So, we still don’t have a “working government”, although our caretaker government system continues to tick over just fine while the parliamentarians sound each other out to see which major party leader can gain “the confidence of the House” with respect to delivering a majority of votes on the floor of the HoR on matters of Supply.
Please use this thread for any breaking news and general speculation that isn’t quite on topic for any other recent hung-parliament posts.
Jamo@45 on the Oakeshott thread says:
I don’t see a significant change. In the senate it has been nigh on impossible to get any significant legislation through for the past three years. In the Reps, I’d expect the independents to consistently vote with the Government subject to behind-the-scenes negotiation on a small number of issues. We are currently seeing this in Tasmania and so far, it is working well.
@Jenny, forgive me for a slight move away from the hung Lower House to elaborate on your argument re no significant change in terms of passing legislation – I see way too many pollies and pundits expressing views that either imply or outright declare that the voters get it wrong when they don’t vote either major party a clear majority in the Senate.
What absolute rubbish. Voters who vote for one party in the Lower House and a different party in the Upper House are not making a mistake – they are deliberately showing that they want the Upper House to be thoughtful and thorough in exercising its function as a House of Review and not just ramming the government’s bills through willy-nilly, nor being obstructionist just for the sake of it.
Although I don’t think anyone deliberately voted for a hung parliament, the fact that neither major party got a clear majority shows that the electorate has not been won over by any of the legislative proposals on offer by the majors. So in that respect it’s a good thing that getting legislation through both houses will be difficult – that’s how the electorate wants it.
If the ALP and LNP agree on something in either the Lower House or the Upper House, then it will get through regardless of whether the Greens or the Independents support it. I think the country would welcome any instance where legislation with true bipartisan support was passed, don’t you?
“I think the country would welcome any instance where legislation with true bipartisan support was passed, don’t you?”
It certainly would be a most pleasant change to see the coalition move to more often actually consider legislation on it’s merits rather than just press the no button, instinctively. I am just not sure that they are capable seeing anything other than through a fog of negativity.
Any thoughts on whether the rising profiles of Oakeshott and Windsor might see a rise in independents in future elections. How can any Australian not want to see and hear a politician who can say what they think without looking over their shoulder to see if the backroom operators approve.
Who knows, we might actually start to respect our politicians?!?
tigtog wrote:
Unless of course it ends up being a stupid system like the US where “i’ll pass your bill if you staple some unrelated pork/marriage act/TEH BOATS!! underneath it”.
That would be truly unedifying.
“It certainly would be a most pleasant change to see the coalition move to more often actually consider legislation on it’s merits rather than just press the no button, instinctively.”
We do all know that *most* legislation is passed with bipartisan support, right?
On a slightly different note, what are people’s thoughts about the prospect of Malcolm Turnbull leavihng the Liberal Party? It would be a very interesting time for him to do so.
“We do all know that *most* legislation is passed with bipartisan support, right?”
Yep, Rebekka, I did say “more often” and I added it for that reason.
BEN – I’ve wondered if he might leave the liberals and join labor (offered a cabinet position), but think I’m being farfetched.
He must, surely, still think that when Tone explodes (as he will), he has a chance of becoming leader again.
I think Malcolm leaving the Libs for Labor would have the same effect as Cheryl leaving the Dems for Labor i.e. the ending of a career. He can’t just swap sides and remain credible, nor can he ever hope to be PM. It’s a nice idea but not one that he will take up I predict. After the Godwin Grech affair I’d be surprised if Labor would have him.
MT didn’t look like he was going anywhere on Q&A last night. He also seemed even more pleased with himself than usual – a hard ask I know.
He certainly has a strategy in the works, but it doesn’t involve Labor.
@11
IMO, MT looked like he was going to cream when the audience question about the lack of political backbone came up. Everyone knows the man got whacked for having one.
This election has become a dream for MT – it makes him look better and better.
