Another article from last year. Again, I have a follow up specifically addressing the difference between Discussions and Arguments in the works.
The lack of any kind of bipartisanship in Australia Australia
This is frankly baffling. It’s quite obvious our two parties are exceedingly similar. The liberals are right of centre, and labour is (at best), ever so slightly left of centre. In a country as rich and beautiful as Australia
What’s more baffling, is the way the two parties don’t actually seem to pay attention to what the other is saying. Take the refugee issue. Obviously the libs are frequently riding textbook yellow peril (note the youtube advertisement with the big picture of Australia and several big, menacing arrows coming down from the north), but in more intellectual circles their argument is that accepting boat arrivals encourages an illegal people smuggling trade that is dangerous to people’s health and promotes crime. Labour hasn’t seemed to engage with this at all, and neither has the left in general for that matter. Instead, they’ve dismissed liberal policy as racism targeting marginal seats, emphasized that terrorists arrive by plane not boat, and that people on boats are desperate so we should help them (emotion over reason). The liberals have ignored all these arguments and focused on their own case. Recently, labor took a big step to the right, and then backflipped (the Timor idea) so right now no one knows what their policy is.
For me, the problem comes down to a refusal by both parties to be intelligent, educated, refined and willing to have a discussion. During his time in opposition, David Cameron of the U.K. conservatives, was frequently quoted with sentences like “we agree by and large with the government’s proposed policy, but we’d like to see some changes in areas x, y and z” or “well there is certainly some merit to ideas x, y and z, but by and large we think the policy is not a good one.” Why can’t we get some of that in Australia
Instead of constantly vilifying each other, I’d like to see the parties show each other, and the voting public, some respect. Rather than treating us as shallow, superficial numbskulls that care more about a $500 handout at election time, $40 extra per fortnight, and whether or not less than 2000 desperate people arrive by a boat each year.[1] I would like to see our educated politicians use question time in a reasonably way to get information, rather than just score ‘points’ of each other for their own amusement. I would like to see policy announcements accompanied by reports containing data, so that I can see for myself how decisions were arrived at e.g. why were only 3 of the Henry Tax Reviews recommendations taken on board? I would like to see politicians from both parties talking to each other in a relaxed way about the different potential solutions to Australia
At the very least, I would like to see the minor parties being a voice of reason, instead of just adding to the cacophony of dishonesty and spin. I would like to see a minor MP, in a non-belligerent fashion, ask for information during question time: “my question is to the minister for immigration – does the government have statistics on what skills the refugees arriving by boat have? What are the government’s reasons for not behaving in accordance with the refugee convention that Australia Australia
At the end of the day, I think we need more discussion, and fewer arguments. An argument is only necessary once all potential for a compromise has evaporated e.g. the abortion debate in the states. In an argument, no one is interested in learning or even engaging with the other party’s ideas – they are only interested in winning. There is an immediate inducement to dishonesty in an argument – and rhetoric, ‘spin’ as they call it in the media. I’d like to see Australian politicians demonstrate their education, and come together at the table of brotherhood to create strong, bipartisan policies that are in the best interests of the country, not the party proposing them.
Comments
Post a Comment