This post was originally published on ‘Electioneering’ - Express Media’s youth election blog

My election day was a long one that started with some unsuccessful vox popping before I moved on to slightly more effective pollie chasing. My Saturday began in hometown Wollongong at my local polling booth and before I knew it I was in the car and rolling on down to Canberra. Attempting to edit an audio piece in the car just made me feel car sick, so I had to wait till we got to the hotel before the reporting really started.

By 6.30pm, fellow Electioneer Joel Tozer and I had made it to the Tally Room. The room was full of excitement with journos, party reps and the public hustling for a prime spot. We took our places before realising it was actually easier to follow the action online than it was wandering the Tally Room, an ironically deceiving election night institution. I did kind of miss the Kerry O’Brien of the telly screen. Although I could see him from afar, the room was too noisy, so I had to forgo his and Antony Green’s always informative dissection of the rolling events.

On to twitter it was. There I heard Maxine McKew had lost her seat, and our first-timer Wyatt Roy had gained his. I also heard when Kevin Rudd was about to appear on the ABC, quickly rushing over to the ABC set to catch his surprisingly upbeat speech (which O’Brien humorously cut off at the risk of it ‘dragging on…’).

Returning to the press zone, I decided I’d go for the FM option, tuning into ABC radio for some slightly different coverage (funnily enough it was being broadcast from the desk a few rows back). Next there were cheers and a mad scramble to the entrance of the hall, where Greens Leader Bob Brown elicited the only real crowd excitement of the night. The mosh-like pack of media folk and now smiling revellers jostled to catch a glimpse.

My first press pack experience it was! And I learnt you have to be quick. With my SLR and Zoom audio recorder in tow, I was just a tad too late on the scene. While I made it over just before he started to speak, I actually couldn’t see or hear Australia’s most popular Greenie. Clambering on a chair, then onto a table, I managed to spot Brown in the centre of it all. As I stepped back to ground floor my phone started to buzz. Although I could now see the back of Brown’s head, I had unwittingly become the photo bomber in Bob Brown’s ‘Greenslide’ speech. My pocket buzzed as the messages came through – “move left!” and “get a bloody hair cut”. Feeling a little out of place I pretended to be doing something. A few photos there, a nod here…you get the picture. Bob Brown left after a while and the flash crowd again subsided.

By this stage it was becoming increasingly apparent the government had ‘hung’ itself (Hmm, I know). Joel and I put a few pieces up online as we heard from our bloggers in Melbourne in Sydney. They were also reporting a lack of anything much at their end. “Not much to see; big room with a TV” informed Fraser at the Melbourne Gillard event. “Hmm yes I’m here, but it’s a large amount of nothing”, messaged Sophie from Abbott’s do.

Feeling a little over the whole thing and struggling to get three friends into the media section with just one spare pass, it was time to give up and get out. We went back to the hotel room to watch the ongoing coverage on TV. All stations were telling us that it all still hung in the balance (yes another), and the result wouldn’t be known for days.

I was keen to go to the National Press Club on the other side of Canberra as we’d heard there was some action going on from our Twitter buds. But my friends, who were now in party mode, were more interested in hitting up the Uni Pub. We worked our way up the different floors and then back down again. Finally, after convincing my far from lucid mates it was time to head to the next nightspot, we left to decide our next stop.

One mate decided he was up for an adventure, so we went off and left the other two behind as they moved onto the next Canberra nightclub. Getting ourselves to the Press Club which is near Parliament House was proving more difficult. Thankfully some friendly strangers were keen to do a good deed and we hitched a ride with them across town. Turns out it was one of the passengers’ birthday so there was plenty of cheer, even despite the seemingly less rosy election result.

Although we’d now arrived, it was getting in that proved the next challenge. Either we’d had one too many or the front door wasn’t where it should have been. Anyway, it was looking less risky at this point to take the back entrance. Through the loading dock we went, passing a few surprised faces on the way, before emerging in true blogger style into the bar.

