The 'YouTube election' is shameless spin

Melanie La'Brooy

MIXING politics with the internet makes perfect sense given most Australians primarily use both the internet and Canberra for a combination of pornography and shopping. But while the rest of us are echoing Homer Simpson's plaintive query: "The internet? Is that thing still around?" one could be forgiven for thinking that politicians had only recently discovered the brave, new World Wide Web.

In the past few weeks CNN and YouTube joined forces to host a debate between the Democratic presidential candidates in the US, while at home our federal politicians have been getting all excited over FaceBook, YouTube, MySpace and "Bobcasts" (Bob Brown's podcasts).

Watching John Howard discuss climate change on YouTube reminded me of my mother's inability to talk normally into an answering machine. It's hilarious. No matter how hard she tries to use her normal speaking voice, she always ends up sounding like a cross between the Queen and the talking clock.

Like Mum, Howard was clearly uncomfortable with the medium and it showed.

The Labor Party's counter-attack video, which showed a caricature of Howard in bed (asleep on the issue of climate change), while not terribly witty or funny, at least demonstrated they got what YouTube is about. As a political strategy it was brilliant.

The immediacy of the counter-attack was tied to an understanding of the medium that the Liberals had no answer for.

The Greens then went one step further and placed a parody of the ALP's ad, showing Howard and Rudd in bed together, on their webpage. (The message was that both Rudd and Howard are in bed with the coal industry, although sadly the Greens didn't take this golden opportunity to show Howard and Rudd in bed with either a pit pony or Billy Elliott's father.)

While the Greens emerged as the winners of the very YouTube game of one-upmanship, I can't help wishing that our political parties would start using the internet as a tool to actually enlighten and inform voters. As it stands, the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberal Party don't even have search functions on their websites, so navigating them is an exercise in frustration.

Caught up in the excitement over the cool sites of the internet, the major parties seem to have forgotten the potential value of their websites. For example, in an election year, the ALP's website has a message posted saying that its national platform and constitution, which outlines Labor's long-term principles will be "available shortly". This message has been up since April.

Not to be outdone, the Liberal Party has a pull-down menu on its home page titled "Labor Watch". Is there really anyone out there waiting with bated breath to discover "What does Kim Beazley stand for?"

With its heavy emphasis on soliciting donations and, curiously, on the Labor Party (as evidenced by a sizeable cartoon of Rudd and two big graphic links decrying the ALP), the Liberals' website is regrettably evocative of the more unsavoury aspects of the internet. Like a Nigerian banking scam, the party really, really wants your money and, as about half its home page is devoted to its opposition, I think it's fair to say that it's more than a bit paranoid.

Other anomalies abound. Christopher Pyne is mysteriously listed as the Minister for Ageing, with no reference to his crucial role as Minister for Illicit Drug Policy and Shameless Self-Promotion.

More peculiarly, if you click the link "Indigenous Australians", which falls under a heading stating that "the following information highlights key achievements and current issues facing the Government", there is no mention of the recent military interventions into indigenous communities.

That the Government's biggest initiative on indigenous affairs in the past 11 years and one of the hottest political talking points in recent months doesn't rate a mention under "key achievements and current issues" shows just how woeful the state of Australia's political websites has become.

The whole point of the internet is its ability to stream up-to-date information to an enormous number of people with an effective immediacy. But instead of using their web pages to open up a dialogue with voters on issues, the major parties are remaining curiously silent and static on the internet, preferring instead to convey their stances on breaking issues via the traditional media.

Imagine if, with the click of the mouse, we could discover what a party's position was on any issue. Or if we could access our politicians' business affiliations, media transcripts and parliamentary voting records, quickly and simply, via their party's websites. I want to know who's anti-paid maternity leave, who's pro the Iraq war and who thinks Bill Heffernan should be prosecuted for impersonating an ASIO officer/Barnaby Joyce/a fruitcake, without having to trawl through Hansard.

They could do all this if they wanted. Instead we get Malcolm Turnbull's dog blog and Joe Hockey's cat blog. Assuming that Greg Combet wins the safe seat of Charlton, presumably voters can look forward to the world's first Gouldian finches blog.

Brave new world indeed.

Melanie La'Brooy's latest novel is Serendipity.