A campaign speech and foreword from Clinton Mead:
I’m running in the NSW election for the electorate of Wollondilly as an Outdoor Recreation Party candidate. At a recent debate hosted by Wollondilly Council, I was given time to give a two minute introductory speech. The debate was around an “issues paper”, which basically was a list of projects the local council wanted state funding for. The major party candidates used most of their opening speech to talk about the bacon they were supposedly going to bring home for the electorate.
However, I took a different approach. Compressing this message (or should I say our message) into two minutes was not trivial, but this was my attempt. Whilst the audience of two hundred is a very small percentage of the electorate of forty thousand voters, I do hope that at least two hundred more people have began to think about the proper role of government in our society. This is the speech:
---
We currently have a system where the government takes at least a third of what we earn. Basically we're working for free until May. The vast majority of those four months of work goes to Canberra, where it is divided by politicians and bureaucrats, who take their cut, and then pass that money to the state politicians and bureaucrats, who again take their cut, who then distribute that money to local services.
But how do the politicians and bureaucrats in Canberra, or on Macquarie Street, know where this money is needed? The fact is, they don't have the faintest idea. The vast majority, probably all but one of them, don't live here. So then begins the lobbying by local representatives, local governments, all quite rightly campaigning for some of their taxpayer's dollars back.
I realised then that the issues paper is indeed, the issue. The vast majority of the issues raised are things that should be done by either local council or by organisations in the local community. The only reason why a state bureaucracy needs to be involved is because the people of Wollondilly are sending so much of their earnings to Macquarie Street and Canberra that it leaves them with no choice.
As a result, instead of the people of Wollondilly getting the services they need, so much of their wealth is being lost by bureaucracy and mismanagement which is inevitable when government is so large and disconnected with the people.
It is the system that is the problem. We are not going to be able to elect the Liberals as the “better socialists” and expect waste and mismanagement to disappear.
Instead, if we want real change, we will need to elect people who don't campaign by telling us what they're going to spend our money on, but instead campaign by telling us what they're not going to spend our money on.
This is why I've attached my name to the Outdoor Recreation Party. They are the only party this election which is not about giving you more, but giving you less. Because when Santa Claus is taking your money to buy your presents, I think giving less is actually giving more.
Clinton Mead is the Outdoor Recreation Party candidate for the NSW seat of Wollondilly.
Dear Clinton, Well said, good to see someone is thinking out of the box. Now to have you're eyes opened wide please read the following book.
Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Titled The Synagogue Of Satan.
regards Stuart Bedford. Lithgow NSW 2790
Posted by: Stuart Bedford | March 3, 2011 at 11:39 AM
A few points:
1) Working for free till May? How totally ABSURD, do you not believe that we need services from govt?
2) The govt doesnt know here the money is needed? And who is campaigning for the money back?
3) Policy announcements should be about what they DONT plan to do? How will you know what they DO plan to do?
A question.......what does the "OUTDOOR RECREATION PARTY represent? It certainly is not clear in the anti government rant above.......
Outside the box is one way of putting it Stuart, I would describe it as more like Tea Party rant from another planet...
Posted by: Pia Robinson | March 3, 2011 at 12:21 PM
If we all don't pay taxes then we should all not drive on roads, use local parks and lakes, have any police etc the list goes on, are you crazy!? Taxes aren't a money grab from pollies to take their salary from it's to create and update services, if you are going argue that we work for free then do none of the above, dont use any public service. D**K.
Posted by: Patrick | March 3, 2011 at 05:43 PM
Pia, my sentiments exactly.
But, rather than being anything serious, I think the lame, content-free rant above must be a joke. The final reference to Santa Claus was the dead giveaway it was written by a child for children.
Posted by: Jenny | March 3, 2011 at 06:11 PM
Kudos to you, Clinton, for having the ticker to run as a candidate in the forth coming NSW state election – Good Luck.
Good speech too.
Don’t worry about with Pia and Jenny said. No one here really values their opinion.
Posted by: Andy | March 3, 2011 at 06:36 PM
, if you are going argue that we work for free then do none of the above, dont use any public service. D**K.
Then give me my taxes back so I can put my kids through private schooling - it looks substantially better than what I'm forced to pay for. Let me opt out of the public health system entirely and spend the money on private health insurance. Stop charging me for crap like bike lanes and other people's solar cells. When you stuff up spending my money against my will, and don't deliver the services you promise like the insulation batts fiasco and the BER, subject yourself to the same level of liability and accountability as a private company or service provider.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | March 3, 2011 at 07:35 PM
Thinking outside the box???? More like your grey matter is located in a box in a different state to you and you therefore have no access to it.
There is SO MUCH wrong with your argument.
How about I just hand you my ATM card, my pay packet and everything else, and you run my life for me.........AS IF!
