Tuesday 26th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

demos .....

demos .....

from Crikey .....

Common sense from independents has conservatives deeply unhappy

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

BERNARD KEANE ON THE FEDERAL ELECTION 2010, BOB KATTER, COALITION, FEDERAL ELECTION 2010, GREENS, HUNG PARLIAMENT, JULIA GILLARD, LABOR, ROB OAKESHOTT, TONY ABBOTT, TONY WINDSOR

Putting aside the usual froth-mouthed idiocy of Steve Fielding, our new hung Parliament politics is resolving nicely into a conflict between two implacably-opposed forces, just the way we like it.

There's the independents, who are committed to a new approach to politics, one based more firmly on cooperation and eschewing the reflexive combativeness that has typified Parliamentary politics for generations, and there are those who are happily aligned with this approach ie: the Greens, those have belatedly signed up to that cause - chiefly, Labor, which is happy to go along for the ride if it keeps them in power.

And there's Tony Abbott and his colleagues, who are retaining the same combativeness and negativity that have delivered the Liberals to the brink of power. Why, the logic goes, should they stop now given how successful it has been? Having got this far, way beyond his critics' expectations, Abbott might oppose his way right into the Lodge.

The Liberals seem quite happy to savage Treasury as part of this process. They have long attacked Ken Henry for being a Labor stooge - "first against the wall", as one staffer likes to say - but that has now been extended to the entire department, which can no longer be trusted, according to senior Liberals.

And lined up with them is the right-wing media. The goal of the Coalition and the right-wing media is to de-legitimise any process that delivers a minority Labor Government, to suggest that the Liberals have had the election stolen from them by the independents - who are increasingly being targeted by conservative commentators for acting beyond their remit.

You can see how this will play out - there will be remorseless attacks on an "illegitimate" government composed of Labor, economically-irrational hayseeds and lunatic, latte-set left-wing Greens.

The only answer, Coalition cheerleaders like The Australian are saying increasingly shrilly, is another election, to get rid of this annoyingly inconvenient outcome and deliver an Abbott Government. Expect the theme of business and investor uncertainty to get a stronger and stronger run as days go by.

Crikey also understands that the Liberals are investigating legal options for preventing the formation of a minority ALP Government which, even if they have little chance of success, can strengthen the theme that there is something illegitimate about an outcome that doesn't feature a Liberal Government.

The irony is, the three rural independents have conducted themselves with common sense and the strongest possible commitment to stability. It may be surprising to use a term like "common sense" about Bob Katter, but by putting aside their own policy interests, emphasising the importance of a stable result from a hung Parliament, awaiting the finalised outcome for disputed seats and asking for Treasury advice on the cost of each side' election commitments, the independents are adopting the most economically-responsible approach.

What has gone missing from the discussion about their demands, which has naturally been dominated by the Liberals' refusal to have any independent source look at their policies, is that they pave the way for whatever party forms the minority government to implement its election commitments without having to negotiate each individual policy with them. In effect, if the independents receive advice that the parties' platforms have minimal impact on the Budget, that surely will be a strong argument for Windsor, Katter and Oakeshott to pass associated legislation, on the basis that it reflects the platform the party took to the election.

Still, that's being lost in growing criticism of the independents led by conservative critics angered that they won't simply gift the Coalition power, and mainstream media journalists plainly uncomfortable with the shift away from conflict-based two-party politics.

All this political peace and love stuff could yet give away to something deeply divisive and dangerous.

deal or no deal .....

The greatest opposition the main parties face at this point comes from within.

Canberra has become no-man's land. Predicting what will happen in this weird situation is impossible. The little players are the makers of Queen Julia or King Tony. It's like we have bought not just one nerve-tingling thriller, but a whole series.

The craziness of it all was captured by a report on Friday that Family First's Steve Fielding might try to block everything that a Labor government did for the next few months. Fielding has lost his Victorian seat and leaves the Parliament on June 30. Until then, he shares the balance of power with independent Nick Xenophon and the Greens.

We'd have expected by now to have all eyes on who would likely be in a Labor or Liberal cabinet, and who'd be opposition leader. All that is in limbo, as neither side knows whether it will be government or opposition. Presumably most MPs are taking what opportunity they can to recover from the campaign, despite independent Rob Oakeshott's berating them for not being on hand to try to create a new consensus politics.

The stakes are huge for both sides in how things play out this week and beyond. But arguably there is more at stake for Labor in hanging on to government than for the Coalition in gaining it.

If Gillard loses this power play, the Labor recriminations, now on display but being held in some check, would erupt with frightening ferocity. Already Morris Iemma and many others have national secretary Karl Bitar in their sights, over both the coup (the so-called NSW disease) and campaign strategy. Queensland's Premier Anna Bligh has been destabilised by the bad result in her state, for which her government is being partly blamed. There is speculation Bligh's leadership might not last the year.

And who would be Kristina Keneally, whose government faces a wipe-out in March? If Gillard loses, the next few months will be even worse for Keneally, as she struggles through the noise of primal Labor screaming. After the certain routing of the NSW government, it would only get worse. And there would be no federal bolt-hole for displaced NSW Labor people.

If Abbott doesn't get a deal with the independents, a Coalition opposition would be well-placed against an inherently unstable Labor government. Abbott's discomfort, or worse, would come from his own side. Malcolm Turnbull would be driven nearly mad by the smell of power, by knowing the next election was so within the Coalition's reach. Turnbull would not be able to help himself; a Coalition opposition, despite being in a box seat, could become very difficult for Abbott to manage. The opinion polls would be back in play in a big way.

