Can we limit spending at election time?

SIMON Bevilacqua’s article (Mercury, January 18) is as usual an eye opener and worth thinking about.

The dysfunction in Australia’s ailing democracy has been visible for some years. It seems to make people unhappy, not to be able to trust the government and it’s bureaucracy.

Maybe this is why the letters to the Editor are so critical lately, with not an appreciative word about anybody or anything. But who would want to be Prime Minister or Premier not been given time to grow into the new job? To be manipulated by members, advisers, the public and the media? Any new idea is blocked or shouted down. This makes discussion and debate impossible, while old methods of trying to please everybody keep going.

Is this the reason why matters end up behind closed doors? Would this prevent honesty and transparency while freedom of information requests are made difficult? How would it be possible for new people to enter the political arena? Would it be helpful to close wallet’s for donations, spin doctors and the outside framework? Such moneys often pay for the disagreeable time waste and behaviourior between members of the government and the opposition, instead of working together for the good of the country and it’s states.

Democracy at election time might be helped, if contestants have an equal amount of money available to seek votes, while voters have peace and time to think not to cast their vote in haste or are bought with money. But money seems to be the ruler and leader of all. Would Tasmanian’s want to try a different way?

H. Stevenson Lauderdale