Turns out the dregs from the ALP’s Press Club function were still kicking on. That meant friendly faces from politics and some telly journos. There were a few “I know you!” moments and then, with gin & tonic in hand (it was the press club), we went around introducing ourselves as unqualified nobodies. It’s surprising how much Press Club types love to talk. Get them on to politics or something and you’ve got a 10 minute conversation ready and served. As long as you keep pretty quiet, we learnt you can actually avoid embarrassment too in these usually interesting exchanges of conversation.

It can’t have been that bad, I guess. We came out at the end of the night with a few business cards and a complimentary membership to the club (don’t know how we swindled that one). By 3am it was time to take my friend home, but all in all we had a pretty good night.

After a cab ride back to our Dickson hotel we met the others, who in the meantime had realised Mooseheads was called so for a reason and bailed out a few hours earlier. Bed time had come and gone by now, and it was now time for us all to hit the hay.

And so it was, in a somewhat unexpected turn of events that my election night became one of photo bombing, pollie spotting and a bit of blind networking. Like my Saturday night, I’m hoping things get better over the next few days – even if they seem a little bit lost at first.

Words – Zach Kitschke

Image – Zach photobombing in the tally room

Where?

For a list of polling places see the AEC’s guide. There are polling places in most towns and cities at locations such as schools, churches and public halls. Opening times and details can also be found on this site.

How to vote for the House

There are 150 seats in the House of Representatives and thus 150 electorates that will be counted at the election.

Each electorate will have a different list of candidates. Usually the two major parties (the Libs and Labor) will contest each seat, and there are usually several other candidates from the minor parties.

Voting for the House of Reps requires you to list your candidates in your order of preference (1 for first preference, 2 for second preference and so on). You need to number all candidates to make a legitimate vote.

In many seats, the parties will hand out ‘How to Vote’ cards. These are just a suggestion of the candidates a party think are worthy of your preference votes. You are free to preference in any order you want. The deals have been worked out between the parties in an order they see as being the most beneficial to their political agenda.

There is a great video explanation about how preferences are used when counting of the votes on the AEC website. Basically, if there is no candidate with an outright majority (more than 50%) then it will go to preferences. This means that the voters’ preferences will be counted too until one candidate has an overall majority.

How to vote for the Senate

The Senate works a bit differently. With 76 Senators altogether (12 for each state and two for each territory), only half will be up for election this year. This is because Senators have longer terms than MPs and to prevent a Government from having complete legislative control we only have half-Senate elections to ensure some members carry over each election.

The way you vote is also different. You have two options:

1) Voting above the line means you only have to number one party. You show your preference with the number ‘1’. Don’t write anything else or your vote will not be counted.

2) If you vote below the line you must preference all the candidates in the order you see fit. This means starting at ‘1’ and continuing until you have filled all the squares.

There are some helpful websites out there about voting and the election more generally. Some of the best include the ABC’s ‘How to Vote Guide’ compiled by the network’s knowledgeable Election Analyst Antony Green, the AEC site and political activism group Getup’s ‘How to Vote’ guide. Getup! links to a few other sites like Below the Line, Open Australia, and Google’s election homepage that are worth a look if you’re interested.

Words – Zach Kitschke

Featured image - Theresa Thompson

This post was originally published on ‘Electioneering’ - Express Media’s youth election blog

Politics is a funny game. Particularly when you’re talking about the seat of Gilmore on the south coast of New South Wales. Electioneering wrote the other day about the ‘faceless’ Family First candidate Elizabeth Cunningham and the preference deal with the Liberal Party that could carry incumbent MP Joanna Gash over the line at the election. Whilst we’re talking about just 0.51% of the vote going to Family First, it could have a more significant effect at this election. After a redistribution, the seat is now notionally Labor with a margin estimated between 0.2-0.4%. This means that those 500 or so votes for Family First could effectively return Mrs Gash to the seat.

The issue isn’t the preferential system. It’s that we have an invisible candidate on the ticket for Family First, whose candidacy is being questioned by her own party. Her name is Elizabeth Cunningham and according to the AEC she’s a ‘factory worker’. She lives somewhere in Sydney, but having refused to reveal herself publicly, we don’t know much more. That however, doesn’t mean she won’t play a vital role in the Gilmore ballot.

