|
November 28, 2005
I watched Question Time in the House of Representatives today.The questions about the complex workplaces changes were quickly displaced as an angry Labor called a biased Speaker into account, and dissented from his consistent onesided rulings in favour of the Government.
It was good political theatre done to defend the importance of Parliament as a way of holding the executive accountable. That is the significance of Question Time.The ALP is right to defend the Speaker's undermining of the substance of Question Time.
Labor looked good, very good. This is another example of the recent change in political climate that has resulted from the marshalling of opposition to the industrial relations legislation that the Senate is currently debating. The ALP tacticians have managed to link parliamentary tactics and public opinion, and bring them together into a whole. It is a good, solid achievement.
An editorial in The Canberra Times sounds a note of a warning:
Meanwhile, Labor has almost no profile in developing debates, whether over the centrist trends in primary and secondary education or a shift to a college model in university education, and appears to have no policy whatever (and certainly no critique of Government policy) in Aboriginal affairs. It has made almost no running--- presumably from its own shame and embarrassment ---over immigration scandals, and seems to have dropped Tony Abbott and health care from much in the way of scrutiny, allowing a somewhat bruised minister a lot of time for recovery. It appears to have junked playing any significant sort of role in the welfare-to-work debate, presumably because it is more preoccupied with the industrial relations debate. In the process it is losing important opportunities to point out how the two proposals are linked. Or about how the questions in many minds about potential losers in the industrial relations changes will redouble once it is clear how many new unskilled and untrained people may be entering the system. Likewise, it has shied entirely away from the security debate, and, apparently, from debate about Australian defence directions. Labor, bluntly, is doing very little to hold the Government to account. Nor, while it is ignoring that function, could it claim to be doing much by way of developing new policy and directions, or of selling any sort of ideal or vision of the party.
It's true, unfortunately. The ALP has been consistently outgunned in the strategic, deliberation and cunnning strategy departments by Howard since 1996.
Will this happen again? It is a long way to the next election isn't it. As each year passes the neo-liberal mode of governance deepens. That mode of governance is not going to be rolled back.
|
Far be it from me to defend the ALP, but I think the Canberra Times editorial is a bit unfair.
Whilst there is some substance in their criticisms, and Labor undoubtedly has been giving priority to the workplace relations stuff, they have also been trying to highlight the gross unfairness of the so called welfare-to-work measures (as have many others I might say).
Just today, Labor (and the minor parties in the Senate) tabled their minority report which was quite scathing of the government's welfare measures and the lies and false assumptions underpinning key parts of it. Unfortunately, this got buried beneath the attention focused on workplace and terror laws. Perhaps it may get attention next week after these other measures have (sadly) been passed by the Senate.
whilst I think Labor's position on some aspects of immigration and indigenous issues is weak, they have also been bashing away at some of the government's weaknesses in these areas.
Part of why this may not be apparent is that the mainstream media is not very good at highlighting more than a couple of issues, which makes it very hard for any political party to be seen to be effective on more than a couple of issues at any one time.
Any ideas on how to get around this gratefully received.