A first-time voter tunes in to the election campaign

TrueOz says:

07:55am | 11/08/10

Regrettably, they’re the only kind of political parties we have in Australia.

Super D says:

09:07am | 11/08/10

While it is true that the young tend to be more left than the population at large they tend to grow out of it.  Besides which if voting is voluntary it requires two hurdles, first to get people to the polls and secondly to get them to vote for you.  In this case perhaps the young and passionate will show up and boost the greens, the unions will show up and vote Labor and right wing church groups will motivate their followers resulting in a more right wing liberal party. 

The beauty of compulsory voting is that it ensures political parties gravitate to the centre and that politics is less polarised than it otherwise would be.

When you call for an end to compulsory voting you need to consider that its not just the people who are in broad agreement with you who will be the ones most motivated to actually turn up and vote.

Stewart Henstock says:

10:03am | 11/08/10

What a load of rubbish!
If you let apathy determine who and how the country is run you’ll get exactly what you deserve.
Having the right to vote doesn’t mean you’re restricted to ideology,social or economic issues.If it boils down to the fact you don’t like red heads and voted Liberal because of it then that should be a good enough reason.
It’s your Australian right to vote for whomever or for whatever the reason.
Belittling a section of the the tax paying electorate by calling them morons just shows how ignorant you are about the rights of voting.

Tom says:

10:04am | 11/08/10

I couldn’t disagree with your second paragraph more, Super D. That is the exact problem with compulsory voting - parties battle over the mediocre centre ground, in a race to the bottom of the well. It basically ensures that we will never have politicians who act on their convictions, rather they will continue to just adjust their policies as opinion polls dictate.

As we have seen this campaign, in a large number of areas both major parties are throwing up the same populist nonsense - such as asylum seekers, the demonisation of government spending/debt etc. There is a good reason why every election ad being aired seeks to attack the other side, rather than explain to voters what policies their party offers and why this is good policy.

Tom says:

10:40am | 11/08/10

Stewart, certainly everyone should have the right to vote. I just find it hard to believe that someone who claims not to want to vote for Gillard because ‘you can’t trust rangas’ or Abbott because he is ‘kinda creepy’ (both of which are views I have seen expressed in vox pops in newspapers recently) really cares that much about who leads the country.

Under voluntary voting, if these people truly did hate rangas or whatever, they would be more than welcome to vote on that basis. However, the more likely scenario is that someone airing that opinion actually don’t particularly care, and wouldn’t bother voting. If someone doesn’t care, why should they be forced to vote? At the moment we have a situation where both major parties essentially pander to those completely disinterested in the political process, and our politics is left poorer for that reason.

Carolyn says:

11:36am | 11/08/10

Mandatory voting is essential for the course of democracy. At means that all candidates must listen (or pretend to listen) to all sectors of the community. One of the reasons why Hurrican Katrina became such a huge issue in the US was because the percentage of poor, African Americans living in the Southern states is dismally low. Perhaps if someone’s vote depended on whether or not to give aid to those poor people, they might have seen more (and better) aid given to them tha the dismal treatment which was served.

All says:

11:37am | 11/08/10

Talking to a working experience girl on the subject of politics and she admitted that she would vote Labor. Her reason - her teacher taught them to. A fellow student stated that his parents voted Liberal and the teacher abused him, stated that his parents were idiots and had the class laugh at and ridicule him. She thought this was funny and as a result would vote Labor. Isolated case? I wonder.

Shifter says:

03:55pm | 11/08/10

@Carolyn: The flip side is when voting is compulsory a lot of folks vote for the person who is going to give them more. This creates the current situation where middle class welfare bribes are masquerading as policy.

Because a large amount of Australians in marginal electorates are racist and greedy (though they won’t admit it), the big issues in every election tend to be how much will I get for having a kid, and are you going to keep the foreigners out?

This ends up being the policy equivalent of driving around in a HSV Ute with a ‘Fuck Off We’re Full” sticker on the back. It turns out that doesn’t help the country very much.

BJ85 says:

04:31pm | 11/08/10

As a teacher I see many young people passionate about the way the country is run and political affairs. A students background plays a significant influence on their political thought and whilst the assumption is made that young people are leftists you would be suprised at just how many students are conservative particularly in private schools.
“Young people need models, not critics” John Wooden

Gerard says:

07:03pm | 11/08/10

Stewart, apathy is currently the dominant factor in determining how the country is run. Millions of people don’t understand how the system works, have no interest in policies, and lack the initiative to dissect politicians’ statements. Yet there they all are on election day, against their will, lining up at polling booths to cast a vote for the major party who put on the best show during the campaign.

