Analysis
Posted
The notion that recent extraordinary events in
federal politics were driven by policy differences, rather than just
pure spite and collective madness, seems to have pretty comprehensively
bitten the dust in the past week of post-coup bewilderment.
But
that is not a good reason to forget that, in the midst of the chaos,
there was one particular dynamic at work, concerning the future of the
National Energy Guarantee (NEG), that we need to think about a lot more
if politics is ever going to make sense at some time in the future.Remember that on Tuesday, August 14, Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg got overwhelming support in the Coalition party room for their proposed NEG.
Just three days later, on Friday, August 17, the Government was preparing to dump central features of the policy in the face of an insurgency that threatened the prime minister's leadership. The insurgency wasn't really about the NEG of course.
But the policy became victim of a threat to Mr Turnbull's leadership from Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton (who'd taken time off from helping au pairs in distress) which had its immediate origins in a meeting of Queensland MPs on Wednesday, August 15, which crystallised concerns about Mr Turnbull's leadership that went back to the Longman by-election on July 28.
The grumblings were fanned into the appearance of a full-scale revolt. There were suggestions up to 10 MPs might cross the floor in the House of Representatives to vote against the NEG, a major defeat for the PM, his policy, and his grip on power.
When the policy was formally dumped the following Monday, August 20, Mr Turnbull blamed Labor — rather than his own colleagues.
The Opposition, he claimed, had made it clear that it would not back the NEG in the House and it therefore risked failure of passage through Parliament.
Yet the Government had not even shown Labor the legislation, let alone discussed its plans.
And there had been signs for some weeks that Labor was indeed tempted to let the legislation pass through the House, because there was benefits to be had from having a policy framework in place on which there was broad community consensus.
So there had been the prospect of the legislation passing through the House with the Government and Opposition all supporting it, except for Tony Abbott, a handful of government MPs and the Greens' Adam Bandt.
It didn't happen. And the fact that it didn't happen reflects, among other things, the fact that the only thing regarded as worse than a bunch of political terrorists voting against their own party room's position was the spectre of bipartisan support for an important piece of policy.
OMG! Being seen to vote with Labor on issue??? Could things truly get more horrifying???
Message could hardly have been more timely
In all the machismo of modern day politics, the idea of compromise has not just been lost, but made possibly the vilest thing imaginable. At least in conservative circles.But it was not always thus.
This week, only days after the country got a new prime minister, and the fallout in the Coalition continued, Senate President Scott Ryan gave the 49th Alfred Deakin Lecture in Melbourne. And his message could hardly have been more timely.
Mr Ryan reflected on how in the early years of federal government, our second prime minister, governing two administrations without a parliament majority, "personified the use of parliament as a forum to implement policy and generate and maintain popular support".
More broadly he noted what, just now, seems the almost radical idea of compromise, and that its origins had been one of the proud achievements of the non-Labor side of politics represented by Deakin.
"By compromise I do not mean simply the lowest common denominator, a simple policy of common ground as a summary of current views. It is not making a deal for the sake of it," Mr Ryan told his audience at the University of Melbourne.
"I mean the prosecution and implementation of policies that have addressed the concerns of the majority of Australians; accepting that politics is not winner-take-all with one narrow view solely prevailing; and, most importantly, including compromise within the political parties and Parliament as the forum for this to be achieved and delivered.
"It is understanding that a step forward, even smaller than hoped for, is progress, and allows you to move onto the next challenge or priority.
"Some of the greatest successes have been through compromise and negotiation, or the use of the parliamentary process to generate consent and acquiescence, if not always loud support, for contentious policy," he noted.
An idea well worth considering
Mr Ryan listed policies put forward by his own side of politics that had either been improved or made "organic Australian policy", to use a term of Deakin's, by compromise, including changes to the GST, the Reith industrial relations reforms negotiated with the Democrats, and the Howard gun laws.Mr Ryan wanted to consider why compromise has become more difficult and, in particular, the role of the Upper House over which he presides and its capacity to block the election manifesto of governments.
"Democracy needs elections to work, people need to see their vote matters and does change things, in order to avoid the frustration we see in other democracies," he observed.
Among a number of proposals to let that happen, he backed an idea already made by former Labor senator Stephen Loosley that Australia should adopt a system such as what is known as the Salisbury Convention, which has been in the place in the United Kingdom since the late 1940s.
This states that the Upper House will not block a policy that is explicitly part of a party's election manifesto.
Any such arrangement in Australia, Mr Ryan notes, would need to be by agreement between the parties, ideally all of them, and there would also "likely need to be uniquely Australian characteristics, such as the timing of such announcements, given that millions vote weeks before polling day itself, and even full publication of policy details and explicit costings by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office".
And "it would of course require an understanding that by not blocking a government's program, senators are acquiescing rather than supporting".
"This behavioural change in parliament may lead to a better understanding of this principle in parties and the electorate, knowing that casting a ballot will have a specific consequence in these matters," he said.
The reality is that, while the House of Representatives may be the place where governments are formed, it is in the Senate — with its reflection of our splintering vote — that policy is now formed.
It is an idea well worth considering, if compromise — and the occasional bit of bipartisanship — is not to be a dirty word in politics in future.
Laura Tingle is ABC 7.30's chief political correspondent. Her latest Quarterly Essay on political leadership — Follow the Leader: Democracy and the Rise of the Strongman — will be released this month.
No comments:
Post a Comment