Squabbling.

That really is the only way to describe the sounds that masquerade as debate emanating from our national parliament.

Opinion polls that reflect reaction to media reports of this irritable child-like behaviour are read like tea leaves in the bottom of a cup to discern the national mood.

At the moment, according to Nielsen and Newspoll, we all want cheaper fuel – who’d have guessed? – but that doesn’t mean the new government is on the nose.

It’s clear we are all concerned about the price of fuel and, because we have been conditioned to believe it is possible, want direct government action to bring it down.

As a consequence, the opposition delights – in between point-scoring about the behaviour of a loathsome couple at a Gosford restaurant – in demanding every second minute of the day how a range of totally unrelated Rudd policies are going to bring the cost down.

Putting aside the letters and telephone conversations I have had with Canberra restaurateurs about the appalling behaviour of some members of the now opposition’s ranks, isn’t it time both sides of the House started thinking less about how they can advance their own political fortunes and more about what they can do for the good of the country.

I know it runs against every instinct in a politician’s body, but I don’t need a Newspoll or a Nielsen poll to tell me that people are heartily sick of the amount of energy being wasted while some of the biggest challenges to face this nation mount at the door.

Things may be done at the margins to control fuel prices, but money is already flowing from property into finite resources, guaranteeing further cost imposts into the future.

Even if the government unties Australia from the Singapore Tapis benchmark price and achieves a dramatic price fall for domestically produced oil, the stuff is still eventually going to run out.

One problem would just have been postponed for someone else to resolve.

And of course there are other more pressing matters than the price of fuel. The price of food is going up as consequence of drought and worldwide demand.

Australian rice production is reportedly at an all-time low, dairy products have risen 50% – look at the price of the cheapest cheddar – pie shops and bakeries have notices explaining the impact of a 40% increase in flours and grains and cooking oils are more expensive than the stuff you put in your car.

Wholesalers are reporting supply as being patchy as our primary producers look overseas to achieve their best price.

Suppliers say that apart from a rapid increase in demand, prices are being impacted by the failure of the Australian wheat and canola crops due to drought, the failure of the sunflower crop in Russia and Ukraine, a reduction in the supply of Malaysian palm oil due to flooding, and the devastation of 40% of China’s canola crop due to unseasonal snow.

Mandated biofuel use, an approach to address price and climate, is putting further pressure on oil and grain stocks as the world’s population continues to outstrip our ability to feed it.

The effects will flow into chicken and beef, with the doubling to $492 late last year, in the cost of wheat feed. Meanwhile, Australia produced two million tonne less fodder last year than it did in 2006.

Our governments seem oblvious to these facts. Is it that both sides of politics are themselves policy drought zones that have nothing to offer beyond the banalities that have passed for national debate in recent months?

Why does the Queensland government think that feeding more people into the state will increase our prosperity and quality of life?

How does it intend to feed them? Certainly not from the rich Mary Valley, which will be sacrificed to provide an expensive and inefficient supply of water while the stuff continues to flow, wasted, off our roofs and down our drainpipes.

“What we need to do is frame an intelligent long-term response to this,” Kevin Rudd told ABC TV Monday night when asked about fuel prices.

“We’re dealing with a long-term challenge as well as being mindful of the impact on people’s hip pockets now.”

What the hell does that mean, that he has just given $35 million of our money to the world’s most profitable car manufacturer?

And what of the opposition? Does it really have nothing more to offer than an all-day assault on an obnoxious couple?

Were they really the most important issue facing this country on Monday morning?