Is ‘rip him a new one!’ really necessary for robust democratic debate?

Allegra Spender was freshly arrived in parliament when she attended question time and heard a backbencher urge his frontbench colleague to “rip him a new one!” The “him” in question was someone from the other side. Much hilarity ensued from the MP’s colleagues.

Spender, the teal MP for Wentworth, is a credentialed woman who worked in business for her entire pre-politics career, which is another way of saying she is a grown-up and – perhaps unsurprisingly – didn’t find this sub-Churchillian quip so funny.

This week, Spender and the other teal crossbenchers voiced their disdain for what passes as “robust debate” on the floor of parliament. The MPs, all women, spoke publicly about the rowdy atmosphere of question time, where behaviour is “aggressive”, “condescending” and “often misogynistic”, they said.

Member for Wentworth Allegra Spender.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

Their critics responded with hostility, and charges that the teals are trying to distract from their lack of a policy agenda. They implied the crossbenchers are snowflakes and hypocrites. And maybe they are. But you can’t say they’re not fulfilling their political promise as disruptors, at least in this instance.

For decades, the shoutiness of question time has been tolerated, even encouraged, as part of the “rough and tumble” of politics. Question time is a last bastion of free speech, integral to frank debate. A blowing-off of political steam without which our democracy would be weaker.

The teals are inviting us to see the cacophony as something else – stupid, harmful to social civility and, above all, unnecessary.

“The only equivalent I can think of is a sporting match,” Spender told me this week. “There are people shouting and mocking each other, saying things that would be unacceptable in other workplaces.”

We are not talking about noble rhetorical battles in the service of ideas and principles. It’s mostly just wit-free name-calling and senseless noise-making. The behaviour of many MPs in question time is so juvenile, puerile and bullying that you would call it school-boyish, except you wouldn’t want to offend schoolboys. In fact, many schoolboys, and schoolgirls too, sit perfectly quietly and politely in the public galleries as they observe parliament on educational trips.

The worst offenders know there is no public accountability for their carry-on. They can say horrible things and generally behave like donkeys in full confidence the television microphones will not pick up their comments. They can usually count on the acoustics of the place to ensure their words don’t travel to the public and press galleries either.

Speaker Milton Dick does what he can to maintain respect – this week he undertook to “reflect on standards and behaviour in recent times” and report back to Spender.

But hang on, are the teals so lily-white themselves? Last week a clearly harassed Zali Steggall (teal MP for Warringah) repeatedly demanded other MPs, notably Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, stop heckling her as she had the floor in the House of Representatives. “We heard you in silence, you can hear me in silence!” she told him, voice raised.

Steggall was trying to speak on the emotive topic of Palestinian refugees, objecting to Dutton’s call for a blanket ban on Australian visas for Palestinians fleeing Gaza. Dutton didn’t oblige her; Steggall lost her cool and told him to “stop being racist”.

On Dutton’s request, she withdrew the remark “to assist the House”, but in a later radio interview she said she didn’t regret it. Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham implied Steggall was a hypocrite, saying she had promised “a kinder, gentler politics” but was “really quite happy to play the man rather than the ball”.

It was reported that Dutton was seeking legal advice over the insult. The opposition leader would not comment on that, but even his request for Steggall to withdraw the comment shows that those who call for robust public debate still believe there are limits.

Why does it matter if our politicians scream abuse at each other? Isn’t this unruly atmosphere an integral feature of the glorious parliamentary tradition we inherited from the British? Surely we don’t want to strip all the spice out of politics? It’s anodyne enough as it is, right?

Again, maybe. But what are we defending? Spender points out that the Jenkins review was supposed to herald a new culture of civility and ethical behaviour across parliament.

“How do you come away from this amped-up environment and treat your staff with respect, and not get angry all the time?” she asks.

Spender also points to a crisis in public debate, which she links to the “polarisation, post-truth and populism” of the moment. “We have policy issues where we need to listen to each other with respect and find common ground. We need nuance, reason and respect.”

Gaza is one of those issues. ASIO boss Mike Burgess has urged politicians (and the public) to “be careful” with the words they use because “inflamed language leads to violence”. In some quarters, the teals have been painted as scolds and wowsers for questioning the tradition of question time yelling.

It’s an old and tired characterisation. Suffragettes were seen as killjoys, especially when they formed a coalition of sorts with the temperance movement of the 19th century (because they saw how alcohol fuelled violence against women and children). Second-wave feminists who objected to exploitative pornography were written off as prigs.

This week, my Herald colleagues reported on the sexualised, unsafe culture at the trendy Swillhouse group of restaurants. One employee said she was demoted when she reported her sexual assault (by a fellow employee) to management. In internal emails, her manager said the woman’s “general negativity within the workplace” was “not in line with our core values of ‘good times’ ”.

Complaining about sexual assault really kills the vibe.

The teals were voted in by their constituents as pro-women moderates. That, together with action on climate change, is their entire political brand. And here they come, trying to moderate some of the more extreme behaviour in parliament, particularly behaviour that women tend to cop worse than men.

What monsters they are! The backlash against them tells its own story.

Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and regular columnist.