News site of the year

Comment
  1. Home
  2. Comment
COMMENT

Politicians should come with a trigger warning

Annabel Crabb

Political correctness is – it's now universally accepted in this country, or by anyone with a brain at least – out of control.

It's getting so you can't say anything to anyone, in case you "trigger" them or offend them. Even if what you're saying is true! That's the worst part. It's almost like there are some words and concepts that just drive some people into a blind fit of rage or offence, and render them completely incapable of engaging in a calm and rational discussion.

Up Next

Lightning show dazzles Sydney

null
Video duration
00:36

More Environment News Videos

null
Video duration
01:33

Bernardi fumes over carbon trading scheme
null
Video duration
00:36

Lightning show dazzles Sydney
null
Video duration
01:37

Arctic sea ice decline: The tipping point?
null
Video duration
03:51

Greenhouse gases: not just a bunch of hot ...
null
Video duration
00:59

Many feared dead in Indonesian earthquake
null
Video duration
01:51

Adani mine project moves forward
More videos

Bernardi fumes over carbon trading scheme

Coalition MPs voice their displeasure on the government's climate review including an emissions intensity scheme for electricity generators. Vision courtesy ABC News 24

It's kind of sad, because the conversations that are most richly strewn with potential points of offence are actually usually the most important ones to have. But they're also by definition the most likely to get somebody or other's undies in a bunch, so as soon as they're raised, even when it's in a well-meaning way – SLAM! Suddenly you can't hear yourself for the shrieking.

What happened to freedom of speech in this country? In shutting down genuine inquiry and debate on this matter, or that one, just because its premise (or even, sometimes, merely a sliver of its premise) offends someone, don't we risk missing out, as a population, on the sorts of answers we might more reliably have obtained were we allowed freely to have the conversation?

Look at Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg, for example.

On Monday, he released the terms of reference for the government's long-scheduled review of climate policy. This, of course, is a landmine-infested area of government policy and a comparably perilous subject on which to express an incautious opinion than the usual explosive PC territory of Islam, Aboriginal parenting, immigration policy, Peppa Pig and so on.

Advertisement

Consequently, Frydenberg larded his press release with every reassurance and political shock-absorber available; assurances that the current direct action policies are working beautifully, a clip around the ears for Labor's carbon tax on the way through. So far, so good.

But the minister should have issued a trigger warning before he went on the ABC. Tragically, under questioning, he uttered the following sentence: "We know that there's been a large number of bodies that have recommended an emissions intensity scheme, which is effectively a baseline and credit scheme. We'll look at that."

Oh dear. The poor man might as well have worn a sombrero to a campus party.

Within hours, the airwaves were full of wounded colleagues stricken to the core by the possibility that a government review would do anything quite so foolish – nay! malevolent! – as to actually review something.

Cory Bernardi described the whole idea as "one of the dumbest things" he'd heard.

"I'm sure the last thing ministers want to do is to reopen questions that were settled for our side back in 2009," added former PM Tony Abbott.

Now: Have there been a large number of bodies that have recommended an emissions intensity scheme? Yep.

Is that essentially a baseline and credit scheme? Yep.

Will we look at that? Not on your nelly, because after less than a day of hollering, the Prime Minister himself climbed into his bullet-proof vehicle and drove out on to the battle field, determinedly flattening any suggestion the review would look at an "emissions intensity scheme" and reversing over it a few times for good measure, like a chook farmer eliminating a snake.

Frydenberg's crime? Mentioning an "emissions intensity scheme" at all, which as everyone knows is pretty much the same as an emissions trading scheme, which as everyone knows is pretty much the same as a carbon tax, which as everyone knows is pretty much the same as just openly shooting pensioners for no reason.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm as sickened by carbon pricing as the next reasonable Australian. 

But if an "emissions intensity scheme" really is the dumbest idea Cory Bernardi has ever heard of, then why should he be worried about it being part of a review? Wouldn't the review be likely to side with sanity and kick it to the kerb?

While the idea of anything even resembling an emissions trading scheme is understandably very triggering for Senator Bernardi and some of his colleagues – and let no one make light of the genuine pain this subject has caused the Coalition in the past decade – is it really healthy for our democracy to avoid discussion of it for that reason?

By stifling debate on this subject, isn't the government just creating a febrile and disenfranchised minority whose admittedly distasteful views cannot be ventilated?

This is the problem with political correctness. By forbidding certain concepts even to enter the combat arena of ideas, you lose the capacity to demonstrate comprehensively, through free and fair battle, which are the stupid ones.

If only, among the mob which descended on Josh Frydenberg last week, there were some true freedom fighters with the courage to back their own views, out in the open.

Annabel Crabb is an ABC writer and broadcaster. Twitter: @annabelcrabb

Advertisement

0 comments