Posted by: Gem | March 3, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Clinton I feel you need to elaborate more so the people will understand what you are saying. One point I totally agree on is, we are over taxed. I also agree we need more independent politicians in government as this would keep governments honest and accountable. We need to return to Common Law and compel the government, judiciary and their many agencies to adhere to the peoples "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900, which is still our supreme law to this very day. Currently we are ruled by parliaments statute laws which are maritime law. The difference between the 2 is, Common Law, you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in a court of law.
Statute Law, you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence, a magistrate, judge or court register decides your guilt unless you produce valid evidence to prove your innocence. I could go on further explaining the benefits and our inalienable rights as granted in our Constitution, but to do so might distract from your topic.
Posted by: Tom | March 3, 2011 at 08:20 PM
What I'd like to ask Clinton is what's the origin of the name "Outdoor Recreation Party"? What was the thinking behind describing a political party in such a weird way? Outdoor Recreation Party. As opposed to Indoor Recreation Party? As opposed to Outdoor Work Party?
WTF, the name is a joke, aside from the fact that it leaves undefined what is recreation. Reading a book beside a brook? Playing lacrosse? Ocean swimming? Smoking marijuana on your back watching clouds skim the sky?
Unfortunately, knowing the types (mostly violent males) who are its members and supporters, "outdoor recreation" means hunting animals and killing them for pleasure via 4 wheel drives.
One word. GROSS.
Posted by: Jenny | March 3, 2011 at 08:34 PM
Clinton I feel you need to elaborate more so the people will understand what you are saying.
I totally agree. Unfortunately, I only had two minutes, and unlike some other candidates I wrote my speech for two minutes instead of going overtime. I think the basis is important, but I'm going to try to get progressively into more policy detail as we get further into the campaign, particularly for written spots in the media.
At this debate there was also a question and answer session, which all candidates were asked ten questions. Here I talked about policies in more detail.
I suggested for example, abolishing the payroll taxes on wages up to the minimum wage. This would encourage employers to employ people, instead of just buying more checkout machines, and take pressure off the welfare system
Whilst immigration is not directly a state issue, population growth in the area and infrastructure did come up, and I highlighted the ORPs paid migration program, which would fund infrastructure and stem the supply of funds to people smugglers.
One of the big issues in the electorate was sewage pipelines, in particular, the lack of them. It seems it is continually just a political football and people feel they are paying their taxes but not getting basic services. The Labor response to this was "its complicated, it needs to be paid for". I said in response it's actually quite simple, you're paying for it, but you're not getting anything back for it. I pointed out how ridiculous it is to have politicians and bureaucrats in Macquarie Street should dictate water policy from Sydney to Broken Hill, even when they are totally disconnected systems, and that if the local council or region had control of these services, you wouldn't have to beg to the State Government every four years, you'd have the money as a community to just get it done.
There are other policies, such as the right of people to defend themselves and their families, the advantages allowing shooters to eliminate pests, and treating young drivers with respect not as criminal hoons (it baffles me why a P-plater loses their licence for one speeding offence but an experienced driver is apparently allowed to get caught speeding twelve times and still keep their licence).
Unfortunately, it was difficult to squeeze all these policies in. Instead of reading from pre-written statements, I think you should actually answer the question, so I didn't rattle of irrelevant policy when asked questions. I'll try to talk more about these things in any spots I get in the local papers.
I look at government a bit like fat. There is no doubt we need fat in our diet. It is essential to our survival. However, most of us, myself included, probably have a bit too much. Its good for us to cut back, but it should be gradual, not drastic.
I don't think we should cut government drastically overnight. Like a diet, instead it is the direction that is important. A good diet isn't one where your weight is in free fall, a good diet is one with gradual steps, in the right direction.
All I suggest is that instead of slowly expanding the size of government as we currently are, we instead we start to slowly shrink the size of government. This is not drastic, just some minor changes are needed.
The best way to do this is to maintain our public services, but give people incentives to opt-out, so individuals and communities, start to look after themselves, each other and the environment around them. I think we should also stop further centralisation of services in Canberra, and start to bring services back to the state and local level.
When people need government assistance, I'm not saying the government shouldn't be there. What I'm saying is that we should be aiming towards a society where less people need government assistance, not more.
Taking pressure off public services, helping people be self sufficient and giving control to individuals and local communities I think is something the left and right and everyone in between can agree on.
Putting this all into two minutes, plus some policy detail, I find difficult, but admittedly I'm not the best speech writer out there, so I appreciate your suggestions.
Posted by: Clinton Mead | March 3, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Thanks Andy, I really appreciate your thoughts.
It can be a very lonely experience at these debates when everyone else brings a rent a crowd and I've just got a few friends there, but I'm powering through it, and comments like yours help greatly.
I did see a few nods and voices of approval in the audience, so it seems like the message is connecting with not many, but at least some people.
Hopefully, by going into a bit more detail in the newspapers, which are probably read by more undecided voters, I can start to have more of an impact.
