Prev
Next

Britain can teach us how to keep our House in order

Mark Kenny

by Mark Kenny

23 Jul 06:00am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: David Cameron, Law, Media, News Of The World, Politics, Rupert Murdoch

35 comments

From the parliamentary precinct across Lake Burley Griffin to this correspondent’s home takes six or seven minutes by car - max.

But that was easily long enough on Wednesday night to highlight a massive contrast between the grindingly dull and scripted performance of the Australian House of Representatives and the more dynamic, and frankly more honest British equivalent on which ours is modelled.

Thanks to the storm over phone hacking and political entanglements associated with the now defunct News of the World, Question Time in the mother of Westminster parliaments was broadcast on the ABC’s News Radio.

In the time it took to make the homeward journey, there were perhaps seven or eight probing questions put, bringing as many concise answers.

You’d be lucky to hear one full question in that time in our comparatively turgid QT and that would usually be only half audible over the row of mindless barracking and frivolous points of order. Even the British speaker displayed wit.

His light touch was a welcome change from our own charisma-challenged Mr Jenkins whose momentum-sapping interventions meander painfully towards their dull and pointless conclusions. “Order! Or-der!”.

The reasons for the superior watchability of the Commons are many and they derive from the more mature culture of the legislature which prevailed even as the PM David Cameron returned from abroad to tend to a political crisis.

First, nearly all of the questions to him were brief and free of gratuitous point scoring. Second, because of that, they elicited brief answers - simply there was no extraneous argument with which the PM could engage. Third, these answers actually were for the most part, answers - not speeches, party-political rallying etcetera.

Fourth, the rapid pace and brevity conveyed far less rancour, notwithstanding the heat in the issues and notwithstanding that Mr Cameron was ostensibly on the back foot for having hired the disgraced former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his press secretary.

And fifth, Mr Cameron, who forthrightly acknowledged the past craven behaviour of the Tories as well as Labour, resisted trying to kick the Opposition to death even when questions from his own back bench offered him that opportunity.

In short, the more intimate but significantly larger body of MPs (650 in the House of Commons to 150 in the Reps) was a lot more mature and civilised, considerably more productive and a damn site more interesting.

Compare this now to the US.

For months now, the Democrats and the Republicans have been locked in a tense and surreal stand-off over the country’s unfathomably large debt ceiling.

The Obama Administration has been trying to get Congress to sign off on raising the $14.3 trillion borrowing limit or face defaulting on loan repayments and having its credit rating downgraded.

Surreal is the right adjective because the stand-off has been waged essentially as a proxy war on the Obama presidency. Republicans, now in thrall to a rabble of zero-tax Tea Party fundamentalists have been so gung-ho, they’ve been prepared to sacrifice the country’s economic interests to do so.

They have steadfastly refused to countenance any tax increases despite the obvious fact that the US government’s outlays vastly exceed its income forcing it to borrow at the rate of several billion dollars a day to meet its costs.

Obama’s attempts to reach a compromise have so far done little else than expose the powerlessness of White House and the systemic weakness of a system where executive power is completely separate from the legislature.

Nonetheless, as a genuine crisis looms, a deal does appear to be inching closer, thanks to the last minute concessions of a cross-party clutch of slightly saner lawmakers.

The process is deeply flawed and you would not want to emulate it. It does however highlight one thing which is quite foreign to Australian democracy. That is that the two sides, Democrat and Republican, will eventually give ground to each other in direct negotiation.

Imagine that principle applied in Australia at present. Rather than nutting out a deal with the Greens party and independents and then simply out-gunning the alternative in Parliament as is planned, a compromise which has the signatures of both sides may eventually go forward.

Who knows, on a policy debate as polarised as the carbon tax, this direct bargaining might even lead us toward a political and social consensus. Wouldn’t that be in the national interest? It would certainly be better for business investment certainty.

Australia at present seems to have absorbed, almost too literally, some of the worst aspects of both “big brothers” - the institutionalised adversarialism inherent in the Westminster system and the tendency to reckless unaccountability open to those not currently in power (yes, Mr Abbott, this refers to you).

