Our politicians are making fools of us all

Recently there has been the pay-back ministerial reshuffle following the Nationals' leadership coup and yet another example of government pork-barrelling condemned by the Auditor-General, this time a program signed off on just prior to the last federal election of grants for parking stations to serve rail-commuters. Former Liberal MP Julia Banks also alleges, in her new book, serious sexual misconduct against her by a senior Coalition cabinet minister.

The despair follows not just the behaviour itself but the blatant attempts to defend what has happened. One is as bad as the other. Spurious explanations used to defend politicised ministerial reshuffles and blatant pork-barrelling are not just frustrating and unconvincing, but they also demean our democratic system. Outside politics such behaviour would be labelled corrupt.

Simon Birmingham, the Trade Minister, and Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, are like chalk and cheese, at different ends of the continuum of personality and philosophy within the Coalition government. Birmingham is a mild-mannered Liberal moderate. Joyce is an aggressive Nationals' conservative. Yet each has contributed to taking citizens for fools.

Birmingham is a political firefighter and is one of those ministers sent out regularly by the government to play defence and to calm the waters. Joyce is a political fire-starter and emerges sporadically to throw hand-grenades in order to stir things up.

Questioned at length about this latest example of pork-barrelling by David Spears, host of the ABC Insiders program, Birmingham played his part to perfection. Not only was he calmly evasive in denying any problem at all, but despite the serious allegations by the Auditor-General he advanced spurious arguments to pretend that all was fine with the program.

The first Birmingham argument is that in a parliamentary system it is always the right and duty of MPs to lobby on behalf of their electorates. This innocuous argument is a dangerous half-truth as the role of MPs was never meant to cut across due process, evidence-based policy-making and the role of public service advice.

The second Birmingham argument is that these grants, signed off before the election was called, are election promises and therefore beyond challenge. He sees these promises as being validated by the Coalition's election victory. Hence, the government having won the election, is merely responding to the wish of the electorate by implementing this dubious program. This argument does not address the politicised distribution of the grants and uses the election result to defuse any controversy.

Both arguments are clever because they set out to muddy the water by misrepresenting aspects of the political system. Birmingham sticks to his script. Interviewers such as Spears can prod and question to their hearts content but can do nothing more. They must remain respectful despite knowing that they and their audience are being taken for fools.

Joyce won a hard-fought leadership contest with the incumbent, Michael McCormack, and then rewarded his supporters and sacked his opponents. The well-regarded former minister for veterans affairs, Darren Chester, was removed despite the appeals of the veterans' community. The Minister for Resources, Keith Pitt, was dropped from cabinet, apparently saved from total sacking by the efforts of the Prime Minister. Bridget McKenzie, the minister responsible for the sports rorts, returned to cabinet after 18 months on the backbench.

Various obfuscations followed. The Prime Minister commented that the leadership change and the ministerial reshuffle were a seamless transition. Defying accepted wisdom, the weak argument was even advanced that whether or not a minister was in or out of the cabinet didn't matter at all.

What was not considered was the impact on the quality of the ministry. No party has an endless supply of ministerial talent and this applies especially to small parties. It beggars belief that the departure of two experienced ministers, McCormack and Chester, has not weakened the calibre of ministers.

The broader issue, in addition to further evidence provided by Banks of the toxic environment for women in our parliament, is that elements of our political system are degraded by everyday politics.

Practices like pork barrelling and disregard for merit in ministerial appointments are bad enough in themselves. They have in common that fair play and evidence can be disregarded.

The problem is amplified by shameless use of misleading arguments to deflect criticism. These arguments are half-truths dressed up as an objective description of how our political system works. This undermines our democracy and is not a trivial matter.

The public service is demeaned when their advice is not taken seriously; yet they cannot make their displeasure known. That would be "political". The media is demeaned by meaningless interviews with ministers who will not answer questions and instead trot out claptrap; yet journalists must hold their tongue. To do otherwise would be "political".

To be classed as "political" by those in office is to damage your credibility and ultimately your career and life.

The public is demeaned when they are reduced to being helpless bystanders. They can vote every three years, of course, but no one believes anymore that this "power" holds the political class accountable. The latter can avoid scrutiny by claiming any criticism is either self-interest or party politics.

In all cases we - public servants, media and citizens - are trapped in a down-ward spiral and increasingly treated like fools.