Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
democrats
internal
politics
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2004/08: Drunk and disorderly in Parliament: should Senator Bartlett have retained leadership of the Democrats?
What they said ...
'The mental health of those who work in the House is put under such intense pressure that drugs, alcohol, sex and workaholism often come to be seen as the only means of survival'
Greg Barns, a former senior adviser to the Howard Government, now a member of the Australian Democrats
'Politics and national leadership are demanding and it takes an individual of exceptional balance, strength and self-control to succeed in public life'
Robert Clemente, in a letter published in The Age on December 10, 2003
The issue at a glance
Senator Andrew Bartlett, recently 'stood aside' from the leadership of the Australian Democrats after it was alleged he had verbally abused and manhandled South Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris in an argument over wine stolen from a Liberal Party Christmas party on December 4, 2003. The dispute is then claimed to have continued on the floor of the Senate during an extended session debating the Government's education bill.
Bartlett was urged to resign by the party's founder, Don Chipp. Former senator Chipp stated, 'I personally believe that a leader of a party cannot have done these things and still go to the body politic and the corporate sector and say, "Trust me".'
Despite the views of their founder, the six other Democrat senators ultimately supported Bartlett remaining as leader after he publicly and repeatedly apologised to Senator Ferris and pledged to seek help for personal problems.
Views on whether Bartlett should have remained as leader or even whether he should have resigned from Parliament remained divided.
Background
'A recurring issue in the Commonwealth Parliament, the press and in the community has been the standard of conduct of parliamentarians ... Ministers and members of the opposition have faced allegations of misusing travel allowances and allegations of conflicts of interest, amongst other allegations of impropriety.
Public attitudes to the behaviour of parliamentarians are reflected in a recent Roy Morgan poll, which revealed that only seven per cent of Australians believe that Members of both State and Federal Parliament are of high or very high standards of honesty and ethics. This finding represented a decline of two per cent from the previous year. The only profession rating lower than Members of Parliament is car salesmen, at two per cent. Trust in parliamentarians is at an all time low level ...
In June 1998 social attitudes researcher Hugh Mackay reported that, "Esteem for politicians is so low ... that voters are dealing with the problem by insulating themselves from it. They repeatedly talk of the need for leadership, of the mongrels in Parliament, of pollies with their snouts in the trough, of the spinelessness of the Prime Minister...yet the heat seems to have gone out of many of these assertions.
Although there might be distinct policy differences between the Government and the Opposition, the level of cynicism and mistrust in the community is now so high that such distinctions are relatively insignificant when weighed against the more emotional assessment that they're all the same.
Conversations about politics were characterised by a sense of bewilderment that things have got so bad; a deep sense of mistrust of politicians on both sides; a level of cynicism bordering on contempt.'
(The above material is extracted from Australian Parliamentary Library Research Paper 2 1998-99 that examines the feasibility of a code of conduct for parliamentarians.)
Internet information
The Australian Democrats' position on their party's leadership can be found on the party's Internet site at http://www.democrats.org.au/docs/2003/0044/democrats_leadership_20031212.htm
Autralianpolitics.com is an Internet site designed to support VCE Politics students. It has a section of the site given over to material on the Bartlett controversy. This can be found at http://australianpolitics.com.au/news/2003/12/03-12-06a.shtml
In 1998-99, the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the Australian Parliament published a research paper titled, 'A Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians?' This paper examines popular distrust of politicians and looks at both the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a parliamentary code of conduct to address this problem. The report includes in its appendix a full transcript of the code of conduct that applies in the British House of Commons.
The research paper can be found at http://wipi.aph.gov.au/search/ParlInfo.ASP?action=view&item=0&resultsID=2fQpLF
In 1998 the Medical Journal of Australia published a report titled, 'Collateral damage from alcohol abuse: the enormous costs to Australia'
Though it predates the Bartlett controversy, this report clearly outlines the societal costs associated with the sort of 'irresponsible drinking' of which the Senator has been accused.
The report can be found at http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan5/tai/tai.html
Arguments in favour of Senator Bartlett retaining leadership of the Democrats
1. Parliament is an unusually stressful working environment
It has been claimed that the conditions of work in the Australian Parliament are so excessively demanding as to significantly excuse Senator Bartlett's misconduct.
Greg Barns, a former senior adviser to the Howard Government who is now a member of the Australian Democrats, made the following observations.
