Erin Molan: Ministers working for the good of the nation fighting for political survival

High-profile politicians with heavy cabinet responsibilities are seemingly being punished for a lack of focus on their local electorate, writes Erin Molan.

Things might look a bit different around the table after Saturday’s election. No, not the family dinner table ­(although, given the divisive nature of this campaign, it may be in some houses). I’m talking about the federal government cabinet table.

It used to be considered a mark of pride for an electorate to be represented by someone in cabinet.

To watch one of your own take on ministerial responsibilities on the national, and often international, stage used to stir up the political equivalent of “local kid makes good” feelings we get when we see Aussies crack Hollywood or dominate the global sporting stage.

Now, it’s arguably a downside.

In several seats, we’re seeing high-profile politicians who have carried incredible national duties over the past few years seemingly being punished for, among other things, a lack of commitment to their local electorate.

Independent Monique Ryan and incumbent MP Treasurer Josh Frydenberg are battling it out for Kooyong. Picture: Terry Pontikos

One of the most interesting races is in Kooyong, where Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is under attack from one of the “teal independents” ­Monique Ryan.

Ryan and her supporters (no doubt including the Labor Party) have a litany of gripes with Frydenberg and the Liberal Party.

The common thread running through them is an allegation that he has “forgotten” Kooyong, has been too absent as a local member, and hasn’t been as connected to local ­issues and concerns as he should have been.

And when he did delve into Victorian matters, it was to criticise the state government’s handling of the pandemic — something Premier Dan Andrews has used as ammunition to campaign against Frydenberg.

Apparently if you criticise the Victorian government then you hate Victoria. You might be “from Victoria”, but you aren’t “for Victoria” they keep saying.

Other more level-headed types might argue that you criticise most when you genuinely care and, god forbid, when it’s warranted.

These accusations of neglect and hate, levelled against someone who has had to manage the balance sheet of a country over the past two years, seem particularly unfair.

Where would Australia be if Frydenberg, at the beginning of the pandemic, relinquished his portfolio to someone less qualified because “the people of Kooyong need me”?

And, it must also be said, when someone takes on a portfolio, their local electorate staff are not redeployed to a government department in Canberra, never to be seen again.

Any local who has rung Josh’s ­office in Kooyong over the past three years for help with their DVA ­entitlements, or seeking information on business grants or just a new flag for the local primary school, you can be sure their call was answered.

This highlights the underlying ­dilemma every time we go to the ballot box — do we decide based on what’s best for us personally or what’s best for all of us collectively?

Often those two are in conflict; ­arguably, the people of Kooyong may have had better local representation in the past few years from someone unburdened by the task of managing the biggest economic upheaval in a generation.

However, where would we all be (Kooyong included) had our economy not have come through as well as it has, by any objective measure, with someone less qualified than Frydenberg at the helm?

There have been countless philosophies and theories developed around whether it is better to choose purely out of self-interest or based on what we think will be best for all of us.

It’s hard to find a clear answer or common theme, and it’s even harder to identify what we actually do — even after making their selection, most people can’t really explain why they’ve done it.

This isn’t economics, the area in which Frydenberg has made a name for himself, so Adam Smith’s famous 1776 Wealth of The Nation doesn’t ring true at the ballot box. He argued that self-interest is ultimately the best way to a thriving economy.

Pure self interest now at the ballot box could cripple us and this country … a bunch of elite, entitled, non-independent independents in power will do exactly that.

So we can vote selfishly or we vote for the common good. The latter does happen.

Previous governments have succeeded on a platform of bringing in higher or new taxes, which would never have happened if we voted purely based upon what was best for our own hip-pockets.

But in these cases, voters clearly saw an overall benefit to the short-term burdens being proposed.

It’s undoubtedly a tricky balance and one that has never been in so sharp focus before an election.

Do the voters of Wentworth want Liberal Dave Sharma, a potential future leader, or independent Allegra Spender?

Here in Sydney, a similar dilemma could be occurring to the voters of Wentworth.

If they vote for someone from a major party, particularly someone who has been tipped as a future leader, can they expect to receive the same level of local attention or a quick response when they want a flag for the local primary school?

You can certainly see the appeal of an independent who will never hold any of the responsibilities of government. But, where would our country be if every single electorate, or even a majority of them, all thought along the same lines?

Say what you want about the major parties but arguably there would never have been Medicare, the NDIS or Defence White Papers without them.

We’d have a collection of very well looked after electorates, their every local whim satisfied, community halls refurbished and their parks pretty — but with nothing beyond that binding them ­together.

One thing is for sure, regardless of which party or collection of parties ends up forming government after Saturday, we may see a few examples of those selected to take on ministerial portfolios rejecting the offer on the basis of their political survival.

And we’d all be the poorer for it.