Let the people who care about the country’s future make decisions about that future.

Dave says:

10:32am | 12/08/10

Move to China dude, that governemnt loves people like you.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

04:28pm | 11/08/10

You can bet your life he won’t!  Tony Jones will be at his bullying best.  I hope Tony Abbott prepares well for this.

TheRealDave says:

11:27am | 11/08/10

Bought and paid for advertorial by the Family Council on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Hey Rosie - we get it. Joolya doesn’t have kids. We got it 3 weeks ago when you lot started foaming at the mouth about it over and over as your daily mantra.

Rosie says:

12:30pm | 11/08/10

Hey TheRealDave then leave Tony Abbott alone when he says sometimes his responsibilty as a father will come before Poltics. Traditional values Mate something lacking in our female PM.

We can see before our eyes a female version of Kevin Rudd running around the countryside making promises which only fools will believe.

More people will vote for a party that believe in strong family values than for the taxpayer’s of $45b worth of broadband that by the time it is installed it will be time to update for a modern version. Common sense is all that is required.

TheRealDave says:

11:29am | 11/08/10

Because a bright, young, well spoken, obviously educated, young woman couldn’t possibly make up her own mind in an informed way Brian?

She needs at least 20 more years of world weariness, being exploited by banks and corporations, be overworked, undervalued, screaming missus and kids etc to be bright enough to vote Liberal?

Julie Coker-Godson says:

04:33pm | 11/08/10

@Zeta:  I’d like to see that!

Pelle says:

02:37pm | 11/08/10

Dear Natalie unless you reside in Julia Gillard’s electorate or Tony Abbott’s electorate, you will not be voting for the person to lead the country. You will be voting for a representative from your electorate, who will then, along with other members of his Party, elect the leader, be that the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. As we saw on the 24th of June this year, the person people wanted as Prime Minister in 2007 was deposed by his own Party.You only have to look at NSW Labor to see the revolving leadership.
I hope that makes your choice easier.

TrueOz says:

06:29pm | 11/08/10

Natalie, Pelle is correct. Let me help you out a little more. It really doesn’t matter too much who you vote for - very little changes. Given the spineless behaviour of our current set of candidates for PM I think we can safely say that this will be as true now as it always has been. Labor gets elected - they run up debt, raise taxes, employ far too many public servants, and throw our money away to counselling services for disabled, hairy-arm-pitted, single mother lesbians with AIDS. Liberals get elected - they reduce debt, raise taxes, employ far too many public servants, and refuse to spend money on anything that is even remotely socially worthwhile. Either way, the elector continues to get fleeced by a pack of out-of-touch air thieves who call Canberra home. Maybe you should run for office.

Andrew says:

01:26pm | 11/08/10

Amber, ask yourself these questions.
Do you understand that boat people arrivals number about 5000 out of a planned immigration intake for the year of about 170,000. Are you aware that nearly every person arriving by boat is a legitimate assylum seaker who breaks no laws and jumps no queues to get here, while those arriving via plane are much more likely to be non- guenuine assylum seaker? Are you aware that they are not “sucking funds out of the welfare system”. Do you appreciate how close the world economy came to total collapse and that the government’s stimulus measures have been almost universally praised by economists around the world? Are you aware that these measures will leave the country with a tiny debt equal to 6% of GDP that is forecast to be repaid by 2013?
Indeed if you answer “no” to these questions then voting Liberal is your vote.
Because none of of the above is superfluous.

Ben81 says:

02:56pm | 11/08/10

Andrew, people with the means to pay a people smuggler, discard their identification and repeat “they want to kill me” until they are given asylum status are much less deserving of our resources than about 100 million other people starving in refugee camps or living in absolute poverty.  Illegal entries by plane account for a tiny percentage of people in immigration detention. 
Anyway, the point is that insisting that we turn over part of our refugee intake to people smugglers for political reasons is plain mind numbing stupidity. And I can only imagine your outrage if it was the Liberals not Labor who actually singled out particular races for delayed processing.

