The conservative hijacking of Australian politics: Disruption, division, and the futile quest for civility

The transformation of Australian politics in recent decades has been marked by a distinct and troubling trend – the hijacking of the political discourse by conservative political parties, particularly the Liberal Party, whether they are in office, or sit on the opposition benches. This shift is observable not only in the realm of policy and governance but also in the conduct and decorum within the Australian Parliament itself.

The recent changes introduced regarding gig economy workers and labour hire companies have ignited a firestorm of feigned protest from the Liberal Party within the parliamentary chambers. While political debate is expected in a democratic system, it is imperative to distinguish between constructive criticism and the deliberate creation of chaos and division for political gain. The infantile disruptions to Parliament Question Time, encompassing a wide range of issues beyond industrial relations, are indicative of a broader pattern where parliamentary behaviour and debate are dragged down to a level that does not serve the best interests of the nation.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s call during the 2022 federal election campaign for a return to civility in public discourse and parliamentary conduct is commendable. However, for it to be successful, it is a call that should be heeded by all sides of the political spectrum and the responsibility for maintaining civil politics and fostering constructive debate should not fall solely on the government of the day. A collective commitment to civility is necessary to uphold the integrity of the parliamentary process.

Yet, the reality of Australian politics, especially as exemplified by the Liberal Party, suggests a different approach. There appears to be a strategic advantage gained by creating chaos, sowing division, and engaging in disruptive behaviour. This approach was notably effective for former Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, who many deemed unelectable in 2013. However, his consistent negativity and doubt-casting on the Gillard and Rudd governments ultimately led him to become Prime Minister, and although his tenure resulted in a period of turbulent and ineffective governance, it underscores the potency of such tactics in Australian politics.

The current Leader of the Opposition Peter Dutton’s adoption of a similar approach highlights the persistence of this strategy within conservative political circles. The consistent use of disruptive tactics, coupled with a penchant for negativity, has the potential to shape political discourse and public opinion, potentially swaying election outcomes.

Labor needs to stop being fair in Parliament

In contrast, Albanese’s approach appears to be rooted in a desire for a more bipartisan and civil political environment. While this aspiration is admirable, it fails to acknowledge the harsh reality of Australian politics, especially when it’s obvious that the Liberal Party of today has no interest at all in creating a civil and respectful parliament. Albanese should look at past experiences, such as Kevin Rudd’s efforts to incorporate former Liberal Party MPs into key government positions, which showed that extending olive branches to political opponents always backfire.

In 2009, Rudd appointed former Liberal Party Treasurer, Peter Costello, into the position of chair of the Future Fund – a position he still holds – but what else is Costello up to now? He’s also the chair of Nine Media, which constantly fires away anti-Labor government propaganda through Channel Nine News, the Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age.

Why was such an anti-Labor hack appointed by a Labor Prime Minister, if this was the form they showed during their entire political career? The post-political careers of these former MPs in influential media roles have shown that political goodwill is not always reciprocated.

Rudd’s unsuccessful bid for the position of Secretary–General of the United Nations serves as another example of the challenges inherent in seeking bipartisan cooperation in Australian politics. The refusal of support from the Liberal Party – which was needed for Rudd to just become a candidate for the position – despite Rudd’s effort to foster bipartisanship in the past, underscores the deeply entrenched adversarial nature of the political landscape and the futility of providing benefits for political opponents. For Labor, there is never a chance it will be reciprocated by the Liberal Party.

The transformation of Australian politics, characterised by the strong influence of conservative political parties, even when they are not in government, is a concerning trend. The Liberal Party is only in office in one jurisdiction across Australia – Tasmania, and even then, it’s in a minority position – and Labor governments should be pushing through the progressive agendas they’ve promised, not acceding to the wishes of the conservative corporate media and business interests.  

This shift encompasses both policy decisions and the conduct within the parliamentary arena. The disruptive tactics, negativity, and division employed by the Liberal Party for political advantage pose a challenge to the principles of civility and constructive debate in the nation’s political discourse.

Addressing disruption in Australian politics

In examining the current state of Australian politics, and the disruptive behaviour witnessed in the political arena, it’s evident that it hasn’t really progressed very far from the dynamics of university politics, something we might have expected would have left behind a long time ago for supposedly grown-up politicians.

This underscores the need for greater discipline and decorum within the parliamentary chambers, where the interruption and obstruction of proceedings have become all too common. During the week in the Senate, Senator Holly Hughes’ relentless disruptions during Senate Question Time – along with coordinated disruptions from others such as Senators Michaelia Cash and Anne Ruston – are emblematic of this issue, and these are antics that prevent the Senate from effectively conducting its business.

During the week, the Liberal Party also arranged for 200 pharmacists in white coats to disrupt Question Time by shouting obscenities and heckling the Prime Minister, before storming out of the chamber. If these roles had been reversed – a Liberal–National government and 200 unionists in hi-viz vests heckling the conservative prime minister of the day – the Australian Federal Police would have been called in, arrests would have been made, and a parliamentary inquiry would have been established to discover which Labor MPs were behind the scandal. Yet Labor tolerates these antics, makes some noises about it, and the incident passes by.

However, the responsibility for maintaining order within parliamentary chambers falls squarely on the shoulders of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and stricter measures should have been taken to address the disruptions promptly – instead of tolerating poor behaviour and providing a lecture on good manners, President of the Senate, Sue Lines, should have removed Senator Hughes from the chamber after the first interjection. The same applies to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Milton Dick, who presided over a disruptive House during Question Time.

Certainly, the Labor government is attempting to adhere to the principles of fairness in politics and democratic processes, but why should they be fair to a Liberal Party that is contemptuous of fairness? Why tolerate this behaviour from their opponents when all they wish to achieve is highlights for the evening news to show that the entire parliament is in chaos, even though they are the ones who caused the chaos?

The Labor government needs to toughen up and take a more authoritative approach in parliamentary proceedings as a necessary response to these disruptive tactics employed by conservative political parties, particularly the Liberal Party, whose disruption-oriented strategy is not conducive to democracy, as it aims to undermine the functioning of democratic institutions rather than engage in constructive debate.

Strong and decisive action should be taken when members of parliament engage in disruptive acts, “naming” them and applying appropriate parliamentary penalties. The ultimate goal is to send a clear message that such behaviour is unacceptable and counterproductive.

The public’s aversion to childish behaviour in politics has been evident for some time, and a government that exhibits maturity and applies a strict adherence to parliamentary decorum is more likely to gain public support. Parliament exists to apply solutions within the community, and provide for a more constructive and functional political landscape in Australia, not a debating squabble that drags everyone into mud-slinging battlefield where everyone loses.

The hijacking of Australian politics by conservative political parties has led to a climate of disruption, division, and obstruction within parliamentary proceedings and nothing can ever be achieved. It’s reminiscent of the tactics employed by the Republican Party in the United States, where every millimetre of debate is stalled and stymied and no point is ever ceded.

Ultimately, the goal is to restore order and civility to parliamentary proceedings, fostering a more constructive and effective political environment for the benefit of the Australian public. But the Labor government is up against an opponent which has no interest in democracy, no interest in civil or constructive debate.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating had a simple motto: ‘control Question time; control politics’. The Labor government needs to wrest back the control of politics from a conservative entity that is languishing in opposition and isn’t doing anything to deserve fairness and equal debate in parliament. If the government doesn’t do this, it may find itself back on the opposition benches after the next election, wondering where it all went wrong.