Posted by: Clinton Mead | March 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Who is John Galt?
Clinton
I have just finished reading Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'. I found parallels with the way the Greens are trying to shut down our industry. I believe that the book should be compulsory reading for all Secondary Students
Posted by: Col. of Blackburn | March 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM
We are literally the most over government country on the face of this earth, and nearly the most over taxed as well. I noticed that since Obama gained office America's bureaucracy has increased by a whopping 30%. With each new administration, or government, they get this overwelming need to control our lives. Our lives are becoming more regimented by nanny state legislation an ever before....and still, we keep blindly accepting their spin, lies, incompetence and greed. They have the gaul to deny the average citizen a modest pay increase, whilst hiking theirs up exponentially.....not to mention their endless perks! The waste of taxpayers money is enough to make a grown man weep. We fail to make our politicans accountable to the waste and outright fraud that is going on in government departments.
WE don't need more independants....we NEED to make the parties sign a LEGAL covenant with the people. If we had a mechanism where a party and the individuals in it could be sued in a court of Law you can bet your sweet A$$ they would sing a different tune!!
It's now so bad in America that the people no longer trust their own government....how far off are we in holding the same view about ours?????
Posted by: Lyn | March 4, 2011 at 01:45 AM
What Pia said - especially 1) - I mean wtf - this is a race to the bottom in gross simplification & polarisation.
Whatever valid point Mead might have is lost in the absurd reasoning that he presents.
I for one am proud to pay my share of tax, which I know will help my fellow citizens, myself and the country as a whole. This knee-jerk reaction - seeing tax as theft - is just a childish right-wing tantrum. FFS grow up, quit crying about the government, and accept that your taxes is what creates our CIVIL society, for ALL Australians.
Posted by: Mahageekster | March 4, 2011 at 07:18 AM
I for one am proud to pay my share of tax
I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy to pay their share if taxes were 10% on average, even if the very rich paid much more. The problem is taxes are probably around 30% for a lower middle income earner (on average, including income and GST). And much higher for large slabs of the 'average' community. And now they want an enormous new broad-based tax on carbon as well, directly driving up the cost of living. There is an upper limit to a fair share of a persons income and if we haven't crossed it, we are way to close to it.
This knee-jerk reaction - seeing tax as theft - is just a childish right-wing tantrum.
When money is taken off me and spent on insulation batts in some other city, or given as overly generous foreign aid to a nation I don't want to subsidise, it's hard not see it as theft. When the government doesn't feel any obligation to shrink itself as small as necessary, but instead feels it has a unquestionably right to add to its bureaucracy as much as it sees fit, then its hard not to see tax as theft. When I'm forced to pay for expensive programs that aren't essential to society or are just bad ideas from the outset, and managed badly from the outset - whether that be insulation batts, BER or any number of Defence projects - it's hard not to see it as theft. No one is questioning the government taxing and doing those things it does best. But let's be honest, that list isn't very big.
Posted by: Michael Sutcliffe | March 4, 2011 at 08:22 AM
So any different view is a "rent a crowd" to Clinton? Pathetic Clinton, try marshalling a coherent argument.
Posted by: Pia Robinson | March 4, 2011 at 09:33 AM
yes true Jenny, Merry Xmas, lol
Posted by: Pia Robinson | March 4, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Pia: Oh come on, are you serious?
I think it was pretty clear that I meant the people who are there to support a particular candidate, not just interested community members.
Even I had a "rent a crowd", just a smaller one.
Your knee jerk reaction to any reduction of the size of government is extreme. I focused on state governments doing less and local governments doing more.
What is your problem with local governments having control over local services? Are you some Howard lover that thinks everything from IR to Education curriculum need to be centralised in Canberra.
Here is what I suggest. We should reduce Commonwealth spending to real per-capita Whitlam levels.
I guess you think Whitlam was an extremist who thought taxation was theft.
Posted by: Clinton Mead | March 4, 2011 at 10:39 AM
Thanks for that Clinton. For others who are not so well informed, the political system in NSW is akin to that in East Germany prior to the wall coming down. The electoral act was changed some years ago to make it almost impossible for "new" parties to get registered. The Outdoor Recreation Party had a member in NSW parliament when the act was changed, so was automatically registered and has maintained its registration by having more than 750 members. The ORP is affiliated with the federally registered Liberal Democratic Party and has the same basic principals of small government, low taxes and cutting red (and green) tape. The ORP will be standing candidates (the required 15) for the Legislative Council, plus some in selected seats for the Legislative Assembly.
Posted by: Peter Whelan | March 4, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Right on Clinton! The government that governs best, governs least.
Posted by: Jason | March 4, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Michael, if you include state and local government taxes, and other hidden taxes (e.g. petrol, alcohol), the average person pays close to 60% of their income to some level of governemnt.
I think that has gone beyond "fair share"
Posted by: Anton | March 4, 2011 at 11:38 PM