As this blog reported on Saturday, Electioneering understands that Ms Cunningham was recruited by the Family First State Council with little input from senior party executives. A source said that it was possible mistakes were made choosing to run the candidate, and that the party was learning from its experiences over the past few weeks. They said Family First would be reviewing the decision after initially choosing the candidate in “good faith”.

Family First State Director told Electioneering it was important for a minor party to run candidates in as many marginal seats as possible, and to do so it was sometimes necessary to look outside the area.

Electioneering reported that Family First was beginning to question the selection of the candidate and that state party director Phil Lamb had recognised that “if the community sees that we’re fielding a candidate from outside the electorate, it could prove a disadvantage to the party.”

After attempting to contact Joanna Gash for comment several times over the past few days, Electioneering finally got a response this evening.

Mrs Gash said that the election would be “a very close call” and she wasn’t going to speculate about the outcome.

“There are new areas in the electorate at this election, and we’re going to have to work hard to win”

She also said it was important to live in the area and represent the local community. When questioned why she would then be supporting a Family First candidate from outside the area, she responded by saying it was a matter of precedent and policy.

“We have always exchanged preferences with Family First and the Christian Democrats. We go on policies when deciding preferences and we are more aligned with those two parties”.

As Electioneering understands it, only individual members of the Family First State Party Council have contact details for Ms Cunningham. These are the same members who initially recruited the candidate. A party source said that repeated requests had been put forward for the candidate to contact the State Party Office, and that the party was hoping she would be more forthcoming over the next few weeks.

When further questions were asked of Mrs Gash, she pointed to the Greens preference deal with Labor, saying “it could also carry them over the line”. This may be the case, but the Greens candidate Ben Van Der Winjgaart is a well-known member of the local community. As the Deputy Mayor of Kiama Council and the local Green’s candidate at both the State and Federal elections since 2004, he is far from invisible. Gash further said any internal party politics were “issues for Family First”.

Mrs Gash told Electioneering that although she has some input into decisions about preferences, any deals were primarily arranged between the political parties. She said she wasn’t aware of any conversations between the two parties about the Family First candidate and how the nature of Ms Cunningham’s candidacy would play out. At the time of writing, Electioneering was awaiting comment about the preference deal from the Liberal Party Campaign Office.

Words – Zach Kitschke

Image - Joanna Gash

This post was originally published on ‘Electioneering’ - Express Media’s youth election blog

Talk about an election mystery. In the NSW South Coast electorate of Gilmore, voters are asking who Elizabeth Cunningham is. She’ll be listed on the ballot as the Family First candidate, but no one seems to know that much more about her.

The Illawarra Mercury ran a story about the ‘faceless’ candidate last week. They reported that although she was running for election, she was not willing to speak publicly, and was opting to maintain a ‘low profile’ before the poll. The AEC lists her occupation as a ‘factory worker’. Family First has confirmed that she resides outside the electorate.

As Electioneering understands it, Ms Cunningham was recruited by the Family First State Council with little input from senior party executives. A source said that it was possible mistakes may have been made choosing to run the candidate, and that the party was learning from its experiences over the past few weeks. They said Family First would be reviewing the decision after initially choosing the candidate in “good faith”.

When contacted by Electioneering, Family First State Director Phil Lamb said in order to grow the party it was “important for Family First to run candidates in as many marginal seats as possible”. He also said that to find willing candidates it was sometimes necessary to look outside the particular electorate.

“A number of electorates weren’t able to source candidates within the area so the State Office made the decision to install outside candidates. In this democratic process; because we’re allowed to do it, we’re doing it”

He did however say that running an outsider could backfire if voters looked upon the decision to run an outsider unfavourably.

“If the community sees that we’re fielding a candidate from outside the electorate, it could prove a disadvantage to the party.”

Referring to the media controversy around the Gilmore candidate, Mr Lamb admitted that running Ms Cunningham had been a toss up, saying “we won’t know whether it’s been a benefit or a loss till after Election Day.”

