The tie was off, masks looked better on, Mr Speaker was ruled out, and some were shocked to learn the Queen is a coloniser. There was plenty of political theatre in the first two sitting weeks of our new Parliament, but enough civility that Labor MP Brian Mitchell dressed it up as a Dorothy Dixer for his colleague Tony Burke.
“How is the government’s management of the House in its first sitting fortnight delivering on Labor’s vision for a better future? How does that compare to previous parliaments?” In short, Burke said “better”. Crikey took it as a question on notice.
The 47th Parliament set a cracking pace. So how do we measure performance? Politics as usual or certifiably civil? That depends where you put the behaviour barometer. What you see in question time is quite different to what you get in way of legislation.
Same game?
Labor fit its own bill by passing landmark climate change legislation through the lower house. It did so with the support of the Greens, who conceded to “give a bit”. Independent MPs celebrated their contributions with a collective press conference, while the Coalition took the nuclear option and exhausted even themselves with repeated rounds of “no” votes.
“You could see the dejection on the opposition benches when they voted no again and again,” Guardian Australia’s political reporter Amy Remeikis told Crikey from the sidelines in Canberra.
The Climate Change bill was one of 18 presented to the House in the first two sitting weeks, as Crikey reported, and one of two to pass. Territory rights were on the table, building codes were axed, there was buy-in for better biosecurity, and the economy brought little joy. Debate was robust, questions were evenly allocated, and answers had to be pithy and pertinent, but petty points of order did pile up.
Question time under the Albanese government has not transformed into a polite debating society. The government had scores to settle after nine years in opposition, and the Coalition-turned-opposition was disoriented playing in defence.
“Labor has to get used to governing, but the Coalition also have to get used to being in opposition and they are not settling in well,” Remeikis said. “Oppose everything seems to be their main tactic.”
Both sides were “combative” as ever, but Remeikis pointed to other markers of change. “So far, we seem to have a government that is at least willing to listen to the concerns of other parliamentarians,” she said, noting crossbench and minor party collaboration. Labor still guillotined two bills yesterday, but there was space for amendments to move, people to speak, debate to follow, and a decision to be made.
Will it last?
News Corp’s national political editor Clare Armstrong is sceptical that collaboration on the climate change bill can be sustained on other bills as Parliament progresses. “It was verging on performative the degree to which these amendments were made. Changing a ‘may’ to a ‘must’. Lots of tinkering,” she said. “In terms of a more civil Parliament, this continued collaboration on amendments and bills will be key.”
The real test of character will come soon enough. Can the government keep it together when things don’t go its way? Remeikis said, “If the Greens sink a Labor bill, that will be a big test of this civil government. As will how much grace they give the opposition when they settle into being an opposition and how much grace stays with the crossbench. Will they continue to engage in negotiations and bring them along for the ride?”
In the public eye, optics trump output, but process remains important. Armstrong was clear: “People are still going to debate, make amendments, and block bills. That slows the process of Parliament and rightly so. These are processes that take time.”
The fortnight in a few acts
What else did we see in Parliament in the first fortnight?
A top button (or lack thereof) undid Nationals Pat Conaghan. He was incandescent at the young Greens Max Chandler-Mather’s lack of a half-Windsor, calling him out for a “state of undress”. Neck nudity is perfectly legal in Parliament, but Conaghan was adamant the slight was a slippery slope into dress-code disaster: “This is not a barbecue. This is question time in the Australian Parliament. What next, board shorts and thongs? Maybe a onesie in winter?” In his maiden speech to Parliament, Chandler-Mather criticised such “pomp” and “ceremony” as the very reason Parliament is “so completely disconnected from the lives of everyday people”.
Independent Monique Ryan made a strong case for a little more fabric when she shot back at hecklers in the opposition to “put your masks on” during a question on long Covid.
The same small mouthpiece might help keep “shadow minister for misgendering” Angus Taylor in check, as Crikey reported. Taylor repeatedly referred to deputy speaker Sharon Claydon as “Mr Speaker”, even after a crash course on titles: “I don’t need a Mr, a Mrs, a Madam, it’s just deputy speaker,” she said.
