THE MOST VITRIOLIC PARLIAMENT EVIDENCE OF THE VITRIOLIC NATURE OF THE 43 RD PARLIAMENT AND POTENTIAL CAUSES Nicolas Adams, 321 382 For Master of Arts (Research), June 2016 The University of Melbourne, School of Social and Political Sciences Supervisors: Prof. John Murphy, Dr. Scott Brenton i Abstract It has been suggested that the period of the Gillard government was the most vitriolic in recent political history. This impression has been formed by many commentators and actors, however very little quantitative data exists which either confirms or disproves this theory. Utilising an analysis of standing orders within the House of Representatives it was found that a relatively fair case can be made that the 43rd parliament was more vitriolic than any in the preceding two decades. This period in the data, however, was trumped by the first year of the Abbott government. Along with this conclusion the data showed that the cause of the vitriol during this period could not be narrowed to one specific driver. It can be seen that issues such as the minority government, style of opposition, gender and even to a certain extent the speakership would have all contributed to any mutation of the tone of debate. ii Declaration I declare that this thesis contains only my original work towards my Masters of Arts (Research) except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text to other material used. Equally this thesis is fewer than the maximum word limit as approved by the Research Higher Degrees Committee. iii Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge my two supervisors, Prof. John Murphy and Dr. Scott Brenton. Working with John for eighteen months and then Scott for four has been not only an excellent learning experience but also an absolute pleasure. Without their patience, understanding and support I would not have been able to complete this thesis. I, at times, tried their patience and understanding and I am truly indebted to them for helping me to see this through. Equally their expertise and willingness to challenge some of my ideas has enabled me to form a clearer and more cohesive central contention. Along with my two Masters supervisors I would like to acknowledge Nicholas Reece who, as my Honours supervisor, helped me to refine this area of research and initially consider this approach. Finally I would like to acknowledge all of the people who have helped with the organisation and management of this course and my work over the past two years. iv Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Literature Review 6 3. Methodology 60 4. Data a. Introductory Data 66 b. Minority Government 73 c. Speakership 84 d. The Potential Effect of Oppositionism 96 5. Conclusion 107 6. Bibliography 114 7. Appendices 123 v 1. Introduction On the 27 th of June 2013 Kevin Rudd was sworn in for his second term as Prime Minister of Australia, officially ending the tenure of Julia Gillard. Gillard had been removed from the Labor leadership the previous night after a ballot was held in the caucus. By the time that she was replaced Julia Gillard had been Prime Minister for a total of 3 years and 3 days, becoming the sixth longest serving Labor Prime Minister 1. The evening before, after having lost a ballot in the Labor caucus to former and future Prime Minister Rudd, Julia Gillard fronted the media and said farewell to the nation. As part of her final statement as Prime Minister Julia Gillard briefly reflected upon a period of political debate that had been rather extraordinary. Commenting upon her time as Prime Minister, Gillard drew upon minority government, internal party division, electoral pressure and her position as the first woman to serve in the role. She identified these as issues which were of singular importance during the majority of her Premiership, eventually telling her caucus colleagues “don’t lack the guts, don’t lack the fortitude, don’t lack the resilience to go out there with our Labor agenda and to win this election” 2. Gillard had identified that her period as Prime Minister had been, to a large extent, dominated by issues of tone and debate. A period during which she faced Tony Abbott as Opposition leader, Kevin Rudd as alternative Labor leader and crises involving the Speakership of the House of Representatives, corruption in the Union movement and the first minority government since the 16 th parliament (1940-43). The issue presented here, however is whether this parliament stands amongst the most vitriolic that Australia has ever seen, and if so what issues contributed to this standing. Australia has, in its 114 years since federation seen some significant periods of aggression and hostility. This includes the 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam, the removal of John Gorton as Prime Minister in 1971 and infamously aggressive national leaders such as Paul Keating. All of these periods, and many more aside, have raised queries as to the tone and nature of both our parliamentary institutions and the debate held within. 