The federal government has released the text of the legal advice provided by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Stephen Gageler SC.
In deciding to reject the Parliamentary Reform Agreement they’d signed up to, the Coalition, if Christopher Pyne is to be believed, gave weight to the advice that it received from that neutral and disinterested Senior Counsel, Senator George Brandis. Since they decided to tear up a signed agreement, presumably the advice of Brandis SC trumped that of Gageler SC.
Given that if two of the three rural Independents had supported Tony Abbott, and one Labor (the reverse of the outcome we had), the numbers on the floor of the House would have been deadlocked at 75-75 had they provided the Speaker (under their current interpretation of the non-Constitutionality of the ‘pairing’ provisions between Speaker and Deputy Speaker), one can only assume that they would agree with the proposition that they could not have formed a government in this Parliament. That’s right, isn’t it?
No, I don’t think that’s right. The Coalition + 1 WA Nat + 3 independents = 76, giving Labor 74. If the Coalition then appointed one of their own a speaker then votes would then have gone 75-74.
The bigger point: Mr Gageler is right. Sen. Brandis is full of it.
That’s too complicated, Kim! It requires objective reasoning.
It would be delicious though if Gillard could challenge him on that without risking an election! “Go ahead, Mr. Abbot, form a government now!” I doubt he’d get even Katter to join him after this!
@1 – yes, you’re right, Hugo, or 75-75 if it had been a 2-1 split of the independents to the Coalition instead of to Labor.
Fixed post.
Let’s have a penalty shootout and be done with it.
Diogenes,
We did and Abbott kept booting it into his own goal.
Two points.
One, the key point made by the Solicitor-General’s opinion is that to be constitutional the agreement by the member providing the pair MUST be informal and voluntary. A written agreement under which one of the Opposition’s members is compelled not to vote, on any and every vote in Parliament, meets the informal and voluntary criterion, does it?
Second, even if this is debatable, or indeed even if it were probable that the criterion is met, the stakes – which is to say the public policy and governance stakes, not the partisan political stakes which are what seem to drive this post – are too high to take the risk. There is clearly a degree of doubt – a potential issue of constitutionality. Otherwise there would have been no need to seek a legal opinion, or for that opinion to be so carefully caveated. Any piece of legislation passed under a pairing arrangement could be challenged in court. No good risk manager – and we didn’t need this particular incident, of course, to know that that does not include the Rudd/Gillard Government, but let us keep the argument to that of principle for the moment – could or should countenance that.
I agree that Abbott reneging on an earlier agreement is not a good look. He should never have signed it in the first place. However, given what has emerged about its dubious legality since its signature, it is in the interests of good governance of Australia that he does exactly what he is doing to disown it.
After all, it is not as if Ms “I stabbed the PM in the back after repeated public vows of loyalty, and have now disavowed also any requirement to implement election promises because of the Parliamentary situation” Gillard is in any moral position to cast the first stone about reneging on any other issue stemming from the circumstance of the same hung Parliament.
And is still keeping at it, even though the whistle has blown and the stadium is an empty, windblown shell.
That’s it then! Send him off and ban him for the next three elections.
Hilarious! Looks like some Lib may break ranks and make Abbott look an ever bigger goose! http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/24/3021064.htm
Alex Somlyay is not happy with Tony and it must make him very irritated hearing Warren Entsch, the man who replaced him as whip, take centre stage. My bet is the Liberals will offer him something for his pain and suffering and he will fall into line.
But he is definitely a weak link with a career almost over, a goodly age and hurt feelings.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-picks-warren-entsch-to-replace-alex-somlyay-as-party-whip/story-fn59niix-1225922429947
@Lefty E link.
OT but the comments on that site are eerily reminiscent of OO/Boltards. Spoiled as I am by this site, I always look for comments that add to the debate, with a nod to wit, grammar, and content. The shoving and pushing and yelling makes my head hurt.
I know it’s childish, but my sons and I have taken to making snap judgements on people in the public view on the basis of how well they tie a tie.
