Thomas O’Neil once said that all politics is local. I don’t actually believe this is true, but, after the last week, I wish it was.

The Tribune decided fairly early on that there was little point in us putting together an election issue that just regurgitated the mainstream media’s take on federal politics, but we thought we could make something of the local candidates, given that some people we asked had trouble naming the sitting member, let alone any other aspiring ones.

Justin’s Tourette-like problems with political figures ruled him out, so we narrowed the interviewing panel down to me.

Too many episodes of Lateline and the 7:30 Report had me expecting to have to write the whole thing up like a Yes Minister script to make it interesting, but I was completely wrong. And that is not something I say lightly or often.

It’s hard to remember that politicians are people too (in the case of Scott Morrison, it’s also hard to believe). But when you see professional politicians endlessly looping the message of the day and answering Red Kerry’s demands to know if they’ve stopped eating their constituent’s babies with straw-man arguments about how the other side is keeping ground up pensioners under their beds, you forget that they are people and think of them as the soulless baby-eating pensioner-grinding warthogs they call each other.

That was not at all I found when I went out to interview the sitting member and the candidates for this federal electorate. They were all far more impressive, far more dedicated and far more honest than I ever would have thought had I not seen it for myself.

Hopefully that does not just mean that I am as gullible as a Sunrise “reporter”.

The Melbourne Ports Electorate

First some background on the electorate: Melbourne Ports stretches from Port Melbourne to Caulfield South, and has been a labour seat since 1906. It has the highest proportion of single person households and one of the highest proportions of atheists of any electorate in the country.

According to 2006 census, this electorate is 23.2% no religion, 18.8% Catholic, 12.7% Jewish, 10.8% Anglican, 11.7% Other Christian, 5.9% Other Religions, and 16.9% not stated.

We are in the top twenty Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (which means we’re all doing fairly well, yay for us, let’s all buy more advertising in edgy independent magazines) and has a large GLBTI community.

Melbourne Ports used to be a very safe Labor seat, but shifting demographics and electoral boundaries have weakened the ALP grip, and while Michael Danby has held the seat since 1998, it’s been preferences (mostly from the Greens) that got him over the line in the last few elections.

If you have a look at the results of the 2007 election (left) you can see that there was not much between the 2 major parties on primary votes, and assuming that the Green vote grows here the way it’s grown in the polls over the last few months, preferences are going to matter almost more than the primary votes. Think about that, then read the article on page 8.

Current predictions are that Danby will win again, but it’s by no means a sure thing.

The Candidates.

There are six candidates for this seat in the 2010 election. Michale Danby (Sitting Member, ALP), Kevin Ekendahl (Liberal Party), Sue Plowright (Greens), Christian Vega (Australian Sex Party), Gregory Storer (Secular Party of Australia) and Daniel Emmerson (Family First).

We would very much have liked to interview all the candidates, but the Tribune runs on 3/8 of two people and the fugitive emissions from someone else’s oily rag, so we could only manage to get to the Labor, Liberal and Greens candidates.

We did try to ring the others, but the Sex Party phone went straight through to message bank, Family First don’t appear to know how to use a phone and we couldn’t find a phone number for the Secular Party,

While I’ve tried to be as unpartisan as I possibly can with all the interviews, I make no apology for traducing the Family First candidate. Family First are not only morally reprehensible, they are actually dangerous, and I think that should be shouted from the rooftops until the election is over. However, I’m fairly sure that anyone who would consider voting for Family First does not read the Tribune (if I’m wrong and you are going to vote for them please read my article on page 11, then put this publication down and go flush your head down a toilet) so I’ll stick to the stuff that might interest the rest of you..

Before I launch into the interviews I should just say that I did not undertake them in an effort to untangle the policies in Federal politics. There are enough far more experienced policy wonks doing that (try The Drum or the Pure Poison blog on Crikey), I was more interested in finding out about the candidates themselves, to understand why they are running and what they plan on doing with and for the electorate if they win.

The Interviews

Sue Plowright (Greens)

The Greens, by their nature, do not attract people who are looking for power, but they’ve come a long way since the days of long-haired unwashed hippies camping in the Tasmanians forests, and Sue Plowright is typical of the new Greens. She has a background in education and government, and a great deal of experience in social justice projects. She is not a professional politician, but she is a dedicated member of the Greens Party.

