Nate Ritter
Independent

Summary

Policies & Commentary

Here’s the thing I don’t understand. Someone makes a decision to be a candidate in a federal election. They fill out the forms and get someone to nominate them. They go to the trouble of having pamphlets and posters printed, even a few t-shirts that look to be of reasonable quality. All of that costs money, and suggests they have a real commitment to getting elected. At the same time, the candidate doesn’t take advantage of the most useful form of free advertising – the plethora of social media platforms available to reach prospective voters.

Why? Why wouldn’t you jump at the chance of all that free publicity? Why wouldn’t you make yourself as accessible as possible? Especially if you’re branding yourself as a candidate who is committed to engaging with voters directly and listening to their concerns? Getting out and canvassing the community is a great thing, but when you’re running for the Senate, it’s a huge task to try to reach voters across the state if you limit yourself to letterboxing and handshakes.

Unfortunately, that’s what some candidates seem to be doing this election.

Take Nate Ritter, who’s running for a Victorian Senate seat. Ritter’s online campaign is conducted entirely on Instagram, where he has 63 followers. His campaign platform consists of a photo of the very well-produced information pamphlet he and his volunteers are popping into people’s letterboxes. Other than that, he has a few pictures of himself posing with (presumably) local business owners, accompanied by short comments that are all variations on the theme of “these people are doing it hard”.

It’s honestly baffling. Ritter seems sincere, and has been prepared to go to the trouble and expense of creating at least a limited run of promotional material for his campaign. Without a website or even a campaign Facebook page, though, he’s limited his reach terribly. And that is a real shame, because, without that accessibility, all we have to evaluate his candidacy on are the motherhood statements on his pamphlet.

So here they are.

Secure our energy future by allowing debate between all options available including use of Clean Energy and fossil fuels.

This statement implies Ritter may be attempting to play fair on giving everyone a hearing, which might be appealing to some voters. The problem is that it’s so vague as to make it impossible to get any idea of what Ritter himself supports. It’s hard to vote for someone who seems unwilling to give us his position.

Lower income taxes for individuals, to reduce the burden of taxation on families.

At first glance this statement seems a bit self-contradictory, but I think Ritter here is drawing a line between personal and business taxes. Now, we’re all in favour of paying less tax, so this policy is a bit of a winner. I would have liked to see more, however. For instance, does Ritter support the recently legislated tax cuts due to kick in about a year after the election? Would he back a Liberal government who had promised to repeal those cuts? And most importantly, what amount does Ritter think would be an effective cut?

What I find particularly curious is that the majority of Ritter’s Instagram photos involve him supporting local businesses, talking about their tax burdens and difficulties in keeping things going in the current cost of living situation. Nowhere, however, can I find even a vague motherhood statement of policy on this subject.

A safer and healthier Australia by increasing efficiency of healthcare and review of excises of legal products to reduce the black market.

I’m going to deal with these two separately.

No one is going to argue with more efficient healthcare, but without detail, it’s hard to get a grasp on exactly what Ritter has in mind.

Commentary on a photo posted on Ritter’s Instagram of him posing with a doctor fleshes this out a bit. Ritter is concerned with financial and professional strain on GPs, and believes that the government is making our doctors [sic] lives difficult. He wants to see better support for GPs from government to address the pressures facing them. Again, though, there’s no detail as to exactly what this support should be.

On the review of excises of legal products, I could take a guess that Ritter’s referring to cigarettes and vaping products. That’s all it would be, though – a guess – and without any other detail, there’s not much to be said.

Conservation of our environment for our kids.

Great idea. I’m all for it. But how?

And that’s basically it, except for the commentary on a particular photo that features the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne. Ritter has a strong statement of support for Australian veterans, and asserts that it’s important for children to be taught about our heritage. That’s not exactly controversial, but he follows it up with this:

We can’t just rely on our education system to teach our children about our heritage. We all came from somewhere and are bonded as Aussies. That’s what makes Australia Great!!!

Maybe I’m paranoid after wading through sewer after sewer of Trump-adoration and barely (if at all) concealed racism, but this statement comes across as rather chilling. Even without the nod to the MAGA slogan, I have questions about the phrase bonded as Aussies. That kind of rhetoric is frequently used by those who criticise the National Curriculum as being too “woke”, because it does not prop up the myth of the benevolent white coloniser. It’s also the kind of stuff you see from those who object to Welcome to Country ceremonies and display of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island flags on public buildings, and who mutter darkly about how migrants need to assimilate – we’re all Aussies, goes the argument, so any acknowledgement of individual culture is divisive.

I’m not for one moment claiming that this is Ritter’s position. The problem is, though, that this is all we have, and the optics are not good. It’s the sort of thing that really needs clarification, but since Ritter has inexplicably chosen not to be widely accessible, there’s no way to know what he means by this, or indeed any of his policies.

I’ll keep a weather eye on Ritter, and would be delighted if he wishes to speak in more detail about his policy positions. Until that time, unfortunately, it’s impossible to make an informed choice, so… flip a coin?

UPDATE (April 30, 2025):
Ritter has added a campaign website, but there’s no information there that wasn’t already on the Instagram.