The Independents: Politics Is About Showing Up

There is an unfortunate irony in Australian politics. Some of the people who work hardest to hold the political establishment accountable struggle to get the attention they deserve, while others can command an audience simply by being outrageous.

Independent media knows this problem all too well. If people rely on a narrow diet of political coverage, they may never hear about the alternatives to the major parties, let alone discover what those alternatives are actually doing.

And that brings us to the phenomenon that is Pauline Hanson.

Hanson has built a political career around being heard, and knows how to attract attention, generate headlines and turn public frustration into political currency. Her supporters may see her as someone who speaks plainly about their concerns. Her critics may see something quite different. Either way, she understands the attention economy.

But attracting attention and doing the work of representation are not necessarily the same thing.

A comment from a reader on The AIMN offers an interesting perspective on that distinction. The reader has lived in the Western Australian electorate of Curtin for more than 40 years and contrasts the parliamentary record of former Liberal MP Julie Bishop with that of the current independent member, Kate Chaney.

The reader’s assessment is blunt: during Bishop’s years representing Curtin, they rarely heard from her, whereas Chaney has impressed them with the amount of work she undertakes and the range of issues she addresses.

That is one constituent’s experience, of course, rather than a comprehensive assessment of either member’s record. But it raises a question worth asking: what do we actually want from our elected representatives?

For decades, Australians have largely accepted a political system dominated by two major parties. We elect a government, we elect an opposition, and we are encouraged to believe that the contest between them is the central event in our political lives.

Yet an electorate is not simply a collection of votes to be harvested every three years. It is a community of people with different needs, competing interests and problems that do not conveniently disappear when Parliament rises.

An independent member has a different relationship with that community. Without the machinery and discipline of a major party, an independent must build a public profile, establish credibility and demonstrate that their parliamentary presence amounts to more than a protest vote.

That does not mean independents are automatically better representatives. They can disappoint their constituents just as party members can. Nor does independence guarantee integrity, competence or good judgment. Those qualities must be demonstrated, not assumed.

But independents can offer voters something valuable: a representative whose political survival does not depend on pleasing a party leader.

Kate Chaney’s experience in Curtin provides an opportunity to examine what that can mean in practice. Her supporters can point to her parliamentary work and community engagement as evidence of a different approach to representation. Her record can be scrutinised on its merits, just as any other member’s should be.

And that is precisely the point.

We should be judging politicians by what they do, the questions they ask, the policies they support, the promises they keep and the people they make time to listen to.

Not merely by how often they appear on television.

Not by how loudly they condemn their opponents.

And certainly not by how successfully they convince us that every problem in Australia can be blamed on someone else.

Democracy needs more than noise. It needs informed citizens, accessible journalism and representatives who understand that their job is to serve the public rather than cultivate an audience.

Independent journalism matters because it can draw attention to work that might otherwise be overlooked. Independent representation matters because it can challenge the assumption that voters must accept whatever the major parties offer.

Neither is a magic solution. Both require scrutiny, and both depend on people being prepared to look beyond the familiar political spectacle.

Perhaps the most important question we can ask of any politician is also the simplest: after all the speeches, slogans and headlines have faded, what have they actually done for the people they represent?

That is a question worth asking of every member of Parliament, regardless of party or political persuasion.

And it is a question that deserves a much bigger audience.