I met the her at Presse Café on Brighton Rd, for what could more accurately be described as a chat than an interview. She told me that she’s spent a lot of time door knocking around the electorate and that the issues raised most often with her are climate change, asylum seekers, availability of early childcare places and public transport. Which I suppose makes sense, if you are going to open your door to a candidate for the Greens you probably don’t want to talk about the sanctity of marriage and burning homosexuals at the stake.

I asked Sue why she is running in this election, she knows that she can’t win the seat, so what is the point of putting herself through all the exhaustion of running an campaign? She told me that she thinks it’s vitally important that people have the option to vote for the Greens, to make sure that the major parties get a clear message that the Green’s platform matters to people. She is dedicated to the idea of giving people a voice, and says that because her daughters are now grown up she has the time to give to something she believes can make a difference to the world they will live in.

Unsurprisingly, given her background, she thinks that education, and early childhood education in particular, is under-resourced and is the most effective way of changing people’s lives for the better. She talked knowledgeably and strongly about those issues, but when I asked her about economic policy, and particularly with respect to small business she, told me, without the slightest loss of authority, that she didn’t know a great deal about it but that she would find out what the Greens policies were and would get back to me. I suppose some people would take that as a weakness, but if a first time political candidate, particularly someone who was not a professional politician, tried to convince me that they were totally across every policy they’d lose all credibility. An authoritative “I don’t know” is far more convincing than a waffling attempt to cover up lack of knowledge. Oh, and she did get back to me too (here or the Greens website).

When I was prepping for this interview I asked a Jewish friend of mine, who I know is passionate about the environment, if he was going to vote Greens. I was utterly gobsmacked when he told me that he would if they weren’t so anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitic? Really? But yes, apparently it is a commonly held view in the Jewish community. He wanted to know why Bob Brown is so vocal in his condemnation of Israeli violence but is not equally vocal about Palestinian violence, emphasising that the problem was not so much the criticism of Israel, but rather that Israel was held to a different standard than Palestine. So I asked Sue about it.

Truthfully I wasn’t expecting her to answer, anyone who’s watched the West Wing knows not to accept the premise of a question that could put you smack bang in the middle of a sticky wicket, but either Sue hasn’t watched the West Wing, or she really does mean it when she says that every opinion should be listened to. She was clearly and understandably uncomfortable with the question, but it was also quite clearly not new to her. What struck me also, was that as well as looking uncomfortable, she also looked saddened by the question. She told me that she believes that everyone should have a home, and should be safe in that home. She believes in a two state solution and that the Greens have a strong policy of non-violent solutions to conflict; beyond that, she wasn’t able speak on Bob Brown’s behalf. Fair call, but I’d like to hear his answer to the question some day.

Then we moved back to questions she could answer with authority. I asked her why she joined the Greens, she says that she is passionately concerned about climate change and the lack of action from the Australian government, she thinks the Greens are the only hope we have to force some action and believes that the strong “consultative process” that the Greens have means that even the smallest contribution can make a difference. It was a little weird hearing those kind of things from a politician and actually believing that she meant it. Her passion was genuine and compelling. Whether you agree with her position or not, you can’t help but admire the conviction that impels someone off the couch and out into the world to attempt to make a difference.

Michael Danby (sitting member, ALP)

The next interview, with Michael Danby, took place at our beloved King of Tonga, which is conveniently just down the road from his campaign office. Michael, with 12 years as a sitting member behind him, was very much the professional politician, to the point that he even brought a staffer along to sit next to him and nod at all the right times.

I was quite chuffed, The Tribune’s really hit the big time if we rate a nodder in interviews.

In many ways I was not expecting it to be a good interview. He’s a much more experienced politician than I am an interviewer, and he has a lot more to lose than the other candidates. I really didn’t think I would get anything more than 10 minutes of Message of the Day and a hand full of leaflets.

Again, I was wrong. He sat with me for well over an hour, didn’t dodge any questions, and was able to take a joke about himself and his party with good humour.

