The problem for the political class is that their version of Australia is not how most of us want to live. Their policies in many cases are determined by support from their friends in high places. Responsible fiscal spending should be executed where it will make the biggest difference, not buy the most votes.

As major political parties become more unstable and no longer adhere to their traditional social values and bases, polling has become nothing more than a de facto electoral process.

Satisfaction with government in Australia has crashed to an all-time low. "Most Australian citizens are very clear that they do not like the character of contemporary politics on display in federal government and democratic renewal is required to address the democratic pressures that are threatening to undermine our core democratic values." as a recent survey suggests.

ECONOMIC GROWTH v ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

This is the fundamental debate which needs to be had and considered by every responsible voter. It simply can't be one or the other. With finite natural resources and a growing population it must be a sustainable and equitable compromise that will not contribute to spiralling destruction of the planet. And there-in lies the problem: It requires a "democratic" resolution!

Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change and ignoring it is stealing from our grand-children's future.

For years, successive governments, including the current Coalition government, have treated Australia's clean water, clean air, fertile soil and oceans as an acceptable casualty to virtually every and any mining and development project that has been proposed. Climate change is now the most urgent issue affecting our region, our nation and the entire planet. It has been described as the defining human development issue of our generation. Our current government is not addressing the problem, it is adding more fuel to the fire. If the environment never wins we all lose.

There is nothing more threatening to the health of our economy than climate change, yet frequently there are those defending environmentally destructive policies by claiming they are doing so for the sake of the economy. The truth is that they are defending what would most likely be good for the economy in the short term but in the long term would also contribute to future economic hardship and the risk of massive global recession, not to mention the costs of human suffering.

For this election, New England voters have a choice between the status quo and a credible Independent voice.

We can elect to accept the status quo of philosophical principles and policies of the incumbent member for New England (in his own words):

OR

We could cast a vote for an Independent voice of a local member who is engaged with constituents, active on the issues that matter to their local area, dedicated to the good of the country and investing in rural medical facilities, mental health services, protecting and regenerating our farm lands and environment, fighting climate change, assisting Aboriginal communities.

Having done a lot of background reading I can find no compelling reasons why the current member for New England is a suitable candidate but much to suggest he is not.

There is however credible evidence on his website, that the Independent candidate, Adam Blakester could be.

It is high time for change in New England, for "democratic renewal". A credible Independent is our best choice to deliver.

Jan Kleeman, Donald Creek