The country independents are home in their electorates this weekend; one question is how much notice they'll take of local feedback, which is more likely, on initial polling, to be in favour of their opting for a Coalition government. So far, the three have shown remarkable unity, despite the differences between them. They stress they are presently concerned with process (on which they have a broadly common stand) rather than issues (on which they differ). This week will test even more whether they can hold together.

The general expectation is that there will be a deal, even if we haven't any idea which way it will go. But what if there was another election?

Some in Labor feel Gillard would be trounced - that the swing we saw last weekend would be consolidated and extended. The internal divisions would make it difficult for Labor to get its act together. There would be hardly any money; in NSW the state party would be saving all its pennies for its campaign. Federally, Labor would have lost some of the benefits of incumbency, because of the hiatus caused by the deadlock.

The Coalition would go into a second election surrounded by uncertainty, too. Last weekend saw a minimal swing to it and a strong Green vote - signs voters were protesting but they weren't convinced by Abbott. A second time around, they might decide they really didn't want to go down the Abbott path.

Like everything else, these are all open questions. One thing is pretty clear. People would be seriously annoyed at having to go through another campaign, with all its intruding propaganda. Their mood would be sour and they could take that out on either side, or both.

Just so long as they didn't do the unthinkable and produce another hung parliament!

Another election would just jangle the nerves of sour and jaded voters

place your bets .....

from Crikey .....

How Wilkie's early decision will determine the government

Stephen Mayne writes:

ANDREW WILKIE, BOB KATTER, HUNG PARLIAMENT, JULIA GILLARD, POKIES, ROB OAKESHOTT, TONY ABBOTT, TONY WINDSOR

Andrew Wilkie is playing a clever hand with his anti-pokies policy auction by promising a decision before the other three independents have barely started sweeping deliberations with department heads and senior big party politicians.

Julia Gillard met with Wilkie for an hour on Saturday and was given until today to respond to his letter listing 20 key areas of interest with the two so-called deal breakers being meaningful pokies reform and some funding for the long neglected Hobart hospital.

Tony Abbott is meeting with Wilkie today to receive the same letter and then the famous intelligence whistleblower expects to announce his decision by Wednesday.

Whoever wins Wilkie's support gets into the driver's seat by moving to 74 seats, assuming you allocate WA National Tony Crook to the Coalition and Green Adam Bandt to Labor. My money is on Wilkie's choice determining the government because the successful applicant would then only require two of the three rural independents to form a government.

Whilst Katter is a wild card, Oakeshott and Windsor will probably stick together and pursue an outcome than retains their key balance of power position. Unless all three are emphatically behind one side or the other, the only way to take Katter out of the equation is to follow Wilkie's decision.

If Wilkie supports Gillard, it is very hard to see how the three rural independents could prop up an Abbott Government which served for more than a few months.

For starters, various renegade Nats could bring the house down, although the two most voluble - Barnaby Joyce and John Williams -- are in the Senate and irrelevant to any vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives.

The other destabilising element is the coming High Court challenge to two new Coalition MPs who foolishly failed to resign their positions on local councils before being elected.

Former Campbelltown mayor Russell Matheson, the new Liberal member for Macarthur, is even promising to stay on Liverpool council despite serving in the Federal Parliament.

And George Christensen, the new CLP member for Dawson, only formally quit the Mackay Regional Council last week after it was clear he'd scored a political promotion.

Both these chaps could fall foul of section 44 (iv) of the Constitution which prohibits anyone enjoying an office of profit under the crown from nominating for Federal Parliament.

Independent Phil Cleary and Liberal Jacqui Kelly both faced by-elections after coming a cropper in court challenges relying on this constitutional provision, but the High Court has never been asked whether this includes councillor stipends.

As a councillor in Victoria running for the Senate, I received very strong advice to quit before the election but this was ignored given there was no prospect of success.

The Coalition holds Dawson by just 2.08% and Macarthur by 3.17% so Labor sympathizers would definitely have a crack at the High Court given success would trigger two by-elections in winnable marginal seats that would bring down a minority Abbott Government.

As the major parties contemplate just how far they push the pokies reform agenda to secure Wilkie's support, it is worth considering a report in the Fairfax broadsheets today which quotes an academic study showing John Howard's guns buyback policy reduced suicides using a fire-arm by 200 a year.

If you can buy back guns and water licences, there is absolutely no reason why you can't buy back pokies licences.

Sure, it will be expensive to compensate State governments, but think of the benefit to those citizens who are currently losing almost $10 billion a year playing the pokies. A whopping $4 billion of those losses are estimated to come from Australia's 100,000 problem gamblers.

No other country on earth has comparable statistics, so why wouldn't Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott take up the challenge and commit to things like the $1 maximum bet as the Productivity Commission recommended?

meanwhile .....

The NSW government would oppose a renewed push to crack down on problem gambling, even as a federal Labor MP urges more action on poker machines, which he says have created ''rivers of tears'' for families.

Julia Gillard will begin her second sensitive week of negotiations with independents today, handing three rural MPs proposals on parliamentary reform and meeting the Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie to discuss his demands for a $1 bet limit on poker machines.

Mr Wilkie yesterday described his poker machine demands as a potential ''show-stopper''. He will also meet Tony Abbott in Canberra today about securing his support for a minority government.

Mr Wilkie said yesterday his preference was for the federal government to work with the states on poker machine reform.

But the NSW Minister for Gaming and Racing, Kevin Greene, indicated the state government would reject the idea of a $1 bet limit, proposed by the Productivity Commission last year.

Poker machine regulation is a sensitive issue within Labor, and a South Australian federal member weighed in on the side of more control.

NSW Labor rejects pokie reform