It’s been a shocker of a week for Malcolm Turnbull. We’ve had the Julie Bishop shenanigans, the missing deficit as a yardstick line, second guessing the Reserve Bank to argue that interest rates rises tanked the economy (which is an arguable point, but politically worthless when interest rates have been rapidly falling), a Nationals revolt, losing Fiona Nash from the frontbench, the embarrassment of Christopher Pyne’s arguments being repudiated by the private schools sector and a major win for Julia Gillard, and the revival of Howardism on mandatory detention and border protection – which created its own ripples and waves of internal dissent.
And it goes on.
Stoushing on the government’s infrastructure bill revolved around Coalition claims that it would enable a slush fund for porkbarrelling. A last minute about face by Shadow Cabinet recognised the reality that opposing it, with the House rejecting Senate amendments, might be a bad look – as such opposition could easily be painted as frustrating the desire to stimulate the economy. But the Nationals had drawn their own line in the sand – basically, because they wanted to ensure that the principle of porkbarrelling for rural and regional electorates endured! The result? Malcolm Turnbull was exposed as unable to enforce any sort of discipline on his own party:
There were another two hours of debate before the bill was brought to a vote. And when it was, only Senators Johnston, Ronaldson, Brandis, Coonan, Mason and Troeth from the Liberals voted for the unamended bill, although Mason missed the division on the sale of Telstra funds. Senators Eggleston and Ferguson voted with the Nationals in favour of the amendments. This was the second time in a week that Eggleston, from Western Australia, has stood apart from his colleagues, having joined Petro Georgiou earlier this week in backing changes to the mandatory detention of asylum seekers.
Johnston, Ronaldson, Brandis and Coonan are all shadow Cabinet members and thus are bound by Cabinet solidarity. Mason is a Parliamentary Secretary. According to the ABC, there was confusion within the Coalition over who was required to vote and who was allowed to abstain, and reports of Coalition senators trying to bolt the chamber before the doors were locked for the vote.
The mass abstention was a poor look for Turnbull, especially with his Senate leader being amongst their number.
.
Earlier in the year conventional wisdom among the punditariat had it that the opposition did better when Parliament was sitting, although the mysterious permeation of parliamentary theatrics into the electorate never showed up in the polls. But what we’ve seen this week is Parliament focusing on substantive legislation – so attention isn’t just on the bells, whistles and alarums of question time. When what goes on actually matters, Malcolm Turnbull has proved completely unable to paper over the divisions in the ramshackle mob he leads, and the fact that shows when the division bills ring is proof that his leadership hasn’t been some sort of magic bullet. The Liberals and the Nationals end the parliamentary year as they began it – divided and disunited with poor leadership. That should start to set some thinking about the enduring nature of their problems, and the fact that these problems aren’t able to be solved by the obligatory leadership messiah.
Elsewhere: Guy Beres.
I pride myself on keeping up to date with politics, especially Federal politics. But I either seem ti have missed something here, or it has slipped my memory – vizt: the Fiona Nash saga. Please explain, Mark.
Newverthelees, yes, it was a horrible week for trhe Opposition especially the collapses over private education funding and infrastructure in the Senate. The Libs have been exposed as empty-headed posturers. What’s worse for them, it gives thinking people reason to question the sincerity of most if not all Opposition tactics. The antics in Parliament House are exposed for the sham they are. Methinks this is not just a bit of a slide for Malcolm, but a shoving of the Opposition into long-time irrelevence.
The Government has to be careful it too is not seen as a bunch of mindless mediocrities playing some kind of arcane game of politics while they decide how they’re going to, or not going to, bundle the money out to the electorate.
Paul, the Fiona Nash saga occurred when the Nats in the Senate voted against some legislation (actually a Howard era decision) enabling tax deductability for plantation forests on carbon sink grounds. It was supported by Labor and the Libs. I think the Greens opposed it too, but I wasn’t following the merits of the issue – just the politics. Anyway, Nash had a Parliamentary Secretary position which she had to resign. And she’s about the only sensible Nat in the Senate. But it was interesting to see “coalitionist” Ron Boswell cross the floor as well, with much muttering about “a Green brutopia”. It may well be that having Barnaby Joyce as Senate Leader is shifting dynamics some.
Mark, I grant you the political problems this week in terms of Coalition message coherancy. Although, I was actually encouraged to see a number of coalition members vote according to conscience in those divisions. This should be applauded in contrast to the ALP where with rare exception crossing the floor is punishable with expulsion.