Mr Abbott reckons only he and his party can offer a ‘kinder, gentler’ and more consultative coalition government.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-election/abbott-attacks-labors-civil-war-20100824-13n5e.html?autostart=1
So after running a campaign promising to be a man of action and to personally take life and death decisions over boats in our waters now he’s casting himself as the soft-hearted, open door creator of a new politics? Isn’t this the man who revelled in his position as Howard’s headkicker?
Andrew Wilkie has overtaken the Labor candidate in the 2PP count in Denison.
Yep, looks like Wilkie will win it in denison – which deosnt really help a lot.
ALP need that 73rd seat to maximise chances. If they hold all their own on late counting AND win Hasluck (or another) it will be a Gillard minority govt for sure, as LNP would drop to 72.
Any other combos and it all goes a bit unlikely.
I read on another blog that if we do have to go back to the polls then there would only be a House of Reps election. Cant be another senate election until 2013. If that is the case, wouldn’t that favour labor, because people would know the green will dominate the senate??? Just throwing it out for consideration.
It is not in Tony’s makeup to be cooperative and seek bipartisanship. Of course he will claim he can as long as his side occupies the treasury benches. I fear this would only be for as long as required to “discover the awful truth”, create some dd triggers then back to the polls for another fear & loathing campaign.
Since Saturday night he has used every opportunity to continue to attack labor, despite the people crying out for a party to show leadership he still doesnt get it. Over & over he has shown he is a one trick pony, very good at that trick but we are bored with it.
On another note has anyone heard from the shadow treasurer since Saturday night? Andrew Robb appears to be the go to man for any media comment re economy but Joe seems to MIA.
I had to suppress a laugh this morning when I read Malcolm Farr’s piece in the OZ in support of Tony being the best placed to lead a consensus govt. As an example of his healing powers he cited how Tony had bought Barnaby Joyce into the cabinet. What a brilliant move that was to give the finance portfolio to an imbecile who also only wants to be wound up and pointed at a target.
If the Libs get to form government, and none of the independents want the job, I think Malcolm would make a great speaker.
Chris Uhlmann on abc24 telling Adam Brandt he’d better return the Coalition’s phone calls. *snort* Well business as usual for the media. But I expected Abbott’s continuing illegitimacy line, and really he has to, because noise-level has replaced legitimacy, and Tony’s good at noise-level.
Seriously, what could the Coalition possibly offer the Greens?
Let us remind ourselves of the Coalition’s election campaign slogan:
* Stop the waste (aka stimulus spending). The Greens supported the stimulus, and want additional infrastructure spending, particularly in the area of public transport.
* Ditto Stop the Debt.
* Stop the taxes. The Greens would prefer the original MSPT to Gillard’s revised MRRT, and have proposed a 50% top marginal rate for earnings over $1 million. They have also proposed ending the FBT concessions for company cars.
* And, especially, Stop the Boats. The Coalition position on asylum seekers is not just opposed by the Greens, it’s downright offensive to most of their supporters.
There is no way that the Coalition could possibly offer a deal that the Greens could accept without guaranteeing the immediate collapse of the Greens vote and, indeed, the shattering of the party.
Verey good negotiator, our Tones.
Step one: Piss off Oakeshott.
Step Two: Try to bribe an unbribeable Tony Windsor.
Step Three: Tell Windsor and Katter how good the Nats. are at representing regional Australia when both men hate the Nats with a passion.
Mr. People Skills at work. I’m impressed.
Abbott’s political career has been based on the ‘Hulk Smash!’ school of politics. Be aggressive, be nasty, be tough, be on the attack at every opportunity. It’s not a skillset that lends itself to careful, considered negotiations between diverging interests and consensus-style leadership.
@ 22
Abbot’s reaching out to the independents has been as lazy as his policy work. As far as he’s concerned Katter and Windsor being ex-Nats are duty bound to support a conservative government because it’s the natural order of things. It probably never occured to him to research their respective backgrounds or policy positions.
