The endemic problems of the Gillard Government

The 24-Hour news Cycle

And her government is affected by two other major weaknesses as well, and these are inherited.

The first is the '24 hour news cycle:' the notion that the Government must grab the evening television news with a favourable story, usually of its own making. No matter if it's forgotten the next day, because then there will be a new story.

Julia Gillard didn't invent this process. No one did - it has just crept up on us. If you're old enough, contrast it with the last Menzies years. Then the Prime Minister would hold a 'news conference' at which he would say a few words, announcing this or that, and then field questions.

From time to time he would admit a chosen one or two into the presence, and chat over whisky about the world and what was happening in it. Ministers made announcements in their fields of work. But there were no doorstop interviews, no paparazzi, no squads of cameras or microphones thrust into the face.

Does it matter? I think it does. The point of our politics has shifted. A generation or so ago it was understood that Government was there to do things, and that by and large Ministers did them. Yes, from time to time they stuffed up, and were called to account in Parliament and in the media. Yes, there would in time be an election, and we the voters would consider how the Government had fared.

Today it is almost impossible to know what the Government is doing. What passes for politics in the mainstream media consists of allegations and counter-allegations, of pots calling kettles black. Yes, every now and then a big issue comes up for a vote in Parliament, like the carbon tax, or the right way to deal with boat-people, but it is hard to get anyone either there, or in the media, to focus on the real questions inside the issues.

Why? Because nothing is news for more than 24 hours, and this short time-span means the end of real reporting and investigation. Politics is becoming little more than entertainment, devoid of serious thought and analysis.

In the carbon-tax issue, for example, how much difference would the legislation make to carbon dioxide levels - or to our standard of living, for that matter? Why was Australia intent on taking a lead? Which other countries were looking at us as role models?

Or, in immigration, how many 'economic refugees' come through the airports, rather than via unsafe boats from Indonesia? What are we doing about them? Given that most of the boat people finally are allowed to settle here, how is it in Australia's long-term interest to give them such a rough experience when they arrive?

As a long-time student of Australian politics, I find what passes for political comment today to be deeply unsatisfying, and I wonder why television stations seem to think that the every move of the Prime Minister is important -accompanied as it must be, for 'balance', by a corresponding focus on the Leader of the Opposition.

Current Australian politics reminds me, in part, of professional football. The teams have old names, but the players are bought and sold and come from wherever. They learn and practise 'moves' and 'plays,' and we can see them most nights on the television news.