This week, I announced my intention to run as an independent candidate for my home seat of Grayndler. The seat is currently represented by the prime minister, Anthony Albanese.
The response has been overwhelming and largely positive. Much of the criticism has been made in good faith and is crucial for me to hear and respond to. A lot of it has also been men calling me an attention-seeking influencer – but hey, that’s democracy baby.
A consistent question is appearing in comment sections: why would I stand against the current leader of the more progressiveof the major parties? Instead, they suggest, I should be focusing on the rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
I understand the mindset behind this criticism, because I previously held a similar perspective. For a long time, I only permitted myself to focus on responding to the most extreme view on display. The loudest threat often feels like the biggest one. Many of us have been taught to bunker down and defend against “the worse option” rather than exploring how those in power have created the material conditions for this extremism to thrive. The 2024 US presidential election is the blueprint for this mistake.
Read more:Aging: 8 to 9-hour daily eating window may boost brain health
In order to have this conversation, we need to remember that polling analysts are finding One Nation’s recent surge in popularity is not, in many cases, an endorsement of the party’s full platform. Instead, it’s a clear communication that Australians are fed up with the political establishment. They want something different and see Hanson as a vehicle for protest. As a nation, we deserve a better contest than this race to the bottom.
For me, the defining word of Albanese’s prime ministership has been disappointment.
Australians feel betrayed by a party who claim to fight for the average punter, and a leader who refuses to do more than the bare minimum to improve our standing.
Read more:Gianni Infantino tells FIFA members to agree to World Cup plan or miss $40m in funding
I have spoken with locals in my area who feel disappointed by our elected representative cutting 160,000 people from the NDIS while refusing to raise an estimated $17bn for Australians every year by taxing our gas exports.
I know the community around me are frustrated that after three years of pressure, the Albanese government announced weak gambling reforms that protect the betting industry and ignore the evidence.
I remain disgusted that our prime minister invited President Isaac Herzog to our country earlier this year, as Israel continues to perpetrate a genocide against Palestinians.
During Labor’s national conference last week we saw the machinery of party politics on full display. Open debate was stifled, because dissent is a dirty word in the era of Albanese’s Labor. Separately, we’ve witnessed private dinners with billionaire donors and cash-for-access events. Most Australians don’t realise how rampant these “pay for play” functions are, with the Financial Review reporting that tickets priced at up to $12,000 allowed lobbyists to “speed date” with 36 Labor ministers.
While many Australians face abject poverty, donors are buying potential influence for corporations. Secrecy is rampant within the Labor and Coalition “uniparty”.
For most of Australia’s history, the two-party system entrenched the belief that “the lesser evil” was all we could aspire to at the ballot box. The major parties had flanked us, narrowing the Overton window to ensure we say thank you for the crumbs – while the banquet is served behind locked doors.
Read more:Trump is invoking foreign election interference to justify his own | Jamil Smith | The Guardian
I refuse to allow this cynical outlook of politics to infect our country. I am truly patriotic about the opportunity we have in front of us. We have a powerful system of preferential voting, which distinguishes us from the binary trap of other nations. It has allowed us to socialise a new idea of what a strong Australian democracy can look like, where communities are represented directly – outside of rigid party lines.
Grayndler is my home, my community. We are not a “one size fits all”.
It is not radical to say we are entitled to better than this. It is not a threat to progress to stand up to a system that has facilitated Hanson’s success. We need more voices offering evidence-based, community-informed policies. Australian democracy will be better for it.