Kerry O’Brien, Kevin Rudd and Tony Windsor (to name just a few) demonstrate considerable gravitas using this criterion, and I’m sure the PM would as well if she wore a tie.
Has anyone else noticed that Tony Abbott always looks like a schoolboy who’s been rough-housing on the oval at lunchtime?
Tony looks like the sick brat who would arrive back to class hot and sweaty, tie to the side and shirt out, after a busy time dumping some kid with glasses, head first, in the wheely bin.
And then be first up next morning for holy communion.
Maybe he should grow a beard. He wouldn’t look so threatening then. Unless of course, he looked like some kind of bad guy with bombs.
Why is pairing such a big issue?
State of play currently stands at 76-74.
Take the speaker from the 76, and it is 75-74. Gillard loses one of the 75 on any piece of legislation, and it becomes 74-75, and the legislation doesn’t pass.
Pair the speaker and it is 75-73. Gillard loses one of the 75 on any piece of legislation, and it becomes 74-74, and the legislation doesn’t pass.
What am I missing?
Howard@17
An accidental or unavoidable absence
Howard, you can lose one without the other gaining (absence, abstention). but they’re pretty marginal cases I’ll grant you.
I suppose Howard, it depends on what happens to the speaker’s vote. If it can be cast in favour, then it is returned.
One suspects though that there would be an out so that Somlyay, for example, would not be held to the pair.
One of the less discussed questions though — which may well keep Abbott up at night is not merely the fragility of the majority, but that of the minority.
After all, not the least thing keeping the troops of ther minority in line is the futility of crossing the floor to support a policy that doesn’t need your vote, in circumstances where you will cop some flack from your own side. If you support something the government is doing, you can run dead for free.
OTOH, if you believe that something is worth doing and won’t survive without your vote, then you can get your 15 minutes of moral rectitutde by crossing. And let’s face it, there are going to be a lot of backbenchers who are not going to be all that happy with how the Turnbull matter went down or being cast as rusted on reactionaries who’d liove to be able to get the kind of profile people like Windsor, Oakeshott and Wilkie got for being independent. Suddenly, these folks can see the ALP offering them a deal on crossing the floor.
Alex Somlyay may be the first of quite a few.
Howard, you’re ignoring the fact that the Speaker gets the casting vote if it winds up 74-74.
OTOH, Abbott is quite lucky at the moment. While his political bastardry does not escape the attention of political tragics, for most people out there in voter land the attention is going to be focused either on footy grand finals or shock/horror revelations about the Delhi Games. Any backlash about his lack of principle will probanly be either unnoticed or take time to register.
Somylay has turned the ALP’s offer down, by the way.
It was in Sydney, in the city’s Centennial Park, that the federation of Australia was formally forged on January 1, 1901. It’s now obvious that solutions to all possible political crises were not well thought-out in the draft constitution presented to the British Parliament. It was Britain’s Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain who reached a compromise with the Australian delegates — who are said to have joined hands and danced around the room. As Ollie said to Stan: “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into.” And we won’t mention Gallipoli. Since our form of government is based on the British Westminster System let’s make Britain the scapegoat for our imbroglio.
The bigger problem in the pairing issue is when MP’s are overseas, in meetings, sick or attending to other business. The Speaker dilemma will be sorted but moving forward Abbott will be out to frustrate at every opportunity so that Govt ministers won’t be able to rely on the previous status quo where a pairing would be done as a matter of course and fairness.
Firstly, if the Speaker is paired, then gets a casting vote, isn’t that dirty pool?
Secondly, isn’t this all a “how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin” argument?
Looks like Somylay bailed at last minute. Gillard might as well now back Oakeshott for deputy.
Yep, I thought that Tones would give Somylay a better offer.
There is some serious scratching of heads and other regions of the body going on in Lib HQ as we speak, er type.
Somlyay was reported as accepting Dep Speaker role as part of a deal from the government [via Albanese I understand] that would guarantee supply and not vote for a no-confidence motion.
