2 days Ago By Margaret Reynolds
Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese in Parliament (Image: AAP/Lukas Coch) It seems there is general agreement that Parliament’s final week — during which Labor rushed through 32 bills — was “a shambles”. Yet from an administrative perspective, the government can argue it managed to finalise a significant amount of legislation. But does the public really understand the arcane processes of policy-setting, legislation and its final translation into practical outcomes? Our two-party structure clings to the belief that “business as usual” politics will communicate messages to the electorate.
Grandstanding in question time and fine-tuning media “sound bites” remain popular for leaders and senior parliamentarians who consider it a job well done if they receive good coverage on the nightly TV news. But the Australian electorate has changed. Who is watching free-to-air early evening news bulletins? Who is reading detailed accounts of parliamentary debate in newspapers — or even online? Millennials and generation X will have more influence than baby boomers in next year’s federal election.
More thoughtful parliamentarians know it is essential to pitch in new ways to younger voters. The major political parties are likely already signing up leading advertising agencies for slick messaging campaigns on commercial TV channels and even in some city and regional newspapers. Yet time, effort and many thousands of dollars will be wasted if there is overreliance on traditional methods.
Labor ends the year with a flurry of legislation good, bad and indifferent Read More Increased scepticism and distrust of the democratic process are worldwide trends, especially among young voters. A more educated electorate and the greater complexity of managing a wide range of public policies have contributed to the volatility and unpredictability of how well democracy can function. Political parties and elected members must bear responsibility for responding to this voter disillusion.
Double standards and mixed messaging contribute to disaffection. For example, any talk of minority government is swiftly rejected as the end of democracy with dire predictions for all Australians — yet recent negotiations between the Labor government and both the Coalition and the Greens have resulted in compromise amendments to a wide range of legislation, from aged care and migration to housing and the Future Fund. Further, one of the regular accusations flying across both the House of Representatives and the Senate is that the Greens are political opportunists never to be trusted.
The opposition is also viewed on the left as a dangerous alternative unable to project acceptable policy. These extremes of rhetoric undermine the serious business of negotiation and advocacy for the best possible reform of Australian public policy. It is disingenuous to lampoon and ridicule opponents one minute and then furtively organise a useful deal with them the next.
Politics is indeed the art of compromise, but it would vastly improve the reputation of politicians if they were more consistent and transparent in their political negotiations. We need to ask why it takes the use of guillotine motions in the last sitting week to progress legislation stalled in the Senate for months. Perhaps Parliament needs to consider appointing some professional mediators to help the government organise successful negotiations when legislation is in the early consideration stage rather than leave significant reform to chance at year’s end.
Have something to say about this article? Write to us at [email protected] .
Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say . We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity..
