Prominent British political blogger Iain Dale is visiting our country at the moment, and he’s had a piece published on the BBC’s website about our national Parliament’s Question Time.
Dale notes that Question Time here is a much rowdier affair than Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons. He thinks that this runs the risk of bringing the Parliament into disrepute. He implies that the Speaker Harry Jenkins is a little bit out of his depth, and that parliamentarians show little respect for his rulings. He questions the Opposition’s Question Time tactics, and claims they’re inconsistent with the Parliament’s function of holding the Government to account.
Mostly, his criticisms come down to issues of tone. There may be something in what he says, but my overriding impression is that he’s seen some differences between our parliament and his own and has turned them into the basis of a normative distinction.
He’s offered very little context in his piece. This is a very unusual set of circumstances in Australian political history. Neither major party has a majority, and each vote (including censure motions) is incredibly tight. We saw our Speaker come close to resigning the other day because two independents were absent and another behaved cluelessly. Naturally, under these circumstances parliamentary tactics have assumed greater importance. We’re in a phase where it’s not inconceivable that deft parliamentary tactics could change the government.
Further, on a range of key issues, this Parliament is characterised by sharp ideological antipathies. Debates about the NBN and carbon-pricing are also debates about the future of the country for decades to come. The Government and the Opposition are diametrically opposed on these issues, and there is visceral feeling on both issues on both sides.
Larger historical factors also play a part in making our parliament more robust. Parliamentary discipline among the major parties is far tighter than in the UK, which leads to more sharply adversarial debates. Depending on your point of view, the ALP’s binding Caucus is the secret of its success or a blight on representative democracy, but gradually the Liberals have adapted by putting a much tighter rein on their MPs, too.
There’s more to say on why Australia is different, but for now I’ll just say that it’s a bit rich seeing hand-wringing from an Englishman about the possibility that Australia’s parliament might bring itself into disrepute. After the mind-blowing expenses scandal involving MPs from all parties in the British Parliament, I don’t think it’s possible that the British parliament could be held in higher esteem by its voters than ours is.
Politics and democracy involve conflict. Parliamentary politics is about managing that conflict, and if there are heated words, that’s because big things are often at stake. If the clubbiness of PM’s questions conceals that, so much the worse for Westminster. It could be that Australian democracy is more robust because it’s more democratic. For example, we elect an upper house rather than populating it with clerics, aristocrats and superannuated politicians.
The biggest problem with Dale’s analysis, though, is in misreading the function of forums like Question Time in modern parliamentary politics. Contemporary mediated democracies may have enlightenment trappings, but in the Twenty-first century Question Time is essentially a media event. Especially if you’re, say, helping to turn it into a collective viewing experience on the #qt stream, there’s not much point complaining about that.
Dale seems concerned that it’s not a rational process directed at accountability. I don’t really see PM’s questions as promoting that either. Both are rituals, as much about political affect as rational scrutiny. Our ritual is different, and most of that comes down to intensity.
He probably doesn’t like the way we play cricket either.
Interesting point that you make about the tight rein that both major parties now keep on their members leading to ‘more sharply adversarial debates’. I can’t help wondering though if it also limits the possibilities for public debate (outside QT) and makes it harder for members to be seen as effective by their constituencies, especially when they personally disagree with their party? I’m not about to call it ‘a blight on representative democracy’ just yet, and don’t think abolishing it would affect Question Time much, but still, can’t help wondering.
Jason, I should make clear that the piece on the BBC Asia website was a heavily edited extract from an interview I did with the World Service. It was not an article as such.
I did not say Harry Jenkins was out of his depth, merely that he seems to be part of the problem, and that with a change of the rules or a change of approach by him, things could be made much better without much undo effort.
I have offered very little context because it was a 2 minute radio interview, not an article!
It is all just my opinion, rather than meant as a general attack on the Australian Parliament! It seems that most people seem to share it from the reaction I have had on Twitter and on a radio phone in I took part in on Sydney 702′s Drive programme this afternoon. I had fully expected an attack along the lines of “what does this whinging Pom think he’s doing coming here slagging us off?” But it never came!
You write: “There’s more to say on why Australia is different, but for now I’ll just say that it’s a bit rich seeing hand-wringing from an Englishman about the possibility that Australia’s parliament might bring itself into disrepute. After the mind-blowing expenses scandal involving MPs from all parties in the British Parliament, I don’t think it’s possible that the British parliament could be held in higher esteem by its voters than ours is.”
I wasn’t aware I was hand ringing. I was making an observation, that is all. And where did I say the British Parliament was held in higher esteem by voters? That’s right I didn’t. So please don’t put words into my mouth.
It is ridiculous to assert that Question Time is only a media event. Balls. It is part of the parliamentary process and is indeed designed to hold the government to account. Otherwise what’s the point of it?
Oh, and I LOVE the way you play cricket. Especially when losing the Ashes …
It’s always seemed to me that Australian Federal Question Time serves a very useful role as an escape valve for adversarial emotions in the parliament. Australian politics has for the whole of my life been quite bitterly contested, and the two sides, despite a lot of talk about their being very similar, retain a fairly strong ideological hatred one for the other. The anger that results from this is channeled via the controlled forum that is Question Time and everyone goes about their business without further difficulty at its end. It looks like a playground but it’s more like a sporting field or a gladiatorial arena. One of its purposes is to ensure that the kind of behaviour you witness while it’s on is confined to that hour or so each sitting day.
Pingback: Australian Diary: The First Week |