Julie Bishop should work up that cat claw move into a floor show. Aside from that, the re-unveiling of hardline stances on boat people this week (especially this morning on Sky News by the dreadful Sharman Stone) was a timely reminder of just how low the Liberals will go, even when there is literally nothing at stake.
However, I think the depths were trawled even deeper by Barnaby Joyce asserting that all the economic stimulus money will be wasted on poker machines and booze, especially in rural areas. Lots of faith in his own constituents has old Barnaby.
It don’t get paid til next pension day. I’m hanging out for all that grog and them pokies I gunna win on.
Heh Paul. I did think about investing some of that dough in a nice bottle of Glenmorangie. I’m fresh out of single malt and that kind Mr Rudd is so generous…
Gee when you list them [the Coalition cock-ups] like that, one after the other, the impact of what disaster level they are operating at really hits home.
Yep!
Maybe it’s my imagination, but if you got you news exclusively from the ABC, you would have heard of very few of these.
Michael Brissenden was downplaying the latest for all it was worth this morning.
Come to think of it if you got your news exclusively from News Ltd you’d have heard of very few of these.
Not to mention Fairfax. Speaking of unravelling, seems like Fairfax is doing a coalition.
Antonio @ 3
It’s been a long time between drinks for the Libs and their large-scale floor crossings. With the exception of Petro’s ginger group on women-and-children-in-detention when was the last time anything like this occurred or was at least threatened in Canberra?
The new reality is that when there’s a Liberal PM in office or a major push-button issue at stake then Lib discipline is functionally the same as the ALP’s.
Adrian @ 9
I got my news from the ABC this morning which is why I made the mistake in the Christopher Pyne Watch thread in which I thought the compulsory funding disclosure by ‘private’ schools had been given the chop by Gillard. The news report certainly gave me that impression.
A titbit from Crikey.
“She [Bishop] [is also chairing the Liberal Party’s post-election policy review process, ……. Kevin Andrews, chair of the Party’s Federalism Taskforce and a member of Bishop’s review committee, has been heavily involved as well”
Now that’s a dynamic duo! I’m sure we can expect some positives to come from that review.
Shorter Antonio: the opposition is a directionless shambles of opportunistic lightweights! Hooray for democracy!!
The ABC seemed to have got their act together and finally reported last night’s shambles in the Senate in some detail tonight.
It looks to me like a calculated attewmpt by the RWDBs to discredit and replace Turnbull that was orchestrated by Minchin. Presumably Andrew Robb is the replacement.
I’m no great fan of Rudd, but I’m enjoying the way that Turnbull is being shafted at the close of the current Parliamentary session.
Classic schadenfreude, I guess.
Hilarious.
Oh yes. He won’t stop until he succeeds, either, and then he’ll come up with some new power game to play. I would find Minchin marginally less objectionable if I thought his manipulations were about doing what he thinks is good and right, rather than simply exercising power for its own sake.
I think 2009 could be an interesting year to watch the Federal Nationals. If the Libs remain consumed by internecine power battles and poor parliamentary politics (and the events of last night have only served to cover what a disastrous hole Christopher Pyne led them into over schools funding policy), then I suspect there are Nats – led by the maverick himself, Barnaby Joyce – who are very inclined to cut side deals with the Government, particularly if they think Labor will be there for two terms.
Terry, the other interesting factor wrt Barnaby and the Nats is what happens if the LNP lose the state election. If they do, the party will almost certainly fall apart into its constituent bits, or maybe even more bits. That’s going to raise the stakes for federal coalition disunity – particularly in the Senate. Alternatively, if the LNP win, then Barnaby et al have to really decide what their future is. A lot of cracks have only been very lightly papered over and the implications of the Qld election federally are going to prove intriguing whichever way it plays out.
I think what we are starting to see now is the unifying effect that John Howard (and of course, his power as Prime Minister) had on the relationship between the Liberal Party and the National Party. Now we have a situation where the Coalition is out of power, and the Liberal Party is lead by someone whose views do not sit particularly comfortably within his own party, let alone the Nationals.
Malcolm Turnbull is in some respects the very antithesis of the average National Party voter. Either he is going to have to work better at compromising with his rural allies in 2009, or things could rapidly degenerate for either his leadership or the federal coalition itself.
The new reality is that when there’s a Liberal PM in office or a major push-button issue at stake then Lib discipline is functionally the same as the ALP’s.
.
And the old reality is that when the ALP’s out of office it behaves like ten cats in a bag just like the Libs do.
if you got your news exclusively from News Ltd you’d have heard of very few of these.
.
If you got your news exclusively from News Ltd you wouldn’t have got any.
