Thursday, 25 May
-
After Kelvin Thompson demands more information from John Anderson regarding his trading in AWB shares, Tony Abbott moves “That that snivelling grub over there be not longer heard.”
-
Abbott subsequently says, “If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally.”
-
Julia Gillard points out that it is not an unconditional withdrawal, but the Deputy Speaker accepts it anyway.
-
No further motion is put, and no amendment is made, but the House votes to support the motion — that is, “That that snivelling grub over there be not longer heard.”
-
Gillard asks the Speaker to review the incident and to indicate whether “snivelling grub” is language suitable for inclusion in a Parliamentary motion, “because, if it is, Mr Speaker, you can expect to see it used regularly.”
Monday, 29 May
-
Gillard reminds Abbott of his purported belief that MPs should “rededicate ourselves to being kinder and gentler to each other”, and asks how the “snivelling grub” comment upholds that ideal.
Tuesday, 30 May
-
The Speaker explains, “Given the withdrawals by the Leader of the House, the [25 May] motion was a valid motion.”
-
Gillard says she “take[s] it as implicit in your ruling that in future in this House a withdrawal in that form will be seen to be an effective withdrawal”, and that “it will be effective on all occasions when offered by other members of the House.”
Wednesday, 31 May
-
When Abbott is speaking, Gillard moves, “that that snivelling grub over there be not further heard.”
-
Asked to withdraw, she says, “If I have offended grubs I withdraw unconditionally.”
-
The Speaker demands that Gillard withdraw unconditionally, but she cites the earlier precedent.
-
Abbott moves that Gillard be ejected from the House, and the Government uses its numbers to expel her for 24 hours.
Good points here Robert.
You think they would stick to far more important things like.. the color of Julia Gillards hair these days. If it were any redder she’d catch fire me reckons.
I can not think of a better recent example of the “balance and fairness” with which the government is controlling parliament.
snivelling grub?
LOL, come on, I really, really like that! Don’t you know it had to feel good to get that out?
Oh come on, who can forget Leaping Leo under the Keating government? Putting a partisan time server into the Speaker’s chair is something that’s been done since Federation – a perk of incumbency.
Which just means that Labour should make a mental note that when it finally gets into goverment there needs to be some institutional changes in parliament (on the Speaker, it’d be real good if he/she was statutorily independent, non-voting and drawn from the judiciary).
As much as I enjoy these petty little semantic stoushes, particularly when they showcase Julia’s fearsome wit, it does make me wonder if this is how the devisors of representative democracy envisaged it operating.
What we have here is a speaker in the audio engineering sense of the word. It makes noises, but only as a function of the signals it is fed.
And it apparently has as much capacity for reason and fairness as your typical sub-woofer, too.
cant believe Gillard would act in defence of an all time loser like Kelvin Thomson – he is classic alp hackdom wrought large – local, state and federal conveyor belt has delivered him to permanent oppostion – first opposite Kennett and now Howard – his one achievement weas getting a park named after himself in pascoe vale. What a waste of breath.
Their hypocrisy is breath-taking.
It’s not so much Abbott, but rather that David Hawker, the Speaker, is hopeless. See http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/05/david-hawker-speaker-of-house-of-reps.html#links
DD,
I agree. Let’s also appoint a royal commission with real powers and a real term of reference to investigate AWB. Let’s do that.
True, but it’s also traditional for the occupant not to be quite so hapless as this.
Abuses of power like these (however trivial and minor they may be in and of themselves) make an absolute mockery of our claims to be a functioning democracy.
Thanks Robert. Great post.
At least Neil Andrew was competently partisan.
While I’d never expect that the Speaker be impartial under our parliamentary system, I think David Hawker is a particularly poor speaker. At least make a pretence of being unbiased and competent if you’re in that position.
Nothing is more indicative of the insularity of the House of Reps than this infantile rubbish.
Frankly, who cares?
