Shouts from the desert

Today there was a forum held at the Cheltenham Recreation Club for candidates for the seat of Epping. Eight candidates turned up, the only absentee being Michael Bergman (Australians Against Further Immigration). As it turned out all four of the Bennelong candidates for 2004 who actually resided in Bennelong were there as well, so it doubled as a reunion of sorts.

The first thing to get out of a forum like this is to get a sense of each candidate's ability to present their case in public - their public speaking skills. These skills are important in politics since a stronger public speaker will have a better chance of persuading others on the floor of Parliament and will normally have stronger skills in presenting arguments in back room forums.

I would break the candidates into a number of bands reflecting their public speaking skills. This ranking is fairly crude and I will explain my reasoning below. From strongest to weakest we have:

1. David Havyatt (Democrats) and Martin Levine (Independent)
2. Greg Smith (Liberal)
3. Lindsay Peters (Green)
4. Nicole Campbell (ALP)
5. Simon Tam (Unity)
6. John Kingsmill (CDP)
7. Christina Melikovec (Independent)

David Havyatt and Martin Levine were clear stand-outs in the field. While I could not separate their overall performance in presentation each has a slightly different style.

Havyatt's policy background shows through and he clearly has his background information covered, which helps him come off as persuasive. His one weakness is he sometimes uses technical political and jurisprudential terms that many in a diverse audience will not understand.

Levine 's presentation is somewhat different. He clearly knows the points he wants to get across and he does so well. He demonstrates an ability to come up with new ideas that is a strong asset in policy development. He is also able to frame his ideas in a manner that is easily understood by a diverse audience.

Greg Smith's presentation suffered due to excessive reliance on notes. This is strange given his background and suggests he may not have been as well prepared as some of the other candidates. Public speaking is most effective when the speaker knows the points they need to get across and speaks to the points rather than to a fixed plan. Despite this his presentation style was strong, and with better preparation he would no doubt be a formidable speaker, although perhaps too formidable in style to persuade somebody who did not already agree with him, at least in part.

Lindsay Peters' knowledge of his points was fine, but the presentation was not quite there. There was nothing wrong with it - it just seemed to lack any particular flair and if he had to speak to much longer in one stretch might have difficulty holding the attention of the audience.

Nicole Campbell seemed hampered by the requirement to stick to her Party line. There were hints of ability beyond this, but when you are the Government's candidate you have to answer questions about all the things that residents are unhappy with, and the residents tend not to be receptive to the answers. Many of the answers gave rise to audible groans for the audience - a kind of "here we go again" reaction.

There was nothing particularly wrong with Simon Tam's presentation, but he did seem to rely a little too much on notes and his softly spoken style did not help to present the message. At times he struggled with finding the right English word or phrase.

John Kingsmill drew on a stock of analogies that I am sure I heard once upon a time in Sunday School. This did not help his presentation, which was stilted and left prejudices laid bare for all to see.

Christina Metlikovec read her opening statement mostly in a monotone, without lifting her eyes from the page once. The monotone was interrupted at one point when she raised her voice to make her point that the was enraged. What was she enraged by? Pretty much everything. Metlikovec has a lot of rage, and if you do not believe her she will raise her voice at you until you do. Her raising of the voice caused a little sniggering in the audience, which was interesting since the vast bulk of the audience was post middle age. In high school debating teams most people learn how ridiculous this technique appears fairly early on and discontinue it.

The next issue is of policy. I will divide this into four bands.

Martin Levine and David Havyatt represent the centre of the political spectrum - if people understood what all the candidates were representing and then voted for the candidats who most closely reflect their own view you would expect these two to get most of the first preference votes between them. Both demonstrated an appreciation of the value of allowing each person to choose how to live their life without interference from Government, and both demonstrated sound understanding of social and infrastructure policy and a willingness to work with others to develop solutions.

Nicole Campbell, Simon Tam and Lindsay Peters each presented sound policies in their area, but did not show off any personal talent for policy development. Campbell was visibly constrained by the requirement to stick to the Party line, Tam dealt predominantly with infrastructure issues in a way that failed to clearly show any differentiation from other candidates, and while Lindsay Peters presented the Greens position adequately he did not go beyond that. In a University grading scale they may merit a credit or low range distinction but would not make it quite to high distinction.

Greg Smith demonstrated some interesting ideas, but not enough to overcome the baggage he comes with. Not only is he saddled with an underperforming party, but he is associated with the extreme right of that party (so much so that I keep mistakenly calling him "David", after the person of that name who has the reputation of leading the extreme right of the New South Wales Liberals). He also continues to ignore entirely his advocacy history - having been president of Right to Life is a major detail that should not be hidden from voters, especially women who might rightly think themselves cheated if they voted for him without knowing about this.

John Kingsmill for the Christian Democrats and Christina Metlikovec as an independent did not disappoint in their ability to show why passion for a policy is not a good measure of competence to serve in Parliament. Metlikovec's policy seemed centred around her rage and she indicated that she would likely fight with both Liberal and Labor if she won the balance of power - an independent can be in a very powerful position in a hung Parliament, but only if they are willing to work constructively with at least one side. Kingsmill managed to bring in the not-so-secret fear of all Christian Democrats that if we fail to recriminalise homosexuality it will destroy the family unit - apparently he is so attracted to the idea of being a homosexual that he thinks all the married men of New South Wales are going to leave their wives and kids to go have sex with eachother.

In summary, the forums firm up David Havyatt and Martin Levine as viable candidates who have skills that would be valuable in a member of Parliament, and a clear centre view based on respect for the right of all people to make their own decisions. It confirmed the unsuitability of the Christian Democrats and Metlikovec for Parliamentary duties, and Smith having failed to deal with his past was unable to pull his suitability ranking out of the bottom half of the field. My overall rankings at this point are:

1. Stand-out candidates: David Havyatt (Democrats) and Martin Levine (Independent)
2. Neutral: Lindsay Peters (Greens), Nicole Campbell (ALP) and Simon Tam (Unity)
3. Unsuitable: Greg Smith (Liberal)
4. Untouchable: John Kingsmill (Christian Democrats), Christina Metlikovec (Independent), and Michael Bergman (Against Further Immigration)