'Parliament House is a brutal and unrelenting work environment ... To expect people to work 16-hour days, day in and day out, in such a place is unfair and downright cruel. And to expect them to do it in a city such as Canberra, where there are few support networks, little sense of community and no capacity to escape, means that the mental health of those who work in the House is put under such intense pressure that drugs, alcohol, sex and workaholism often come to be seen as the only means of survival.
In any private-sector organisation that cares about its employees today, the emphasis is on work-family balance, mental health support facilities, and rules about how many nights you can work back late. In other words, if the normal occupational health and safety rules applied to Parliament House, the place would be shut down as a dangerous working environment.'
2. The condemnation of Senator Bartlett has been an over-reaction
Melbourne writer Michael Scammell has condemned many in the media for exaggerating the significance of Andrew Bartlett's misconduct.
Mr Scammell writes, 'Given the oft-made complaint that Federal Parliament does not represent "ordinary" Australians, it is fascinating to see the reaction from media commentators and politicians when MPs are caught acting very ordinarily indeed - as in the case of Andrew Bartlett or the revisiting of the dubious past behaviour of Mark Latham.
If anything, all this drinking, bad language and brawling suggests that politicians are much more human and representative of the broader community than perhaps we like to admit - not that you would know this from the sensationalist headlines running in the media as a result of the Bartlett drunk-in-Parliament incident.'
It has also been suggested that the fact that Senator Bartlett grabbed and swore at a female colleague rather than a male has increased this supposed tendency to exaggerate the significance of his behaviour.
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2003, John Dorman wrote, 'Are we not in danger of letting gender sensitivities play havoc with common sense? If the target of Andrew Bartlett's odium had been a diminutive male the incident in question would have been dismissed as nothing more than another case of boorish parliamentary behaviour.'
3. The Democrats have no one to replace Senator Bartlett as leader
In an analysis published in The Australian on December 13, 2003, Matt Price outlined why the Democrats appeared to have either no willing or acceptable alternative leader to replace Senator Bartlett.
Matt Price offered the following analysis, ' ... there was no alternative.
Deputy Lyn Allison is neither ambitious nor ruthless. Like Aden Ridgeway, once regarded as a potential leader, she backed Bartlett to stay.
Natasha Stott Despoja ... would probably have returned had colleagues agreed, but that was never going to happen. Brian Greig, interim leader between Stott Despoja's demise and Bartlett's election, fancied himself but had no support ... John Cherry [would] have embraced leadership [but] again, no support.'
4. The electorate values a politician's professional competence above his or her personal conduct
It has been argued that the electorate is not so much interested in the 'character question' or the personal conduct of politicians as how they perform their job. This point was made repeatedly in the public debate about President Clinton's suitability to be a national leader.
Tom Munro, in a letter published in The Age on December 10, 2003, argues that professional competence is more important than personal conduct.
Mr Munro writes, 'Winston Churchill was an overweight man who ate, drank and smoked too much. Yet he was a man who, in World War II, was able to lead England through its darkest hour.
Bob Hawke was a person who also liked to drink to excess and had a reputation as a ladies' man. Despite that, he was able to bring about a revolution in labour politics so that the Australian economy was reformed and able to compete with the rest of the world - benefits that are still being felt today.
Robert Menzies was 18 stone as a result of overeating and drinking a bottle of Houghtons burgundy every day. That did not prevent him being the most successful conservative politician in this country - a leader who oversaw a long period of peace and prosperity.
In reality, character has nothing to do with it. The key thing that the people of this nation want is for its politicians to govern and to govern well.'
Defenders of Andrew Bartlett argue that he has passed the competence test. Despite the demoralised condition of the Democrats when he recently took over their leadership, it has been claimed that he and the party he has lead have performed surprisingly well.
Former Democrat Senator Sid Spindler has referred to 'the growing evidence of Andrew's achievements in pulling the party together and an impressive team record of action in the Senate.'
Mr Spindler has claimed, 'Andrew's unrelenting work on behalf of asylum seekers, in the animal welfare area and in opposition to the George Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine has penetrated public consciousness.'