The global financial crisis was not an excuse to throw around money with no expectation that the government should have any accountability for blatant waste.  it was bad enough when it all started, but what about the massive amount of spending and waste going on well after any threat of recession was gone?  Before you keep parroting that same old line about economists praising Labor, look at things more objectively. Start here, it will save me writing more of a wall of text.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2010/08/academics-praise-failure

john says:

04:03pm | 11/08/10

Andrew, you either don’t know or are being disingenuous when you say debt under labour will be paid off in 2013. The govt will have the budget back in surplus by then but not debt, which is paying ineterest on at 100 million a day!
Its bit like getting your weekly grocery spend under control while you still pay off a million dollar mortgage.
And boatpeople are queue jumping. While there is no physical queue they are using money to their advantage to get here and for every one of them that arrive by boat pushes back a genuine refugee rottinga way in a camp somewhere who doesn’t have the funds to pay their way here. You state yourself how many refugees we take, per capita more tham most. We dont know who is coming illegally as they burn their documents. Even Indonesia has stopped an al-queda operative.

Andrew says:

04:36pm | 11/08/10

Thanks Ben 81. As I said in my reply, the government’s stimulus package was “almost universally praised.”. This statement allows for a minority of dissenting views published by blatant right wing magazines such as the one you’ve directed me to.  The opposition’s stance on boat people is totally out of proportion to the numbers of people arriving but totally in proportion to the extreme views held by a misinformed public.

Gregg says:

05:27pm | 11/08/10

Amber,
I think you meant a Yes for all but the Boats question would mean a Liberal vote would be good.
Andrew, you should not confuse the AS with regular migration.
Skilled migration can take six months or more for even the fastest employer sponsored approach when an applicant considers the preparation and the independant skilled visas can be a year, two or more for the whole process and it is people with known skills, having to had their qualifications assessed and then character and health for them and all family members.
Family stream visas also require people to have taken health examinations and have attained police character checks and even more stringent ones for people of many countries, the whole process being six to twelve or more months.
The processing times of those visas is being extended because limited resources are being applied to the AS situation.

On the so called AS have a read of http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm and also research some UNHCT data and you’ll see that there are refugee centres in Pakistan and India housing over 2M and then about 1M in Iran and many more throughout Asia.
So you may call your ASs as not queue jumpers but when people with access to funds have done what they do and people in refugee centres are penniless, it seems very much to me queue jumping.

For the welfare money paid to ASs, where exactly do you think the money has come from?. a pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow out Leonora way or at the Brisbane Motel, a lease taken there for 12 months and yet the government claims only short term housing is provided.
If that is the case, where are the hundreds from Leonora off to?

And Andrew, the planet’s economy is still close to more trouble than the significant trouble it still has in case you had not noticed and whereas many countries used stimulus packages and still there are problems, even in Australia with retail transactions right now slowing, but the point being that whereas Australia did not have official recession whereas other stimulated economies did, that says some other circumstances occurred here and guess what?
We had different economic structure and great cash flow because of resources demans maintained and what do Labor want to do?
Kill of the golden egg goose.
And as small as debt may be, again because of resources income, do you want to be moving forward to a good Greek diet?

And lets hope commodity prices do not drop for even without that a lot of domestic prices are going to go up, quite likely with unemployment, more Mc Mansion finance defaults and then we’ll be heading for that Freddie Mac and Fannie May territory.

Ben81 says:

01:28am | 12/08/10

Sorry Andrew, I couldn’t find anything on Crikey or the Green Left that actually questions the issue for some funny reason.  You can repeat Labor’s lines all day, but getting some willing academics to put their names on what is practically a carefully worded Labor party press release that doesn’t even address the issue of value for money or acknowledge waste and spending long after any urgency had disappeared doesn’t make it all go away.

And what’s so “extreme” about wanting to stop people smuggling, when it’s been shown prior to 2007 that we can fairly easily stamp it out and take in just as many refugees responsibly?  Tony Abbott didn’t make it an issue, Kevin Rudd did when he made it a problem again.  The whole argument of “we have X amount of people entering the country each year, therefore we should allow people smugglers to operate” is just asinine.
You must be in complete denial if you only conveniently talk about the Liberals position on this issue and avoid mentioning Labor’s belated very similar stance anyway, even though Gillard and everyone in Australia knows she’s going nowhere with the whole ridiculous East Timor thing but is still looking us straight in the eye and taking it to the election.

Ben says:

01:48pm | 11/08/10

I think you’ll find that once you turn 18 it is compulsory to enrol. The recent court decision to allow 100,000 people to enrol even though they had missed the cut-off date sort of missed the point, they should have been enrolled anyway!

