Jacqui Lambie has resigned from the Palmer United Party, apologising to the nation for weeks of acrimonious sniping and instability in parliament.
The disintegration of the relationship between the Tasmanian Senator and PUP leader Clive Palmer prompts us to ask what we can properly expect of the new independent senators who took office at the beginning of July, and what they can expect of us as voters and commentators on politics.
On the first question, I suggest they are all doing their best to fulfil their mandates to state voters, and to the nation. Sometimes some of them make poor choices before voting. So, of course, do senators representing one or other of the major parties, including the Greens. But the newbies can also make good voting decisions that add value to our threatened democracy, economy or environment.
On the second question, the answer is simple. We should offer the independent senators – and Clive Palmer – no more and no less respect than we give to senators from the Coalition, Labor or the Greens.
I think we are now failing at this. Regularly. This is concerning, because the independent senators all have strategic votes that are capable of determining the outcome of votes concerning important questions including human rights, climate change, counterterrorism, budget cuts in areas including health, education and the ABC, and more.
If we fall into the now habitual trap of treating the new independent senators or Palmer with mockery or disdain, our democracy and the interests of ordinary people will suffer.
Setting aside the ten Green senators, who have arguably earned respect already, we need to consider what value the other eight crossbench senators bring to the Senate and to our democracy.
Two of them – Xenophon and Madigan – are experienced. Xenophon is almost universally well-regarded, and Madigan is finally earning some grudging respect. But the six new independents, and Palmer, have been copping a sustained bad press from many commentators including some from the ABC.
There are two kinds of critique. First, that they are know-nothing ignoramuses – the result of flaws in the electoral system – who just should not be there. The second is that they are, at heart, right-wingers, vulnerable to being bought by the Coalition when the right bribe comes along. The former critique can be heard from anywhere, the latter comes from the left (from Labor and even, at times, the Greens).
I have not found either critique justified in the five months since the six newbies joined the Senate. Lambie is doing strong lobbying for the ADF and families in keeping defence pay in line with inflation, and she is standing up for Tasmanian rights. Together with Ricky Muir, she made a good choice in joining Labor, the Greens and other independents – excluding the two other PUP senators, who in my view wrongly voted with the government this time – to reject the government's dangerous proposed new FOFA regulations.
The PUP itself has spoken out against the government's proposed health, education and ABC cuts; has blocked the abolition of the Renewable Energy Target; has retained the Climate Change Authority. True, it helped the government abolish the carbon tax, but it held open the possibility of a future emissions trading scheme (also Labor's policy). PUP seems to have the right instincts on boat people human rights, although this remains to be tested in votes.
Leyonhelm is doing good work on civil liberties under pressure of panic-driven terror laws.
This is not a bad record over five months for six newbies. Listening to Lambie explaining to the media how she will conduct herself in Parliament from now on, given that she apparently no longer feels bound by PUP directives, I was impressed by her exposition of her responsibilities to ADF people and to Tasmanian electors. I hope that her present breach with Palmer will not result in either of them succumbing to Coalition blandishments. Lambie says she will vote with PUP where they agree on the issues; and she stressed it is not about personalities. Lambie could in time become a new Brian Harradine.
I found Palmer's ability to negotiate good outcomes with Al Gore on important climate change issues impressive. Of course he carries baggage of self-interest - who does not, in this Parliament? – but he is no worse than most and better than some.
I can understand the hostility of the major parties, and even the Greens, to the newbies. They have upset the predictable protocols of a two or three party Senate. They are wild cards. It is in the major parties' self-interest to try to exploit differences, to weaken and destabilise them.
But why the visceral hostility of many in the media towards the new senators and Palmer? Why do so many commentators and editorialists go out of their way to mock and belittle them? The present malignant coverage of the Palmer-Lambie split is perhaps the worst example. At the moment, some people are head-kicking Palmer, trying to worsen the split. There is developing some real or pretended respect for Lambie.
But long before this, Lambie herself came in for heavy sexist and classist media bullying. In many ways she filled Julia Gillard's old slot: as a woman, with a broad accent and She has an earthy style, an unconventional taste in clothes, and a lack of the experienced politician's media instinct for self-preservation. On this, she has learned fast, and I don't think we'll see a repeat of her injudicious 'well-hung' joke some months ago.
Xenophon – a smart, experienced operator - says that it is important to treat the newbies seriously and with respect. He is right. It's time, I suggest, for Labor, the Greens and the mainstream media to stop demeaning the independent senators and their parties.
Tony Kevin is an award winning author and former diplomat.