We need more information

and it needs to be actual and accurate information about many things. 

There is a by election coming up in this state. It is in a very marginal seat. The retiring member is in the Opposition. Naturally the present government wants the seat. It will allow them to say that their "policies are working", that the government is popular and much more. 

One of the candidates once worked for a big accounting firm. After she left some of those who worked there were found guilty of wrong doing and sacked. Apparently this means that she was also guilty of wrong doing and should have been sacked. She was also a sleeping director in another firm which went bankrupt and apparently she is also responsible for this, indeed solely responsible if some comments n the media are to be believed.

The other candidate who matters (in that they might have a chance) has come under similar levels of criticism. Her husband's business is alleged to have been getting preferential treatment because of her relationship with the party. She denies any association with this although she is named as having an active role in his business.

I am happy I do not need to vote in the by-election. Why? Because these allegations are not helping people make up their minds. They are actually a hindrance. I, and many others, want to know whether a candidate has the qualifications for the job. What have they got to offer? What are their actual skills?

It is the sort of information which is kept from us at almost every election. We get told all sorts of things. Mud is slung but facts are few and far between. We vote blindly. Actual information is apparently of no importance.

It seems our federal government does not want vital information either.  We are now being told that the heads of the two most important national security agencies will not be present when national security is being discussed. Yes, they did the government some bad news recently, very bad news. It is their job to do just that but I suspect this news was even worse than usual.  

National security is not there to give the government good news. It is there to tell them the bad news, that things are not working the way they should, that a senior "someone" has passed on information which has harmed the country and so on. It is information the government needs. 

Of the two issues I find the second one, our lack of information about national security issues, far more concerning but it is brought about by the poor quality of the candidates and the even poorer levels of information about them. We need people who can seek out actual information and make informed decisions on that basis. Can anyone else see a problem here?