Extract from ABC News
It was a week for the Power of One in federal parliament's last hurrah for the year.
Important legislation was enacted by the parliament as a whole: major planks of the new government's agenda on industrial relations and a national anti-corruption commission.
And legislation was overturned which had deprived citizens in the nation's two territories of the right to pursue voluntary assisted dying in the same way as those who live in states.
But the human drama, and the dynamics of the week, were shaped by individuals as much as the parliament as a whole.
This was perhaps a fitting way to end a year during which the political landscape was transformed by voters opting to back individuals — instead of just the major parties — at this year's election.
It was also fitting in a week when the country tried to get its head around what on earth was going on in the former prime minister's head when he sought unprecedented powers to act alone between 2020 and 2022.
In the Senate, the reasoned and undogmatic approach of ACT Independent Senator David Pocock to the government's industrial relations legislation helped bury the caricature of a wild and irrational cross bench.
With no hint of horsetrading in the air, the discussion was about the merits of the policy, and the inevitable trade-offs and risks involved in any such change.
Similarly, the relentless advocacy of independent MP Helen Haines through the last parliament, backed by independents in the new parliament, played a huge role in setting the terms of the debate about a national anti-corruption commission, designed very much around proposals she put forward.
Morrison displays lack of accountability – again
But it was two other individuals in the House of Representatives who really gave us – and their fellow parliamentarians – cause to pause and consider what the parliament should be.
The first was Scott Morrison who, despite all that has been revealed, appeared uncomprehending of the idea of real accountability in the speech he gave in the debate that sought to censure him this week over his secret multiple ministries.
"Had I been asked about these matters at the time at the many numerous press conferences I held, I would have responded truthfully about the arrangements I had put in place", he told the House in one of the more extraordinary statements made by a former PM who, unfortunately, has become infamous for always blaming someone else.
His actions were driven by the fact, he said, that "as prime minister my awareness of issues regarding national security at this time, and the national interest, was broader than known to individual ministers and any third party could".
This singularly profound knowledge of the world also "limits the ability for third parties to draw definitive conclusions on such matters, and sit in judgement", he said.
In other words, no-one else has the standing to judge him.
Labor's motivations in bringing the censure were not, of course, entirely politically pure: it wasn't going to let the opportunity pass to put the Coalition on the spot about whether it would back a leader who had brought them to such a low point as 2022 ends.
But "to ignore it", as prime minister Albanese observed, "would be complicit in saying, 'well, that was okay'."
"This place runs on rules and conventions; the mere existence of the office of Prime Minister and the existence of a cabinet is a convention," Leader of the House Tony Burke argued in the censure.
"It's not in the Constitution. It's not required. It is a convention on which our system of government hangs the concept that the parliament knows who has which job is essential to responsible government".
Archer dares to do politics differently
Which brings us to the other individual who gave human form to what has changed about our politics, Bridget Archer.
Archer is the Tasmanian Liberal who defied Scott Morrison in government, and continues to grow as a parliamentarian in opposition.
She was the sole member of the Coalition to vote for the censure of Scott Morrison this week and was resolutely clear about why she was doing so.
"Supporting the censure is strictly for me calling out actions that are disrespectful to this very institution", Archer told the House.
"This is not an attack on the three years of the government under the former prime minister but rather a reflection on the specific actions taken that in my view defy the expectations we have for our leaders."
Archer went on to argue that Morrison's actions were "an affront to our democratic Westminster system".
"This House has the right to be informed of the appointments," she said.
"The people of Australia had the right to be informed in our democracy. What can be more fundamental than this?"
In taking this stand, Archer is returning to a time in politics, only a couple of decades ago, when it was quite normal for MPs to publicly take positions different from their parties. (Oh, and aspire to some decent standards of behaviour).
It's about nuance, rather than binary choices dictated by a leadership driven purely by political tactics.
Archer's position was not just principled but reasoned and understandable, unlike the perplexing toadying the rest of the Coalition engaged in.
Not only did the Opposition oppose the censure, its MPs gathered around Scott Morrison to shake his hand after he had spoken: offering support to a man who had shown a complete lack of loyalty to them, and a man they all wish would just go away.
In doing so, they ignored Archer's observation that "this issue also sits at the heart of the ability of our party to move forward".
"This is a clear opportunity for a line to be drawn, and to move in the right direction," Archer said in parliament.
"We must heed the message sent to us at the May election".
Chaotic Nationals fail to heed warning
Archer's speech called for her colleagues to recognise that the electorate has moved beyond the sort of smarty pants and divisive politics practised by the Coalition for the last decade or more.
But instead, there was the chaos of the Nationals' decision to pre-emptively announce they would oppose the Indigenous Voice to Parliament at next year's referendum, before the final question has been announced, or the details of the legislated body finalised.
The announcement started to fray quickly with some MPs not on board, and state organisations opposing it.
It poses a big dilemma for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Liberals.
Some argued that the Nationals' actions effectively torpedo the referendum even before it has begun because only referendums that have received bipartisan support have been successful.
But you have to wonder whether this overlooks the very change in politics which we have witnessed this year: the decline of the grip of the major parties, the rise of the independents, and less binary arguments about matters of substance.
The prime minister, and others, like to say that this will be a decision by the people, not the politicians. And the people have shown they are of a much more independent, and flexible mind, than some of our political leaders of late.
Whether they can be bludgeoned by a fear campaign, or whether it is worth the political risk to the Coalition to do so, will be one of the fascinating questions of 2023.
Laura Tingle is 7.30's chief political correspondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment