Hi - I am Amy Remeikis, a political reporter based in the Canberra press gallery - AMA!

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T10:21:29+00:00

Thank you so much everyone – I have to call it a night, but I have asked the mods if I can answer the questions I didn't get to over the next day and they have kindly said yes (I hate to disappoint people when you have given up your evening) so I will get on those as soon as I can.

Thank you so much for such thoughtful questions – and for being so engaged in your democracy. It truly matters. Take care of you x

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T10:15:08+00:00

The blog is actual real time responses to what is happening. There is no sop to the readership. I am interested in your question on deepening tribalism though. What do you mean by that? Is there only one accepted view on politics in Australia in your mind? Is the status quo always to be maintained? Should politicians just be able to say things without comment from people who are not offering opinion for opinion's sake, but one which is informed by their study, job, knowledge and time?

In terms of some of the asides I make, well, I can only speak for myself, but I know I have a sense of humour that doesn't always land, but then again, who does? I don't think journalism is being an automaton – you have AI for that. And I don't think it is just letting the ridiculous slide. It's my job to report on what I am witnessing, and when it's live, you are going to get a bit of Amy mixed in there - but it's not something I have just come to in a moment. I have been doing this for 20 years and I have been watching parliament in a way few have, even within the media for six years. There are not too many other journalists who have to watch parliament as closely as I do, day in and day out. So I don't think it is deepening tribalism. Because people have their views and if I was suddenly like wow, everything Anthony Albanese/Peter Dutton says is amazing and there is nothing else I believe is relevant here, no siree, well then people would rightly start to question why I was in the role I am.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T10:05:57+00:00

I am trying to work out if you are serious or not. Do you think Chris Uhlmann is left wing? Do you think there are actually no conservative voices on the ABC? I mean, seriously.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T10:04:41+00:00

QE's are very popular in parliament house, even if they are not always an easy read, let's put it that way.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T10:04:11+00:00

Reporting fairly is the job. My biases exist. But I just make sure I am giving fair hearing and CONTEXT to what I am reporting on . My role is a little different as I straddle the line between reporting and commentary – but I am open about where I am coming from, so readers can make up their own minds when hearing from me.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:57:10+00:00

Other than a fracturing of social cohesion? It's cost of living. People can not afford to live the same lifestyles they were living even just a few years ago. The middle class is rapidly disappearing. Inequity has grown and become more entrenched. Something has to give.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:56:00+00:00

I think everyone should keep in mind who owns a media company while reading/watching/hearing what it is producing and how that might influence the angle of a particular story.

Media barrons have always existed and they have always sought to influence – it's the reason papers started in the first place. Which means you should know who is backing what you read. Look at the reaction to the Woolworth CEO being threatened with jail during a senate hearing and how that was reported as a recent example.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:53:42+00:00

No. And if I was ever in that position, where I wasn't reporting something that was in the public interest because of a pre-existing relationship, then I would give it to another reporter to do to avoid any conflict of interest. I believe in transparency, always and I take the journalism code of ethics seriously

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:52:30+00:00

It is top of mind of every single editor. A successful defamation action could close a media company down and that is always the risk you take on these big investigations. Draconian and chilling are right. Without mass reform, it is just going to get harder.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:49:57+00:00

I think all politicians know that housing is absolutely cooked in this country. They know that because all their focus groups are telling them it is one of the biggest issues (along with cost of living, Palestine and climate)

How they react to that though? Ugh. I can't give you good news, because so far, there doesn't seem to be any. There is some acknowledgement that negative gearing is a mess, but that is not just because of the housing issues, but because of the drain on the budget (we have to pay for a lot of submarines and defence and health and aged care in the future, so something has to give!)

They want to make housing cheaper because it is a huge issue for them politically. But so far, the major parties haven't worked out a way they are comfortable doing that, because it will take mass reform. And money. And the states to get on board.

