmead Millennium Institute. Despite that, the press conference opened with no questions on the research announcement itself. Saving children’s lives wasn’t deemed important enough, and a journalist at the press conference decided instead that an opinion poll was. Again, politics superseded policy.

What happened next, as this YouTube clip demonstrates, was long overdue.

http://youtu.be/bqek48WWpRk