Electioneering understands that only individual members of the State Party Council have contact details for Ms Cunningham. These are the same members who originally “recruited” the candidate. Although the party has known from the start that the candidate agreed to run on the proviso she didn’t have to be “interrogated” by the media, they are hoping she will be more forthcoming over the next few weeks. It is understood that repeated requests have been made by the party for her to contact the State Office.

Liberal incumbent Joanna Gash has agreed to exchange preferences with Family First in Gilmore yet has not yet met Ms Cunningham. Preference flows could significantly alter the outcome of the vote in Gilmore since it became a marginal seat, adding to intrigue around the Family First candidate’s selection. A redistribution has meant Gilmore has become notionally Labor after being safe Liberal territory for over a decade. For the first time in 14 years, the incumbent could face the loss of the seat

This election, the margin is estimated by the ABC’s Election Analyst Antony Green to be around 0.4%. Others are suggesting it could be even smaller, with Crikey’s election guide showing the margin may be as low as 0.2%.

AEC data reveals that at the last election Family First polled 0.51% of the primary vote. This means that the Liberal Party may have to rely on Family First preferences if they are to get across the line this time around. A poll of 400 residents had a more favourable result for the incumbent. The poll had Joanna Gash ahead of Labor candidate Neil Reilly with a primary vote of 58% to 31%. Whether this is actually the case will not be seen till later in the month.

Several efforts were made yesterday to contact Joanna Gash for comment on the Family First preference deal and the effect it could have on her re-election. Her office said she was unavailable for interview. Repeated calls to Mrs Gash since then have not been returned.

Words – Zach Kitschke

Image– Joanna Gash – Flickr Stream

This post was originally published on ‘Electioneering’ - Express Media’s youth election blog

This election has become a choice between two parties with very few differences. We’ve seen a race to the centre as both Gillard and Abbott try to prove to voters that they would be the best at maintaining the status quo. This has been at the expense of pragmatic policy making.

Avril Henry is an expert on generational behaviours in the workplace and she thinks this is having an effect on the way young people are engaging with politics. Henry doesn’t think young people are necessarily uninterested in politics but says they just don’t feel there are any options at this election.

“I have spoken to them and they are saying that they don’t feel they’ve been given enough reason to vote for the major parties.”

Henry says Generation Y’s are “the most marketed to generation of all time” and this changes how they view politics.

“Young people need politicians to be authentic, to be relevant, and to be honest.”

Whereas veterans are influenced by authority figures and boomers want data and facts, Henry says Generations X & Y are a little more cynical.

“They’ve said to me: ‘tell us what it is, tell us what it does and don’t play the national anthem while you’re at it’”.

As I wrote previously, this election has seen record numbers of eligible Australians not enrolled to have their say. Henry said that she’s spoken to a number of Gen Y’s who are “bright, educated and have not enrolled to vote”. She says this is because they don’t see what they’re voting for at the election, and don’t feel the major parties are taking them seriously. Henry says the key messages of both sides are irrelevant to young people, and says they are questioning what the campaign slogans really mean.

“The Liberal’s are cutting debt whilst Labor are moving forward but many voters are asking what are the parties really talking about? What are they actually going to do?”

She believes part of the problem stems from a lack of diversity in leadership positions within society more generally. Henry highlights not only politics but also corporations and churches as the other major estates that still “tend to be run by a group of older white males with a particular view on leadership”.

“The penny is beginning to drop I think. We don’t expect leaders to have all the answers anymore. We do however expect them to listen. Part of the problem is that we have a generation of leaders who believe they need to have all the answers and see themselves as the problem solvers”.

Michelle Grattan of The Age wrote back in June that the three issues Gillard needed to “neutralise” leading up to the election were the Mining Tax, Asylum Seekers and Climate Change. She also said Gillard needed to find an overarching “narrative” that would contain her policy visions. This has not yet become apparent. We have however seen so-called ‘solutions’ for each item on the checklist. Yet none have proved to be particularly robust or stand up to any great scrutiny.

