The fundamental problem with adversarial politics - they lose sight of the real purpose

ABC's Radio National Media Report recently interviewed former media adviser and now journalist Niki Savva about the roles of parliamentary media advisers. Savva will be familiar to many as the regular right-wing panellist on ABC Insiders, whose comments are guaranteed to draw a torrent of criticism in the Twittersphere.

The discussion was about media advisers going too far, in the context of the Prime Minister's adviser Tony Hodges getting the axe after prompting the debacle at The Lobby restaurant on Australia Day.

In the interview, Savva said:

"... half your job is to protect and promote your boss and the other half of your job is to make strikes against the opposition."

I have a fundamental problem with that, because naive me always thought politicians were there to govern the country the best way possible. So by extension wouldn't a media adviser's role then be to promote their own good policy, and point out flaws - if there are any - in other people's policies?


But no. Here we have a player admitting there's no such consideration. It's all about "playing the person, not the ball".

Savva illustrates the problem further when she explains her role in derailing Kim Beasley's Knowledge Nation education reform policy platform:

The infamous Barry Jones diagram

"I know when Beazley released Knowledge Nation and we got a copy of it, and I flicked the page and I saw the diagram that Barry Jones had put together and as soon as I saw it I thought this is a disaster. What does it look like? Oh it looks like spaghetti and meatballs to me. 

So I passed on the thought to Nick Minchin and David Kemp and they used it and it forever became spaghetti and meatballs. Now I felt a bit queasy after because Knowledge Nation was probably a good policy. There were probably good things in it, you know, that might have needed to be done. But it all got wrecked because of a stupid diagram."

No Niki, it all got wrecked because you put the politics above the policy, above the nation.

Surely if the policy is good, then just because one wears the label "Opposition" doesn't mean you have to oppose everything? Surely agreeing with good policy actually adds to one's credibility as an alternative government?

Here in the ACT, the Liberal Party "Opposition" have also been taking their cues from the Federal Liberals, with Tony Abbott and his "Dr No" act. Led locally by Zed Seselja, the Liberals portray that everything the ACT Government does is wrong, even if it was what they wanted beforehand. Same for anything the Greens propose.

There was a very rare departure this week. The ACT Assembly voted 17:0 in favour of new laws on safe food handling. Perhaps because we've all seen food outlet staff handle money then go straight back to handling food, we all know this needed to be done? But shouldn't more policy be handled this way? Shouldn't more governing be handled this way?

I think it is also poignant that no media coverage of the laws passing mentioned the 17:0 vote. Seems if it isn't a polar debate, it isn't worth even mentioning...