Then that was explicitly refuted by a media release from Lib/Abbott HQ.
But ….
Sky and the SMH have later news stating that Somlyay did not agree with the Abbott release and was, contrary to that release, accepting the government offer and being onside re no-confidence and supply.
Currently the ABC is running a ‘we dunno what’s going on and will get back to you’ line on this.
Joe Hockey is bursting at the seams and chaos [or is that KAOS?] seems to reign supreme at Lib HQ.
More to come I presume.
This is starting to look good.
Somlyay.. “has agreed not to support no-confidence motions against the Gillard government or back the blocking of supply which would bring down the Government” according to the most unreliable newspaper available.
I’m thinking that Somlyay’s decision really pisses all over Abbot’s claim that pairing the deputy speaker is unconstitutional.
If the report is correct, he’s agreed to do that for the deputy speaker position. Surely he’d demand the top job for a contract like that…
I think Tony Abbott has finally got his answer vis-à-vis the power of convention against the power of being able to count.
“Federal Government sources say Mr Somlyay has agreed to back Labor in terms of supply and confidence if he is elected deputy speaker of the House of Representatives. But Mr Somlyay has rejected the other element of Labor’s proposal – a guarantee on pairing votes.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/24/3021583.htm
This position sounds mighty like the one Katter said he would follow. That is a pretty handy buffer over and above the indys.
Things are getting even more serious. The opposition is now talking about welshing on the current pairing convention
Looks like Abbott thinks it is most unlikely that he will ever have to deal with the problems this change would cause if he ever became prime minister.
John D his own backbench will revolt. No way will they want a fight that will effectively kill their own time out needs as well.
Abbott is just such a total prick. No surprise, but it’s also really counterproductive politics. He’s proving himself to be a person of no integrity and completely pissing off the independents.
C’mon Katter. Join the good guys. You know you want to.
Ummm Joe, on that reasoning isn’t any MP who accepts the speaker’s job letting down their constituents and thus inviting their outrage?
The thought of that bloke becoming treasurer is enough to have you wake up screaming in the night.
Has Abbott lost the plot?
Here’s a prediction – Abbott to soon face a challenge in light of plummetting poll results.
Seriously: Tony Abbott is one of the most fundamentally dishonest people to ever disgrace the leadership of a major Australian political party.
We should all – Labor and Liberal voters- get down on our knees and thank Windsor and Oakeshott from preventing this corrupt conman from forever staining out highest office.
We all just dodged a bullet. This guy is poison.
He really has to go for the LNP to become a credible alternative again
Lefty E,
I agree, but then considering his mentor was John Artful Dodger Howard, should we be surprised?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html
But at least the Artful Dodger got caught. Howard is still out there poisoning the po;itical well from behind the scenes.
Abbott gives the appearance of being all over the p;ace on this. Of course it delights me to say it, but he probably doesn’t have Howard’s duck’s back and things can probably only get worse and worse for him.
Are there any other Liberals who are likely to feel uncomfortable with TA’s endlessly confrontational style and who might help this country actually be governed? In terms of floor votes not necessarily leadership challenges.
Just wondering.
Put it this way, bmitw. There’s more than one. Press reports talk about Liberals being concerned about Abbott’s stance affecting the workability of the Parliament. Apart from Somelay, there was at least one other Coaliotion member negotiating with Labor over the Deputy Speaker oposition but I don’t know wo. Give it time. It will all come out. Abbott is building a bit of a trap for himself here, I suspect, the extent of which may not be reflected in party discontent for a while. If he does badly on the floor of the Paeliament (which is almost a certainty now that he’s up against Gillard, regardless of the slightly civilising nature of the office of PM) he’ll be gonene before the end of the year. Outsode Parliament, we forget what a hothouse atmosphere it is, hence the shock abour Rudd’s sacking, which probably would have come as no real surprise ultimately to anytbody in the Parliament. With Abbott it will be even quicker and more bloody, because the Libs are incapable of smoothing over factional alignments in as practised a fashion as Labor. Here’s hoping anyway.
