Australians' preference for passive politics is a wide-spread problem

As a nation, we revel in our right to be passive.

We are, in too many aspects of the management of our society, content to let others do things for us.

I am old enough to remember "Norm" the anti –hero.

Remember "beaudy Newk"? That was in the days when Newk was a world-beater, before his moustache had grey in it – Newk was the can-do Aussie. Norm represented the great Australian passivity. It’s a sad indictment of our culture that we have not progressed beyond that passivity.

We have perhaps become more health conscious and engaged in physical activity – but we have become less engaged in the most important aspects of our society, the way we allow our country to be managed.

We are content to leave the management of our nation to career politicians.

Too many of those whom we elect to manage our country have been involved in traditional party machines from student days.

Some are true believers. Some have their eye on the Prime Ministership from their first involvement in politics. Some seem willing to sell their soul for a sinecure. Some are seemingly there to make up the numbers. But all are bound to their party and its tenets.

We are in a position of having the major established parties telling what is and isn’t good for us, and what we should and shouldn’t do. Sometimes this is necessary.

One cannot help but admire John Howard’s determination in bringing the GST to fruition. The implementation of it has been less than wonderful, but despite the opposition to it he stood by his conviction that it was right for Australia. The big parties have their place.

But major parties have become so generic that it is hard to tell them apart. Sometimes they seemingly change sides in the political spectrum and sprout things that we would, if we paused to think about it, expect their opponents to say or do and we don’t notice. Or if we do notice we shrug and say "bastards" or "what can I do about it?"

We have become disengaged from the process of managing our country and our society.

We hear about the esoteric rhetoric that the Labor party has just launched in its wish list called "knowledge nation". A document replete with cadastres and flow charts that resemble the scratchings of a drunken maze designer. And we shrug and say well so what? Wouldn’t it be nice – but it will never happen and if it did – it won’t affect me.

The point is we should care. We need to care because Australia deserves better.

If Pauline Hanson has one redeeming feature it is that she got involved in politics and she got people talking about political issues.

Hanson asked questions about the issues so many of us instinctively know are important. That is why she struck a chord with so many people. She seemed to reach out to the disempowered. She didn’t have any answers but she asked the questions.

Hanson was prepared to state her opinions and cop the flack. She had the guts to stand by her opinions.

But, perversely, she allowed more people to become disengaged – because she so polarised the electorate that the opportunity for sensible debate was lost. One was either for her or against her. There was no middle ground.

Eventually Hanson became a parody of herself and fodder for sub-editors. She is no longer relevant to the debate about how Australia should be managed because her party lost the plot (if it ever had one) and became a haven for the looney far right.

Hanson still has the capacity to command headlines – but these days it is in the context of the personality cult that has arisen about her. Even Hanson has disengaged from the political debate.

The media is now more interested in what she wears than what she says. But she commands attention because of the initial impetus that was created around her.

She is the archetypical example of a non-mainstream politician with the power to stimulate debate and change the way we think about how our society is managed. Imagine that power and determination coupled with reasoned argument and achievable outcomes.

There is a valid place and an important role for the minor parties and the alternative parties and the independents.

Don Chipp called it "keeping the bastards honest". While that ideal in the context Chipp articulated it has lost some resonance the need for that sort of counterbalance in national management is stronger than ever.

The closeness of voting in marginal seats in both state and federal elections demonstrates that our individual votes do matter. Individuals do, in reality, have the capacity to influence the outcome of elections.

We have to acknowledge that we can change things if we want to – we can have input and we can be part of the process.

But we have to engage our brains…we have to be part of it.

We have to want the process of the management of Australian life, politically, corporately and culturally to change and we have to have the engagement and will to do it.

Australians must fight harder if we are to have the sort of national management we want and need. At the moment we probably have the government we deserve because we are prepared to put up with it and allow others to do the work.

It’s not good enough – Australia deserves better.

No more can we justify supporting a political party …"because dad always voted that way", "because workers vote Labor" or "because Mr. Howard seems like a nice man".

We need to look critically at the representation we are getting from our delegates in all walks of life – from the committee of the local footy club, to the local council, to the boards of public companies, to the executives of trade unions and to the parliaments.

If we want Australian society to reflect the way we (as individuals) would wish it to be, we have to get around to doing something about our apathy. We cannot expect change if we are not prepared to drive it from the grass roots. No longer can it be acceptable to be an armchair critic and expect change to be visited upon us.

We need a press that has the courage to be independent and fearless - not slavishly following the whims of its media mogul boss or seeking the approval of a party political hack masquerading as a statesman.

Independent media sites on the internet present a wonderful opportunity means of promoting balanced and reasoned argument. But they do not reach the mass populace and are not in the business of influencing opinion.

The ‘mainstream’ popular press is more interested in pursuing the goals of its (collective) major shareholders and catering to the lowest common denominator. Just how much reporting of ‘Big Brother’ do we need in our metropolitan daily?

Unfortunately, the ‘alternative’ press is equally adept at pursuing its own agendas.

Perhaps the solution is to read the Australian and then read Pilger and try to reconcile the two. What was the line from "The X-files"? The truth is out there – but where????

There must be a popular move to require the promotion of serious debate about the way we manage our society. There must be a popular move to require transparency and accountability in all walks of life.

That impetus can only come from one source. We need to do what Norm ultimately did in getting off his well cushioned behind and doing it for himself.

Australia needs people who represent people not ideologies. People with vision who will stand by their ideals. People who are willing to manage Australia for Australians and not for their own self-aggrandizement.

It is our right to have better. Australia deserves better.