I kind of see your point, Geoff, but on the other hand we’re talking about the rules of engagement in the Parliament. The Standing Orders are there for a reason, and they should be upheld or else formally amended.
As WeekbyWeek pointed out, it’s not about the insults, it’s about the hopelessness of the Speaker. He should be able to keep the House in order. There is (sometimes) important debate going on in there.
At the end of the day, it’s about calling the Government to account for disregarding the rules. Now that it has a double majority, there are no substantial checks on its behaviour, so Gillard has gone for the next best option — media coverage.
This particular example is not the most consequential thing that’s ever happened, but it was clearly set up by Gillard to illustrate the broader point. And I think she did so very well.
Whether it leads to any change is yet to be seen. Perhaps Labor is working up towards a policy announcement? I don’t know.
That was a scream, Robert. Sure it’s hypocritical, but whoever thought politics wasn’t?
Still, it provided a great opportunity for Julia to showcase her talent. An ill wind, etc.
What happened in Parliament demonstrates the total contempt that Howard has for the Australian people and the democracy he supposedly represents.
A drover’s dog could do a better job than the current Speaker. One of the fleas on the dog could do a better job than Howard!
This is the best LP post I’ve read in ages. AFAICT, none of the broadsheets bothered to assemble the small, but necessary backstory here, and so land a killer punch.
Lighten up, Daniel and folks. It’s because democracy is so institutionally robust that we can afford a parliament carries on in this uniquely entertaining way.
No longer finding party politics funny is a sure sign that you have a severe dose of the flu, according to Richard ‘Doctor in the House’ Gordon.
“No longer finding party politics funny is a sure sign that you have a severe dose of the flu, according to Richard ‘Doctor in the House’ Gordon.”
It’s a more a “Carry On in the House” scenario, Rob. The whole unedifying episode began with Kelvin Thompson attempting to fit John Anderson up as some kind of Alan Bond in moleskins. Abbott, who is surely the most easily roused player on the front bench (whoever imagined that a hairtrigger temperament like that might be Prime Ministerial?) blew it and Hawker (almost as bad as Leo McLeay and cetainly less vivacious) let him off the hook in a cacophony of cross-table abuse.
The whole thing revolves around the clear and unresolved sexual tension between Gillard and Abbott and I wish they’d get on with it. Julia’s “snivelling grub” this morning was as unmistakable a signal as her bootclad stalk down the Labor frontbench, out of the chamber. Barbara Cartland, where are you now?
geoff is right. Abbott wants to show Julia his snivelling grub, just as he showed it around sans condom at monash (because he was entering the seminary). entering. grub……
I was wondering what was behind the kerfuffle – now that I know it’s just Abbot and Hawker being boofheadedly true to type, and Julia taking the opportunity to show them up, it makes better sense.
Nice post Robert. Maybe some MSM lurker will take your lead and provide similar context in one of the broadsheets. In fact, I’d almost bet on it
“The whole thing revolves around the clear and unresolved sexual tension between Gillard and Abbott and I wish they’d get on with it.”
Geoff, that sounds absolutely glorious. More comedie humaine. Get to it, kids.
Heh.
I have to admit, one of the reasons this captured my attention is that Gillard and Abbott are very entertaining when they carry on like this. And it was so carefully set up!
In all likelihood nothing will change, and the hopeless Hawker will continue to bumble his way through these stoushes, invariably favouring the Government no matter how badly Abbott behaves.
On the final eve of all this unresolved parliamentary sexual tension…Lateline Tuesday night had Tony Jones talking to James Lovelock of Gaia fame. Lovelock has come out in favour of nuclear energy tout suit if we are to save ourselves from global warming. His dire prediction is that a 6 degree temperature rise this century is on target and that the only life that might survive it will likely be adaptable hardy types near the polar regions. Just thought it might break the tension. Patagonia anyone?
Jesus Christ. Have they no shame?
