Just lately, and not before time, most federal government ministers are talking on subjects they know something about. They are actually restricting their comments to the responsibilities they hold within their portfolios.

Wayne Swan and Penny Wong have used the mid-year review to talk about the economy; Tony Burke has been explaining the Murray Darling Basin draft plan; recently Kevin Rudd and Craig Emerson used global forums to talk about foreign policy and trade; and Bill Shorten spoke eloquently about industrial relations during the Qantas dispute. (Well, there is always one exception.)

The point is, when ministers are talking policies and not politics, that's a sure sign the Government is setting the agenda and the Opposition is struggling for relevance.

The freedom of ministers to comment on everything and anything is a relatively new concept. Up until the Rudd government, ministers tended to stick to their own portfolios. Few of them set themselves up as political commentators.

As a result, it was easier to identify an individual with a particular ministry. That in itself gave ministers more credibility.

Then Kevin Rudd came along and practices changed. The "gang of four" effectively controlled policy and the rest were sent out on staff-inspired rosters to be spruikers, snake oil salesmen for the decisions that their more senior colleagues took.

The system was designed to feed the constant demands of the 24-hour news cycle. It was the biggest single concession that the politicians offered up to the dumbing-down process that Lindsay Tanner identified in his book, Sideshow.

Ministers scrambled for roles on television discussion programs. What spots they didn't fill, were taken up by enthusiastic parliamentary secretaries and backbenchers.

However, by taking part they left an impression that politics is all about… well, politics. That is a dumb position for a government to adopt. It played right into the hands of the Opposition, especially this one. The Abbott team routinely thrashed the Rudd/Gillard team if for no other reason than everything was reduced to a street fight.

Some ministers argue they have no choice, they cannot cede territory to the Opposition. But that is nonsense. The concept relies on the involvement of ministers. Without them, the concept is diminished. Without the more junior spruikers, it collapses altogether. If they choose not to take part, then the concept has to change. Who knows? The hungry beast that is the 24-hour new cycle might have to attract ministers by finding ways to focus on policy. For example, debates on specific policy areas that we tend to see only at election time.

That argument also assumes that simply by turning up, ministers further the Government's cause. That is far from true. Often they make matters worse. The public is turned off by political nit-picking.

The current arrangements detract from policy and put the focus on base politics. That inevitably reflects more poorly on the Government than it does the Opposition. It leaves a sense of a government in constant turmoil.

Oppositions welcome the many opportunities to drag ministers into the political mire. It is especially useful when breaks in parliamentary sittings deny them the regular combat.

Government ministers can't always of course avoid commenting on areas beyond their own responsibilities. But neither do they have to institutionalise it.

Some programs lend themselves to a greater sweep of comment; Q. and A. on the ABC being a classic example. That program allows all politicians to engage on a range of social and political issues, often showing a different side to their personalities.

The larger panel embracing political outsiders as well is very different to the experience of the one-on-one anything-goes discussions or the wide ranging "around the world for sixpence" doorstops, as Paul Keating used to call them.

There is an argument that at least parliamentary secretaries and backbenchers should embrace the endless discussion programs on the 24-hour news channels and on radio, essentially for the experience. Whatever they say, they can't really do great harm. Most of them surely won't make much of a difference either. That argument has merit.

But what we have seen over the last couple of years from all comers is cheap politics. By contrast, what we have seen in recent weeks is somehow more grown up. Maybe it's just that the issues conveniently came along and the circus was only temporarily put on hold. We'll see in the new year.

NB: I accept it is odd for a political journalist to argue that ministers should not be encouraged to speak up on everything. The more they speak out of line, they more they screw up, the better for our business. But political journalists too, analyse good politics from bad politics. That is what I have tried to do here.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of ABC programs Insiders and Offsiders.