The UK and the US are not perfect but we are no closer.

Most commented

35 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • PatC says:

      07:13am | 23/07/11

      The biggest issue we have with our politicians is that they are “hired” on the back of a popularity contest. We elect those that can win elections not necessarily those that can run the country properly.

      Get politicians out of the house of Reps and replace them with people who are selected, like a jury, for a fixed 3 year term using a rotating roster system so that we don’t get all new Reps at the same time.

      Still elect the Senate as a balance and have the Senate select the Prime Minister and cabinet from Reps who have served at least 2 years.

      Keep remuneration in balance with the Reps previous income plus legitimate expenses and guarantee their job back at the end of their term.

      That would be true democracy and true peoples representation.

      Reply

    • Rocksteady says:

      07:25pm | 23/07/11

      Right on the money PatC - Politicians are skilled at winning votes and not much else.
      The system of ministries is completely wrong.
        It amazes me how someone with just an arts or law degree can somehow be given the responsibility of a health system serving 22 million people.
      Same goes for the Treasury (Costello was a lawyer, Swan is an arts student!), Education, Human services, Agriculture, Innovation - It is so rare that the people responsible for the advancement of a certain sector of our society actually have any experience in that field.
        What’s even more disconcerting is the fact that most ministers know they can just be shifted to another ministry or the back bench when things get tough for them.
        How about the elected government of the day simply hires those people who are specialists and excel in their fields to be the ministers of Health, Education, Housing, Finance etc.?

    • Ripa says:

      07:58am | 23/07/11

      Dont mess with Wendi Deng Murdoch, 6 foot of awsomeness.

      Reply

    • Soren Svendsson says:

      09:38am | 23/07/11

      If Australia wants a mature Parliament, with statesmen - like speeches, then the 19th Century Bolshevism of the ALP must be destroyed, and all Members must be allowed to cross the floor and vote according to the best interests of their electorate. That is how a democracy should run. Tight control of any party leads to simply parrotting a party line, and does not allow individual politicians to show their intellect, or lack thereof.

      Reply

    • JimT says:

      12:26pm | 23/07/11

      Irrespective of any “19th Century Bolshevism”, if ALL members genuinely felt uninhibited about crossing the floor, I reckon at present and in recent years they’d be more Libs embarking on that long march than Labs. Not least of them would be Malcolm Turnbull.

    • Rocksteady says:

      04:20pm | 23/07/11

      It’s disgusting how Labor party rules for MP’s stop them voting against against party policy.
      Even more disgusting is the outcry from Liberals and their supporters when Turnbull crosses the floor against Liberal climate change policy.
        If MP’s aren’t allowed to have individual views what’s the point of electing them?

    • Gerard says:

      07:03pm | 23/07/11

      While I agree that the ALP’s ban on voting for constituents’ interests over party policy is wrong, it is exactly what the electorate asked for. This conflict of interest is not a secret and the ALP should be denied election until it is abolished, yet a huge proportion of the voting public actually asked for a ‘representative’ who would engage in this unconscionable practice. Voters are as much to blame for this as the party. And although it’s not in writing, the coalition’s culture of coercion is just as bad.

    • No 1 Rosie says:

      10:15am | 23/07/11

      (yes, Mr Abbott, this refers to you)

      Everything and anything to defend how a Govt that is on the nose and themselves to blame for not listening to the needs and wants of the people they represent is nonsensical to me.

      For Mark Kenny to point out Tony Abbott who at least says and does things on our behalf is like he disapproves of Abbott and the vast majority. I think before the media starts criticizing Tony Abbott and the Coalition they should ask themselves whose behalf are they doing this for, if it is for the people they should STFU. The problem here is jurno’s like Kenny will write crap that is on their behalf and not the people’s. Tony Abbott is not the Govt wrecklessly spending our hard earned $$$$$$ and at the moment that is all we care about.