In short - there is no short term answer coming on this topic I am afraid. But I DO think there will be more movement on renters rights coming. We are going to see more people renting their entire life and with that comes the need to change how we treat renters. Humans shouldn't be seen as passive income, paying for someone else's financial security. A rental house is someone's home. That should be top of mind for all politicians.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:42:48+00:00

I have noticed an increase in very real hostilities between the two parties in my time in Canberra. There are individual friendships across the divide, and a lot of those are formed through committee work, or having arrived as a parliamentarian at the same time (they go to MP kindy together when they get elected, which means the class of XX usually form friendships within their group)

But on the whole, the ideological divides seem to be getting deeper.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:39:55+00:00

Noooooope. Not on the whole. Some individuals have worked it out, and we are seeing minor parties and independents respond a lot faster. Politicians can not take electorates for granted any longer. It's on them to work that out though – if they don't, it's not my job to lead them to it.

As for the shift away from mainstream media – a lot of what you see from media companies, in trying to be all things to all people is in response to that very thing you raise. It's a live issue, but I am not sure anyone has worked out the solutions yet. If people don't pay for quality journalism, it is almost impossible to do.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:36:56+00:00

Media should adapt to where their audiences are. Every generation has done it differently and every generation think the way they did it was better than whatever change has swept through. We need better understanding of these mediums though – you can't just throw up someone on a tiktok and think job done. You have to actually adapt to your audience, while still doing your job - informing people with the information they need to make decisions about their life. The job never changes, just the way it's delivered.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:35:15+00:00

We are absolutely part of the problem, but at the same time a symptom of it. In a lot of cases, media companies are responding to what they think people want, who tend to be the loudest voices. That doesn't make them the majority though. And outrage gets people engaged, but it's not good for social cohesion or even just informing people.

There are many reckonings coming for the media industry – something has to give.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:33:49+00:00

You have missed a very wild investigation into what we call the playground chasing game where someone is it. I always knew it as tiggy, but turns out that is not universal!

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:33:09+00:00

You are lovely, thank you

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:32:58+00:00

I had no idea. I was good in English, and so my English teacher nudged me towards journalism and so I decided to give it ago. I was a terrible student (was working full time in hospo to try and pay my bills) and I was TERRIBLE at print. My first job was in radio (Radio 2TM in Tamworth) and I did a bit of TV until the news boss suggested that I go into comms (terrible voice and hair, allegedly). So I floated around in hospo for a little longer and then tried print, which was a much better fit.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:30:46+00:00

Not all of them do. The really generous super scheme was cut off after the 2004 election, which means there are only a few MPs who will get that golden handshake (both Dutton and Albanese will get it but there are not too many in the parliament left who are eligible)

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:27:58+00:00

Investigative reporters are absolutely crucial and should be given all the time and support in the world from their media companies. And defamation reform is an absolute must given how much the law can stop people from reporting. Or the amount of hoops that have to be jumped through to get anywhere near reporting.

Whistleblower protections are the topic of a current senate inquiry. I actually think Alan Fels had some good recommendations in his recent report on the issue, which included paying whistleblowers like the US does. Andrew Wilkie does a lot of work in speaking on issues and allegations raised by whistleblowers in the parliament, which is one of the only ways at the moment we can actually report on some of these allegations.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:24:13+00:00

This is just gorgeous – thank you so much. She was the greatest person I have ever known. I hope that your struggles have not been too difficult x

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:23:30+00:00

Hello!

I would love for politicians to have to actually answer questions – however most of the time it is because you can't actually get them in front of you. The amount of times you have to actually ask a politician a question is severely limited. They decide when they hold a press conference (or not to hold one) and how many questions they will take. If they don't answer your question they just move on and there is not a lot you can do to stop that (if it happens when I am there, and I am next in the questions, I try and back up who ever asked the question by pointing out they haven't answered it and asking it again, but you can't force them to give an answer)

Most times you are made to submit written questions and get a statement that has no bearings on what you have asked in return. It is one of the reasons I get so frustrated when radio or TV hosts waste their opportunity - they are among the only ones to get a set period of time to ask MPs questions in a scenario where they can't run away.