Spindler then lists some of the other achievements of the Democrats under Andrew Bartlett. 'Successful amendments included improved protection for sole parents and the over-50s job seekers with fairer penalties for minor transgressions; reduced phone rental and call costs for health care card holders; major improvements for low income earners in the Superannuation Co-Contribution Scheme; inclusion of casual workers in unlawful dismissal legislation; stronger accountability provisions in corporate governance legislation; increased funding for Great Barrier Reef wetlands protection; and major improvements to the heritage legislation.'
Bartlett's supporters argued that this record of performance should be sufficient to allow him to retain the leadership of the Democrats.
5. There may have been political motivations behind the actions of those who have condemned Senator Bartlett
It has been suggested that Senator Ferris may have been seeking political advantage by harming the Democrats when she handled her encounter with Senator Bartlett in the way she did.
John Doherty made this point in a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2003. Mr Doherty wrote, 'The Andrew Bartlett debacle should have been handled with more discretion by Jeannie Ferris. Why go after Bartlett and expose him as a wine thief when more diplomatic avenues were open to her? Why didn't she inform another male senator and let him handle Bartlett? ... What better way to destry the Democrats than discredit their leader.'
Sebastian Reid made a similar point in a letter published in The Age also on December 9, 2003. Mr Reid wrote, 'While I do not for a moment condone the behaviour of Senator Bartlett, I am concerned at the seeming preparedness of Senator Ferris and the Liberal Party to make the most of this unpleasant episode.'
6. Senator Bartlett has an illness and the Democrats behaved appropriately in supporting him
It has been claimed that Senator Bartlett is a diagnosed depressive who had recently come off his medication when the incident with Senator Ferris occurred. It has further been claimed that Senator Bartlett's mental condition has contributed to his problem drinking.
On December 14, 2003, The Sunday Mail editorial made the following claims, 'Only the night before the incident with Senator Ferris, Senator Bartlett had been sober at the Democrats' Christmas party. Then the effect of going off medication hit and he started drinking.
"I suspect he wanted to clear his mind for the last two weeks of Parliament when legislation is debated and often rushed through," [a] source said.
"Anti-depressants slowed his thinking down. But those rushed weeks required him to think faster. We think that's why he went off medication."'
Supporters of Senator Bartlett argue that his party was right to support him as he struggles to overcome his illness. They note that he has promised to undertake further treatment. They also note that he has been a spokesperson promoting community understanding of depression and other mental problems.
Senator Bartlett has argued, 'Many times in the past, and still sometimes today, attitudes towards mental illness, towards depression and towards psychological disorders are not as favourable as they should be.
People with physical illnesses that are easy to see are still much more likely to have their conditions acknowledged than people with psychological illnesses or depression are.'
Arguments against Senator Bartlett retaining leadership of the Democrats
1. Senator Bartlett's behaviour was at odds with the values of the Democrats
Preventing violence against women has been a key theme for the Democrats. Senator Bartlett's predecessor, Natasha Stott Despoja, spoke on the issue 12 months ago in Parliament.
Senator Bartlett has also shown a marked interest in women's issues. He condemned the Federal Government for cutting funding for domestic violence programs during his Budget reply in May. He noted the role of domestic violence in homelessness at a Democrats youth conference in July, at which he also spoke of the dangers of teenage binge drinking. Before entering Parliament in 1997, he spoke on behalf of Men Against Sexual Assault at a rally against domestic violence in Brisbane.
Critics of Senator Bartlett's behaviour have noted that it was especially inappropriate because it was so much at odds with the policy position of his party and with his own supposed beliefs. It has been suggested that his behaviour makes him a highly unsuitable person to now lead the Democrats.
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja condemned Senator Bartlett's behaviour at a recent South Australian meeting of the Democrats. She claimed that the principal issue was 'violence against women - which is neither negotiable nor excusable.'
Senator Stott Despoja also observed, 'Leaders don't get away with that sort of thing.'
2. Politicians should be exemplars of good behaviour and not bring the institution of Parliament into disrepute
The question of what constitutes appropriate behaviour from politicians and the extent to which their poor behaviour damages popular faith in our political process has been debated frequently in recent years.
A recent report submitted to Federal Parliament on the feasibility of a code of conduct for parliamentarians noted, 'Disillusionment with the conduct of parliamentarians has been a feature of political discussion, at both Commonwealth and State levels for some time.'
The same report concluded there was 'a growing cynicism [within the electorate] about the motives and behaviour of parliamentarians, the processes of democratic governance, and the institutions of Australian civil, democratic society.'
