These transparency warriors need to be upfront with us before the election

I say rabbit on deliberately to indicate how little they appear to really value it. They might want to think again. The man in the street will put up with quite a bit of hyperbole (otherwise described as BS) because it's just a fact of life in almost all walks of life.

But once the public gets a whiff of you being two-faced, of deliberately misleading them; you're dead.

Having left parliament in 2007, there's no doubt in my mind that the best compliment you can get is from someone not committed to your party who says they liked you because you said what you meant.

It happened recently, and I was quite taken aback but pleased. The best version was many years ago in Melbourne when a worker in a hi-vis vest said " hey, you're the one with the kick-ass job who tells it like it is..come this way. " Yes, thank you!

People are sick of BS. Sick of being spun a yarn or false narrative.

So "what will you do if there's a hung parliament?" is a very reasonable question that should be put to each independent candidate in the lead-up to the election.

It should be put every time they front a microphone or camera until they finally answer.

Right now they generally look like a bunch of evasive cowards avoiding an answer like the plague.

Their favourite response usually makes some reference to "listening" to their electorate. It's absolute bunkum in my view. Does that mean they'd support the party which got the most votes in their electorate?

Survey the whole electorate? Invite opinions and get the views of the super politically motivated but not the mums and dads?

What would they do if their electorate was roughly evenly divided, separated by say a few thousand votes?

Are they seriously saying that that few thousand votes could decide who forms government in a nation of millions of voters just by the accident of the member being an independent and holding the balance of power?

The bottom line is most of them will already have decided which party they would or would not support.

They just don't want to say in case it turns some voters away from them. Let me make that a little clearer. What they're in effect saying, by not saying is: "I know how I'll vote, but I'm not going to tell the voters because some of them will be annoyed and not vote for me".

This from the people who say they will be transparent with their voters!

They may say that it depends on a number of factors not known now. Indeed, that will not be known until after the election.

That may be true, but it's not the whole truth.

For example, does an independent come to mind who you think has decided to not support a Coalition government in any event?

Why are they not saying so now? If an independent doesn't think it matters that one party won more seats than the other, then tell us that you don't care how Australia voted; you're going to decide who forms government on another basis.

Some say they will negotiate on a set of policy issues. Deciding who will govern a country for all of us on the basis of your favourite limited set of issues seems unsophisticated to say the least.

It is a startling way to make such a decision. Just by the luck of holding the balance of power you feel entitled to ignore the views of the rest of Australia in whose parliament you sit.

Those who say this seem to think they go into parliament to just mouth off and adhere to a pre-existing set of issues.

Their views on certain policies may well be important to many in their electorate.

Other voters may be so disenchanted with the major parties that their decision is not so much for the independent as it is against the major parties.

But they don't go into parliament to handle just those issues. Nor to ignore every other parliamentarian. It shows neither understanding nor respect for the parliament and the people the rest of us chose to put there.

They go in to participate in one of the greatest political developments the world has seen. Namely a democratically elected parliament.

They go there to share views, to listen to new arguments, to interact with other parliamentarians in that wonderful exercise we call representative democracy.

And at the end of the day they should make the decision that they believe is in Australia's best interest.

Many in the media and in parliament have forgotten this. Sadly they think an election is meant to be just a bidding war for favoured policies. Our parliament does a lot more than deal with them.

Have any of these members or candidates said they will listen to how Australia voted and support whoever wins the most seats?

So we end up with the decision as to who governs all of us being made by a few people, themselves probably not elected by a majority in their own seat. That's not a recipe for good government.

Former Labor member Joel Fitzgibbon has suggested that whoever wins most seats should be allowed to form a government. There's some real merit in what he suggests.

Think about the alternative under which we now live. The independents just horse trade behind closed doors on whatever takes their fancy.

No, it is probably not to get a better piece of legislation. It's more likely to be "I'll vote for bill GHG if you will support my amendment to the entirely unrelated XYZ bill."

READ MORE:

So the decision on the main bill is made not on the basis of the merits of the bill but on whether the government can be blackmailed into supporting some other unrelated change. Not a good way to make decisions.

A lot of this would still go on under Fitzgibbon's proposal, but after government is formed and day-to-day bills keep rolling into Parliament. But his idea would let us get on with governing much more efficiently after an election.

And it would stop the sickly, pompous and platitudinous rubbish that some of these independents sprout. Let's face it, they want the cameras on them. They just pretend they're not after publicity.

Fitzgibbon's idea gives the power of deciding who forms minority government to millions of Australians rather than just a few members. That's not a terrible idea.

Once the attraction of being the kingmaker is removed these guys would be left as every other parliamentarian is, to deal with the huge volume of day-to-day legislation that churns through our parliament.

More transparency in life, not just politics is a good thing. Especially where money is concerned. So for all their calls for transparency, why can't we immediately see where they get their money from?

Why the opaqueness, the lack of transparency around funding? The media is not hounding them on this on a daily basis are just aiding and abetting the con.

Ask yourself what the media would be saying if there were Coalition members effectively being funded by large amounts of money from oil interests but that wasn't clear on their declarations.

Thankfully, there's a risk these guys run. Friends and staff members will know the truth. What if one or two fall out? It just takes one to blab. Then the relevant members will look both idiots and liars.

That's a tough team of tags to whitewash.

That's where we are. A bunch of independents who mouth off about transparency and yet will not tell us the full story about where their money comes from.

And will not tell us the full story about who they would or would not support to form minority government. Not much of a commitment to transparency is it? Spineless (b)ankers. Except I've misspelt.