|
September 9, 2010
Leunig is right about the theatre of politics. We can now draw the curtains on the previous act, interesting as it was. In the next act things are going to be different for the House of Representatives, because the politics by necessity will be one of consulting, negotiation and compromise around a varrety of policy issues, as opposed to just ramming the legislation through the House as was routinely done in the previous act.
How then are to understand the action in the new act? Arthur Sinodinos, John Howard's former chief of staff, states in The Australian that Gillard:
is in office but not in power. The new parliamentary processes tilt the balance back towards the legislative arm at the expense of genuine leadership. Collective decision-making robs parties and leaders of individual responsibility and accountability. Who will stick up for anything remotely difficult now?
That gives the game away. Sinodinos is all for a strong executive ('genuine leadership') and opposed to strengthening the power of the legislature against the executive. In the previous act that meant the House of Representatives was a rubber stamp for those who controlled the executive (ie., the inner cabinet).
So how do things in the new act look for those who defend the dictatorship of the executive as being good for the country? Not good. Sinodinos sees a more deliberative House negatively:
More parliamentary scrutiny of contentious legislation may help build consensus but compromise is not an end in itself. It is only worthwhile to pursue consensus that improves outcomes and furthers the national interest. It is easy to get consensus if you aim for the lowest common denominator.Some of these new parliamentary exercises could descend into a dialogue of the deaf. The terms of reference of the new parliamentary committee on climate change make it clear that only true believers need apply. And that is meant to give us consensus on climate change?
In other words it's all talk and nothing much can get done. You can only get things done with a dictatorship of the executive. This is the position of News Ltd as well.
The problem with this argument is that Howard and Sinodinos had to negotiate and compromise with the Senate over their legislation, since for most of the decade they were in power they did not control the Senate. When they did gain control in 2004 they overreached themselves, hollowed out the way the Senate conducted its business of improving legislation, and got tossed out for their Workchoice efforts.
For all their talk about being Burkean conservatives they showed no reverence for the established political institutions, trashed convention and tradition, dumped the accumulated wisdom of established institutions and allowed the power of dictatorship to go their heads. Behind the mask of conservatism stood Hobbes, Leviathan and the sword. In other words effective government must be undivided and unlimited sovereign power.
Liberal democracy in Australia is structured on checks and balances on sovereign power (its divided and limited), and it is premised on debate, negotiation and compromise rather than the bully boy in the schoolyard approach. Many in the ALP are going to find that hard to accept--eg., the power brokers of the NSW Right---and they will have to be kept in their box.
|
A price on carbon is coming---as the combined votes of Labor, independent and Green members constitute majority support for a carbon price in some form yet to be decided.
So how does Sinodinos interpret this policy? Referring to the rainbow coalition he says:
Putting a price on carbon would be lurch to the Left for Sinodinos since the Right and the saner ranches of the trade union movement (eg., Paul Howe) forced the Rudd ALP to dump the emissions trading scheme and to retreat from the climate change issue.
Maybe Sinodinos isn't aware that there are 12 operating and seven proposed renewable energy plants in Bob Katter’s seat of Kennedy, and six operating and five proposed plants in Tony Windsor’s electorate of New England.