Greens Senator and DjabWurrung, Gunnai and Gunditjmara woman Lidia Thorpe was reprimanded when she used the “historically accurate” term of “coloniser” to describe the Queen during her swearing-in ceremony, as Crikey reported. Thorpe’s black power salute made multiple appearances during the first sitting fortnight.
Outside the chamber but inside the remit of Parliament, Prime Minister Albanese at Garma Festival unveiled the question for the referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
Time will tell if the 47th Parliament will prove civil and cooperative on more than just pomp and political theatre.
“Labor fit its own bill…” what does this mean? Where are the sub editors, or even an Australian vernacular grammar checker?
I doubt that building codes were axed. They are a matter of State jurisdiction.
This new Government is surely a marvel. Amendments move of their own accord.
Perhaps a Commission into preserving Australian English should be instigated.
it would seem that American pidgin is becoming the norm.
Subeditors have been relocated across a broad spectrum of taxable and non taxable orcanisations and repurposed as communication advisers, to build the capacity of these orcanisations to defend themselves against full frontal attacks from the Tie-laban, an unofficial and faceless group of old white AMABs, dedicated to maintaining the wilting power and influence of the corrupt and somewhat sociopathic Big Money donors who sponsor the existence of the Tie-laban for their own selfish ends. Subedit that.
“Labor fit its own bill…” what does this mean? Where are the sub editors, or even an Australian vernacular grammar checker?
Frustratingly, QT in the Senate and Reps is not much better than the same old same old.
I expect that both parties are a bit nervous about what Monique Ryan might dish up to them over the term. Her mask admonishment was a strong warning, though how the Libs hadn’t figured out not to take her on with their juvenile heckling is beyond me. Weren’t they watching her approach to politics during the election? Haven’t they noticed that Josh is gone?
The Opposition is really struggling to hit the mark and Fletcher is proving to be a bit of a goose in his new role so far. Burke must feel like he’s playing a game of backyard cricket. Birmingham seems pretty ineffectual with the very competent Lines in the Senate. In time, Dick might even reach the high standard set by Tony Smith.
Although QT behaviour makes me incredibly frustrated, I have to admit that it’s a bit of fun to see the Opposition struggle to hit the mark after its disgraceful QT behaviour in government and the new government’s good humour as it puts into practice all the things in learnt during its QT in Opposition.
Best of all have been the intelligent, rational independents asking intelligent, rational questions of relevance to their electorates and the nation more broadly.
Monique Ryan being a doctor for children has found herself in the right place when it comes to the opposition.
That is a very good point. Having a leadership role amongst doctors is also excellent training for her current position. She will have dealt with one or two over-inflated egos in her time.
Just what is needed to keep the juveniles in order. They are like a bunch of boys trying to outdo each other in school
I think that Albo is going to have to do something about Don Farrell, he is hopeless and a real weak link. Doesn’t seem to know procedures e.g.not talking to opposition members in QT.
Sen. Murray Watts is the equivalent in the Upper Chamber.
He is a boorish, blustering braggart not on top of his brief – the Oppostion already smells blood.
He’s in great danger of flaming out, having several times defied the President.
I forgot about about the Opposition taking on Max over his failure to wear a tie. Fancy taking on a retail worker who will have spent countless hours responding to some of the very worst behaviour Australia has to offer. As silly as taking on Monique.
I am shocked at the cacophony in the Senate. The President so far has been overly tolerant of the LNP zoo but her surely patience must soon end or the shambles & shamblers will be further emboldened.
The Senate equivalent of 94A in the HoR has not been used – it should be the first order of business when next it sits, the poor darlings haing risen after a strenuous, not quite fortnight.
203 Infringement of order
I can see what you’re saying about Lines but I’ve been wondering if she’s letting people get used to their new positions a bit. It’s got to be an adjustment, particularly for a new Opposition that is struggling to ask a question that can be turned into a news grab. There’s something I about her style I like. I’m not sure what it is. Maybe she sounds like she’s dealing with a bunch of hormonal teenagers going home from school on the train, which pretty much sums up QT.
Sen. Lines was Deputy President since 2016 and well regarded despite being in the ‘wrong’ party so has ample experience in dealing with menagerie.
