20th September, 2010

BRUCE C. WEARNE

In the midst of the post election negotiations between Julia Gillard as the leader of the Labor Party and non-Coalition elected members, the newly elected "independent Green" Andrew Wilkie put forward a list of his demands for co-operation. Among them was one for a 'conscience vote' on the so-called 'gay marriage' issue. Quite rightly, the Labor leader ruled this out completely since her own party's election platform had clearly opposed such change to the legal definition of marriage to be applied throughout the Commonwealth.

PICTURE: David Adams "(T)hat this 'conscience vote' can not merely be a question of 'the right to die'. It is also not merely a question of how our political system is formed in an ongoing way to respect the jurisdiction of the states and territories in relation to the Federal Government. It is also, most significantly, a question of how elected representatives retain and respect their accountability to their electors."

Now we have been told that in her deliberations with Senator Bob Brown there will an opportunity given for members of parliament to vote on a 'conscience vote'. It will not be on 'gay marriage' but on a matter that did not raise much comment in the election campaign. This is also a controversial issue and concerns the act of a previous Government to block the rights of states and territories to implement 'voluntary euthanasia' laws. Apparently, an agreement has been struck between Gillard and Brown to allow a conscience vote on this issue. This kind of political manoeuvring has significant consequences.

What are they? Well let us note that this 'conscience vote' can not merely be a question of 'the right to die'. It is also not merely a question of how our political system is formed in an ongoing way to respect the jurisdiction of the states and territories in relation to the Federal Government. It is also, most significantly, a question of how elected representatives retain and respect their accountability to their electors.

The kind of deal that has been struck between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Greens is actually pre-emptive and thus an unnecessary agreement at this time. It not only tries to give elected members of parliament a vote on an issue they have not canvassed, and which has been inadequately canvassed among their electors. It serves to hide the fact that the repeated efforts to bring in allegedly 'progressive legislation' via 'conscience votes' is allowing the political parties to avoid the development of comprehensive policies to put before the electorate at election time. It actually endorses a view that suggests that political parties can avoid policies about contentious moral issues and thus candidates can avoid being cross-examined on these matters that don't make it onto the party platform.

In, other words, this attempt to address what some claim is an unjust federal imposition upon the rights of a state or territory to legislate within its own legitimate sphere of governance, can only deepen the instability that has become part of our inherited system of governance. The demand for more opportunities for conscience votes by elected representatives to correct these alleged injustices between federal and state and territory jurisdictions is not making it any easier to reform our system of government. In fact it simply adds an extra dimension of instability. It is merely to advocate a band-aid solution to fix one problem which will only deepen the structural problems that need to be addressed and which all current major parties seem incapable of addressing when it comes to putting in a coherent way to the electorate.

In this context, the demand for conscience votes are simply a way of diverting attention from the failures of Labor, Liberal, National and Greens to comprehensively educate the Australian citizenry with policies that spell out the public-legal consequences of our system of public governance. That is also why, in this context the Gillard/Brown announcement that "it has been decided", has every likelihood of deepening the widespread public cynicism that has been generated by the inabilities of these parties to development comprehensive policy platforms about all the issues that are of vital concern to just governance of the public realm. Quite apart from the moral and ethical questions concerning the legal context in which people die, the question of how our federal system of government should work cannot be dealt with by an ad hoc and opportunistic attempt to allow for a conscience vote. A different, more patient approach, to an issue which has significant structural consequences for the fabric of our entire national political life, needs to be adopted here. But how? That also is a question that from here on needs to be part of the policy platforms put forward parties when they promote their candidates at election time.

Here are a few of these questions which we can ask ourselves as we wait and watch how the Federal Parliament will structure its affairs as a result of the negotiations that have brought on a minority Labor government after the recent election:

• During the recent election, which parties put forward policies, and spent time explaining them, so that electors would know how they understood the role 'conscience votes' should play in parliament?

• During the recent election, which parties put forward policies, and spent time explaining them, so that electors would know how they understood the reform of our system of government at all levels? (Note the policies related to the incorporation of local government into the constitution).

