Katina Curtis: Australia’s co-operative politicians seek to move the pack forward

It might surprise you, but a lot of politicians like each other, even when they’re from different parties.

Even if they’re not besties dining with each other’s parents — as with the widely reported friendship between Ed Husic and Josh Frydenberg — there is at least a degree of respect and a recognition that everyone in Parliament has been sent there by voters to do their best by Australia.

This willingness to put ideologies aside and work together will be on display throughout the towns of south-west WA in October during the annual Pollie Pedal.

The charity event may be most closely associated with our PM with a penchant for lycra, Tony Abbott (who remains its patron), but it involves politicians right across the Parliament.

Sporting endeavours regularly bring politicians together in Canberra. There’s a longstanding cycling club, a more recent running group, games of basketball, netball, tennis and touch footy, and even an annual sporting festival pitting politicians against reporters.

The co-operation and good relationships continue inside the halls of Parliament House too.

Politicians on all sides work closely together through committee processes, which plug away building stacks of evidence on important issues that can be used by policymakers looking for solutions.

The recent committee examination of online gambling is one example — it offered a suite of wide-ranging recommendations, including a suggestion to phase out all advertising of online gambling services. All were backed by MPs from three parties and an independent.

Liberal frontbencher Angus Taylor, who is launching the Pollie Pedal on Friday along with Labor minister Matt Keogh, thinks people would be surprised to know the level of co-operation that goes on since it’s the combative confrontations that make headlines.

“All they see in the media really is the fights, let’s be frank,” he told The West.

“It’s really important, I think that people can work together in a bipartisan way when they need to. It’s good for both sides, it’s good for everybody, it’s good for the country.”

This week we have seen the release of the formal Yes and No arguments, authorised by politicians who back each side.

These will be printed up by the Australian Electoral Commission and mailed to 12.5 million households as the referendum day nears. For now, you can read them on the AEC’s website.

The Yes side argues a successful referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution and establish an Indigenous Voice will unify the country, bringing together people from all walks of life and political views.

The No side says it will have the opposite effect, dividing the nation.

But an interesting aspect of the Yes pamphlet is the mere act of writing it has already united some politicians, offering another example of cross-party collaboration.

While Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney and staff from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s office led the process, they took significant input from other politicians who also support the Voice.

That included Liberals Julian Leeser and Bridget Archer, the Greens and crossbenchers.

Leeser said this week he had been very happy with the process, which involved a couple of lengthy meetings, and was proud to have his name associated with the arguments.

Another person close to the drafting process said the benefit of having input from people from different political backgrounds was each knew what kind of arguments would persuade their voters and whether there were particular words or phrases it was best to steer clear of.

Unlike a hyper-targeted ad on social media that only needs to speak to a particular demographic, the referendum pamphlet goes to everyone.

It had to, in 2000 words or less, find the arguments that would persuade as many soft and undecided voters as possible from all walks of life.

While many of the eight reasons given why you should support the Voice will be familiar to most who have been following the debate, the cross-party approach has led to the inclusion of some new arguments, such as that it will ultimately save money rather than wasting billions of taxpayers’ dollars on things that aren’t working.

Cyclists in a peloton co-operate, using each other’s slipstreams to ultimately enable the entire pack to have the stamina to go further than any individual rider could on their own.

The politicians who came together on the Yes case are hoping their cooperation will have the same effect.