Read the latest InSight edition:


How to remove the plague on both their houses

by James Arvanitakis

Watching Treasurer Wayne Swan call an Opposition backbencher a 'moron' in Parliament last week, I was struck by the growing resemblance between the behaviour of politicians during question time and a pre-match interview of the World Wrestling Federation.

While the whole affair was correctly described by CPD's Ben Eltham as 'an empty scandal', there's no doubt that these kinds of shenanigans can damage the fabric of our democracy. A research project which I recently conducted with the Whitlam Institute found that one of the key factors undermining our democracy is the poor image of politicians. Our research found that politicians are seen as behaving a lot like footballers: disconnected from reality, a law unto themselves and with little regard for civility. The 30 second grabs in the evening news of Malcolm Turnbull, Wayne Swan and Anthony Albanese carrying on like school-yard bullies only reinforce this impression. How is it possible for us to respect a system when those in charge of it are carrying on like this?

The media coverage of utegate plays into the treatment of politics as a game - both sides get marked down for fouls but in the end all that matters is winning the match on points. The only way to salvage something positive from this debacle is for both teams to treat it as a chance to clean up the game itself.

At the heart of the scandal was the accusation that a political donor was treated as 'no ordinary constituent'. On the scale of undue influence a run-down Mazda barely rates a mention, but there's still an important principle at stake - do we really want to live in a democracy where those who can afford to do favours for our political leaders get better treatment than the rest of us?

The need for political donations reform has come up several times here at the CPD. It has also come up more than once over the course of the Rudd Government's first term. An early attempt by Senator John Faulkner to get the ball rolling by bringing down the disclosure threshold from over $10,000 to $1,500 was stalled by the Coalition, who referred it to a Senate committee and said that they wanted to see the green paper first. The committee reported last October and the government's first green paper is out now, incorporating some of the committee's recommendations, but the Coalition (and Senator Fielding) are still planning to vote down the bill, claiming it's not 'comprehensive' enough.

The Rudd Government may have come out on top from the utegate affair, but they did not escape untarnished. And Malcolm Turnbull is definitely in need of an opportunity to reclaim the moral high ground. The donations reform bill will be debated in parliament's next sitting. Come August, let's hope both sides of the house take time out from the name-calling and mud-slinging and do what it takes to safeguard Australian democracy from the scandals of the future.


About the author

Comments

Utegate

R. J. Head
'Utegate' and many many similar stupid debates in our parliament have completely undermined my respect for our parliamentary cohorts on all sides of politics. I've just lost all interest. I used to be a passionate political person.

In contrast, I often watch the daily French news and their parliamentary processes. In spite of much more severe political differences (communists for heaven's sakes!)politicians behave with respect for basic behaviour.
Australian politics is just childish-how we'll ever grow up to be a republic is beyond my imagination.

UTEGATE

James has not provided the fix to Question Time behaviour but mentioned "The donations reform bill " which will only tell us who these politians represent.

I almost agree entirely with tonyryan but believe the answer, which is really self evident, is a direct democracy.

Now a suitable model is well within the ken of the CPD community and we have had the technology for thirty years.

A bloodless analysis

James

I believe we were observing different events. The way this brouhaha played out was rich with character and irony.

A dandy silk calling for the head of highest authority in the land for lying to his people, as well as calling for the head of his keeper of the keys - the flawed and cloying loyal treasurer; only for the foppish accuser in the end being led away with multiple lacerations to the prince of wales suiting and monographed cuffs from his own lashing verbiage. Brilliant! A passionate display and very high quality argument took place, sadly though, without much substance backing up the bold performances.

Come on! How could you not be engaged with these extraordinary events.

Opening your story with Wayne Swan's tinny 'moron' outburst (after containing himself from much more robust name calling from the opposition) actually colours your thought piece as party driven commentary dressed up as a scientifically dispassionate analysis.
For that matter, why would the leader of the opposition be in need of reclaiming the moral high-ground when his own distasteful posturing and hubris disqualify him from any defensible higher moral position.

I believe both the Government and opposition do us proud in parliament, just compare it with sickening scene that was parliament five years ago, it was sham debate, on sham issues by sham artists.

evidently

utegate

I share the same hope, but I'm not holding my breath!

School spending

I was an education aid salesman during the famous Whitlam years! When school principals of the north coast of NSW when opening their mail discovered cheques for sometimes thousands of dollars, made to their name, arrived!!

All was to be spent in a relatively short time, can't remember xactly how much time, but months. Delivery of the goods bought were to be made within the time limit or the money was to be returned.
What a balls up, some remote and small schools had principals who had never seen cheques that big, let alone had the "no how" and communications to spend it. These were often schools that by others' standards needed the the money most.
Often the the first purchase was a "flag pole"
Please please make this assistance more valuable, to both schools and the parents.
fluff4

How to remove the plague on both their houses,

James Arvanitakis is worried about political misbehaviour reflecting poorly on our democracy; but what democracy?

Democracy was very clearly defined by more eminent minds than James'... Thucydides, the Irish Monks, Thomas Paine, Abe Lincoln and Lord Acton amongst many others, and not one of these would equate western representationalism with democracy.

Electing someone to do our think for us is not democracy. It is foolishness.

Lincoln's lyrical definition cannot be bettered, and the fact that some 80% of Australians disagree with about 90% of government policies should be Jame's first concern.

But, as another sage pointed out, people believe what they want to believe and the new political philosophy of elitism would no doubt have more appeal to James than 'people power'.

It certainly appealed to el Duc.

Electing a preselected, preowned politician to do our thinking for us is an abrogation of self-determination; but imposing informed electoral consensus on government is democracy.


This site is the home of the Centre for Policy Development. It is kindly hosted for us by .
Contact us if you'd like to know more about what you see here.