• What prevents parties from formulating and defending a comprehensive policy about the way 'conscience votes' should operate in parliament among all the policies that they put forward?

• During the recent election, which parties or independent candidates put forward policies that explain to electors the part played by "party discipline" in the conduct, voting and overall workings of parliament?

• What prevents parties and candidates from formulating and defending policies about 'party discipline' and its role in good government?

• How has our parliamentary democracy developed over recent decades so that 'conscience votes' have become a crucial part of Australian political life? Consider how 'conscience votes' can unhinge an elected representatives accountability to electors, and thus how they can actually make public debate about contentious issues even more contentious and divisive.

• Is our political system incapable of promoting genuine political debate about contentious moral and ethical issues? Could this be why such issues are left off the policy platforms of parties and candidates, or if not excluded entirely, relegated to subordinate status? Does this subordination of such policies help explain how such issues become subject to a 'conscience vote' in the parliament?

• Why should one political policy advocating public justice be considered more important than other such policies? What reasons are given for justifying the view that some issues are worthy of immediate debate while others are left waiting in the wings?

• Is not our lack of principled political discussion about contentious differences of opinion, including ethical differences, in large part due to the fact that we do not usually see these issues as political until there is a crisis? That is, when, as with our current situation there is a likelihood of a hung parliament or when one political lobby group with views contrary to those of another significant sector of the population, gains parliamentary support for proposed legislation, or when a Prime Minister, after consultation with powerful commercial groups, decides that her/his election platform commitments can be dispensed with "in the national interest"?

• How should we view "national interest" in evaluating the conduct of elected members of parliament and their voting record in relation to their campaign commitments?

• Isn't the loyalty of an elected representative to her/his electors an integral component of how the system of government we have inherited relates to national interest? How is that to be balanced with 'party discipline'?

• What is it in our current way of "doing politics" that challenges the principle that an elected representative should always remain loyal to campaign promises? Assess the role of political impatience in the way we "do politics" (consider the Gillard/Brown deal on a conscience vote on ACT voluntary euthanasia laws).

• Why has there been a significant growth in the number of independents who have been elected to parliament?

• What does the current uncertainty about the election result tell us about the status of two party politics as a norm for "doing politics" in Australia? Both Gough Whitlam and John Howard appealed to this norm as basic to their own contributions.

• Are we about to enter a new phase in our political history where our political system and our understanding of political parties will have to be re-drawn? What new political responsibilities and corresponding accountability does this open up for the citizens of the country?

• In the meantime, what can we do to ensure that all elected representatives are given the support and respect they need to: 1. respect the "consciences" of all other representatives; 2. maintain a responsible stand with their own "party disciplines" and, 3. honour electoral duties and promises made to electors during the election campaign. These three aspects are all part of an elected member's responsibility in the federal parliament which is mandated to make laws and govern in order that public justice be upheld and maintained for all?

• Why has there been only marginal and sporadic efforts to promote a genuinely Biblically-directed view of public justice among the Christian citizens of Australia during recent decades? How do you assess the various Christian political options that are currently available within the political spectrum - whether the Christian socialism of Labor, the Liberal Christendom option of the Coalition, the progressive Green Christian option, the Christian Democratic Party, Family First or any other? What are the major hurdles that have to be considered when developing a Christian political option on a national basis?

So much could go wrong with our "doing politics", but we are not left without assistance. Let me close with an excerpt from Psalm 2 to frame our political reflections on our own responsibility as citizens, so that we (as Christian citizens also hear ourselves being called to task when David speaks of "small time little rulers") and thereby begin to get the point of what politics is about - governance coram Deo.

So now, you small time little rulers, you had better wise up!
You only judge on the earth,
Hadn't you better get the point?
Serve the LORD GOD with an attentive awe -
Take joy in your task with trembling -
Give homage to this adopted son of God too -
Lest he also get worked up, and you obliterate any way for you to walk,
For God's anger can flash up like lightning…
Blesséd are all those who have run
To take shelter with the anointed one.

- Psalm 2 (part Seerveld translation from Voicing God's Psalms)

FOR MORE OF SIGHT-SEEING...  | more... |