I would like to throw out a challenge to the Media.

For some time I have been concerned that the Media is losing the respect of the Community because it does not cover adequately the issues that are of concern to its readers and audience.

An issue as important as the Federal Election requires some serious and professional reporting if it is to do justice, and I am sure that your audience would be interested to know the background, beliefs, concerns and aspirations of those who have put themselves up for election.

Surely, it would not be too much to do a half page (minimum) report or a half hour radio interview on the nine candidates standing for the seat of Murray. One professional reporter in one week or less could do four and a half pages of interesting reporting easily.

The Electorate is generally unaware that every candidate who receives over 4% of the vote is given approximately two dollars of taxpayers money for every vote received. Sitting members of parliament have also voted themselves a hefty amount to keep their electoral informed (really an election fund) on top of this money for votes. If people knew this they would probably give their first preference to the candidate they would prefer and their second or further preference, to the "party" they hope will win the seat if their preferred candidate doesn't.

Following the election to parliament of Pauline Hanson, when nearly one in ten Australians supported her Party, it was exposed that we did not have to number every square as we were told. This was quickly changed, supported by both the major parties. This now means that we have no real choice at all. Unless an Independent, or minor party candidate, gets an outright majority - then one of the major parties will always get your vote. It is obvious that we are not going to get a referendum on immigration, so we can let the Parties know that we are 'not happy' and write 'Reduce Immigration' on the clear space at the top of both ballot papers. This is legal, provided that you do not obscure your voting intentions by writing over the candidates names and the numbered boxes. Now that's a novel bit of information that the electors would appreciate knowing!

This brings me back to the original purpose of this letter. Does the electorate deserve to be better informed and should the Media be the one responsible to do this.

Just because we candidates do not support the power parties do we deserve less of an opportunity to be interviewed for the job? Surely, when the election is announced the position becomes vacant and all candidates should have the opportunity to put their case equally - minorities - young - old - male or female - religious etc - no discrimination.

If the media cannot do that for the people then what exactly is your profession about.

It would certainly be disappointing if selling out to the highest bidder were the way you see your trade.

After all, the person elected to represent them in Canberra carries a big responsibility and it is obvious that this current bunch is not representing (re -presenting) the wishes of the Electorate to Canberra.

The interesting thing about all of this is that if you don't do your job professionally, you will also pay the price of an Australia that is not functioning properly. Will your children and their children feel pride when they do the family history or will they feel disappointment at an opportunity lost because you 'played the game' to make life easier for you?

www.carers.org.au

The Carers Alliance is pursuing three major objectives:

1. A new funding formula with population-based benchmark funding for disability, mental health and aged care services, to meet the unmet need for services and support.

2. Federal legislation which recognises the carer role, and legislation which entitles carers to support.

Authorised by: Thomas Hoyer, 713 Nettleton Road, Karrakup WA 6122

3. Funded family carer advocacy at national, state and regional levels, so carers have a voice in the policymaking which defines their quality of life.