Robert@21: they could offer all sorts of things, but as someone pointed out on another thread, whether Abbott’s able or willing to deliver on the promises is another question. The context was the promised service guarantees in return for the sale of Telstra, said guarantees never arriving. Given the Coalition’s form on this I susect the “other four” will be extremely cautious.
Side question: if a Labour-Green coalition was formed, what would we call it? “The other coalition” doesn’t really have a good ring to it.
The other other coalition?
A couple of links -
John Hewson on negotiating with the Independents:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2991927.htm
John Menadue on how parliament should change:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2991877.htm
“Australian Story”(ABC) last night was a fascinating insight into the positioning of Paul Howes (Secretary of the Australian Workers Union) in the run-up to the Federal election. Filmed over a period of six-eight weeks it was obviously intended to position him for a run into Parliament. In my view he came out of it not looking too well.
Even more fascinating was the appearance of Hugh Morgan, one of the “faceless” men who actually run the Liberal Party, along with Michael Kroger who has seen himself since University days as the power in the background. Both spoke well about Paul Howes. I may be naive but I would have assumed that Hugh Morgan with his former and current mining interests would be one of the very last people to praise, even faintly, somebody who was eager to be seen as an up and coming powerbroker in the Labor Party.
What’s going on here?
GreenLab Gang, LabGreen League, Social Democratic Hookup, Julia and Bob’s Mob.
So what would a Windsor-led majority government look like?
Yep, Tony Windsor for PM. As far as I can tell, the two obvious candidates have already been rejected by Australian voters – how can either guarantee stability and lead a consensus? Windsor seems to have ethics and a stability of temperament that Australia most desperately needs, evidenced by his rejection of grubby party politics long ago and acceptance of the much harder path of being a servant to his constituency. He probably doesn’t want it and has never asked for the power this entails, making him the perfect choice. He’s respected and, in some circles, beloved by all sides of politics. In a three-way contest for prime minister-ship, voted in a secret ballot by lower house members, who would win? It’s an intriguing question.
And can you imagine his cabinet? Turnbull would make the best treasurer, everyone knows this. He’s made himself rich, so what? Time to work that magic for the rest of us. We’d be proud again of Rudd as he resumes his role as the preeminent statesman for Australia as foreign affairs minister, this time absent the burden of trying to mind control the entire political process. We could trust Bob Brown as minister for the environment if he surrounded by trusted colleagues from all sides of politics. Gillard calling the shots on social concerns like health and education and Abbott as the trouble-shooting action man.
Think of the possibilities!
I don’t think it would be Windsor; the vote would be split along party lines. I wouldn’t trust Turnbull to run a tuckshop. I just don’t like him.
Now that Andrew Wilkie is the fourth Independent, and has flagged education funding as a significant issue, we could see a revision of the Howard-Gillard funding formula which favours private schools over public. I would suggest that one of the demands that Wilkie could make of the new Gillard government is the release of the information on schools funding. Another demand that Wilie may make is the retraction of funding for chaplains in public schools.
“Mad Katter denies kill threat”
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/mad-katter-denies-kill-threat/story-fn5rizbk-1225909596112
Because of the curious mix of candidates and parties/independents, Denison does not seem to be conforming readily to the 2pp predictions of AEC or Antony’s models. See
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/08/22/photo-finishes-denison/#comments
Likely Wilkie but not yet proven. Brisbane is another that is coming back a little for Labor possibly to the ‘doubtful’ stage. Still some turns in these results yet, but probable outcome is Lib-NP(including WA Nat) 73, Labor-Green 73, Independents 4 – a nearly even split.
Government will rest on whoever can form an accord with the independents. Wilkie has implied that he will take his own position on this, separately from the other 3, who are likely to act as a bloc subject to some demands. However, he would almost certainly confer with them and would appear to have a fair bit in common on governance requirements.
I’m loving it! For as long as ‘See no evil,Hear no evil, and Speak no evil, can keep Gillard and Abbott and their party platforms in their right and proper place i.e. as pathetic anachronisms.
It will be interesting to see how election-promise-costings stand up to Treasury scruitiny.
