As the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen, it's no secret that wealth and

power go hand in hand. But should the wealthiest individuals be allowed to hold the
highest positions of political power?

Good evening, Adjudicator, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Before I begin our team’s case, I would like to point out various flaws in the oppositions
case which are …

 Rebuttal

 Rebuttal

So poses the question, why should the top 1% of income earners be ineligible for
parliamentary seats in Australia? Tonight, I have two points of substantive.

1 It filters people into parliament who care about the people and policy.

2 It promotes public engagement.

Now onto my first point of substantive, that the new policy will filter politicians into
parliament who actually care about the people and policy, while also reducing
corruption. However, lets first consider the actions of the top 1% after this policy is
created. We can characterise these actions into two scenarios.
 Scenario 1 occurs when select few of the top 1% prefer to maintain their wealth
and not run for a parliamentary seat. This cleans the ‘system’ of politicians who
are driven by money and who potentially concede policies with the purpose of
maintaining their power and position, not to improve the society around them.
However, again before I continue to scenario 2 lets highlight the mechanism
behind this. When wealthy individuals are elected to parliament, they may be
less likely to prioritize the needs of the less fortunate, since they may not have
experienced the hardships that many people face on a DAILY BASIS and hence,
they may not have the same sense of urgency to address significant issues such
as poverty, inequality, and discrimination. Even if these politicians come from
backgrounds of suffering and poverty, they are accustomed to the new modern
and advantaged lifestyle they experience daily, and thus often neglect the
perspective of the majority of people.

 Scenario 2 occurs when this top 1% still have motivation to run for parliament,
and hence, donate a great proportion of the money. It is important to note that
money is positively skewed, hence, the sacrifice compared to even the top 2% of
income earners is significantly greater. This sacrifice of much of their life work is
indicative of altruism and allows people who intend to make the ‘correct’
decisions to be in parliament. Alternatively, even if these people are not altruistic
at their core, their willingness to work in the area of politics is an ideology we
strongly support.

Hence, the people who are altruistically motivated towards bettering people and society
are filtered into the parliamentary seats, as their willingness to part with so much money
demonstrates a level of altruism that is desirable in a politician.
Moreover, by not incentivizing individuals to become super rich in the first place -
individuals who have admiration to be the area of politics, we reduce the likelihood of
politicians who started from humble beginnings to sell out and become corrupt. Why?
People originally become corrupt due to their greed for money, and often betray the
values they originally believed. However, by eliminating the super-rich from the pool of
potential candidates, there is no incentive to become corrupt, to earn dirty money. The.
The rich have the ability to influence policymaking to serve their own interests rather
than the greater good. This can lead to policies that favour the wealthy political office,
we can reduce this risk of political influence and ensure that the focus of policymaking is
on the common good.
Now onto my second point of substantive, that the new policy promotes public
engagement. By excluding the top 1% from parliament seats, people will feel more
represented and less likely to see politics as a playground for the wealthy. This will
encourage more people to become engaged in politics, leading to better policy
outcomes that cater to the needs of the public.
Currently, politics is dominated by the wealthy and hence, the vast majority of those
who are disadvantaged, economically, are not represented in the political system. By
excluding the top 1% of income earners from parliament, more people believe in the
political system, not only as a reliable way to create change, but also as a force for good
and that it caters to their needs.
This increased engagement would have a number of practical benefits. Firstly, more
people would vote and research who they vote for, meaning that politicians would be
more accountable to the wishes of the people. This would lead to better policy that
reflects the preferences of the majority rather than just the wealthy elite. Additionally,
the increased engagement would make people feel more represented, which could help
to reduce apathy and increase trust in the political system. Furthermore, the majority of
people would feel like politics is not just a playground for the rich. This would help to
reduce cynicism and increase confidence in the political system, that it could produce
changes that would help those who are disadvantaged. It would also help to reduce the
perception that politicians are only interested in serving the interests of the wealthy and
not the general public.
In conclusion, the top 1% of income earners should not be eligible for parliamentary
seats. By excluding the super-rich from politics, we can increase the likelihood of having
more altruistic and principled politicians, while also promoting greater public
engagement and accountability in our political system.
For these reasons, we are proud to propose. Thank you.