It would be wise if the Prime Minister and the new Leader of the Opposition were to meet early in this new Federal Parliament to clarify what they think is the desirable and possible scope for bipartisan cooperation.

A confidential meeting obviously, perhaps as described by Chatham House rules.

Why?

The intention would be two-fold.

Firstly, to make explicit what each may consider is the implicit, historical understanding and agreement.

Even in recent days we have seen some reasons for a time of clarification.

Is it still agreed that when the Prime Minister (or other Senior Ministers) are overseas on important and sensitive matters that the Opposition of the day should refrain from public criticism?

The Prime Minister’s recent trip to China was accompanied by a range of domestic comments by other politicians.

A second intention for such a discreet meeting would be to clarify some common ground on current complex issues.

In today’s media, National Party MP Barnaby Joyce urged the Coalition to support ditching the Government’s 2050 net zero emissions target.

His argument is not so much related to the policy itself but rather, as a matter of raw politics, he is using it differentiate after Federal Election loss.

In response, the National’s leader David Littleproud, refers to the complexity of the transition to renewable as it is being experienced in some regional communities.

I have recently been in the Riverina and heard from farmers as well as people involved in renewable energy transition, and know something of what he means.

However, the answer is not to again make climate policy a matter of political dispute.

We are seeing the evidence of what science has been predicting for decades. That scientific evidence is what led member States, 25 years ago, to create the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] and its subsequent work on net zero targets in the Paris Agreement of 2015.

This is a crucial subject for a confidential discussion in the national interest on the scope for bipartisan cooperation in this new Parliament.

The anguish of those Torres Strait elders and youngsters last week outside the Federal Court, should focus our leadership. Their experience of the loss and the damage already caused by climate change is one of multiple case studies about the urgent need for a national plan to better manage this complex transition.

There are other matters that could also be on an agenda for this suggested meeting between our PM and our new Leader of the Opposition.

Another obvious matter for bipartisan cooperation is how to deal with the consequences the terrible conflict and suffering in the Middle East.

One last comment. I am currently looking after an Anglican parish as locum. Yesterday, after the service, I listened to someone who wants help to forgive a close family member. I listened to someone with tears in her eyes after a recent bereavement. I tried to help someone with future uncertainty because of visa difficulties, and another whose aged care provider seems inept.

I could go on. The point is, people have plenty to deal with in their personal and community lives.

A Government and Opposition that spoke together on matters in the national interest would bring some calm to people’s lives.

The necessary robust political discourse of a healthy democracy would be strengthened by clarification of what matters (of historical precedent and of current issues) are deemed to be matters for bipartisan cooperation. There will still be plenty of room for disagreement on other matters of principle and policy!

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.