1 Gillard tenure as a Labor Prime Minister was behind Bob Hawke (8 years 284 days), Andrew Fisher (4 years 297 days), Ben Chifley (4 years 159 days), Paul Keating (4 years 82 days) and John Curtin (3 years 271 days). Billy Hughes served 7 years 105 days, however he was only a member of the Labor party for 1 year 18 days of that period. 2 Julia Gillard, Speech to Press Club, 26/06/2013. 1 The 43 rd parliament, mostly under the premiership of Julia Gillard has, however, been singled out by those involved, by the media and by commentators as a period of significant aggression, hostility and vitriol. A period that stands amongst some of those crises of the past. Gillard’s deputy and Treasurer, Wayne Swan supported a reading of a demeaned parliamentary debate. In his memoirs of the period Swan described the political debate as “increasingly ugly and vicious”, claiming that the policies of the government had become swamped by a “poisonous chemical stew” 3. Swan drew upon issues of party disunity, minority government, the Coalition’s negativity and a “disgracefully biased News Limited” as key drivers of this new environment in Australian politics. Whilst serving as a Deputy Prime Minister under Gillard, Swan contended that the tone and quality of debate had completely removed the possibility for any fair and reasonable debate regarding the economy, budget or anything else. This reading of the situation was strongly supported by Swan’s fellow minister Greg Combet. Combet, who was minister for Energy and Climate change, was responsible for the design and implementation of the Government’s signature Clean Energy Act 2011. This Act, which saw the implementation of a three year fixed carbon pricing scheme followed by the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, faced significant opposition both within the parliament and from sections of the media and public. Aside from questions over the practicalities of the policy, the politics of its introduction was undeniably controversial. In particular the Opposition and media had utilised the statement by Gillard, a week prior to the 2010 election, that there “will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. This statement, along with the famous “no carbon tax” slogan became a flash point for political debate. During the passage of the bills for the Clean Energy Act the parliament truly became a battle ground. Greg Combet described parliament as “a harrowing place to be… as Abbott used the carbon price to bludgeon the Prime Minister with censure motion after censure motion, the attacks always intensely personal, belligerent and ruthlessly reductionist” 4. Employing reductionist, personal attacks clearly diverted the questioning away from substantive policy discussion. Naturally, and inevitably, this encouraged the media and the public to spend more time absorbing the contest of personalities rather than considering the content of the policy and its alternatives. 3 Wayne Swan, The Good Fight , page 316. 4 Greg Combet, The Fights of My Life, page 262. 2 It was not, however, only members of the Labor government who have subsequently commented upon the tone of debate. Tony Windsor, the Independent member for New England (2001-2013) supported Julia Gillard after the 2010 election helping her to remain as Prime Minister. In his reflection upon the period of the Gillard government he lay heavy criticism upon the actions of senior Coalition politicians. In particular he identified a course of action which preyed upon the differences and weaknesses of Julia Gillard. Windsor contended that “a lot of Australians drank from the trough of abuse that was directed at Julia Gillard” and that “senior politicians such as Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and the dearly departed Sophie Mirabella should be ashamed of themselves” 5. In particular Windsor drew upon the abuse of gender. He claimed that Abbott “milked” the gender card which has resulted in “lasting damage” 6 to our politics. He equated this action to Howard Sattler’s questioning of Gillard over the sexual orientation of her partner, Tim Mathieson. Windsor contended that this “was not accidental, in today’s political world it is deliberate” 7. Windsor contends that focusing upon the personality and using this for political advantage is entirely strategic. More than that he identified this as a significant issue for Julia Gillard and her government. With a career in parliaments spanning 22 years Windsor clearly identified this period of government as a period in which the tone of political debate was at the very least more personal, probably more vitriolic. It is not, however, only politicians who have drawn upon this period as one that requires singular attention and consideration regarding the tone of debate.