Thanks for the post, Robert, it was definitely worth doing. I think the thing with Hawker is that he has an appropriate bias to suit his masters, but is simply not quick-witted enough to carry it off.
I’ve been listening to parliament for the last week in the afternoons and I think I’d have a somewhat different take on it.
First up Hawker was not in the chair when the original problem arose, Peter Lindsay was. He obviously stuffed up by not asking Abbott to rephrase his motion.
I’m not sure of the technicalities, but when Labor objected the house passed some kind of resolution setting the thing in stone by supporting Abbott. When Abbott withdrew in such an offensive manner he logically couldn’t because the House had already passed his motion which stands there in Hansard.
Rather than a Gillard thing it seemed clear to me that there is a major strategy to embarrass the Government and its management of the house by attacking the Speaker. Gillard has also been caning him over not taking action to invalidate the votes of some Government members, in an incident where the doors were held open for them to return to the chamber when it should have been shut in their face. Gillard quoted Sneddon as a precedent.
On this the Abbott ‘grub’ issue it is clear to me that Labor had a predetermined strategy for the day. At least it looked like that, with Beazley and Albanese supporting Gillard. Others have played bit parts on Monday.
The speaker felt obliged to make a statement that Gillard had been thrown out because she defied the Chair, not because she used the same words as Abbott. Faced with this bit of casuistry and exhortations on everyone to behave Beazley asked:
When the Speaker wouldn’t play ball Beazley then moved that standing orders be set aside so that the house could pass a resolution which basically re-established the norm that everyone should behave decently (not sure of the exact detail here, but it was designed, I think as Labor’s final play on this one.)
He then delivered a well-crafted speech which had obviously been prepared beforehand.
Abbott said everyone makes mistakes, not the least him.
Albanese quipped that here we have “confession without contrition”.
I think how today played out was obviously set up by Beazley, Gillard and Albanese and it worked a treat.
Encouragingly, I met someone the other day who sat next to Julia on a domestic flight. Apparently, in person she is not the hatchet-faced hag that she projects on TV
I’ve met her – before she went into politics – she’s a very nice person.
Hawker is a hopeless speaker, he can’t hide his bias. Continually looking to his boss for approval. I fyou have Skychannel watch him after 3pm, he changes his demeanor totally as he is not on the ABC as they only transmit between 2 and 3pm.
Julia definately isn’t “not the hatchet-faced hag that she projects on TV”
Any chance of dragging some of the commenters on this thread into the 20th, sorry, 21st century and getting them to register that there are other interesting things to be said about Julia Gillard apart from inane remarks about what she looks like?
No, I thought not. Sorry. As you were.
I got my summary of events from RN’s PM. (If Surfdom condemned the ABC Website for getting it half-wrong, they could’ve mentioned that PM made amends.) Brian got it right. The original stuffup, in allowing Abbott to get away with that outrageous abuse, was not by Hawker but Peter Lindsay. Although Hawker may be a Liberal lackey, I don’t think he’d have allowed Abbott to get away with it.
Hawker, of course, was in a bind with Gillard’s repetition of Abbott’s words. If he moved against her he drew publicity to the whole episode and the hypocrisy on government rulings. If he let it go, he risked lowering standards. Result: a moral win to Beazer and Gillard.
If he did stuff up, it was by bowing out of Beazley’s invitation to belatedly condemn Abbott and Lindsay. That would’ve really set the cat among the pigeons and maybe led to his losing the chair. Even then he could’ve hung on because the government wouldn’t have wanted the bad publicity, but David maybe didn’t think that far ahead.
As someone who lives in Hawker’s electorate, and even drove him by cab from Warrnambool to Camperdown, I can tell you that while he may not be the brightest spark around, he is a good conversationalist and quite humane. There is little of the plastic that you encounter in most pollies. Still wouldn’t vote for him, though.
and what about today’s incompetence see: http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/
“the clear and unresolved sexual tension between Gillard and Abbott”
Yes, people who have been in the same room as both of them say the UST is quite palpable.