The body language was interesting too, when he was talking on a subject he was confident about he would lean forward, look at me directly and speak in a firm confident voice. Immigration, education, homelessness and public transport are all areas where he has wide knowledge and firm opinions. We talked about a speech he gave in parliament in February this year decrying the demonisation of asylum seekers, it’s on his website and well worth a read, because it’s factual, sensible and has no truck with playing emotional football with those most disadvantaged of people. He was able to talk about the history, the wider implications, and the need for a humanitarian approach to the immigration debate with absolute authority and conviction. But when I asked him questions about the economy he leaned back, his voice was softer and he looked questioningly at his nodder a couple of times. I don’t think it’s that he doesn’t know anything about the economic side of politics, but it’s clearly not where his passion lies.

He’s also not afraid to stand up to his own party where it matters to him, he openly criticised Peter Garrett (and yes, I know, so have we all, but Danby did it as a ALP MP) and defeated Garrett’s attempt to cut funding to the Australian National Academy of Music.

We talked briefly about homelessness, he told me about The St Kilda Crisis Centre, and the part he played in getting the funding to keep it open. It was odd, I’ve heard countless politicians trumpet their various doings as the work of the next messiah, but this time I heard it a little differently. He was telling me about something that gave him a genuine sense of personal achievement, it wasn’t a political thing, he was proud of something he believed had done some good in the world. I had forgotten that that is what politics was supposed to be about.

He was also quite candid when I asked him about Kevin Rudd; he told me he was one of the people who voted Rudd in, but after the frustration of two and a half years under Rudd’s “top down” approach that excluded the rest of the party from any decision making, he was prepared to be one of the people who would vote him out. When he told me that he feels confident that, under Julia Gillard, he and the rest of the party can speak and will be heard, I think he truly meant it. It’s hard to fake the look of relief he had on his face when he talked about having her as the leader of the Labor party.

I asked him why both major parties were playing the fear of asylum seekers card in this election and he said that he doesn’t think it’s a stunt, he thinks there really are people who have confused job security, personal security and infrastructure shortfalls with the immigration debate. He said that there does need to be some practicality in controlling immigration, but that this should be tempered with humanitarian considerations. He told me quite unequivocally that he was disgusted by the horrors of the Pacific Solution and would fight against any return to those attitudes.

We talked about the frustration so many people feel with the major parties and the absence of any real policy or debate in this election. He agreed, sympathised and said the solution was clearly for us to tell Tony Jones to put him on QandA and “I’ll talk to him about the Labor factions and the immigration debate”. I bet he would too. Ain’t it a shame that Tony doesn’t read the Tribune.

Finally we talked about public transport. We’re not as hard up as the poor buggers out in Pakenham, but the frustration of standing at Balaclava station for half an hour as 3 trains go past that you couldn’t fit an anorexic sardine into is something he has heard a lot about. He recognises that the public transport system in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane needs far more money than any of the state governments have, and agreed that the federal government will need to step in, but he told me that it’s not a first term issue. He said he’s going to be pushing for funding toward the planned underground loop from city to St Kilda Junction and then out to Caulfield. I just hope I’m not travelling on a seniors card by the time it happens.

Finally, at the end of the interview I asked him if he’d like to hand me a front page by-line on The Oz and tell me who the Laurie Oakes secret source is, but he politely declined. Looks like I’ll have to keep plugging away at The Tribune for a bit longer then.

Kevin Ekendahl (Liberal party)

Finally, yesterday I fronted up for my last dose of wrong expectations and met the liberal candidate, Kevin Ekendahl.

Am I pushing the objective reporting boundaries if I say that I did not have high hopes of the representative from Tony Abbott’s Liberal Party? I think I was expecting something along the lines of a failed Andrew Robb, but without the charm. The guy who bounced into Las Chicas and shook me firmly by the hand was about as far from that as you could possibly imagine. He is much younger than I expected, only 31, and is almost intimidatingly energetic. Apart from his youth, the other thing that stood out about him immediately was his absolute focus; we were talking for well over an hour, and his attention didn’t flag for a second. He looked me directly in the eye the whole time, and listened carefully to every question I had. It was almost disconcerting, but it was nothing to how disconcerted I felt as he rapidly defenestrated every one of my preconceptions about him and the Liberal party.

Kevin has been involved in the party since he was 16, he’s a dyed in the wool member. He’s also a passionate activist for social change, but not in the pointless self righteous soap box way. He’s taught English to refugees in Dandenong, and been involved in the Big Brother Big Sister mentoring program, not pontificating from on high, but doing things like showing children who’ve never seen it how to buy and prepare real food.