Off topic, but I flew out of Tamworth airport on Wednesday on the same plane that Tony Windsor had just flown in on.
Apparently there was some kind of community meeting up here on Thursday night? Saw a headline in the Oz which a waiter had given me to read at breakfast yesterday.
Does anyone know how it went?
bmitw,
Windsor was on Lateline afterwards and claimed it went pretty well. A standing ovation for the most part, he said.
If Tones wants to play it this way, the ALP might as well ram through legislation any time a Lib goes back to his/her electorate for a BBQ.
No pairing means… no pairing for Libs. Abbott et all by definition will lose this game slightly more often than the ALP + Indies do.
Idiot wrecker. Thank *%^$ he never became PM.
So Tanya Plibersek, with a baby due any time soon, is forced to go begging to Warren Entsch who may or may not grant her a pair for six weeks. They really are total bastards.
joe2 @ 48,
That’d be right. You don’t actually expect these guys to behave with any kind of decency do you? Its the Howard/Abbott Liberals we’re talking about.
@40
“Seriously: Tony Abbott is one of the most fundamentally dishonest people to ever disgrace the leadership of a major Australian political party.”
I concur and yet how strange it is that he has promoted himself as genuine or authentic. I recall a post here some time ago that rather unfortunately argued that Abbott was indeed a “conviction politician”.
And yet he has told lies on national television (see Dr Pell incident), he dealt duplicitously with One Nation, he admitted on national television that he tells untruths unless he reads from a script and now he appears to have breached the terms of a contract he signed. And yet he is still able to be reported as some sort of wide eyed innocent. It may be though that the weight of the reality will soon stretch his credibility to breaking point and the media will have to abandon their “Abbott the genuine rough diamond genius but fundamentally different politician” line.
We have known for a while that Tony Abbott does not play by the rules.
I would not be surprised if he has memorised the following by Niccolo Machiavelli and repeats it to himself every day: “You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/23/3020490.htm
He has proven he lives by the following untrustworthy law:
If someone asks if you will do something, say you will. Then, simply don’t.
The risk of a deadlocked parliament and the speaker related issues arise because the number of HRS MP’s is an even number. If there was an odd number the parliament could not have been deadlocked (as it would have been if the final numbers were 75:75.) since there has to be a winner. In addition, the speaker problem disappears since the speaker would use her/his casting vote whenever the votes on the floor were deadlocked. (With even numbers of MP’s and the current system there will never be a deadlock unless someone abstains or is missing without a pair.)
If we count the speaker/deputy as part of the numbers supporting their party line:
Under the current system the government needs support from 76 MP’s to pass or block a motion while the opposition needs only 75. UNFAIR TO GOVERNMENT
With the proposed pairing deal (and the speaker retaining the casting vote) the government would need the support of 75 compared with 76 for the opposition. UNFAIR TO OPPOSITION
With the proposed pairing deal and the speaker agreeing to vote for the negative if a casting vote were needed, both sides would need the support of 76 to pass and 75 to block. (It would, however, make sense for the speaker to cast for the affirmative for supply.) and anything else required to keep the process of government continuing.) FAIR TO BOTH
We should increase the number of MP’s by one for the next election and consider the last option as an interim step.
Still leaves a hung parliament a possibility if, for example, you end up with LNP: 75, ALP: 75, Ind:1. Also, S24 of the Constitution might prove an impendiment:
And what’s more Diogenes I do not think Tony has any respect for The Cowboy Code as set down by Gene Autry.
1. The cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man, or take unfair advantage.
2. He must never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him.
3. He must always tell the truth.
4. He must be gentle with children, the elderly, and animals.
5. He must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas.
6. He must help people in distress.
7. He must be a good worker.
8. He must keep himself clean in thought, speech, action, and personal habits.
9. He must respect women, parents, and his nation’s laws.
10. The Cowboy is a patriot.
http://www.cowboyway.com/GeneAutry.htm
Somlyay has backed out now – doubtless was some arm twisting goig on.