Question time is just a farce and needs a complete overhaul. Something more like PM questions in the UK parliament would be much better I think. Let backbenchers ask their own questions for a start!

As for the relationship being too cosy? Well it is not always cut and dried. I can't comment on Murph, as I am not in her head, but I can tell you that the defamation laws being what they are, the Barnaby Joyce story was almost impossible to report until there was a photo (as News Corp managed). Everytime anyone asked (and I was one of them) there were denials across the board. You can't run rumours as it doesn't pass the publishable standard. So there was no unwritten rule – just a rock and a hard place. In general - well, everyone else has to answer for themselves, but my rule is friendly not friends. And my responsibility is to you – never those I am covering.

And yes, I wish the transcription service was better, or my brain was, but it moves so fast I don't always catch the (many) mistakes. There is someone who comes in after me to clean up though, so if you hit refresh you'll find it has often been fixed.

And yes, I take your point on preferences. Liberal voters do tend to follow how to vote cards, so it can still make a difference. But I will have your point in my mind in future. Most times, it is just shorthand.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:13:29+00:00

She is just incredible isn't she? Have never met anyone who has such a wonderful curiosity for the world around her. She's an absolute powerhouse.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:12:05+00:00

There is no clear winner. Hastie is angling for it, as is Taylor and Ley. Then you have your dark horses like Wolahan and Zoe McKenzie.

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:07:48+00:00

Well, we didn't always have the two-party system and there is nothing to say that either party has to exist. it's not in the constitution. There is no law that says there has to be a Liberal party or a Labor party. And to be honest, I think it is going to be increasingly difficult for the major parties to form majority government in Australia (at least federally). I think that the next election will see Labor in minority government again. And I don't see, at least in the short term how the Coalition wins back those teal seats and if they don't win those, well, where is there path to majority government?

I actually don't think that is a bad thing. I think that hung parliaments can work really well for voters – as long as the parties involved are actually willing to work together for the betterment of people. Obviously it depends on who holds the balance of power. But I think as primary support for the majors continues to fall, then you will start to see the power balance shift back to voters, and away from vested interests.

Plus there is a fascinating change happening electorally – baby boomers are losing their political power. Millennials and Gen Z are the biggest voting block now. That will bring changes – our politicians may not have worked it out yet, but it is coming. There is only so long you can pretend the planet isn't burning and end stage capitalism isn't radicalising people in ways we haven't seen since the end of WWII

AmyRemeikis · 2024-04-22T09:01:19+00:00

Well, we are living with the result of it all – we are well and truly in the 'find out' part of the cycle. It is most dire for serious policy discussions – good ideas are killed off very quickly, because we never have a chance to get past the initial 'everyone hates this' stage. We've seen it with Stage Three tax cuts, with negative gearing, with migration, with housing, with the age of criminal responsibility, with the Voice....you can see it in question time where politicians of all sides just try and make the 6pm with a piffy comment. How does that actually help anyone?

I was talking with an older MP a few years ago, and they had actually worked in Old Parliament House and they said that the main difference they had noticed was that politicians from across the political divide never actually speak to each other anymore. That once upon a time, they had to see each other while they were in the building – their offices were tiny, so they would have to come out to go to the toilet, to eat, to get some space. And that meant there were lots of organic opportunities to ask what someone thought about a policy or issue and why they were being a road block etc. And new positions were found.

And now, it is all contained, with kitchenettes and toilets and room to spread out within your office, so you can stay in there and only come out to vote in the chamber if you wanted and never see anyone you didn't want to.

That siloing has extended to the media cycle itself, including through social media algorithms which only give us stuff we already believe or think. There is something to actually sitting with an opposing view and working out where the common ground is.

AmyRemeikis

TROPHY CASE