From the desk of Roland Rocchiccioli – 16 October

Since when did it become de rigueur for a politician’s ‘no’ to carry more weight than a constituent’s ‘yes’?

OUR system of government provides for the people of the Commonwealth to elect representatives to the Federal, State, or local administrations. The role of the elected incumbent is, accepting the shortcomings, to reflect the voice and will of the majority of the voters, especially when it relates to those issues which are deemed contentious and important. Election does not bestow representatives with the power of veto, nor the right to follow the dictates of their personal morality, however strongly imbued.

Often and gallingly, elected representatives blatantly dismiss an opposing viewpoint which does not run in tandem with their personal stance, even when it is strongly supported by the electorate whom they serve.

Recently in Ballarat, Cr Des Hudson said of public reaction to a specific and contentious council decision, “Thank you for the emails and phone calls and submissions. I have a different opinion and that will disappoint a lot of people.” The ethos of: ‘suck it up, buttercup, it’s not what I believe’, is undemocratic and an obvious breach of established precepts.

Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, deliberately ignored 75 per cent of his Warringah constituents who were in favour of same-sex-marriage. His views on abortion were determined by his own inflexible religiosity and did not echo the voices of those whom he represented. Consequently, in the 2019 election, following 25 years as the sitting member, he lost the seat. Arguably, his strident personal ideologies were causal.

In 2018, Federal Victoria Liberal Senator, Jane Hume, voted against assisted death legislation. The demise of her father caused her to pause, consider, and reverse her previous implacability, based on her personal morality. Recently, she said in an upper house debate, “I once felt in my heart that it was wrong.”

With respect, what she thought or felt in her heart is of scant interest. That is not why she was elected. She went on to say, “Who am I to deny you the choice to leave this earth in the same beautiful way as did my father, Steve?”

Her personal experience notwithstanding – and it was not a unique emotional journey – it is most reassuring that Senator Hume has, ultimately, seen fit to embrace the opinion of the majority. However, her epiphany will provide little comfort to those families whose loved ones were denied the same peaceful death as that of her late father. It should not, necessarily, take a personal encounter to amplify the validity of a patently cogent proposition.

Paradoxically, and too often, politicians’ conscience votes reflect their personal views and not those of their constituents. It is a serious anomaly which is not always recognised.

It is impossible to be all things to all people, and consensus is mercurial. However, it is not outrageous to expect politicians to listen and to vote accordingly on those issues which land outside of party policy parameters.

The alignment of local councillors with major political parties, and the subsequent adherence to policies and directives which may not serve a specific community’s best interests, has created volatility, exacerbating an already active degree of difficulty. State and local government procedures are sometimes incompatible. What is right for a state capital is not necessarily the best methodology for a major regional city.

Hubris and celebrity are dangerous bedfellows. Constituents should listen assiduously, and consider carefully, before deciding at the next State election.

Remember: You get what you vote for!

Roland can be heard with Brett Macdonald Mondays at 10.45am on 3BA and contacted via [email protected].