In this television age, it seems that such messages must be translated into either image or slogan, and it is therefore unlikely that the badge will have any effect on the electoral outcome. It is, moreover, a possibly unfortunate precedent for Labor that Chifley uttered these words on the eve of the 1949 election, in which his party was rejected in favor of a party campaigning on the twin policy of restoring value to the pound and abolishing petrol rationing. The then Mr Menzies was at least on par for the political course in keeping one half of his promises, although there is some irony in the fact that the same conservative leader was later responsible for abolishing the pound not only in value but even in name, and thus for ushering in the age of metrics which has eroded the ability of language to express any meaning.

It is, however, worth pondering whether, in today’s society, the words of J.B. Chifley would be given an even hearing. It is, of course, a commonplace of the conservatives that the Labor Party of Chifley’s ideals is dead, yet in his own time as Labor leader he was as much vilified as any of his successors. The problem of the Labor Party in all truth is not so much that it has changed as that it has remained all too true to its organisational base and its ancient slogans. The true party of change today is the Liberal Party, which is able to conceal the real changes it is making to the fabric of our society under the cloak of media indifference.

While in America the election seems a contest between the second coming and Armageddon, in Australia, if we are to believe our media pundits, the result is a foregone conclusion and the consequences minimal. The public, according to these professionals, is bored with the whole affair. Yet these same professionals give no hint of taking personal responsibility for such a situation.

The issues at stake in this election are at least as great as any which have confronted the nation since the second world war. Moreover, they have been canvassed in a plethora of books, ranging from those of economics to those on political systems, defence, and public philosophy. Even if our pen-and-camera people cannot read at any length, they could at least have read the reviews in the pages of ABR, or even of their own journals.

In fact, the Australian public has shown that it is not bemused by politics. Significant numbers of the public change their vote not only from election to election, but between state and federal elections, which shows that they are sensitive to the issues they perceive as affecting them. If their perceptions are astray, the media must accept the blame.

Far from being of no significant effect, this election will determine for at least three years whether our society moves in the direction of compassion or of selfishness. A further three years of movement in the former direction will have effects that will last to the end of the century. We cannot continue to ravage our environment, destroy our minorities, ignore a generation, without changing the nature of society. It is probably possible to sustain an economy in which wealth and power are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands – South America offers many examples which may encourage our rulers – but it is not possible to do so while continuing to pay even lip-service to the values which are enshrined in the speeches of politicians of all parties. It is a measure of our intellectual failure that we tolerate public organs which purport to convey news and interpretation to us without ever subjecting this rhetoric to a sustained examination in the light of fact.

The greatest hope that the coming election holds is that the return of a government without majority power in the Senate may lead to a renewal of political debate, at least in Canberra. Certainly, the habit of all parties of using the Senate as a resting place for geriatric hacks, and of systematically cleansing it of any independent voices, dampens such hope, but at least nothing could be worse than the supiness displayed by this chamber since it asserted its power of review by refusing to debate a budget. Yet a Senate which did exercise its powers might be able to bring about a situation in which the wild men of the Labor Party would be silenced, and the wild but powerful men of the Liberal Party would be held to account.

Such a prospect is a somewhat near light on the foothills, but after five years of Fraserism seems as much light as anyone can hope will be turned on.