The twin issues of rising prices and what is quaintly described as "the government's energy market intervention" are both complex and urgent. The public is hopeful but has its fingers crossed.

Our two major political institutions, the national cabinet and the Federal Parliament, have applied their minds to these issues. You would think that would clarify matters for the average citizen who trusts in the political process and in our political leaders. That public uncertainty remains is a problem for Australian democracy.

The urgent recall of Parliament for a special sitting is taking place without agreement yet about the way forward among parliamentarians and the community.

We are ending the year uncertain about the future. Inevitably the community will enter the Christmas-New Year holiday period perplexed, trusting that the proposed solutions will successfully address the problems; yet bamboozled rather than reassured by the debate which has surrounded it.

The national cabinet comprises the leaders of the nine Australian governments: Commonwealth, state and territories. When consensus emerges from that body it should make a convincing contribution to the wider national debate.

After all the state and territory governments are not all Labor or Labor-Green; two are conservative governments, the NSW Coalition government and the Tasmanian Liberal government. The Albanese Labor government has successfully led them all to agreement.

Yet the national cabinet agreement seems to hold little sway because the nature of this cabinet means that discussions take place in private and largely in secret and the Prime Minister is its spokesperson.

It is widely perceived as just another behind-the-scenes, wheeler-dealer government mechanism. The bipartisan nature of the institution carries little weight with the Australian people because they don't see it operating openly. It tends to be mistakenly seen as dominated by the federal government.

The loudest public voices are once again those of the coal and gas companies which as producers are reaping huge profits and have most to lose.

We tend not to hear from them directly, because their obvious self-interest means they are not trusted to be objective. Rather they hide behind their bland-sounding peak bodies, such as the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.

Behind these peak mining voices lies the real threat, spoken and unspoken, of retaliation through well-funded and damaging campaigns against the government.

This is familiar territory for federal governments, mostly Labor, who have been the victim of such campaigns in the past. The recent sufferings of the Rudd and Gillard governments at the hands of mining companies are well-remembered by those in the Albanese government.

Whatever happens today we have not seen the end of their political lobbying. They may well be a feature of the 2023 political year.

READ MORE:

Today's proceedings will be the final example for the year of how the multi-party parliament elected in May goes about its business. The scenario is familiar.

The government puts forward a proposal, which will pass through the House of Representatives. The opposition dithers over whether to support or oppose it. Splitting the bill is suggested. The bill reaches the Senate, where the Greens want it to be more ambitious and the crossbench tries to make improvements.

On this occasion the two Jacqui Lambie Network senators have already declared their support; David Pocock is not needed this time. If the opposition votes no then the government needs the support of the Greens; unless the opposition decides to make it bipartisan.

The government badly needs a political solution. It must send a clear signal to the community that it is taking action to halt energy price rises. The more backing it can garner the better; even without the opposition it wants the support of everyone else in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Whether or not the government wants the opposition on board depends upon how confident it is that the proposed solutions will work to lower energy prices.

Put aside what success might ultimately look like because that is not clear either. If success is the likely outcome, then why share it with the opposition? Better to have the opposition behave like losers unwilling to join with the government in the national interest. That is how our two-party system works. Winners and losers.

Yet if ultimate success is doubtful, better for the government to share the eventual blame and community pain with the opposition.

The government can say that it tried, took the best advice, worked with the opposition and the crossbench, but still could not overcome international market forces. Failure on this issue can be shared all round at the next federal election.

Both the Greens and the crossbenchers want to represent their constituents by moving the proposed solutions in a progressive direction. Barring that they too want to be associated with success and insulated from failure.

There are risks and rewards for all parliamentarians today. They are torn between seeking the right answers to a complex problem and maintaining their strategic position.

The community will be enormously grateful for successful solutions; yet answers are not straightforward and ultimate success may prove elusive and hard to measure.

The highest priority of the community is clearly lower energy prices. They are willing the government on; but understanding and even sympathy for those who cannot find effective policy solutions may ultimately be in short supply.