What it takes to be good politicians
How can we create better MPs? Bill Handbury has some ideas
AS we chew the cud over the results of the recent election perhaps it’s useful to define what guidelines are needed to best reflect what we want from the performance of our politicians.
Such a task seems pertinent because the majority of Tasmanians have little trust and a concerning cynicism towards our elected representatives.
To the best of my knowledge there isn’t a public document which lists the attributes necessary for holding political office.
There are rules defining what politicians can and can’t do, but nothing official about attributes.
I would suggest there are four required qualifications concerning attributes.
They are decency, transparency, accountability and integrity.
It may be said that these attributes are a given. I would argue that’s half the problem. They are currently nothing more than an expectation. And we all know expectations and politicians are frequently strange bedfellows.
So let’s list and unpack the four required attributes.
Decency: By definition it refers to behaviour that conforms to accepted standards. In practice it’s about respect. Respect for each other which includes kindness. Also respect for the world at large which embraces the environment, minorities and institutions.
Transparency: Implies openness. It is the enemy of redaction and censorship.
Accountability: In political terms it is admitting mistakes, owning them and accepting the consequences.
Integrity: Is simply being honest. It differs from being factual. It is an applied attitude.
This all sounds wholesome and heartwarming as it’s one thing to define attitudes and another to ensure they are common practice.
Political leadership should be the required authority, but it frequently fails and at times is the real problem.
A reform starting point would be to have a sworn document upon taking office that includes the given four attributes.
This would then open the door for legal action against politicians who disregard their sworn commitment. It’s a weapon to ensure the democratic rights which fall through the cracks of a complicit or weak opposition are adhered to, and a weapon
to save us when our parliamentarians err for whatever reason.
One of the most irksome issues in Tasmanian politics is the secrecy surrounding the pokies saga. The secret donations, the sweetheart arrangements, the disregard for human tragedy, the cost to families and the public together with the current complicity of the opposition amount to a scandal that we are told we must accept.
I suggest the pokies saga has abused all four of the nominated required attributes.
I am certain that if politicians were made to argue their case in court they would capitulate.
Blind Freddie would tell you their case is indefensible. I further suggest every politician knows how toxic the pokies saga is yet sadly they live with their shame.
If a political creed of Decency, Transparency, Accountability and Integrity was subject to a legal standard, wouldn’t Tassie be a better place?