Long-term readers, all three of them (hi, mum), will be aware I think hypocrisy is one of the important ingredients in public life; a grease for the wheels of political discourse without which our politicians would be hopelessly stuck for much of the time.

The hung parliament, of which we had just a taste this week, will evidently need a lot more such lubricant.

You might have noticed, by the way, that neither side was particularly triumphalist about its wins this week. Labor didn’t do much crowing about its coup of getting Peter Slipper into the deputy speakership, and apart from noting that it was the first time a government had lost a vote on the floor of the Reps in 40/50/60/70 (depending on whom you asked) years, nor did the opposition about its win in moving an amendment to the standing orders on recommittal of votes. Both sides, and especially Labor, are doubtless aware that embarrassment is never further away than the next vote in the hung parliament.

But back to lubricant. Plenty of it was needed over Labor’s elevation of Slipper to the status of being “eminently qualified” to be deputy speaker — more qualified than its own Anna Burke, needless to say, whose services in the role were judged no longer necessary by the government.

One of the more interesting moments of the week was when Harry Jenkins, having slipped into the speaker’s chair — during the division that the government went on to lose — rose and told MPs that he would be determining when he and the deputy speaker and second deputy speaker would be in the chair, in a pointed reference to speculation that the government would seek to ensure Slipper or Bruce Scott were in the chair during crucial divisions, thereby reducing the Coalition vote by one. Harry was indeed correct that he’s in charge of who serves as speaker when. That’s not to say he’s in charge of the scheduling of government business, which is the other factor in the equation, unless Jenkins plans to bustle in and take the chair during every division.

Labor needs plenty of lubricant, too, on a carbon price which until six weeks ago it swore on a stack of Bibles — or in the prime minister’s case affirmed on a stack of, um … anyway — that it would not be introducing in this term. It’s tempting to sit back and enjoy Labor’s discomfort on the issue, given how cynically, opportunistically and, ultimately, ineptly the Rudd government handled climate change. That’s especially because the primary backers of the extraordinarily cynical — and extraordinarily politically stupid — decision to abandon the CPRS, viz. Ms Gillard, Mr Swan, Senator Arbib and Mr Bitar, are now running the show. Trouble is, of course, it’s too important to the Australian economy for that, as demonstrated by the increasing concern of business about operating in an environment in which the issue is permanently unresolved.

Lots of hypocrisy, too, for the opposition. Bit by bit, the Coalition is building up a sort of shadow bureaucracy to advise it on crucial matters. It dismissed the departments of Treasury and Finance as untrustworthy, and refused to submit its election costings in the same manner that when in government it demanded Labor do. Instead, it preferred to have a Perth accounting firm vet its costings instead — which was, according to the opposition, just as good as Treasury, indeed, better, because it faced the possibility of real sanctions if it erred. Joe Hockey today appeared to prefer Access Economics to Treasury on the impact of the resources boom of the Budget, despite Access having an even worse record of predicting revenue than the serially over-cautious Treasury.

But the shadow bureaucracy now extends beyond fiscal matters to the law — the Coalition rejected the solicitor-general’s advice on the constitutionality of pairing of the speaker, in favour of advice from George Brandis — or “George Brandis SC” as Christopher Pyne insisted on saying. And yesterday David ‘Michael’ Johnston, the shadow defence minister, said he preferred the advice of soldiers in the field to that of the chief of the Defence Force.

This systematic trashing of the key public policy institutions goes beyond ordinary political hypocrisy. We’re not talking about any old public service departments here.  The Coalition is attacking Treasury, the solicitor-general and the CDF, institutions and offices that are critical to the healthy functioning of the Commonwealth, and that served the Coalition well when they were in government.

Conservatives are — at least by their own lights — supposed to be defenders of traditional processes and institutions as having been tried and tested over time. That doesn’t preclude posing alternative policies or asking tough questions about what the government is being told. But it should preclude systematically undermining key institutions for partisan convenience, purely on the basis that what someone else says is more convenient for their attacks on Labor. The shellacking a Labor opposition would get for such attacks from the right-wing media would be fearsome indeed, and held up as evidence it was unfit for office.

The long-term consequence is simple relativism in public policy. If no one is regarded as being better placed to offer more informed or more independent advice than anyone else, then everyone’s advice — everyone’s opinion — is equally valid. Pick your position according to political convenience, then go and find an opinion to back yourself. That’s the problem with hypocrisy. Too much and you end up not knowing what to believe.