Search

Incivility in parliaments is always prominently displayed in media reports, often with the implicit or explicit commentary that the situation is getting worse. This paper processes and analyses the records of verbal interactions in the Australian Parliament for over 100 years to provide a first approximation on the evolution of civility. It provides a framework for understanding the multidimensional nature of civility that examines both 'politeness' and 'argumentation', with the latter grounded in notions of public-mindedness. The analysis focuses on the interactions between parties of the orators and the party in power, the chamber of utterance, and the year. The results indicate that instances of impoliteness have increased since the 1970s but only modestly and remain highly infrequent. Minor parties, particularly those representing right-wing and Green politics are more likely to use dismissive or offensive language than the dominant centre-left and centre-right parties, although direct insults and swearwords are the particular remits of right-wing 'system-wrecker' parties. All these minor parties, nonetheless, also display higher levels of argumentation in their interventions. This combination of aggressive language and increased argumentation highlights the pressures on minor parties to convey their points in a forceful way, a challenge that is particularly pressing in two-party systems like the Australian one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK and Australian literature on free vote patterns highlights that, even under 'unwhipped' free vote circumstances, party membership remains the key predictor of MPs' voting patterns. However, analyses of free votes have focused on single parliaments and as such, it is not clear whether the insights of this literature can be generalised. This article analyses MPs'voting behaviour, during free voting on landmark legislation, which sought to allow equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The article will address the following questions: Which MPs supported proposals to legalise same-sex marriage? What were the main factors that predicted their voting? Why were the majority of MPs in the UK and New Zealand, but not Australia, willing to support law reform? Whilst voting in the UK and New Zealand followed a strikingly similar pattern, there are key differences in the voting in Australia. This is attributed to two main factors: first, the 'whipping' of small T liberal Coalition MPs in the Australian House of Representatives who might have otherwise voted in favour of reform; and, secondly, the different pathways along which the 'centre-left' political parties have evolved in New Zealand and Australia, which led to a larger presence of Catholics in the Australian Labor Party than in either the UK or NZ Labour Parties. It is possible to conclude from the analysis more broadly, that although party remains the best predictor of voting patterns across the three Westminster democracies recently, gender has also emerged as an important predictor of voting patterns. This finding is discussed in the final part of the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]