Hopefully she is just giving them a settling in period, or ‘enough rope’ – to hang themselves.
It’s only in the last couple of years I’ve had the opportunity to listen to QT regularly. I did like her work during the last term.
Could l be so bold to suggest that the spotlights also turn towards some of those press gallery prima Donnas who constantly gaze into their crystal balls trying to predict the future and opinionating rather than reporting. Some of those fine scribblers, particularly those from Newscorpse and Dark sky remind me of those kids in the playground baying for blood by yelling out “Fight! Fight!”
You can never be sure what the greens will do. It could all fall apart at any time. They should do something immediately to earns their “green” cred and wipe out the stain of taking it up the bottom from Tony Abbott, of all people, to abolish the carbon tax.
I call on Adam Bandt to submit a bill to establish a new, more ambitious, carbon tax.
Can we just get something passed as a starting point? The Coalition did nothing and now Labor are supposed to sort it all immediately? I have not forgiven the greens for sabotaging a carbon price agreement before and leaving us in the wilderness for crucial years.
They didn’t sabotage anything. The Labor proposal at the time was farcical. This has been clearly documented since and yet we still get commenters clutching their pearls over this invented revisionism
Green defenders love to use this line, as if the Rudd legislation was going to sit there unchanged for eternity. It wasn’t meant to be like that. At the very least it was a start. A start which the Greens blocked in the certain knowledge that they were allying themselves with a group who would take advantage of their voting numbers to destroy the whole concept of climate mitigation.
The sanctimonious Greens follow up line that everyone should’ve then voted for what the Greens wanted is way more farcical than anything the ALP tried out.
So untrue in every detail as to be unmoored in reality.
It’s clear what BSA stands for – the old Australian term for a cheap con artist which would not pass the mod.
It would have “sat there” for at least a decade, doing nothing, and leaving any future more adventurous governments liable to pay polluters “compensdation”,
Rudd had allied himself with the Coalition in negotiations on his CPRS,negotiations that the Greens were excluded from. Either the Greens were too unimportant to negotiate with, or so important that their vote was vital. Pick a lane.
Part 1
Sez you.
Part2
The coalition changed their position The Greens had the option to vote for something over nothing. They voted for nothing in the certain knowledge that the people they voted with would keep it that way.
I can have any lane I want.
Just can’t see how you can think that the outcome was advantageous for Australia. We are a broad church and unless we want to become more polarised as per the US (we share Murdoch, Facebook and the potential culture wars) it isn’t going to be perfect- I speak from a green seat.
As untrue as your handle is false flag.
You’re keen on “handles” aren’t you. As for ill fitting pretentiousness in these matters, go find a mirror.
Could I mention that you don’t know anything about me? Your quip is ironic considering the original topic. I actually expressed my concern to a green door knocker before the election. He convinced me to get over it and vote green. Reaching out and not insulting people if you don’t agree with them can be effective.
Would it not have been better if they had passed it and amended later?
No. It would have been regarded as Mission Accomplished by all the chancers who saw a quid, or million, in it.
Because that worked so well when the ALP meekly went along with Coalition legislation, and were shocked, shocked I tells ya, when the Coalition were then uninterested in allowing any amendments. Amend first, pass later.
Not that tired old falsehood,yet again. Their involvement was not sought as Rudd had Turnbull’s support for an ETS that would only have benefitted merchant bankers & Third World autocrats.
The dog of a bill was not even half a loaf or baby steps – it was ill conceived from the start, intended as a blank cheque for rorters.
And yet, had it been passed we would be a lot further down the road to repairing climate chaos than we are currently. It was a hissy fit of epic proportions and an abject failure to understand the politics, not just the science, of what Australia needed at the time. Despite all the sanctimony, the Greens still bear the burden of the years of environmental destruction that ensued as a consequence. And I too am a Greens supporter.
No, we wouldn’t. It would have been voting for no action for the foreseeable future.
Sure you are.
Yep- and this kind of school playground rhetoric is so useful to our democracy.
See MAC089 above.
I think Labor has adopted the old maxim that says ‘If you have a go, you get a go’
They are off to a good start