The appearance of PUP Senator-elect Dio Wang on &.30 made it quite clear that he is no Clive Palmer or Jacqui Lambie when it comes to entertainment value on television. His interview hadall the excitement of Geoffrey Boycott innings.
Still, he successfully fended off Sarah Ferguson for most of the 7.30 interview, something not many politicians have managed.
The interview however raises some interesting issues about the nature of PUP. Throughout the interview Dio Wang made it quite clear that he agreed, and will probably continue to agree, with everything that Clive Palmer said and was certainly not interested in pursuing questions of our Palmer had funded his election campaign.
Normally political parties form as result of a coalition of relatively like-minded people who then proceed to formulate policies that they think the electorate will find sufficiently palatable to elect them.
This is clearly not going to be the case in PUP, where Clive Palmer is clearly going to decide what will be policy and what will not. The role of the senators and of the kangaroo-poo throwing Ricky Muir is simply to agree with him. Palmer has clearly got a good gut instinct for populist politics but does not appear to be a thinker on matters of policy and clearly not when it comes to questions of how the policy is funded.
What we now appear to have in Australian politics is a party that, if well-organised, can hold the balance of power in the Senate and which is completely beholden to one of the richest men in Australia with a huge vested interest in the mining industry.
The situation is likely to continue for at least another six years unless there is a massive overhaul of the Senate election process. When the state elections are held towards the end of this year and the beginning of the next, voters would be well served to reflect on whether this is a situation that they really want in a democracy.