I don’t get it
1. If the speaker has a casting vote (in the event of a deadock), then what’s the problem?
2. If Somlyay becomes deputy speaker and is in the chair then the Coalition is minus one vote.
3. Somlyay reckons that the press release from Abbott’s office verbals him. He says he will honour pairing and will not vote against supply and will no confidence only in dire circumstances.
Somylay’s bailed in the end, but that can’t alter the truth: Abbott talks tough, and threatens to ‘play hard’ – but Gillard is in fact thrashing him from pillar to post at every turn. She’s even wedging off LNP members in public, necessitating a rearguard goon squad visit after the damage is done.
She’s had Abbott on the mat since the Sunday after the election – and she’s done it without appearing a partisan fool, as he has.
He’s all talk, and she just walks over him.
For stability of government, Labor and the Coalition had agreed on a paired speaker deal because the agreement meant an opposition MP wouldn’t participate in divisions to cancel out the Speaker, who doesn’t have an ordinary vote.
Tony Abbott has behaved like a spoilt brat ever since the independents decided to hand government to Labor instead of the Coalition. And since then all we’ve heard from him is complaint after complaint. You can get rid of spoilt brat behaviour most of the time in children, but sometimes the effects still show in adulthood.
Gummo@53: Adding an extra MP prevents a deadlocked parliament which would be the result if we had ended up with 75 Labor alliance, 75 LNP alliance. With a deadlocked parliament one party would have a majority as soon the other party supplied the speaker.
Adding an extra MP does not prevent a hung parliament where independents or minor parties have the balance of power. If we use your example of 75 LNP, 75 Labor and one independent, the independent decides who is going to form the government. The successful party, in combination with the independent, would have at least 75:75 on the floor of the parliament after the appointment of the speaker. This means that government legislation would succeed on the casting vote of the speaker – a tight but workable system.
You are right of course. We may need to change the constitution to allow the number of MP’s in the house of reps. However, it is a change that clearly makes sense after the current experience and one that doesn’t depend on good will and new conventions to avoid making a parliament unworkable.
A Man of His Word!
Labour had found a Speaker’s Deputy
Who’d act with honour and some equity.
Liberal HQ said ‘This story’s un-real!
We understand there isn’t a deal!’
Somlyay said, ‘But I gave them my word!’
Abbot chimed in, ‘Oh, that is absurd!
You’re in politics, man! Everyone knows
It’s a dirty game and anything goes!’
Poor Somlyay what a mess he’s now in.
Whatever he does, he’s in the sin bin!
All sides will shun him come next week’s session.
Tony, be kind, invite him along when you go to to Confession.
Apologies, Moderator – dithering about where this belonged, here or on the Saturday Salon, and somehow messed up the ‘strong’ parentheses. I’m often conflicted about placement of ‘pomes’ because satire really isn’t light verse in the usual sense and needs to be bang in the middle of comments on the relevant issue.
I suppose we won’t really know what went on here for 30 years, and then, only if all the relevant personal papers are in the Natational and State Libraries.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/deputy-speaker-mess-labors-fault-lib-20100925-15reg.html
The 43rd Parliament:
The Liberal Party’s
Katyn.
I hope the latest line from the LNP gets the scorn it deserves. Apparently, it’s all the ALPs fault that Somalyay backed away from the deal.
“Fellow Queensland MP Warren Entsch, who replaced Mr Somlyay as opposition whip, says he believes Labor “jammed” and “verballed” Mr Somlyay into a position where he felt compromised.”
This type of BS needs to be called for what it is. The way the political genius (i.e. Abbott) handled this was obviously amateurish and points to significant divisions with the LNP. But apparently it had nothing to with the leader being unable to control either his troops or his press office, because:
“Mr Entsch said Mr Albanese’s approach likely ruined the deal.”
It’s not hard to join the dots here, Abbott barely won the leadership, lost the unlosable election and has failed to successful promote himself as an LNP hero to his own party. Hopefully the wax figure that is TA starts to sag under some serious wattage.
