Popular images of parliament and of parliamentarians as a group are generally negative.
Parliament is regarded as an ivory tower that contributes to politicians being out of touch.
Parliamentarians are regarded as overpaid and as too eager to take advantage of parliamentary lurks and perks such as overseas study tours. They are seen as privileged, their privilege shown in the widely envied first class travel and government cars.
Uglier images too inlcude the perception that parliamentarians are corrupt. It certainly doesn't help that former MPs seem so central to the lobbying industry.
And at the really ugly end are sex scandals and other personal misbehavior, including the abuse of parliamentary privilege to slander private citizens.
One of the most important of these negative images of parliamentary politics is that it is unnecessarily adversarial. Parliamentarians are often seen as bad mannered and lacking in common courtesies towards one another. They shout too much and use mildly abusive language. They should be models of best behavior but instead often engage in personal attacks.
Some commentators defend adversarial politics, arguing that such competition is a necessary and positive side of Westminster style parliamentary politics.
But they confuse two different aspects of adversarial politics, mixing up style and content. The good side is spirited opposition. The core of good adversarial politics for both the government and opposition is that well thought out views should be put clearly in argument and, if necessary, very strongly indeed.
There is nothing wrong with assertiveness in this context. Ideological differences will lead the government and opposition to be in deep disagreement from time to time. But this should not always happen. Agreement should be the default position. Indeed most legislation passes through the Parliament with the support of both major parties.
The public has no objection at all to genuine ideological differences expressed politely. If anything it would prefer to see more of this than to see neither side willing to take risks on contentious issues, as happened during the election campaign.
The bad side of adversarial politics is needless aggression, expressed in a nasty tone and apparent anger. In this style bipartisan agreement or consensus is avoided as a matter of course. The major parties emerge as sworn enemies with little in common.
The public does not appreciate this sort of adversarial politics and they like it even less when it is exemplified in the relations between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Tony Abbott,