Far be it from me to cast the first stone, or any stone at all. The fact is I have been there and been a part of that. I know only too well how easy it is to cross the line and get carried away by the cut and thrust of intense debate. It can get nasty and it can get personal. Very personal.

But I also agree with the Man In The Middle. Enough is enough. There are rules to which members are expected to adhere, and not always with the incessant intervention of the Speaker, who are given the necessary latitude to speak and speak up; and when mistakes are made in the heat of battle, it is not unreasonable to expect them to correct themselves and to apologise where appropriate.

But that rarely happens, lest an apology be viewed as a mistake and seized upon as a sign of weakness, not just by the other side but by your own. Party politics has that kind of influence: never ever give your opponents an inch, and seize a mile whenever you can.

You may think I jest. I don’t. But whomever is at fault — and rarely do you hear any admission of fault, only justification that the other side started it — no one comes away clean. Bad behaviour becomes a blot on all who sit on the Hill. All sanctimony and self-righteousness aside, remember this: the tango takes two.

Meantime, we wait for someone, some one group, to break the cycle, to start to change the culture that permeates our politics. A change in the way business is conducted on the Hill is a good place to begin. It almost certainly will lead to a change in performance, possibly behaviour. The Westminster system does not always have to be about conflict and clash. There is room for cooperation and collaboration. All we need is the will and means to make it happen. Obvious ways are:

• Turn those backbenchers loose and let them do the job of providing much-needed oversight of Government spending, through the Public Accounts Committee in particular. This is needed more than these constant, critical, political opinion pieces always after the fact.

• Continue to use joint select committees to tackle some of the bigger, seemingly intractable issues we are facing, such as health care, cost and insurance. We have seen flashes of their usefulness with the Elections Committee (although whatever became of their recommendations?), drug-testing for legislators, and recently developing a registry for sex offenders.

• Put the Opposition to work, make them show their mettle as an alternative government and give them both opportunity and a set time on the Parliamentary calendar to bring forward motions and Bills. It is done elsewhere. This Opposition has already proven itself industrious and capable on this front with motions and bills, some of which have been adopted by Government, modified or not.

We should not be surprised over the frustration and the anger that wells up from the backbenches. It’s no fun to be shut out of decision-making and stuck with the role of critic, cheerleader and/or apologist. Give them all, Government and Opposition backbench MPs, a working chance to show us what they can do.

Last week I recommended (yet again) that legislation should be subject to open review by a bipartisan committee of legislators (Senators included) much like the private Bills committee except hearings should be open to the press and public.

Questions get asked of those responsible for the legislation, the drafters and policymakers. Bills can also be posted online for review, comment and question, giving bloggers something constructive to do. This is what I thought should have happened with something as major and as contentious as the Casino Gaming Bill and I was critical last week of the lack of public consultation on the Bill itself.

I should have been clearer on the point. The Government Minister responsible took me to task on the Hill. He had had three public meetings this year (before the summer recess) on the Government’s legislative vision for casino gaming and one of those meetings had been televised repeatedly on CITV.

There had been extensive public consultation, I was told. Maybe, maybe not, it depends on what you regard as extensive. One thing is for sure though: it was not by way of a promised referendum.

But let’s stick with the point: the opportunity not just for MPs, but the wider public to consult and be consulted on actual legislation, draft or otherwise. It should be commonplace and routine now that technology makes it easy to do. It should not depend on the grace and favour of one Minister, and not on whether the subject matter is sufficiently controversial that it should be tabled with little fanfare, debated at the earliest opportunity, and banged through in one day and night.

It’s an approach that should meet with support. Last week another Government Minister promised widespread consultation, with stakeholders and the public, on legislation his consultants will be producing on a new energy licensing regime.

Meanwhile, we are told that the Casino Gaming Act, notwithstanding its elephantine proportions, was only the legal framework for what’s to come. The real action will be in the rules and regulations that are to follow which, as they say, is where you will always find the devil i.e. in the detail.

Sounds like a second chance to me to do better. Hey, it’s Christmas, a time of hope. Be of good cheer then and my best wishes to all for a safe and happy holiday.