After the Brexit drama of a few weeks back, readers might be forgiven for noticing, but not giving a shit about, the general election that was held down in Australia just afterward. As an Australian, I took a keen interest, or at least as much of an interest as one can take when not in any way affected by the outcome.

I am not sure why, but I am somewhat proud of the Australian system of government. Yes it’s far from perfect, and in recent years it has been a been a bit peculiar with a new PM being sworn in every second Tuesday afternoon, but by and large it works reasonably well.

At its heart is the Westminster system, which has shown itself to be the most robust of all. Having the leader picked by his or her peers rather than the moronic public is very sensible and provides an excellent circuit breaker in the event the leader wanders too far off piste. By providing a simple mechanism to sack the PM without recourse to the courts or the people, eliminates the need for all of that constitutional checks and balances nonsense the Americans seem so proud of despite the fact it is complete gibberish, and renders their nation utterly ungovernable.  

Although I guess the price we pay is that by weeding out dangerously unhinged weirdos at the pre-selection stage, our election contests are never as entertaining.

But we haven’t taken all of the Westminster system – we left out some of the of the more hilarious anachronisms that were put in place centuries ago to ensure that those born to rule were actually allowed to do so with a minimal interference from the peasantry. 

We have a preferential voting system so votes actually count, we have an elected upper house rather than the preposterous circus that is The Lords, we vote on a Saturday so working people can actually get there and then we make it compulsory and so even the indolent and the ignorant get to have a say, although I confess the jury is still out on that last one.

But even given all that, there is room for improvement, one of which being the actual voting process, as bugger me wasn’t the last one a palaver. The people, bless them, spoke on a Saturday, but it wasn’t until the following Friday that we had the faintest idea what they said in the lower house, and we still don’t know what the hell is going on in the senate other than being pretty sure it will be a shambles.

How hard can it be to count a few million scribbles on bits of paper? Well, quite hard it seems.

"

"AGMs are held to provide pensioners with tea and biscuits, but no decisions are ever taken"

 

"

Of course the job was made harder than it needed to be as some of the bits of paper were 6 feet long as every idiot with a moronic opinion, exercised their God-given right to waste everyone’s time by standing for parliament.

But beyond that, somewhat mercifully, the question is now being asked: Why on Earth are we not using an electronic voting system that would have provided the answer about four seconds after the polls closed? 

Refreshingly, this will now almost certainly be given serious consideration, and just as certainly there will be many reasons thrown up why scribbling remains the best way to do it.

Firstly there will be the argument that older folk like scribbling on paper, or may be unable to operate some electronic gizmo. My mother proves this point, but love her as I do, I might suggest being unable to press a button on an IPAD might be reasonable grounds for excluding those who shouldn’t be allowed to decide who runs the country.

And then there are security concerns; but scribbling on a bit of paper presents little challenge to anyone with an AK47 and a team of enthusiastic box stuffers.

All this is fair, but I feel the most cogent argument that will be put forward against electronic voting, is that of visibility – democracy must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Pressing a button on a screen and then waiting for the result to flash up at one minute past six that evening, would be very efficient, but oh so unsatisfying. 

Setting aside the not insignificant economic impact of the tens of thousands who have a vested interest in the event – manufacturing pencils and pieces of paper, manning polling stations, and of course the thankless task of counting – we need to see the show.

Every TV station puts on an agonisingly drawn out event where panels of experts try to make it seem more interesting than that it really is by concocting the myth that by sitting down and watching, we continue to impact the process. The truth is we would be all better served heading to the pub and waking the next day with a sore head and a new government.

But by watching the show, apparently, we are the essential witnesses to the process, anointing its legitimacy.

But we are suckers – somehow in our minds, we have formed the view that scribbling on pieces of paper and watching some poor sod count them all, treats our opinions with the reverence they deserve. Having a few bytes zip down a wire seems so tawdry.

I don’t know what an election costs, but I’m guessing a lot, yet it is a cost we happily bear despite a simple smartphone app being able to carry out the task for about A$11.50 plus VAT.  

Observers from Mars might wonder that we intentionally choose the slowest, least accurate and most expensive of all the options available, in order to elect a few hundred people who don’t actually do anything, but show up to vote when and how they are told and then head to the parliamentary bar to get hammered on our coin.

Given we do this a lot, they must think it’s a sport.

I had a little dig at the makeup of the boards of BHP and Rio Tinto a few weeks back, so I won’t labour the point further, other than to say that at least they don’t insult us by actually having a free election.  

But the charade of a dozen overpaid and under-qualified mates of the chairman actually providing anything remotely resembling governance or useful advice must have the Martians scratching their heads.  

But company boards are but one example where millions are spent creating a smear of democracy, transparency and accountability, that actually achieves nothing.

Tens of millions are spent drafting annual reports that contain nothing of interest or value, but as they are never read, that’s ok.

AGMs are held to provide pensioners with tea and biscuits, but no decisions are ever taken.

Board subcommittees meet to discuss risks, remuneration, compliance and governance, but that’s just code for a jolly lunch and then signing off on what they are handed by the CEO.

People who have never been on a mine site, draft intricate, unintelligible policies about playing nicely that no one every reads or acts upon.

Legions of lawyers, accountants and bankers create structures to ensure that no-one ever actually knows what is going on and blame is never pinned.

Like politics, The Corporate Show is demanded by a public under the delusion it makes a difference.  

Yes it does, but not the difference they think.

*View from the West End is exclusive each week to www.mining-journal.com