The report quotes with approval from the code of conduct adopted by the British House of Commons, 'Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.'
Critics of Senator Bartlett's behaviour have noted that it falls far short of this standard.
Though sympathising with both Senator Ferris and Senator Bartlett, the leader of the Opposition, Mark Latham, acknowledged that behaviour such as Bartlett's was damaging to public perceptions of politicians and the institution of Parliament.
'It [the attack] weakens public confidence. We have too much distrust of modern politics and we all have a responsibility to behave in the public eye up to high standards,' Mr Latham said.
In a media statement made on December 7, 2003, Senator Bartlett himself acknowledged that he had harmed both his party and the Parliament. Senator Bartlett stated, '...my behaviour ... has obviously brought the party and the Senate into disrepute'.
3. Senator Bartlett's behaviour would not have been tolerated in other workplaces
In a letter published in The Age on December 9, 2003, Lance Fishman observed, 'Celebrations involving alcohol are great fun and part of the Australian lifestyle but they should involve responsible levels of consumption and take place after, not during, working hours.'
Mr Fishman also noted, 'Many workers in responsible positions (air traffic controllers, train drivers etc) have restrictions on either the time that must elapse after drinking and/or their blood alcohol level when beginning work.
A similar point was made in a letter published in The Age on the same day from Alistair McCoy. Mr McCoy wrote, 'There's not many things which make me take the moral high ground. However, being drunk while on duty, stealing, physically and verbally assaulting a woman ... are beyond then pale.
I have been trying to think of another occupation in Australia where such conduct would not result in instant dismissal with loss of entitlements. Sack him!'
4. Being drunk would make it difficult for Senator Bartlett or any other parliamentarian to perform his/her duties effectively
It has been claimed that on the most pragmatic of levels it is inappropriate for parliamentarians to have been drinking while trying to fulfil their parliamentary duties.
This point was made in a letter from Lance Fishman published in The Age on December 9, 2003. Mr Fishman noted, 'The thought of MPs debating and voting on legislation that will have a profound effect on millions of Australians, such as the higher education bill - which was being considered at the time of the Andrew Bartlett/Jeannie Ferris incident - while under the influence disgusts me.'
There are clearly many who believe that drafting and debating significant legislation is a responsible undertaking that requires those involved be sober.
5. Alcohol abuse is a major social problem that parliamentarians should not effectively condone
The following is an edited extract from a report published in The Medical Journal of Australia and titled 'Collateral damage from alcohol abuse: the enormous costs to Australia'.
'Although much has been written about alcohol abuse and its effects on the drinker, there has been less emphasis on the deleterious effects on innocent bystanders, such as the physical, emotional and/or financial loss or damage. The spectrum of this 'collateral damage' includes alcohol-related violence, road accidents, family problems...and the resultant financial burdens incurred by society.
Past studies have found that alcohol abuse plays a significant role in violent crime. It is estimated that about 13% of Australians aged 14 years and over (well over one million people) have been physically abused at least once by someone affected by alcohol, while 16% have had their property damaged at least once. Alcohol has also been implicated in about one-third of sexual assault cases. In 1992, 294 people died from alcohol-related assaults in Australia.
Drunk drivers put not only their own lives in peril, but also pose a significant risk to other road users. In NSW in 1995, of the 620 people killed in road accidents...
At least 1% of the population (about 180 000 people) have a close family member with a serious alcohol problem. Isolation, neglect, aggression and disruption within the family, particularly spouse abuse, are frequent. Sexual and financial problems, stress, verbal and physical abuse, separations and divorce are also common between couples where at least one partner abuses alcohol.'
It has been argued that as potentially powerful role models parliamentarians should not be seen either to condone or disregard this serious social problem.
6. Senator Bartlett has exploited his supposed 'problem' to retain leadership of the Democrats
It has been argued that Senator Bartlett's admission of depression and a drinking problem was effectively forced from him and was offered as a means of partially justifying his behaviour and allowing him to retain his party's leadership.
It has been claimed that it was not an honest admission of a problem but a self-serving political gesture.
This position was put by Glenn Milne, the Australian's chief political correspondent in a comment published in The Australian on December 15, 2003. Milne makes the following observations, 'Bartlett should have resigned as leader, stayed in the Parliament and made alcoholism and the clinical depression he now says triggered the binge drinking his own high-profile causes.
