The widespread desire for a new politics must include a firm determination to eliminate personal attacks on opponents wherever possible. That is not easy in a climate in which pulling other people down is par for the course. Just as in sport nasty "sledging" is too common. Yet, apart from party cheerleaders, the electorate don't want it. It has led to a burgeoning literature about the need for more civility, less contempt and better argument in public discourse.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Personal attacks have a long history on both sides of politics. At the time of the 50th anniversary of Gough Whitlam's famous election victory in 1972 his description of Queensland premier Jo Bjelke-Petersen as a "Bible-bashing bastard" comes to mind. It could easily be used again in today's political climate, but it stepped over the mark. Politicians can give it and take it, but that is no excuse as it encourages others.
What about cartoonists and satirists? They can certainly be cruel, but they are generally given a freer hand in such matters. They too need bounds though when they attack individuals personally.
Such personal attacks are often associated with election campaigns. Negative campaigning is one unfortunate part of the toolkit of campaign professionals. But they are found in parliamentary chambers and in the general community too.
The most recent example has been the Victorian state election in which Premier Dan Andrews was the subject of concerted personal attacks along the line of "Dictator Dan". It didn't work, quickly extended to death threats, and rebounded on his opponents in politics and the media.
There have been two recent federal occasions in which civility has gone out of the window to be replaced by "playing the man".
ACT senator David Pocock's success as the 39th and deciding vote in the Senate has led to dummy spitting by other crossbenchers who wanted to play that role but were denied it on issues like industrial relations.
Senator Pauline Hanson described Pocock as a rookie and "Doormat Dave" for eventually supporting the Albanese government's industrial relations bill in what was described as a fiery outburst. She accused him of breaking his word. Pocock was not deterred, engaging in some spirited defence.
Senator Jacqui Lambie and Australian Industry Group CEO Innes Wilcox were hard-hitting too, but within the bounds of acceptable political discourse, in describing Pocock as inexperienced because he "blinked first in a game of political chicken with the government".
MORE JOHN WARHURST:
More seriously Northern Territory Nationals senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price took personal aim at Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Burney, Price said, was a privileged and out of touch city-dweller who toured remote and poverty-stricken Indigenous communities "dripping with Gucci". Burney deflected the personal attack on her, though it must have stung, by emphasising her own impoverished background, saying that she didn't take things personally. She did, however, reflect that "there's going to be many nasty things said" during the public contest over the proposed referendum over the Voice to Parliament. If that is the case that is unfortunate because there is never any excuse for nastiness in politics.
Distinguished Indigenous advocate Noel Pearson, this year's ABC Boyer Lecturer, also became over-heated and personal in responding to the announcement by Nationals' leader David Littleproud that his party would oppose the Voice. Pearson described Littleproud as a boy and "kindergarten kid" and, playing with his name, a man of "little pride". He also put down Price unmercifully.
Such language doesn't get political debates anywhere and should be declared out of bounds and unacceptable. It doesn't matter that a lot is at stake. The language should not be excused as mere "nasty jibes", as is often the case in media reporting of instances of personal attacks on politicians.
Peter Dutton, a favourite of cartoonists, is a target too, largely because of his appearance, in language which sometimes crosses the line. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek probably meant no harm and played for a laugh when soon after the election she described him as "Voldemort", the highly unattractive Dark Lord in the Harry Potter series, but Albanese quickly pulled her into line. She quickly apologised unreservedly after Albanese reckoned that she had made a mistake.
Fortunately, however, nastiness is the exception rather than the rule. Even in the political cauldron 99 per cent of the debate addresses the issues not the person in a respectful but tough way.
Most other recent political debates have shown that civil debate is possible while still being hard-nosed. There has been plenty of heat around debates about territory rights and voluntary assisted dying, discrimination and freedom of religion, equality for women, and the rights of low-paid workers, but politicians have largely refrained from personal attack.
Anthony Albanese, not immune from heated moments himself, has promised that his government will usher in a new style of politics. That can mean many things: less macho and bullying and more respectful of women, more consultative and less competitive, more inclusive and less insider, less secret and more transparent and accountable. It should certainly also mean fewer personal attacks. They are always a sign of weakness not strength.
Let's set a high bar for politicians and for ourselves. The job of politicians to refrain from personal abuse of their opponents is clear. Our own job should be equally clear. Don't let politicians and community leaders off the hook. Call them out and demand retractions of personal attacks even when we support their cause.
- John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