I think we can all guess what the highlight of Parliamentry Big Brother would be. (Aside from Bill Heffernan caught trying on the women’s underwear.)
And yes this talk of Julia’s looks is pretty inane. Incidentally isn’t it a shame how Tony Abbott is letting his locks fade away. Hasn’t the poor guy heard of Advanced Hair, yeah, yeah?
Good to see he ALP focussing on the important things!!
Definitely a few mor evotes in all that useful enrgy expenditure.
Howard must be shaking in his boots!
That’s very interesting, Don, and PC, I couldn’t agree more.
Julia Gillard explained herself on radio this morning.
You probably heard that four of them were kicked out for an hour today, including Stephen Smith, Gillard and Albanese.
In part I think they are attacking the govt on its weakest point in parliament – the management of the house.
In part they are just sick to death of the way the govt doesn’t even attempt to answer any questions, they just blather on tipping buckets on Labor about anything that comes to mind.
Labor contested everything vigorously today. Parliament is an awful rabble to listen to but I took some hope in that Labor was not just copping it, but gave all the appearance of being quite cohesive. I think they’ve got a sniff.
In the MPI debate today Beazley made it quite clear that he’s going after them in RARA land where, according to what was said today labor has four seats and the other mob has 45.
One of the side-plays is that Bronnie keeps jumping up with points of order, demonstrating what a mistake they made in not making her Speaker.
What an abuse of power? On what basis was this disproportionate ejection made? and Why? Abbott need not have said it in the first place.
My post is clear that the Deputy Speaker made the initial ruling. However, when the Speaker returned, Gillard immediately asked him to investigate the incident. He backed the Deputy’s initial decision. If he’d come back and said it was a bad decision, the whole thing would’ve been over with — in fact, it would have reflected well on him, while putting Labor back in its box, and Abbott couldn’t care less whether he is told off or not.
So it’s the Speaker’s unwillingness to form his own opinions that is the real problem.
Meanwhile, in the real world, peoples lives continue to go along. Do the ALP really think the electorate gives a flying fark around this? They had the Government on the run about a raft of other stuff and thetactics bureau of gillard, smith and albo come up with this gem to take the attention away from all of that? Just dumb!
Abbott’s written an article about the grub incident in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-real-disorder-in-the-house/2006/06/06/1149359742435.html?page=2
Apparently Gillard “has her own reasons for wanting to raise the parliamentary temperature.”
Did he really say that? Wow — even his metaphors are giving him away!
I move that this snivelling thread no longer be heard!
Incidentally, apropos of nought, one of the lesser known but best-named Brisbane thrash bands of the 90s was “Mistah Speakah”.
I believe they supporting “Bloated Scrotum” at the W’gabba Railway Hotel a few times.
derrida derider (on 31 May 2006 at 3:38 pm) said:
==” Putting a partisan time server into the Speaker’s chair is something that’s been done since Federation – a perk of incumbency”.
Sadly this is true …. so too is having a say on who will become Governor-General (one of the reasons some Australians – young and old – hold both offices in contempt).
At least Julia Gillard did try to bring tone and decency to the Parliament.
Abuse of the speaker powers is nothing substantially short of corruption in my view, whichever side does it.
About time both sides sat down and agreed to make this position independent, perhaps even by removing the requirement that they are drawn from the house itself.
Armniac:
How about the Speaker being a “retired” parliamentarian ….federal or state?
Robert, let me belatedly acknowledge that I’d missed the bit about the Deputy Speaker making the initial ruling in your excellent post.
Today there was a schmozzle in parliament today with constant points of order and people being thrown out. Labor had numerous questions at the end about the validity and fairness of the Speaker’s rulings. They reckon there have been 30 warnings in the last three days, 29 against Labor members.
Eight people have been thrown out, all Labor of course, and four I think today. It’s a bit like when you have a poor ref in a contact sport and the players lose all respect.