Everybody would have applauded him, his dignity would have been maintained and some community good might have been achieved. Instead, he's selfishly lashed himself to the wheel of a ship he was already steering onto the rocks ...'
Further implications
The central issue here is not the isolated behaviour of Senator Bartlett. Rather what is at issue is what level of conduct it is reasonable to expect of our politicians and how best to go about achieving this.
One partial answer to the problem of how to improve the conduct of parliamentarians would be to introduce a code of conduct referring not just to the adherence to rules of debate but also to specifics of appropriate behaviour.
In an article published in The Age on December 9, 2003, David Wroe noted, 'As the place where the nation's rules are made, Parliament has surprisingly few rules of its own.
Standing orders prevent politicians abusing or assaulting each other - or displaying other "unparliamentary behaviour" - but there is nothing to stop senators being drunk as sailors in the chamber, providing they do it quietly.'
It should also be noted that not only are there probably inadequate guides as to parliamentary conduct, there may also be insufficient support available to parliamentarians.
It is common to see parliamentarians as overpaid and enjoying highly generous superannuation payments, however, there are significant shortcomings in the average politician's employment situation.
David Wroe also noted that 'there [is no] parliamentary counselling service for politicians pulled and twisted by stress and the long hours'.
On an even more basic level there is no employees' compensation scheme for politicians. Comcare, the WorkCover scheme for Commonwealth employees, covers public servants, but not politicians.
However the problems facing politicians seem to be even more fundamental than this. The demands of work, the long and irregular hours and the frequent separation from family obviously place large pressure on many politicians.
An editorial published in The Age on December 9, 2003, made the following observations, 'Senator Bartlett obviously has a serious personal problem and that it is inconceivable that the stresses of public life have not contributed to it. Nor is it even remotely likely that he is alone among politicians in dealing with those stresses by drinking more than he should. That does not excuse his behaviour, but it is a reminder that problems of this kind are not always faced honestly ... in the corridors of Parliament.'
It would appear that more is required than a code of conduct for parliamentarians. Something needs to be done to civilise working conditions in Parliament so as to make it less likely that our political representatives will buckle under the strain.
Sources
The Age: 8/12/03 page 1, news item by Meaghan Shaw and Annabel Crabb, 'I need help says Bartlett'
The Age: 9/12/03 page 4, news item by Annabel Crabb and Meaghan Shaw, 'Tragic Bartlett must go, says Chipp'
The Age: 9/12/03 page 10, editorial, 'Bartlett's slip twixt the cup and the lip'
The Age: 9/12/03 page 11, comment by Greg Barns, 'The brutal House on the Hill'
The Age: 9/12/03 page 4, comment by David Wroe, 'Barely a dry aye in the House'
The Age: 10/12/03 page 2, news item by Annabel Crabb, 'democrats give Bartlett more time'
The Age: 10/12/03 page 15, comment by Michelle Grattan, 'What shall we do with a drunken Democrats leader?'
The Age: 10/12/03 page 14, letter from Robert Clemente, 'The test of character'
The Age: 10/12/03 page 14, letter from Tom Munro, 'Beyond the bottle'
The Age: 11/12/03 page 13, comment by Michael Scammell, 'Drunken MPs - and media double standards'
The Age: 13/12/03 page 9, comment by Sid Spindler, 'The Democrats have made the right call'
The Age: 13/12/03 Insight section, page 4, comment by Michelle Grattan, 'Life of the party in the balance'.
The Australian: 8/12/03 page 1, news item by Steve Lewis, 'Man who took the cork out of his own bottle'
The Australian: 13/12/03 page 6, comment by Matt Price, 'Staggering under the influence of scandal'
The Australian: 15/12/03 page 7, comment by Glenn Milne, 'Bartlett bashing an entree for reprisal'
The Herald Sun: 6/12/03 page 1, news item by Gerard McManus, Michael Harvey and Jason Frenkel, 'mauled by a wild MP'
The Herald Sun: 8/12/03 page 1, news item by Gerard McManus, 'I need help: Bartlett'
The Herald Sun: 7/12/03 page 1, news item by Lincoln Wright, 'Sacked'
The Herald Sun: 7/12/03 page 8, news item by Lincoln Wright and Craig Clark, 'Sorry it came to this'