The best way of resolving it is for Katter to be speaker and Labor to pair with him. Problem solved.
Hal9000, agreed, but does Katter have (1) the guts, and (2) the consistency?
Bob would clonk someone with the gavel.
I posted the following on Antony Greens blog on 21/09 here it is plus Antony.s reponse[
Antony
1.Is pairing in the reps a convention or enshrined in legislation
2. What is the likely outcome if Tony Abbott decries NO pairing in the reps or senate
3. Could such a situation force the government ministers or members not to go overseas and hinder governence in general.
COMMENT: Pairing is entirely a matter of agreement between the two sides and is not controlled by legislation or enforced by standing orders. The cancelling of pairs is always a threat the Opposition can use if it feels it is not being treated properly in the running of the business of the House. Were pairs cancelled in a manner that infered with the sensible running of government, for instance by preventing a Prime Minister or Foreign Minister attending a major conference, then it would potentially be counter-productive for the Opposition.]
As we now see all to clear what has happened however there is no condemnation from the MSM and even Tony W comments have not aroused them, do we need a war to get them out of their hammocks to do their job properly.
Well it would be a lively parliament with Mr Katter in the Speaker’s chair, if nothing else. One could only hope Smuggles would receive the first sconing!
Bilko @68, only a nucular weapon could get that bunch of lazy no-hopers off their backsides.
The ALP still has to honour the pairing agreement does it not?
Shit. Why doesn’t Abbott throw away all the rules and just smash anyone in the face on the parliament floor if he doesn’t like what they say?
I’m almost tempted to say that we should give him the crown just to shut his whining.
I wonder how they’ll handle the issue of Plibersek taking a bit of maternity leave soon? Very bad look for Family Friendly, Women Loving Tone, if he refuses to give her a pair.
Fine @ 71, this is what some of Tone’s supporters think of Plibersek’s request for pairing
http://www.hotcopper.com.au/post_single.asp?fid=262&tid=1263835&msgid=7106674
Re Joe2 @54
Rules for Political Cowboys:
1. Shoot first, hit the smaller man below the belt and often, and always take unfair advantage.
2. He must never go back on his word unless it’s a non core promise, otherwise betrayal is the handiest tool in the box.
3. He must always tell lies where expedient to do so.
4. He may be minded to insult the dying but he should be gentle with animals on the coalition side.
5. If he possesses racially or religiously intolerant ideas he may espouse following the comPelling arguments not to blow into plastic bags unless it’s a random breath testing situation.
6. He must help people in distress see 4 above.
7. He may be a lazy bugger too indolent to have any policies and just go with a few slogans at election time.
8. He must keep himself clean in personal habits with ritual washing of hands in the finest traditions of Pontius Pilate and John Howard.
9. He must respect women with a “keep_them_barefoot_and_knocked_up” policy, and use his nation’s laws to put dangerous upstarts like Pauline Hanson into jail, or aid and abet BS terrorist cases just before an election.
10. The Policical Cowboy is a fake patriot of the worst order who blindly follows the USA into illegal or dubious wars.
Apparently Entsch has agreed to pair Pilbersek. (At the moment, anyway. But you never know what will happen to this agreement once Abbott gets his grubby little hands on it.
So the new LNP mantra is that we could not take part in passing legislation that might be overturned by the High Court. What rubbish! A good deal of the anti-terrorist legislation Howard rushed through would be unlikely to stand up to a good High Court challenge, as would the inclusion in legislation of the definition of “marriage”. As for using George Brandis as a source of legal advice, spare us! The tradition of pairing is and always has been part of the Westminster tradition, it is nowhere in the constitution.
What if … instead of tempting Peter Slipper with the Deputy Speakership, Ms Gillard went the whole hog and offered him the top job? Much more money (an extra $100,000 p.a.), resulting hike in his super, not to mention the prestige.
Apparently Entsch has agreed to pair Pilbersek.
Oh, is he also about to give birth?