The Coalition’s internal decay has left Australia without an effective opposition at a time when scrutiny, debate and accountability are more necessary than ever. The result is not just a party in trouble, but a democratic failure.

The piteous state in which the Liberal Party, its leadership and the coalition generally find themselves might invite only derision. Its troubles are of its own making and an apparently suicidal impulse.

It has very limited prospect of winning back power in even the medium term, and when it does, very few, if any, of the current generation of elected members will be a part of the team, let alone a leader of it. The charitable and the merciful might be disposed to give the sorry crew privacy for their major bloodletting.

But it is necessarily a public matter because it conceals a major public tragedy. There was never a time in which an Australian government required more close and suspicious scrutiny, principled criticism and sensibly advanced and debated alternatives for public policy and programs. The Albanese government has not been getting this, at least not from the Liberal and National Parties, or, even, for that matter, from One Nation.

It is not merely a matter of failing to hold the government to account over its policies, programs and expenditure. Critical questions of various forms of executive action would benefit the nation – such as, say, its invitation to the Israeli president to Australia in the name of helping create social harmony, or its provision of a platform to advance the notion that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

The opposition is, of course, far more pro-Israeli than even the government, and far more hostile to protest. Most of the questioning has been one-sided and not very critical, apart from questions coming from the crossbench. The opposition has seemed constrained even in going to the limits that it could have, because of its preoccupation with its own internal conflicts.

Likewise, the opposition has seemed limited in its capacity to ask questions across the range of government. Under Sussan Ley, for example, senior frontbencher Angus Taylor had asked only three questions about defence policy since the last election, even though both the defence procurement environment, and Australia’s security and strategic environment have been very important issues over the past year. It was, of course, much the same when Taylor, as shadow treasurer under Peter Dutton, seemed unable to put pressure on Jim Chalmers even at a time when energy bills and the cost of living were seen as major election issues.

In one sense government ministers might be very comfortable indeed with shallow and inadequate questions, and a failure to bring key events and policy issues up for debate. But that’s a short-term view. The performance of ministers and the standing of government generally is enhanced when an effective opposition has it on its toes. Ministers discover that they must know their portfolio, and details of decisions made. Prime ministers discover that ministers who know their stuff and are enthusiastic advocates for the underlying policies are far more effective political operators than those who have memorised a few jokes about the character and abilities of their opposite numbers and rely on Question Time briefs prepared by bureaucrats. They must put more emphasis on explaining, on........

© Pearls and Irritations