Boring for Australia

At one point while I was working for Kevin Rudd, a colleague turned to me and said that we needed to slow things down – to chloroform politics for a bit. There had been too much excitement. People just wanted us to get on with the job, which meant governing, which in turn meant getting on with things calmly and quietly.

I’m not sure we managed to do that, for a whole range of reasons, but it was sensible advice. Tony Abbott understood this wisdom, too – but failed to implement it – when he said, “Happy is the country which is more interested in sport than in politics”, which in turn was a rephrasing of Malcolm Fraser’s desire to get politics off the front page, and replace it with sport.

It’s an aspiration that has become harder to fulfil in these times of excess volume and volatility. It may in fact have turned into the near-impossible dream. That of course makes it even more desirable – and perhaps more lucrative, politically, if a government can deliver on it.

And in fact Australian politics right now does feel a little muted. That is partly because this week we live in the shadow of the Manchester attack, as well as the ongoing attempts to understand the Sydney siege. But it felt true even before that.

The reason is very simple. There was a budget with actual proposals in it. They were of sufficient sense not to be laughed out of town, or met with unqualified horror; and centrist enough that Labor could not find grounds on which to disagree. As a result, the parliament is now occupied with a genuine contest on policy grounds.

I haven’t always enjoyed the way these debates have played out, and of course the ideological gulf could be wider, but there’s no denying there are principles involved. What is the purpose of the Medicare levy? Who should bear the burden of taxation? What role do religious schools play in our education system, and to what does that entitle them? Of course, the soundbites are not always framed in such hifalutin ways, but these questions lie beneath.

The result is that the political argy-bargy is often mired in details. Each side lands blows, but not of any real force. The battle is drawn out and fairly quiet.

The government, no doubt, would have us believe this is all intentional; that it is happy if voters are bored. And perhaps it is. In general I think this is a good strategy for a government to follow.

Two important caveats, though. The first is that it’s no quick cure – patience is required. The two-month leash that Julie Bishop asked of Liberal MPs may not be of sufficient length.

The second is the hovering question of whether people maintain an open mind towards this government, or at least whether closed minds can be prised open. If the electorate has already given up on the prime minister, then might relative silence from Canberra simply allow their opinions to harden?

This is an experiment we get to watch in real time. It might not make for spectacular headlines, but it is very interesting nonetheless.

In other news

• Calla Wahlquist has another useful explainer on the recognition summit.
• Analyses and opinions: Peter Martin on what’s really going on with tax rates (I know this sounds like it will bore many of you, but it’s a real eye-opener). This reminder from Waleed Aly on the intention of terrorists is worth your time. Alex McKinnon has a good (and highly topical) piece on one-trick contrarians.
• Senator Derryn Hinch says Pauline Hanson and James Ashby may face criminal charges.
• Sydney siege: George Brandis’ regrets. And yet the Commonwealth is refusing to share information.
• ABC: Managing director Michelle Guthrie defended her organisation last night in Senate estimates. Peter Dutton with some typically silly stuff.
• Banks: CBA against the levy; ANZ not so much [$].
• The most accurate map you’ve ever seen.
• US and Russia: So now it seems a fake Russian letter might have led James Comey to some of his actions on Clinton. That’s the Washington Post saying so, by the way.

SHARE

SHARE