From the Government, you’ve got a mining tax covering only part of the industry. This essentially undermines the message that its policy is about getting something back from the sale of our resources. There’s an asylum seeker deal pending with East Timor, who have said they don’t actually want a deal, and finally a climate change policy that will simply fill time between now and 2012 when we are likely to see the return of an ETS anyway. There’s nothing wrong with community engagement, it’s just that it inspires cynicism when the Government announces such a thing at this point in time.

The claim that this is about community consensus building also seems deeply flawed. How can the Government ignore the fact that 83% of voters think pollution is making climate change worse, or that 60% currently support an ETS? If that really isn’t enough, who knows what is. With the next Government likely to be elected by just a whisker, how can political parties justify doing anything, ever, if it’s all about consensus building? Democracy isn’t about satisfying everyone. And it shouldn’t be about achieving an impossible consensus. As a system, it is set up to represent the views of the majority. With all its flaws, it’s the best we’ve got, and political parties need to respect that. As we saw with WorkChoices, if a policy isn’t popular then the electorate will make their voices heard and elect the other team.

Maybe if it weren’t all about having a solution a day to keep the Opposition away, the Government would come to some better long-term, sustainable policy decisions.

With little choice at this election over the issues that matter most to younger voters, you can’t help but be drawn back to Avril Henry’s comments about young people needing to be taken more seriously. Maybe there is a need for a party representing the views of those on the sunny side of 30. With one in five Australians between the ages of 12-24, is it time we sought real representation in our parliament?

Words – Zach Kitschke

Image – news.com.au

This post was originally published on ‘Electioneering’ - Express Media’s youth election blog

Julia Gillard yesterday revealed her response to the coalition’s $1.5 billion mental health policy announced earlier in the month. A re-elected Gillard Government would increase efforts in suicide prevention and crisis intervention. The Government said it would invest an additional $113.9 million to provide more frontline services in the community for people with severe mental illness.

Headspace CEO Chris Tanti said that the Prime Minister’s proposed policy would “make a significant impact on the lives of many Australians, particularly young people and those at risk of taking their own lives”. He said “early intervention is crucial in reducing the impact of mental illness and drug and alcohol use by young people in Australia”.

Key areas of the policy include increased funding to allow Lifeline Australia’s support hotlines to take more calls, efforts to improve safety at suicide ‘hotspots’, ‘mental health first aid’ training for frontline community workers, the establishment of outreach teams to schools affected by suicide, and the improvement of community-led suicide prevention services targeted at higher risk communities. A further focus will be on providing support for children with mental health problems and developing online mental health and counselling services.

The Greens have also welcomed the Government’s response but say it doesn’t go far enough in addressing the recommendations of the report presented by the Senate Community Affairs Inquiry into Suicide and Suicide Prevention. Describing it as “patches” for “a broken system”, the party said much more money was needed. Greens Senator Rachel Siewert chaired the inquiry and is disappointed the Government has ignored many of the recommendations outlined in the report, “According to the experts these announcements are too small to make a difference”. Calling for increased money for early intervention, incentives at the primary care level to target those in need and increased funding for alternatives to emergency department treatment, Senator Siewert said she believes that announcement was a good starting point, but that the Government needs to do more to solve what it has described as a “national tragedy”.

Mr Tanti made clear that although he thinks more needs to be done, he is happy about the announcement and said that overall the announcement was “a good one”. He believes it will have real impacts for young people and those at risk. Tanti says that any debate in this area is always a positive thing; “a year ago we weren’t hearing anything about mental health from either of the major parties so it really is good to have it on the agenda”. “It’s important now that we hold them to account”, he said.

Senator Seiwert agreed, saying that even though it is positive news that mental health and suicide prevention is now being talked about, the major parties need to focus on increasing their expenditure; “74% of people who have taken their life have had contact with mental health services. If we don’t deal with mental health more broadly, we’re not fully addressing the issue of suicide. We need to improve the whole system”.

Words – Zach Kitschke

Image – Julia Gillard MP Official Photostream