      It is a wonder, the people have turned off and are only listening to Tony Abbott because like the vast majority we want to get rid of this bad Govt asap.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:37am | 23/07/11

      Bulldust- Tony Abbott is as stupid and incompetent as Gillard. Both are unfit to be Prime Minister of Australia and next election will be about which of the lesser of two evils the Australian public want.

    • michael j says:

      01:02pm | 23/07/11

      @Shane-summed that up petty well,
      just on the Yankies problem if they default on their debt to China will they have to have a mortgage Auction ,or will they hold a number of small garage sales ,wouldn’t mind picking up a tac nuke for %5 of cost
      be just my luck osama bin laden would turn up at the auction,,
      ok the poms put on a good show the worlds media ,,which is why they were at this inquest anyway,,was the good behaviour for the media or because Mr Murdock was present ,,he’s probably been feeding MI.4 MI.5
      MI.6 and 12 the dirt on them for years,,
      that is not to say question time in OZ is a fu-king disgrace,,,,,,,,,,

    • mal says:

      02:33pm | 23/07/11

      Anybody who sees a viable prime minister in Tony Abbott is simply nuts

    • Salamander says:

      03:10pm | 23/07/11

      Sorry Shane From Melbourne it is not up to you, it is up to the people who they elect out of the two leaders chosen by their party members to who will be our next PM. If it is so bad for you, you can always hand in an informal vote.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      05:57pm | 23/07/11

      Ahhhhh…Rosie…. The person who hates every dollar of government spending. (except of course, the welfare payments to her family.)

    • Damian Parkhill says:

      06:01pm | 23/07/11

      @Salamander

      Informal voting does nothing - they’ll still get in on a smaller vote and they won’t give a damn about the donkeys

      Case in point, some stupidly large number of votes last year (about 18%) were informal, dubbed the “Latham” effect (because he saw what most people are now beginning to figure out) it should have served as a serious wake up call, but once the coalitions had been sorted, not one pollie gave a shit about the thrown away votes.

      If you really want to see a change, vote minor next elections and make those votes count, if the big parties begin to lose out on votes and start losing their power -then- there might be a chance this race to the bottom will turn around. 

      (edit - also people laughing and saying “you didn’t choose, you have no right to complain” comes to mind when I hear about informal voting)

    • Rocksteady says:

      06:35pm | 23/07/11

      Hey Salamander, did you know Hitler was democratically elected?
      Shane’s completely right, it’s a choice between dumb and dumber.
      The only losers are the Australian people.

    • melle says:

      06:43pm | 23/07/11

      Damian Parkhill,  Quite true. 
      For what it’s worth, since his name came up, I’m throwing this in -  Mark Latham is no idiot, as many like to brand him.

    • michael j says:

      08:06pm | 23/07/11

      @ 18% informal ,,plus 2 million maybes not registered ,,it is defiantly time to start using hemp paper and latham is a low life grub ,,luv to be able to tell him in person,,,,

    • len says:

      12:03pm | 23/07/11

      Quite so Mark. I watched the whole of the proceedings on TV and formed the same opinion as did you, albiet from my own less informed position. A big tick to the speaker who was far more engaged and persuasive than say, Jenkins, who should spend more time in our Senate and take notes on the President’s control thereof. Both Cameron and his opposite were execellent and the questioners right on the money. Good article Mark. Suggestion…... Send a DVD to the speaker and all members of our parliament of the other nights proceedings in the British house.

      Reply

    • Ray Rivers says:

      01:01pm | 23/07/11

      Shane from Melbourne 11:37 Agree 100% could not have put it better myself.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      01:21pm | 23/07/11

      I think this article is flawed in the US comparison.

      In Australia just a few months ago Mr Swann introduced legislation ( I think via the budget bill) to increase our own debt ceiling to $200 billion. i beleive that bill has successfully passed. The coalition quite correctly extracted some political gain out of it because it goes to the credibility of the ALP’s claim to being economic conservatives. Our Australian economic journalists were missing in action in scrutiny of this issue.