And the hits just keep on coming. He told me, in the most unambiguous of terms, that he firmly believes in climate change, he believes that human activities are causing it and he believes that we need to take strong action against it. I asked him how he could believe all that and still be a member of Tony Abbott’s party, and he said outright that it’s not Tony Abbott’s party, it’s the Liberal Party and it is, in fact, a broad church. I may perhaps have rolled my eyes a little at that phrase, but he wasn’t in the least offended. He smiled slightly and said “it really is, I’m sitting here as an openly gay, Jewish liberal candidate for a seat I believe I have a chance of winning, I wouldn’t be doing that if the broad church wasn’t real.”

I collected my jaw from the floor and asked again how he could reconcile that with the leader of his party and the things he has said about gays. He told me that he wasn’t thrilled by what Abbott said but “I asked Tony about it and he apologised to me, he also went on JoyFM and apologised to the GLBTI community, Tony has admitted himself that he sometimes misspeaks and says thing he doesn’t mean, but he has made an apology and corrected it”.

I asked him why he joined the party when many of the views he expressed to me were not what you would commonly associate with the coalition. He said that the things he thinks are important in government are things that are only associated with the Liberal Party. He believes in small government, he has strong family values (although as he said, a family to him is equally two men and a dog) but he does not think a government has any place in the bedroom, it should manage the economy, foreign relations and infrastructure, and apart from that it should leave people alone to make their own choices.

We talked about immigration, where again, he has very firm, well expressed opinions. As much as we might wish to, he said, we cannot give homes to every one of the 15 million refugees there are in the world. He advocates a humane approach to refugees and an absolute zero tolerance to people smugglers, who, as he pointed out, are not just exploiting in refugees, but are also likely to be trafficking in drugs, weapons and slave labour. He told me that he believes the best way to stop people smuggling is to take away the product people smugglers are selling, ie residency. We got a little tangled up in the immigration debate, I forgot for a while that I was supposed to be posing as a journalist and reverted to my default position of a table thumping argumentalist. It was interesting that he didn’t get defensive or overbearing, he was interested in the things I could tell him that he didn’t know, and was able to tell me things I didn’t know without arrogance.

Eventually we dialled it down a little and I asked him what were the most pressing issues people in the electorate had. He laughed a little and said that the thing that he head heard the most complaints about was trees. As in the trees that the councils plant along the side streets, The slightly scrubby style native trees apparently are not pleasing to the good folk of St Kilda and Port Melbourne. Certainly they don’t provide the shade and light that the deciduous plane trees give so generously in Elwood, but do we really have nothing else to complain about? Oh yes, he tells me. Public transport, homelessness, drug use, housing affordability and treatment of the GLBTI community are also all of serious concern.

We dived down the homelessness rabbit hole for a while. He takes a long term view, where building shelters is not the solution that providing treatment for mental illness and drug and/or alcohol addiction is. He also talked about hidden homelessness, where young people have no home, but may not necessarily be sleeping on the streets. The slippery step just above that is a gypsy existence from couch to couch and it’s an area that has received little attention. Kevin believes it provides a huge preventative opportunity and it is one of the things he has plans for should he win the seat.

I’m not sure that he can win, but with his combination of tireless energy and a clear view of practical, effective solutions, whatever he does he is going to make some change to the world. I think that’s a good thing.

So, who to vote for?

Before I did these interviews I had almost perfected my picture of a donkey’s arse to draw on my ballot paper, such was my disgust with the major parties and my dismissal of the minor ones. And even though the three candidates I met were so totally different from my expectations, it’s hard to separate the candidate from the party.

However, as one of them said to me, the only way your vote counts is if you use it to vote in the person you most want representing you in parliament. If everyone in Australia voted that way, rather than voting for a party or a prime minister, we could well end up with a couple of very different parties as well as a very different parliament.

The interviews entirely changed my view of this election and how I should vote. There’s not enough time left in the week or so remaining for all 90 odd thousand of us to talk to the candidates the way I did, but there is time to find out a little more about them. Look at their websites, find out about their background and the things they feel strongly about, because those things will determine the way they represent you; and cynicism is a lazy way out.

Then do what I’m going to do: make an informed decision, stock up on champagne and start practising off-the-cuff election haiku for your 2010 Don’s Party.

Salud!

+ 1

+ 1