Some people hold that a prime minister cannot succeed at the ballot box unless he or she dominates at the dispatch box. This view has long and strong support on parliamentary benches and among those who follow not only the most important element of democratic politics, public policy, but the impact on public policy of psychological battles in the political arena.
A renowned exponent of this view is former prime minister and treasurer Paul Keating, a man respected as a historically significant and agile reformer, but also widely remembered, even revered, for his witty, yet savage, ability to belittle and deflate his opponents with withering flights of rhetoric on the floor of the house.
![Bill Shorten has often needled Malcolm Turnbull about his wealth.](/web/20170212190058im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/u/6/y/t/u/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gu9gmj.png/1486706345154.jpg)
Of course, it would be naive to believe there could be no role for invective and vitriol in parliamentary debate; indeed it is not a bad thing when passions and intellects are inflamed by a desire to improve the life of citizens. But it is not at all naive to state that there should be a minimum of slurs, that there should be some method in the madness. And so it is with mixed feelings that we observe the outbreak of unfettered verbal hostilities in our national Parliament.
The context is important. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has often needled Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull about the (self-made, we note) wealth of the former high-flying lawyer, entrepreneur and banker. It is not unreasonable that Mr Turnbull has struck back in the past few days, primarily in Parliament but also in media encounters.
It must be particularly galling for Mr Turnbull that one of Mr Shorten's key insults – "Mr Harbourside Mansion" – was coined by Peta Credlin, the then chief of staff of the former prime minister, the man Mr Turnbull deposed in part by promising to provide mature, sophisticated leadership, rather than resorting to slogans and rhetoric.
So, Mr Turnbull has been crudely provoked. But the situation is more nuanced that that. The Prime Minister has been having a particularly challenging time – reflected in poor poll results – and is seeking to establish authority within his own government and in the broader community. In the acrimonious wake of the defection of conservative firebrand South Australian senator Cory Bernardi, Mr Turnbull's party room was in need of a rallying distraction, a feisty attack that would cause a collective surge of adrenalin.
It got it in Mr Turnbull's disparaging portrayal of Mr Shorten as a lickspittle to the mega-rich, a hypocritical sycophantic fraud who had repeatedly betrayed his members when he was a union leader. But there are risks. Mr Shorten deftly sought to take the high road, declining to explicitly respond to Mr Turnbull's reaction to the class-war rhetoric Mr Shorten himself unleashed.
However, he risks looking disingenuous, as he is allowing his colleagues to continue and, indeed, escalate the tawdry class and other slurs against the Prime Minister.
And on the other side, it is nevertheless a bit, well, rich for Mr Turnbull, a millionaire many times over, to seek to besmirch someone for associating with wealthy people. The key target audience for Mr Turnbull's angry and combative performances is his own team. But voters are ultimately interested in substance, not form. Spirited debate is to be welcomed, but it should be about the national interest, about policies and principles.
There are many important issues to debate, and Mr Turnbull has disappointed many over the past year by appearing shackled by conservative ideologues in his team. We would appeal to Mr Shorten and Mr Turnbull to focus more on helping Australians, and less on harming each other with unbecoming bluster.
0 comments
New User? Sign up