The decision of the Opposition to end its boycott of sittings of Parliament is a sensible and pragmatic one.
Once it became clear that the Opposition was going to boycott any sitting presided over by the Speaker, who was not recusing himself from presiding over the House while a matter concerning him was being considered by the Committee of Privileges; then a collision between the two sides was inevitable.
The Opposition stuck to its principles while the Government held fast to its agenda, and to some extent it was politics as usual, apart from cryptic public advice given by Prime Minister Stuart to the Speaker, a lawyer himself; that he should get a lawyer.
Meanwhile, debates in Parliament which took place during the standoff lacked the input of the Opposition and the scrutiny which one would expect in a Parliament where the numbers are so evenly balanced. For example, one piece of legislation which was passed in the Lower House during this time was the bill which imposed a tax on the assets of banks and credit unions.
The absence of point and counterpoint in that debate was recently highlighted by a legal commentator who pointed out that the issue of retroactive application of some aspects of that tax, raised important legal questions, and that we might all have benefitted from fuller debate.
There are several concerns raised by the main issue. Opinion seems to be divided on the jurisdiction of the Committee of Privileges to deal with such a matter which took place outside the House itself. But many of these concerns surfaced in the public domain after the reference had been made; and it was always unlikely that anything less than a well grounded decision, one way or other, on so important a matter would come out of the committee.
Parliamentary business is serious and important business, and while public opinion matters and is always a key consideration in political issues, the decisions of so august an institution as this country’s Parliament should always be supported by reasoned arguments.
Reasoned arguments require time for research on relevant precedents, and the Government’s razor slim majority might have been imperiled if the Speaker recused himself while the matter was before the committee. But recusal until resolution of the referred matters seems to be the practice in other jurisdictions.
The boycott having been called, it brought added focus and attention to the issue, but it was always clear that a boycott of Parliament could hardly continue during this month when the Estimates are debated for a full week in the Lower House.
There is never an ill wind and perhaps one of the lessons of this recent episode is that while adherence to principle is non-negotiable; issues which might touch on the dignity of our Parliament are bigger than the political parties and require bipartisan solutions for their speedy consideration and effective resolution. Yet as we are often reminded, politics is not a Sunday school, and thereby hangs a tale!