If it wasn’t already obvious, we have entered the “whatever it takes” stage of proceedings.

The Coalition wants to get back into the contest, and is on the hunt for the knockout blow, or blows. The core objective at the moment is to get the whole country roiling about Labor’s “retirement tax” (that isn’t a tax, just like the carbon tax was never a tax despite what Tony told us).

The franking credits issue has become a proxy for “Labor will steal what’s yours and drive the country off the cliff”.

The means to achieving that end are unimportant. Whatever it takes, by whatever means, as long as voters are hearing the static, and wondering whether a new Labor government would embark on a wild-eyed outbreak of redistribution, and screw up the economy.

PM under pressure to sack Tim Wilson over use of franking credits inquiry Read more

It’s that mindset that leads you to a place where you can establish an “inquiry” into a “retirement tax” (that isn’t a tax), funded by the taxpayer (thanks for that guys), and think it’s fine for the chairman of the relevant parliamentary committee (in this case Tim Wilson) to authorise what is clearly an accompanying, partisan campaign website (endorsed by him in his committee capacity) in order to better funnel outrage to the main event.

Again, in that mindset, it’s OK for Wilson to decline to answer direct questions about who is funding that campaign website which is pushing submissions into the taxpayer-funded process. I don’t have to disclose that information, so I won’t.

Voters keen to understand who is exerting influence in their democracy can talk to the hand. We decide the (taxpayer-subsidised) echo chambers, and the circumstances in which they come into being.

It’s also OK, when that mindset descends, for members of the government to hand out Liberal party membership forms to retirees concerned about the changes during a taxpayer-funded hearing of the standing committee on economics.

It’s OK, too, for Wilson to draft up pro-forma submissions to his own inquiry, submissions he will later have to assess as evidence. On Wilson’s rationale, doing that is fine, because people can amend his pro-forma wording, so not all the submissions he will be assessing will have been written by him. Phew, huh? What a relief.

It’s also OK – amazingly – to be a shareholder in Wilson Asset Management (owned by Geoff Wilson, a different Wilson and a distant relative), and coordinate with that same fund manager to get opponents of the policy out with placards at the same time as taxpayer-funded hearings are happening.

Zali Steggall says Labor needs to commit to stopping Adani coalmine Read more

Nothing to see here guys. Everything is awesome.

Lest I sound naive, a few observations.

The Coalition is perfectly entitled to be combative about Labor’s franking credits policy and campaign against it. We can also observe that at least some of Labor’s escalating outrage about Wilson’s activities is motivated by a desire to discredit the current roadshows.

I’m one of those weirdos who likes facts and thinks words should have meaning, but I also acknowledge the Coalition can call Labor’s policy a “retirement tax” when it very clearly isn’t. It can engage in fatuous and misleading made-for-2GB hyperbole if it wants to continue to race to the bottom, and be congratulated for that in some quarters and called out in others.

When it comes to the sanctity of committees, a few things can be observed. Parliamentary committee proceedings often contain an element of partisanship. There are split reports, and grandstanding happens, and third parties leverage their campaigns off these inquiries as a matter of routine.

But the Wilson frolic is brazen enough, and feckless enough, to take us into new levels of egregiousness as far as parliamentary conventions are concerned, and it takes us there at a time when lots of voters have reached the conclusion that politics stinks.

What is impossible to fathom, even though I keep showing up and watching this slow unravelling every day, is why politicians are willing participants in a game show called Let’s Show the Public We Stink.

When there are low-level, noxious fumes emanating from the Canberra complex sufficient to make people wonder whether they can trust the institution of professional politics, the answer seems to be, I know, let’s generate more stink.

Can anyone tell me this, because I think about it a lot and I don’t know the answer: why are politicians content to trash conventions that matter for two minutes of short-term advantage?

It astounds me that self-preservation doesn’t kick in at some point; that someone doesn’t ask what are the consequences of this action I’m taking? Will my opponents adopt my bit of mission creep and turn it back against me? Will voters trust me?

What thread am I pulling here, and will the fraying impact me in ways that make it impossible seek a mandate to do my job?

The foundational question is this: does representative politics continue to work when the citizenry doesn’t know whose interests are being represented? It’s the question being asked in every major democracy in the world right now.

Tim Wilson in his hurry to advance, or to “help”, has overreached, and anyone who cares about parliamentary conventions can see his position isn’t tenable.

Unfortunately Wilson can’t see it, and that, right there, is our problem.