What we choose to normalise

I’ve seen some online chatter this week suggesting One Nation’s wafer-thin health policy presents a strategic opportunity.

The argument being presented seems to be that if we learn to speak the language of grievance more fluently, we can occupy the space around it, shape their policy agenda and call it advocacy.

That line of thinking worries me. This is not a messaging problem to overcome. It is about what we are willing to normalise.

There are times when the our role is not to find common ground with an idea, but to make the case against it. That requires a willingness to say that some things are worth pushing back against.

We should pay attention to the frustrations that draw people towards One Nation. Many people look at the systems around them and see long waits, rising costs and barriers that seem to grow rather than shrink. It is not hard to understand why that breeds anger and disappointment.

Those experiences matter and deserve a serious response, but there is a difference between responding to frustration and borrowing the politics that grows from it.

When a party builds its appeal on resentment and suspicion of basic public health safeguards, the answer is not to edge closer and hope we can shape the outcome. We need to be honest about where those ideas lead. More confusion, less confidence and weaker foundations for the systems people rely on.

People don’t lose faith in institutions because they hear the wrong message. They lose faith when their lived experience tells them the system is not delivering. That reality demands attention, reform and a willingness to confront what is not working, without mistaking anger for a solution.

Of course we should engage with people who feel drawn to One Nation, but I reckon we can do that without legitimising arguments that weaken confidence in things like vaccination, Medicare and the services people rely on.

This is bigger than health policy. It is about the kind of country we want to be. Whether we respond to uncertainty by turning against one another, or by strengthening the institutions and shared commitments that hold us together.

We don’t  need to become a softer version of someone else’s argument. We need to make a stronger case for our own.

Edwina Pearse, Director, Jackson Pearse + Collaborator, For Purpose