Yeah, Howard enforced iron discipline and had carrots as well as sticks to play with (and the discipline fell apart when the promise of ministries and his election winning streak both went sour for a lot of MPs) and the ALP had its own woes in opposition, but to some degree leaving it at that is still a leadership focused explanation. What is more difficult to massage is the incompatible constituencies the Liberals represent – small l urbanites (Yes, Virginia, etc.), social conservatives, big business, small business, rural, city, etc. This is exacerbated by their failure to make traction on the economic debate. That’s also what’s behind the events of the last week.
Incidentally, now that Turnbull has thrown a sop to the right with the Howardista border protection stuff, it’ll be interesting to see what happens to his progressive image.
What constituencies do the ALP represent exactly?
.
Maybe the whole thing revolves around those who live as far from the coast as the rich can push them. Howard got ‘em in with
thinly disguised xenophobiapride in the country. And Kevvie getting ‘em in byblatantly throwing money at Toyotacreating jobs in the manufacturing industry..
Turnbull’s trouble is the same as Keating’s. He has a brain, isn’t suspicious of a change in the weather, has read more than two books. doesn’t keep his taste in his arse and knows that you don’t eat noodles with your feet.
.
He’s un’Strayan mate!
Elsewhere: Guy Beres.
They overlap with those that the Coalition represents. This is part of the problem for modern parties in Australia – you get tugged in too many directions at once, because there’s no longer a real class base or deep ideological fracture.
Well the Socialist Alliance have issued a call to action and when the Capitalist Crisis deepens you can expect that the Leninist vanguard to assume control. Sorry but as a counter-revolutionary you will have to be shot.
.
Naturally anyone familiar with the SA will know that they have trouble organizing the inside of an empty paper bag but that was just subterfuge. Class war not nuclear war.
Media coverage of the Senate split was shambolic. Listened with keen interest to RN Brekkie as the usual commentators/journos faffed about, suggesting that everyone was taken by surprise on this one. Descriptions of Turnbull’s cabal deciding 2 hours prior to the Senate vote to with the government suggested not simply internal divisions in the coalition but a failure of internal party process as senators stumbled about clearly unaware of what the *(^^&% was meant to be happening…
I imagine Nick Minchin is still smiling.
You and that Guy guy are referencing each other. What shameless nepotism.
.
I wonder how ‘ideology’ factors in politics any more. My grandmother used to vote Labor because her father was working class, when she got married she voted Tory cause my grand-dad was evilcapitalistscum (obviously her political agency was coerced by patriarchal affiliation). No doubt there’s still ‘brand loyalty’ but what substantial ideological difference exists?
.
Maybe there’s a sociological divide. The Greens and the Nationals should have something to talk about. They both stand alone in parliament as avatars of protectionism. One is all about environmental degradation the other represents people who’re on the front line of those suffering from it but… no.
.
Didn’t the Greens strenuously deny ever doing any deal with the Nationals recently. We’d never talk to them!! Why not? ‘Cause the Nationals are rednecks? ‘Cause the Greens have a pouf for a leader? And in the centre where prime ministers actually come from what is the effective policy difference between Rudd and Howard? Rudd issued an apology?
.
Maybe if the Crisis melts everything right down we’ll see a return to something like class politics but if that happened I don’t think the ALP would be significant in it. They’ve become just the alternative technocrats. What the Libs are going thru isn’t so much a crisis of ideology as the usual viper’s nest of hungry snakes all edging for a place in the new pecking order. It’s dog politics. It happened during the Beazley years as well. The ALP was sensible to keep Beazley there to catch the flak, whilst they decided who the real leader was.
.
Bring back Nelson?
I fleetingly heard a report on Aunty, yesterday, that the opposition had blocked changes to Centrelink laws to relax the very harsh breaching code introduced by Howard. Unfortunatly, I have heard no more and can find no links.
Such a hard line approach will win Turnbull no favour when the unemployment figures start jumping and ‘ordinary’ folks, not scapegoats, begin queuing up for the dole.
Another untimely “sop to the right” and even more damage to his progressive image.
Such a hard line approach will win Turnbull no favour when the unemployment figures start jumping and ‘ordinary’ folks, not scapegoats, begin queuing up for the dole.
.
Yeah.
.
I had a friend who was on the dole for a couple of months last year. Apparently you can’t have more that 3 grand in the bank!
Yep, you’ve got to spend any money in excess of that before you can get anything from the dole.
joe2 – maybe you could check Hansard?
Well, sort of. When one looks through the anthropomorphic lens, a big shit-eating grin seems to be the normal expression of a crocodile.
