Parliament needs to get back to work, too

Why is it good enough for the rest of Australia to self-isolate when travelling for work but the political class won’t?

Illustration: Tom Jellett

The next fortnight was supposed to bring a return of parliamentary sittings, but Scott Morrison announced that on the advice of the acting Chief Medical Officer he’d cancelled parliament. Apparently it’s too dangerous for Victorian MPs to make their way to Canberra amid the second wave hitting their home state.

The announcement was made at the same time Josh Frydenberg (a Victorian) made his way to Canberra to deliver his budget update. Victorian federal ministers regularly are given travel exemptions without the need to self-isolate. But that inconsistency is the least of the problems with yet another cancellation of parliamentary sittings.

Parliament matters. It is a cornerstone of our democratic polity. That the executive and Prime Minister consider it irrelevant enough to junk sittings isn’t something to be applauded or allowed to continue without comment.

Australia’s parliament sat during the 1919 pandemic and during World War II, far riskier (and deadlier) times than we are witnessing today.

Let’s be clear about one thing: relying on the advice of the acting CMO as the excuse for the cancellation is a fig leaf. Paul Kelly isn’t saying Victorian MPs can’t travel. He’s simply saying there are risks if they do en masse, without appropriate quarantining. I’m certain he’d also say there are risks in granting ministers exemptions from quarantine to traverse the continent. But that still goes on because they are deemed acceptable risks. Victorian MPs, for example, could have made their way to Canberra two weeks earlier and gone into self-isolation. Unlike the rest of us who would need to pay for doing so now, they would be paid for sitting in their hotel rooms ordering room service. But apparently even that is too much to expect.

Why is it good enough for the rest of Australia to self-isolate when travelling for work demands but the political class won’t?

They expect health workers to quarantine from their families when treating the sick. They want frontline workers to continue doing their jobs despite the risks they face at the coalface. Kids are still attending school. Footballers are forced to spend copious amounts of time away from their families and friends in isolation hubs to ensure playing environments are safe.

But the politicians think they don’t have to do their important work in parliament? I thought we were all in this together.

To be fair, many politicians do think parliament should sit. Individual MPs don’t get to make that decision. The government controlling the numbers in the House of Representatives does. In practical terms that means the Prime Minister. And, in a show of political capitulation for which federal Labor is becoming known, the opposition gave Morrison bipartisan support for this latest democratic shutdown.

A minister remarked to me the other day that the best thing about parliament not sitting was that his own backbenchers couldn’t congregate, “causing trouble” for ministers busy dealing with the pandemic. How respectful of one’s colleagues, and of democratic institutions and lines of accountability, centuries in the making.

Even if physically returning to parliament were too problematic right now, why couldn’t the parliament meet virtually? Other professionals are doing just that to keep their businesses afloat during these pandemic times. My 11 and 13-year-olds were capable of attending Zoom sessions at their school when classes went online. Why is doing so possible for children but beyond the capability of our nation’s politicians?

The cabinet meets virtually. So do the national security committee, the expenditure review committee and the national cabinet. Why can’t parliament do the same? Unlike these other meetings the public gets to see what happens in parliament.

The only answer is that while there is a way, there is no will. Not within the executive and the inner sanctum of the Prime Minister.

There aren’t institutional limitations either. Our democratic system is based on the British Westminster system, and British parliamentary democracy has carried on virtually when unable to meet physically since the early stages of this pandemic. The same has happened in other countries.

I know many Australians don’t think the sitting of parliament is that important. They are wrong. It’s a complacency the executive preys on as it continues to diminish the role of parliament, especially now that the pandemic has shut it down completely. Yes, antics in the chamber often make it on to the nightly news, giving people the impression that when the political class descends on Canberra it is nothing more than kids at a school camp.

But there is a lot more to what goes on during sitting weeks, such as the checks and balances sittings provide — especially in the Senate, which is not controlled by the government of the day. The opportunity for the opposition to ask the government questions in the house. Legislative scrutiny, which often leads to amendments to poorly crafted laws. Partyroom meetings during sitting weeks ensure government and opposition frontbenches don’t become distant from the broader partisan teams. Even the role of the fourth estate is diminished when parliament doesn’t sit.

Right now our nation is facing up to some of the biggest challenges in a generation. From rising unemployment to a recession that risks becoming a depression, to the scale of government spending — the economic impacts of executive decision-making are enormous. And then of course we have the health crisis, policy options for managing it, and the impact the pandemic is having on the federation. All of which makes parliamentary sittings more important, not less.

The cultural erosion of accountability structures that comes from cancelling parliament as lightly as we have, in unprecedented ways without efforts to find alternative ways of meeting, should not be underestimated.

British philosopher Edmund Burke — considered to be the founder of modern conservatism and praised by liberals and conservatives alike — wrote about the importance of parliament to the democratic process. One of the founders of British parliamentary democracy in the 17th century, John Pym, said: “A Parliament is that to the Commonwealth which the soul is to the body.”

Shortly after becoming Liberal leader Morrison himself said it was important “to ensure that we not only bring our party back together … but that we bring the parliament back together”. Fast forward to today and the Prime Minister seems content to let his MPs remain isolated, scattered across the country, while parliament sits idle. All the while executive government marches on.

Peter van Onselen is the political editor at the Ten Network and a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.