Cry Freedom says:

03:06am | 14/08/10

@Ben.Compulsory yes, but so is driving at the speed limit which people don’t do all the time. So unless they come around, bash down your door, put you in a headlock, force a pen into your hand and make you fill out the enrollment enrollment form by controlling your hand…

When I did eventually enroll I was not fined nor dragged off to a cell, beaten with rubber hoses. All that happened was that I had to start voting. And at 34 I cast my first vote because I wanted to, not because it was “compulsory”

Jess says:

02:35pm | 11/08/10

What about the majority of ‘illegal immigrants’...people here on holidays who have overstayed their visas?? With no intention of going back? What are they doing to our society? I’m guessing something similar to the much smaller number of those who come on boats. But they get to stay where they want….if we were to be fair, maybe we should spend taxpayer money rounding these people up and sticking them in some remote prison like facility until they were PROCESSED and either granted further visas or sent home.
No? Thats not how it should go? They are all people. Dude, we have so much space, take a look around the world and see where these people are coming from. Imagine living there for 30 secs. No, really imagine. It might make a tiny little impression.

And,in case you’re wondering, my vote probably won’t go to Labour or Liberal. I want them to stop seeing numbers, or potential votes and start actually seeing people.

Gregg says:

05:43pm | 11/08/10

Jess,
Exactly what you suggest is already policy and has been for many a year and like all policing, it is a case of catching up with people.

An immigration department report a couple of years ago highlighted that the greatest overstayers were English grannies - come out to see family, love the weather etc. and did’t want to go home.
Many younger people with plans of wanting to return will leave on time because they realise there’s not a great futyre in illegally overstaying for even if they front up late to leave they will be ecluded for three years from making most further visa applications.
There are people who work here illegally after coming in on tourist visas and then overstay, probably because they reckon the money they earn while here is worth the risk, usually people from Asia.

Yep there’s plenty of places about we wouldn’t want to be living in and we do have a substantial refugee program, it being distorted and strained by boat people.
One of the reasons we can offer resettlement to some refugees and other people sponsored under the humanitarium program is that we are a country based on law and order and develop structured programs.
If we abandon that concept, chaos would reign and if a no control, no restriction approach was taken, we would have numbers of so called ASs growing and growing.
How many would be too many?
50,000 P.A. , 100,000, 200,000
‘There’s currently about 7M refugees in the Asian region and quite a few more million in Africa too and so if the message of get to Australia anyway you can with a good story is maintained, our population could quickly grow even more.
Where do you house them?, feed then?, educate them? etc. etc.

Pat McConville says:

12:27am | 12/08/10

There is plenty that can be said to contradict the usual, but still discomfiting, sensationalist rhetoric about asylum seekers perpetuated by Amber and others on this blog. But I won’t bother, because arguments based on compassion or on proportionality generally fall on deaf ears on this website.

One comment I will make, though, which I doubt Amber will be able to process, so different a perspective than her own does it comes from, is that as an Australian taxpayer, I don’t mind my taxes contributing to the “daily existence” of people most likely to be escaping persecution. Just as I don’t mind my taxes contributing to the unemployed, students, those requiring carers, or suffering from diabetes or mental illness or heart disease. To me, that’s what we sign up to as members of a compassionate society. That is the logical conclusion of my, “Australian values.” And I don’t really care whether the beneficiary of my taxation has an Australian passport or not.

Or maybe Amber’s right, and the people travelling here on leaky boats are actually poor little rich kids who decided to spend their filthy lucre on an authentic border crossing experience, rather than a first class airfare. In that case, hold onto your money, Amber. Save it for a rainy day. You should buy an umbrella then, and definitely not before.

jess says:

03:51pm | 11/08/10

to be really honest, the donkey vote is looking lovely. I hate that there isn’t really a party that I feel represents what I believe.

I hear what you’re saying about rounding up the visa overstayers. My true opinions would probably horrify you. We are so rich here in Australia. And that is the basis for a lot of my decision making - I am scared that we are going to become such an inward looking society, and that is not something that I want to be part of. So I guess, yes I wouldn’t mind more flexibility when it comes to illegal immigrants. I don’t expect everyone to share my opinion, and I would happily listen to others to explain theirs, but please don’t tell me that I am stupid or ignorant because my opinion is different. Idealistic, maybe. Stupid, no.

(And also, I don’t vote for anyone without first reading their policies. Informed choice and all)

Pearl says:

12:53pm | 12/08/10

Nice call Gerard!

I personally would like to see greater education on preferences and how best to get your vote across without it losing its intended purpose.