      Whilst our growing debt is of some concern and deserves scrutiny it is probably still within our capacity to repay it over time. That is not the case in the US. You could argue that the existing $14 trillion is is beyond their capacity to repay let alone the proposed increase to $20 trillion.I believe this is a watershed moment in the history of the US and the debate should be loud and messy to raise the public awareness of what is being proposed in term of the increased debt ceiling.

      There is a fundemental risk that increasing taxes will drive business offshore and actually make the situation worse. It is interesting that those who believe that are the same people who had reservations about stimulas spending claiming that it would only delay the GFC and make it worse rather than avoid the GFC. Given the way the US recovery is weak while massive stimulas has been applied, this group seem to have credibility.
      Our own Australian cut and paste economic journalists are singing off the same page in their support of stimulas spending with no one playing the devils advocate that the stimulas spending will ultimately cause a worse GFC.

      I can fully understand why some groups believe the US budget has to be improved by cuts. The reality is that it would probably take tax increases and spending cuts to get the US budget under control but that would be destructive to the fragile recovery. They are in a serious bind which might explain why polititions will ultimately pass the legislation to increase the debt ceiling which will get the country through the next electoral cycle. The smart polititions are voting against the increase but hoping that the rest will approve it so they can be remembered as righteous when the shit hits the fan one day. The trouble is that there are too many taking this stance to get it through for now. Also after the legislation all leverage for spending cuts/tax increases disappears for a while.

      The main problem with question time in Canberra is the strategy that the ALP have adopted for the last 3 years or so. That strategy is best described as “Yes we are crap but that is OK because the coalition is worse”  Every shortcoming is excused by comparing it to what the opposition has to offer. Right back to Rudd the media has applied too much scrutiny on the opposition and not enough on the Government. They are the bloody opposition not the Government.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      01:51pm | 23/07/11

      Our pollies always tell us that when it comes to Parliamentary behaviour they are going to turn over a new leaf, Question Time will be just that. Questions will be short & sensible without any silly self-congratulatory spin.
      Answers will be short, to the point, honest & devoid of party political bullshit.
      Like most things our pollies say it is, of course, all lies, spin & deception.
      Nothing changes.
      Irrespective of the party in government.
      The Opposition leader gets up to ask a seemingly sensible, rational question about government policy or proposals.
      The response, particularly during the last few years, is always the same! The Prime Minister or Minister launches into a tirade of abuse of the Opposition, it’s leader & their policies. They never actually answer the question put to them.
      Now the Speaker, if short on charisma (are there any MPs in any House who do have any?) Harry Jenkins, may be a very nice, decent person but he just sits there & lets the tirade of abuse go on & on & on & on until, if only to get time to get onto the next question, someone on the Opposition benches calls a “Point of Order.” - something which should be unnecessary if the Speaker or her/his Deputy were doing their job & tells PM or Minister to resume their seats & then reads them the Riot Act & orders them to cut out the crap & answer the question. Of course, he/she would do this in the most gentlemanly or lady-like manner. If the PM or Minister continue with their Party Political Tirade the Speaker should silence them, call for the next question & consign the PM or Minister to the Naughty Corner for an hour or two, not much of a hardship for knowing our pollies they would probably site it within the confines of the Parliamentary Bar where they can guzzle taxpayer-subsidised Top Shelf Spirits & expensive Imported Ales!
      Australian Question Time is so bloody boring but then I suppose we can expect it to be little else for look at the two current major participants: Julia Gillard & Tony Abbott! Both of whom seem only able to bang on about their, flawed, thoughts on Climate Change!

      Reply

    • RedCity says:

      02:32pm | 23/07/11

      I casually flicked onto news24 the other night when they were showing Question Time at Westminster. Being used to Canberra’s version, I was shocked at how good it was, and immensely jealous of Britain. It had a rapid pace, with brief question and brief, but detailed answers and while there were a few moments where things got a bit messy, as they would with any Parliament, it was so much more mature and reasonable than our own. Sigh…...

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      03:06pm | 23/07/11

      Independent speaker.

      Next question.

