With the NSW election just a week away, conventional political wisdom says the performance of Tony Abbott’s government combined with the loss of two first-term Coalition governments means the electorate has become more volatile.



The modern voter, so the thinking goes, lacks the patience for reform and is easily offended, spurred on by a 24/7 media cycle that eschews proper policy debate.

What if voters actually understand the requirements of democracy and will simple punish governments until they get it right?

Lie to me and I will kick you out. Fight among yourselves and I will send you to your party room until you learn to live together. Use my public institutions to feather your nest and I will trash it.

That is the conclusion reached by the director of the St James Ethics Centre, Simon Longstaff, on the mood of the electorate.

Far from being fickle, Longstaff argues that voters are generally more solidly attached to democratic principles now than the politicians themselves.

For him, it was highlighted at an event in the Victorian electorate of Indi, organised by a local community group Voices for Indi, which campaigned for Cathy McGowan. There, 300 non-aligned people from around Australia came out of their homes and workplaces over a weekend to talk about democracy.

They were supporters of all parties and supporters of none. Everyone from a 12-year-old girl who wants to be prime minister to an 80-year-old farmer. They had high hopes and no small amount of frustration.

“There is a sense of volatility [in voting],” Longstaff says. “That’s not because they are fickle, in fact they have become solidly attached to principles.”

He says much is made by political parties about winning elections but for voters, democracy is only as good as its participants. You cannot give “informed consent” or the magical mandate to a political party, unless you are told the truth.

“If you don’t get told the truth, the democratic process is a sham,” he says. “Woe betide politicians and parties to whisk that away as a volatility.”

He argues that what is happening now in the political cycle – the one-term governments, the primary votes plumbing new depths, the splintering off to independents and minor parties – is a result of voters being more attached to what makes democracy work.

Longstaff reports – and we have all heard this – that older voters remember a better time. But he insists it’s not rose-coloured glasses (agreeing politics was never pure) but posits that the war generation politicians like Tom Uren and Sir John Carrick had a “deeply elemental” view of human experience. There was an understanding there was something fundamental at stake. And politicians were drawn from a wider field of experience.

At the Indi event, Longstaff raised the idea of a pledge, a contract between the politician and their public, with some fairly basic moral values. Act in good conscience. Refrain from exploiting rivals’ private failings. Represent my electorate as a whole. Be accountable. (Read it in full below.) Pretty basic stuff.

Longstaff’s idea was that citizens could use the pledge to have the conversation with their MPs and candidates about their expectations as voters. It got a good response down in Indi, so he developed it further.

It was to be trialled in Queensland but distance got the better of him, so it has rolled out in NSW for the first time. Which has a sort of symmetry about it, given two former Labor ministers were found corrupt by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and 10 Liberal MPs stood aside or resigned as a result of evidence given against them on political donations.

The pledge was a roaring success among those with less power. As of Friday afternoon, 148 members and candidates had signed, including 86 from Labor, three Liberals, 12 Greens, 14 from the Christian Democratic Party, 21 from the Australian Cyclists Party and 10 independents.

Luke Foley signed. Mike Baird did not. While Baird endorsed the sentiments, his spokesman said all Liberal candidates already signed a party agreement on the conduct of political fundraising which is the most “detailed and comprehensive document of its kind in Australia”. All members also have to abide by the NSW parliament MPs code of conduct.

The premier’s spokesman said candidates would be judged on deeds not words and as premier, Baird had already increased penalties for breaking electoral laws, implemented tighter disclosure rules and published ministerial diaries. He would be judged on his record.

Thinking through the strategy, it is worth pointing out that the pledge could be used against a politician in any given question time as they tore a rival to shreds or represented sectional interests. And transgression from a pre-election pledge is always more dangerous for a government MP.

Longstaff said he was unclear why Baird had such a problem with it but he had envisaged the document as something a politician or candidate could commit to on a personal basis with electorate rather than a political party.

“This is something they can take up and then follow up, as I say, ask early and ask often,” Longstaff says. “This is not only about how to exercise power but how you should go about pursuing power.”

Readers may argue that it is motherhood statements. Nothing but another worthless document. But if you have vented frustration about political debate in the recent past, maybe it’s a conversation worth having.

The Politicians Pledge

In the pursuit of power, I will:

Act in good conscience;

Enable informed decision-making by my fellow citizens;

Respect the intrinsic dignity of all;

Refrain from exploiting my rivals’ private failings for political gain; and

Act so as to merit the trust and respect of the community.

In the exercise of power, I will:

Give effect to the ideals of democratic government and represent the interests of my electorate as a whole;

Abide by the letter and spirit of the Constitution and uphold the rule of law;

Advance the public interest before any personal, sectional or partisan interest;

Hold myself accountable for conduct for which I am responsible; and

Exercise the privileges and discharge the duties of public office with dignity, care and honour.