Riffing off David Rubie at #4 re the Coalition’s Sharman Stone’s attempted xenophobic beat up of a ’spike’ in refugees I offer this Mike Steketee article from the OO [???] titled “Coalition’s politics of fear”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24747366-25072,00.html
This: “It is a comment that betrays a hankering for the good old days, when the Coalition was in office and the politics was easy: whip up a bit of fear about being swamped by refugees, demonise them as terrorists and watch the votes come in.” is written in a different tone to that of years past.
This: “Kevin Rudd lent some perspective to this argument by telling parliament there had been four boatloads of people with 48 passengers this year, compared with 148 on five boats last year. That was before yesterday’s announcement of another 35 passengers to be transferred to Christmas Island. That makes 83 people this year. Some spike.” offers context that differs to that of years past.
This also: “The parliamentary committee on migration tabled a report this week that put the present events in context. Stone happens to be a member of that committee, although she only joined it on November 10.
The report makes some points that often go missing in the Australian debate..In other words, they were mainly fleeing from death and persecution, which is reflected in most of them ultimately being assessed as refugees.”
And then this [with detail]: ” .. the numbers seeking asylum in Australia are tiny ..”
And more.
Its worth a read.
Which prompts me to ask, where was reporting of this nature in the previous years?
Or was it around and I just missed it?
.
Ta Mark@31. I guess that is the place to look, though I am not sure they have a searching mechanism.
What I also found interesting from the brief parliamentary excerpts that I saw on tele was the opposition attempting to get a denial from Labor that they were considering some kind of infrastructure bank. Another leak from inside treasury to Turbull?
Anyway, it sounds like a bloody good idea to me for the government to officially re-enter the banking business. I doubt they would be as unpopular for doing so as the Libs seem to imagine under the extreme economic circumstances we are in.
Yep, you’ve got to spend any money in excess of that before you can get anything from the dole.
.
He withdrew it and had his brother keep it. $3000 is nothing.
Can anyone tell me has the interest generated from the Nats Telecomm 2Billion trust(slush) fund been spent on ANY bush projects since it was set up a few years ago before the final sell off of Telstra, if not why not, having just watched the Nats debate in the senate via my transact home recording of late thursday evening.
I thin you have to be raveled first to unravel.
The main problem for the Coalition is that they still haven’t worked out why they lost the election, let alone what to do about it. Thy haven’t wanted to, of course, as Peter van Onselen discovered (as did Brendan Nelson — the leadership shenanigans were also an attempt to avoid thought). Now the GFC has removed the chance to reflect, and they are just running around like headless chickens. I’m still not entirely convinced that the Senate mess was the Old Nick at work; the Libs are still in the demoralised phase where people do just stuff up. I would expect to see the Libs espousing rather angry policies because of their failure to accept their defeat and learn from it. I also expect to see them continualy outmanoevred by Rudd and Swan, because they underestimate them.
“I would expect to see the Libs espousing rather angry policies because of their failure to accept their defeat and learn from it.”
And how angry and ungracious does it need to get before these idiots wake up? The latest instance is a Tony Abbott spray. “I am not saying that families don’t need the money. Obviously I don’t begrudge families doing it rough this extra money,” he said.
Of course, he does just that with visions of the kind of grubby behaviour that only the poor would ever indulge in.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24766545-26103,00.html
Premier Barnett began this attack on the beneficiaries of the government stimulus package and Barnaby Joyce ran with it. Then in comes old Tone to continue this mix of a bit of condescension with dog whistle. To imagine that throwing shite at such a large part of the population and their kin is going to help in the popularity stakes is pretty deluded.
Want to stick to both Abbott and Rudd?
Well instead of the sensible option of spending the money on blackjack, whiskey and hookers, you can simply go to an illegal gambling den with bootlegged whiskey spend the money and still have the hookers (but only if they are illegal too).
I must admit that I’m not sure on the economics of illegal activities and whether they have a flow on effect into to above ground economy. But hey, it is the thought that counts.
So if you spend the money in the high-rollers’ room at some casino, buy some absurdly expensive grog or blow it all on a very, very expensive call-girl, it doesn’t matter, because you didn’t budget for it?
Wonder if Abbott would think it was all okay if you donated the money to the Church on the Sunday plate? Or don’t they have that whiparound anymore?
Or maybe you could just go to the parish Housi. Or is it Bingo?
Well, you would have to budget a little to make sure you didn’t overspend the $1000. Then again, if you did well gambling then you’d have some more to play with.
“if you did well gambling”
Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction? (I don’t object to gambling on moral terms. I just hate losing money.)
Paul, it depends how good you are at blackjack.