Keep it up guys, but don’t get too starstruck. Remember the adage ‘absolute power corrupts . . . ‘
“It will be interesting to see how election-promise-costings stand up to Treasury scrutiny.”
Yes and the other big one is who paid for party advertising?
In particular how much did the mining companies chip in to the tory coffers.
Mediatracker @ 27 AWU bosses have historically tended to have a close affinity with employers. Just research how many AWU officials have used their positions as launching pads for careers in management or public administration or parliament. You don’t get there by being a militant battler for workers. The idea of getting out their with their members and organising a bit of direct action has always seemed less appealing than lunching with management.
When I was IR manager for a national contractor my first objective with any new project was to see if we could get labourers covered by the AWU instead of the BLF. MUCH easier people to deal with.
Mediatracker says:
The system is rotten to the very core is what is going on here. Every now and again the curtain slips and we see how things work and who runs it, and why the CPRS was never going to eventuate, and why a no-brainer policy like the mining super tax was never going to fly. Neither of the big parties can even hold up the illusion of representing voters any more. At this point, they’re just rubbing our noses in it.
A friend of mine has a theory that Abbott is throwing the negotiations.
He knows a Coalition minority government would be next incapable of real legislative reform (hell, the ALP could still pass legislation!) and he’s also a lot further away from what the Independents want.
The theory is that he will ‘lose’ the race to form government, go ballistic about the illegitimacy of the minority Gillard government (esp. if he gets the 73rd seat), get the media going ballistic over same, and wait/hope for the government to struggle and or implode under the weight – setting Abbott up for a big win at the next election.
I must say I’m increasingly convinced of his argument, especially as I am now officially Not Underestimating Tony.
@38 – Josh, I suspect that theory has some merit, with the modification that Abbott knows that he won’t be able to successfully negotiate support. At any rate, I’m sure it’s Plan B.
Actually, I think that warrants a post of its own.
Germaine Greer, succinctly:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/7960731/Australian-election-Soap-opera-politics-of-Oz.html
Mr Oakeshott asks Mr Abbott to reconsider his rejection of a cross-Party government
This is pie in the sky stuff from Oakeshott. I rarely, if ever agree with Mr. Abbott, but he’s right on this one. Of course there are friensdhips across party lines in Parliamment, there always have been – remember Daly and Killen? – but politically they hate each other. That isn’t going to change.
The independents’ demand for a Treasury/Finance costing of programs may well checkmate Abbott. He can’t in theory refuse, though he may try or wriggle. If he complies the budget constraints are blown out of the water.
The indies can get their broadband with a clear conscience.
Monbiot on oz election anyone?
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/08/23/right-and-wrong/
I think Oakeshott is highlighting the original role of a parliament before parties took it over, and also pointing out to Tones that he hasnt won. No one has won. New ball game.
I suspect there’s an element of deliberate ‘rhetorical overshoot’ to put Tony on his bum a bit.
The LNP’s lead in Brisbane is now under 500 votes. There are probably around 17-18 thousand votes still to count.
I think Labor can expect to make up a bit more ground on the 5000 absentee votes still to be counted, and the small number of provisionals (hard to know how many will be accepted, but probably at least 500).
Hard to know how the 4000 early pre-polls will break (they were slightly less favourable for Bevis in 2007, but this has been a weirder and more fluctuating campaign). The big unknown is how the 6000+ postals will go – many more than last time.
Anyway, it’s far from over yet, although LNP would remain the favourite.
(As always, the best place to follow the count and get explanations about it along the way is at Poll Bludger – this is his comments thread on the Brisbane count:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/08/22/photo-finishes-brisbane/
Agreed, Lefty E. Lots of rhetoric from the indies looks to me like softening up the Opposition.
Bandt looks happy enough to be included in a kind of coalition with Labor whereas Crook in keen to sit on the crossbenches….ah, the election that just keeps giving.
The three rural independent MHRs and the new Green member spoke in a forum at the National Press Club.