      Reply

    • Al Chunk says:

      03:26pm | 23/07/11

      Let us not get too carried away here, this was not question time but a recall of parliament to debate a specific and very interesting issue.  Listen to normal British QT and it is as big a LOB (load of bollocks) as ours.  The difference would appear to be the authority of the speaker who is able to force brevity and relevance.  So I would say that the way the speaker is selected is better in the UK (never thought I’d say something like that).

      Reply

    • Up the Abbottohs !! says:

      05:23pm | 23/07/11

      Your comment :When one writes for the Punch, One always loves Conservative and Liberal Controlled Parliaments like the Parliament Of Great Britain rather than Labopr controlled Australian federal parliament.
      Its always amazed Punch Readers how Punch Writers always manage to prefer eveything and everyone Liberal and Conservbative every single time rather than Labor. They seem to have a chip on their shoulders about ther Labor Party. They seem to love the Liberals more than they love themselves or their lovers!

      Reply

    • Up The Abbottohs !!! says:

      05:36pm | 23/07/11

      in Australia, Brett Kenny was one of the greats of Rugby League and Grant Kenny was one of the greatest iron men ever.
      Now Mark Kenny is one og the greats of Political Football, playing with the pink and blue Liberal National Bulldogs,  and Mark Kenny is one of the greatest ever fans of the Iron Lady & her successors!

      Reply

    • Steve Putnam says:

      04:06pm | 24/07/11

      Since you’ve mentioned Brett Kenny I’ll take this opportunity to point out that he opposed Wally Lewis six times as a five-eighth in State of Origin. NSW won five of those games.

    • Up The Abbottohs !! says:

      05:52pm | 23/07/11

      why does mark kenny always support and adore the Liberals and other Conservatives and hate the Labor Party all the time every single time?
      Why does he have a chip on his shoulder about the Labor Party all the time every time?

      Reply

    • DaveinPerth says:

      06:06pm | 23/07/11

      I too was shocked at the civility and productivity of the Brit parliament.

      Wouldn’t be too hard to fix question time.

      Give MP’s one warning for disorderly conduct.
      Eject on the next instance of disorderly conduct.
      Schedule votes immediately after question time.

      Problem solved!
      No more shouting.
      No more stunts.
      No more BS.

      It would go a long way to bringing the parliament into some level of repute.

      Reply

    • Gerard says:

      07:28pm | 23/07/11

      The Liberal and Labor parties won’t be negotiating with each other anytime soon because it’s in their mutual interests not to. If they started negotiating with each other, it would soon become apparent to even the most intellectually challenged voter that neither party’s position was in the public interest and people would start looking for a genuine alternative. It’s more beneficial for both parties to just criticise each other over anything and everything to create the appearance of choice while basking in the publicity granted by a lazy media which profits from the simplification of politics to red team v blue team.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      12:41am | 24/07/11

      Why would we want to be like England?

      It’s much better for the taxpayer, individual, family, community and nation when politicians aren’t working. If our politicians were more efficient at their aim we’d be closer to a 60% Scandinavian like tax rate than what we already are

      Politicians do nothing but divide, tax and conquer, we don’t want them to do this better.

      Reply

    • A Dose of Reality says:

      01:10am | 24/07/11

      DaveinPerth.

      Beautiful!!!!!!

      which is why it will never happen

      Reply

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      09:19am | 24/07/11

      How anyone could compare our Westminser system of farcical parliament performances to the poms just beggers beleif, Dorothy Dixers included.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      10:45am | 24/07/11

      Britain has headless mannequins.
      We have the real thing.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:39PM

RT @ToryShepherd: Onya, @KRuddMP“@newscomauHQ: BREAKING: Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same sex marriage: http://t.co/CFaHrxyV5G”

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:39PM

RT @newscomauHQ: BREAKING: Kevin Rudd has come out in support of same sex marriage: http://t.co/2KEO6yEx5F

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:34PM

True Rudd style. Bazillion word folksy statement

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 20 May 13 09:29PM

RT @Rob_Stott: Like a lot of Republicans in the US, it's much easier to support gay marriage when you're no longer in a position to do anyt…

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter