So I'm shutting down my Saturday contribution.
I hope you enjoy this one, published in the Canberra Times today . . .
HOW FAR WE’VE COME . . .
Finally, the answer is clear. We
can dispense with parliament and replace the entire institution with a couple
of three-person committees. These can then be assigned responsibility to decide
all the previously insoluble issues that have bedevilled the country for years.
It’s a tempting prospect. But a
moment’s reflection quickly reveals why such an outcome could never be allowed
to occur. It would cut across the special pleading of the special interest
groups that are doing very nicely out of society being organised just the way
it is; be they the mining magnates and big supermarkets or even just
comfortable senior bureaucrats watching their paycheques rise by double that of
their subordinates. Change would threaten too many: it will never happen.
Of course not everyone embraced
the findings of the Houston committee. The Greens, for example, had previously
abandoned their opportunity to actually influence public policy, choosing
instead to sit on their hands. If they’d been prepared to negotiate with Labor
earlier on, a better deal could have been done to protect asylum-seekers.
Instead, under the stern, unforgiving eye of ‘Gauleiter’ Christine Milne, they
rejected any possibility of a trade. Politicians? On the current evidence you’d
have to suggest the answer is no. Impotent ideologues? Watching Adam Brandt and
Andrew Wilkie stand alone, while every other politician crowded together to
vote against them, hinted more at mere ineffective helplessness.
Nobody’s suggesting the Greens
don’t believe – absolutely – in their cause. But politics is the art of the
possible; achieving the best outcome that can be realized. The Greens dealt themselves
out of the game and shouldn’t be surprised they didn’t score. Milne failed,
utterly, in her first test as leader, overruling at least one colleague to do
so. More significantly, she’s accomplished nothing for the very refugees she so
loudly protests she’s fighting for.
Politicians are behaving as if they’re
in nothing more than the media content business. Lindsay Tanner has accused the
media of reducing serious debate to nothing more than a circus sideshow. He’s
right – because that’s exactly where the politicians have led us.
No real leader would ever outsource
a vital piece of her policy jigsaw to a working group from outside parliament. Searching
widely to find the best way forward is commendable. Using such advice as cover
to excuse a failure to count the numbers in parliament is (although only just)
acceptable. But Julia Gillard’s decision to allow her party to linger
helplessly in the polls for months, searching for direction without any
prospect of the stalemate being overturned, is outright inexcusable.
That’s why, reluctantly and haltingly,
the eye is inevitably drawn across the chamber, to the opposition benches. Some
gloating was understandable, if unnecessary. Nevertheless the incoherence of
some of his MP’s speeches should worry even Tony Abbott. Obtaining pre-selection
and getting elected are intrinsically difficult, so it appears reasonable to
assume a certain degree of capacity amongst anyone who manages to pass these
barriers. Theoretically. Yet listening to the disjointed ramblings of some
opposition members sends a shiver down the spine. Is this the ‘alternate
government’ by anything other than default?
That’s why it’s important to note
that the Huston report also torpedoed amidships a central plank of Opposition
policy – the idea that somehow the boats can be “towed back”. As a young
sailor, Navy Chief Ray Griggs experienced what this means: a gut-wrenching
choice between allowing people to drown or saving their lives. That’s not a
burden anyone should ever be expected to bear.
Despite mounting evidence his policy
would never work, Abbott continued blindly to insist it would. Why? Because it
(supposedly) played well in the marginal electorates where the next government
will be decided. Decision-making by focus-group. Good strategy subverted as
part of a naivë tactical attempt to pander to the electorate. The point is that
good policy is always the best politics – something Kevin Rudd found to his
cost after abandoning his great moral challenge to act on the environment, and
later when he ignored the vast majority of Ken Henry’s tax review. He should
have left the cherry-picker in the orchard.
Parliament does have a mechanism
to obtain the best policy prescriptions for the country. It’s called the
Committee system. Sadly, this has languished under both Rudd and Gillard, who
have instead privileged the executive arm of government. High-quality process
does encourage superior policy outcomes. And good policy is good politics. Until
our representatives get back to basics the political process will continue to
be held in disrepute.
The political rewards will,
ineluctably, follow from recognising social changes are occurring and
government needs to adapt policy settings to match.
It’s difficult sometimes, as
we’re surrounded by the clamour and tumult that accompanies everyday life, to
escape to the better world of ideals and aspirations where we’d prefer to live.
For two years now this column has been picking away at the scabs hiding the
ugliness seething beneath our thin veneer of civilisation. My reward has been
to discover how selfless so many people – particularly here in Canberra –
actually are. Despite the increasing insistence that every social transaction
can be reduced to a fiscal imperative, Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is
such a thing as society, and it is alive. It’s to be found in the actions of
those who contribute selflessly to others, and not in the bank balances of the
selfish.
My biggest discovery over this
period has been that there is no apparent connection between the number of Olympic
Gold Medals a country receives and anything other than the medal tally
(although some, less kind members of my family have pointed to a undoubted
linkage between our declining medal count and my own, increasing girth).
Thinking through our many unchallenged, glib assertions often allows a better
way forward to reveal itself. Unfortunately, challenging those comfortable
assumptions requires effort. I need to take a break (although I will continue
to contribute on Tuesdays) and would like to thank you for indulging my
occupation of this space for so long.
Twenty-one years ago I
technically died after a terrible car crash. My body was resuscitated but real
recovery has been another matter entirely. The accident taught me to revel in
every minute of life. Embrace the frigid wind flying off the mountains and the
warmth of the sun. Accept the challenge to think and question. And, most
importantly, engage with others, because that’s what life is about. That, and
taking the occasional risk to do something out of the ordinary for yourself.
Within the ranks of Parliament, there are many who could best be described as Luddites, Flat Earthers and a variety of other descriptive terms of equal weighting. How did they get there one asks and ponders ? The pre-selection systems is riven with failings such that, as with flotsam and jetsam, the scum really does rise to the surface.
ReplyDeleteOn another front, the reduction of your column is understandable but one will miss the Maxwell Smart approach to politics which you bring....
Dear Anon,
DeleteThank you. . . I think!