‘The tribunes of the people, the tongues o’ the common mouth’: Parliamentarians as representatives when scrutinising laws

Shakespeare’s First Folio included publication of Coriolanus, a play that is said to be inflected by political events at the time of its writing and still so by its publication during a period the English parliament was in abeyance, having been dissolved the year before. In this paper, we take up Raffield and Watt’s (2008) invitation to consider the relationship between Shakespeare’s work and the nation-state, by considering the relationship between Coriolanus, and specifically the quasi-parliamentarian characters of the tribunes or representatives of the people, and contemporary Australian parliamentarians. We are particularly interested in how parliamentarians approach and grapple with their role as representatives of the people when undertaking human rights scrutiny of proposed laws, and explore this in relation to the tribunes’ approach to their representative role when making political decisions. We follow Raffield and Watt’s suggestion that, in early modern England, ‘government was conducted and represented as theatre’ (2008: 4) and argue that, in contemporary Australia, parliamentary work is still conducted and represented as theatre, and therefore it is necessary to adopt a theatre or performance lens when considering the ways in which parliamentarians perform their work as both representatives and legislators.