This is a piece I wrote just after the election had been called and that bounced its way around various editors’ inboxes but received no reply. The National Times was going to publish it last week but decided against it in an attempt to focus on non-election articles. Imagine now that its the first week of the election campaign and that Gillard still looked like she had a stranglehold over the Mad Monk…

We have our reigning champion and we have our contender. We have our crowd favourite and we have our underdog. We have our hype and we have our nervous anticipation. And now, with August 21, we have a date for our title fight.

The Australian political landscape bears many similarities with the world of professional wrestling and the notion of ‘kayfabe’ is no exception.

For the uninitiated, kayfabe is the wrestler’s code; the unspoken rule that obliges wrestlers to present the world of ‘sports entertainment’ as real. In reality, matches are decided before the competitors enter the ring, feuds and allegiances are scripted well in advance of their on-screen appearances and blows in the ring never quite land as hard as they should. It is kayfabe that seeks to maintain the suspension of belief for the audience.

While seeing Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott slug it out in a ‘Hell in a Cell’ match does have a certain appeal, the concept of political kayfabe is rather more subtle. In any given situation, it is the opposition’s role to oppose the government, regardless of the merits of the government’s argument.

If the government lunges forth with a new policy; the opposition counters with a stinging critique. If the government pulls some new legislation from under the ring, the opposition attempts to disarm them in the senate. One need only look to the events of the last year to see political kayfabe in action.

When the federal government proposed the introduction of a Resources Super Profits Tax in May the opposition dubbed it a ‘great big new tax which could effectively kill the Golden Goose’; the Australian mining sector. Yet when Prime Minister Gillard made considerable negotiations with the mining industry in an attempt to ensure a solid future for the industry, the Coalition continued their vocal disapproval of the scheme.

The issue of Labor’s internet filter is another pertinent example. While Abbott has been noticeably non-committal on the issue of internet censorship, Joe Hockey has been willing to offer his opinion, dutifully slamming the scheme. Yet, when Senator Conroy announced that the internet filter would be delayed due to community concerns, the Coalition was quick to offer their critique of the move, labelling the decision a ‘humiliating backflip’.

But the most indicative example of political kayfabe in action is Labor’s seemingly doomed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When the Rudd/Wong partnership announced their ETS late last year, the Abbott-led opposition was quick to hit it with the ‘great big new tax’ stamp. Yet, when Rudd announced the indefinite shelving of the ETS, the Coalition’s continued to criticise Rudd, accusing him of political cowardice.

Rather than have a rational debate about the issue of climate change, both the Rudd government and Abbott opposition continued to fight for their respective policies, unwilling to surrender. In the grapple that ensued, the real losers were the health of our planet and our future generations.

Sure, we’re all for a debate that provides us with several interpretations of an important issue; without such a debate we would hardly have perspective on the pressing issues that face our nation. And sure, you could argue that the opposition’s job is to, well, oppose the government. But on rare occasions our politicians have shown that political kayfabe can be set aside in favour of the greater good.

When Kevin Rudd made his now famous apology to indigenous Australians for the atrocity that manifested itself in the ‘stolen generations’, then-opposition leader Brendan Nelson followed Rudd’s speech, endorsing the then-prime minister’s message. Indeed the apology was supported by all but a handful of opposition ministers, showing that common ground is possible on matters of great import.

Why can’t this attitude of mutual understanding and compromise be taken as the starting point every time? Why can’t the important issues be discussed rationally without succumbing to the obligations of political kayfabe?

Professional wrestling can be entertaining even when we know that matches are decided before the combatants enter the ring. But wouldn’t it be nice to have the occasional fight where the outcome was decided in the ring? By all means have a debate about the key issues – this is a democracy after all – but why not start with the aim of creating solutions, rather than fulfilling ideological responsibilities?

But, with a title fight just around the corner, it’s almost certain that the current rules of engagement will prevail. After all, Tony Abbott is expecting Labor to run a ‘filthy’ election campaign and, if history is anything to go by, Julia Gillard should expect no less from the opposition. After all, it’s all in the script…