Well, the Senators elected last year have been sworn in, and for the first time since 1981, the Government of the day enjoys a narrow Senate majority. Issues of process are perhaps as important as issues of substantive outcomes – as Steve Lewis suggests, citizens are well aware of the Senate position (although as he doesn’t say – probably largely because of an awareness fostered by the IR campaign) and will be alert and alarmed by any suggestion of arrogance and disdain for democratic process. To this end, the Government didn’t get off to a good start – restricting the chance of Opposition Senators to ask questions. The Government argues this is just a reflection of changed numbers, but the reality is that most Government backbench questions are pointless Dorothy Dixers, and it’s very hard to see how this contributes to accountability. Suggestions that the ability of Senators to scrutinise public finances and administration in Estimates Committees might be restricted, and mooted changes to Legislative Committees are also not exactly a good sign.
The politics of the new Senate awaits the first key tests on important legislation. But I do find the tactics of the Liberals with regard to backbench National (and indeed some Liberal) dissent bizarre. Bashing Barnaby and the Nats around the head publicly hardly seems calculated to make him into a docile lobby fodder automaton. Last week, probably fresh from making unfounded assertions that IR changes will magically increase productivity (as opposed to the GDP share of capital, and thus short term profits, which is not the same thing), we had the spectacle of the Treasurer and PM in a rare moment of unity warning that a Telstra sale fund for the bush might threaten low interest rates. Hello? How? I’d like to see one single Coalition supporter explain the economic logic of this claim. It’s a disgrace that the media don’t ask the question as to whether this makes the remotest bit of sense. And tonight on Lateline, we had the inspirational sight of a couple of Liberal backbenchers turning up to Parliament in daggy tracksuits (is there some rule in Canberra that you arrive at work looking like a homeless person and change into a suit once you get there? Please explain!) bagging Barnaby.
The Queensland Nats have been in dire trouble for the best part of a decade – buffetted by the One Nation storm, suffering a secular decline as retiring Federal members are replaced by Liberals, and confronting demographic change which mitigates against the robustness of their vote. Finally, they manage to elect one Senator (the days when 3 Nats were in the Queensland delegation are not too far in the past) by the slimmest of margins, and with active opposition from the Libs. If Barnaby doesn’t deliver, he’s toast. He may as well hang up his hat and go back to St. George right now while the tax return business is still good for accountants. Surely anyone with an elementary grasp of politics would realise that heaping opprobrium on him will only make him more determined to assert his independence.
Meanwhile, to usher in the new era, the apostle of family values – from the party of the Intergenerational Report and having babies for the country – responds to a decision from the AIRC facilitating a work/family balance for new parents by ranting about how these matters ought best to be left to individual negotiations. And Howard won’t guarantee that parental leave won’t be swept away by his IR whirlwind. Hello? The intent of the Commission’s decision is that these matters be negotiated at the workplace. All the decision really requires is that employers give a good reason why unpaid parental leave and part-time work not be allowed. It’s worked a treat in Britain, with many young fathers, who at the point in the lifecourse when they have kids often have to pile on the hours to meet extra financial commitments, have also discovered the joys of parenting. It’s about choice and flexibility and family values – you know, all the stuff the Libs have been banging on about for years. BBQ stoppers and all that… But they’re prepared to adopt an unsustainable political position in defence of the most confrontational, short term thinking and antideluvian employers and well, pure ideology.
The Liberals appear to be rapidly losing their political touch. Now that they’re ostensibly in charge of the show, they’d better get sharp – and soon.
I really hope the media cottons onto the fact that the Liberals are now effectively running the show and have a huge responsibility on their shoulders. For example, Senator Kay Patterson’s inane remarks in yesterday’s Senate proceedings don’t bode well.
I’ve posted on it here.
I really hope Barnaby Joyce sticks to his guns and the attempted intimidation (what sort of diplomacy is that towards a junior partner?) so far should work to his advantage. What has he got to lose by being a loose cannon? Nothing, since all the Nats are pushing 44 gallon drums of molasses uphill.
His argument on representing the state of Qld on the back of not having a joint Senate ticket with the Libs cannot be refuted. Howard’s 1st loyalty claim for a member who is a senator, not a MHR, denies the reality that a loss in the Senate does not result in the fall af the government.
Blackjack McQ would approve. Indeed the Libs need to be sharper.
Watching how the Nats go in the Senate is going to be very interesting. The Nats can use this to reasert themselves as a party in their own right and not a junior partner of the Libs who shlould only be seen and not heard.
But fathers have nothing to lose.
The AIRC decision gioves mothers 104 weeks of unpaid leave, while fathers get only 8.
So there’s not much incentive for fathers to support such sexism.
Wrong EP,
The decision extends parental leave to 24 months, in most cases this is taken by the mother, but does not have to be. The father can equally well take the leave and the mother can return to work after a brief interval, or they can share it mother takes say first half and the father second.
For years now the parental leave conditions have referred to primary carer not mother.
Actually, EP, I’ve just had a look at the decision and it appears the 104 weeks of unpaid leave can be shared amongst both parents as the 52 weeks of leave could be previously. That’s why it’s called ‘parental’ leave and not ‘maternity leave’.
So the 8 weeks of paternity leave for fathers is a separate thing for fathers because it recognises that women often do take the parental leave option solely. This isn’t just because women want to lie around eating peeled grapes, it’s because birth is a big deal which can knock women out for weeks, and the realities of breastfeeding often makes it easier for women to stay at home while men return to work.
I won’t even get into childcare issues, or traditional family structures, or the wage gap, but it’s a fact that the family pattern does follow the ‘mum stay at home for a while’ ‘dad goes back to work’. This doesn’t mean it’s the desirable way for every family, and indeed, both parents SHOULD have the option of staying home with the child if they decide to.
As I read it, basically parents can decide between themselves which one is going to take advantage of the 52 weeks currently or 104 weeks in the new AIRC decision, or whether they share it.
The relevant information can be found here: http://www.e-airc.gov.au/familyprovisions/
What Steve said, actually.
Kate,
Always the way, you go for the long reply and someone jumps a quick one in before you.
I haven’t checked this with the decision but I think the 8 weeks is refered to as short parental leave and can be taken by the non-primary carer. Basically the period that both parents can take off together.
I think you’re right Steve, I just skimmed through the report (’twas long).
I haven’t read it all through either, but that was the status of the two types before so I don’t think that’s changed just the amount of leave. It is of course reported in almost all news coverage as maternity and paternity leave and in most cases is taken this way which creates the confusion.
I’ve had extra reason to starting checking this stuff up recently.
Mark – I saw that Lateline bit. I agree that monstering Barnaby seems a very shortsighted tactic. On the other matter. It is a cause for national shame that our governing members would be seen wearing such clothing on TV. Even that awful Condi Rice woman has the dignity to dress well.
Now the Nationals have no place to hide.
They can’t say they tried their hardest but those pesky Libs just overrode them.
My in-laws are in the central west of NSW (Andren’s electorate) and I can’t find anyone who wants Telstra sold no matter what warchest is given in return.
This is the National’s democrat issue.
The only reason this fund is being sought surely is because in the Bush these are essential services that the market won’t provide. not in the city however.
I’ve seen everything now. Iron Bar Tuckey urging Barnaby to “use his brain”. Pot.Kettle.
FXH and Naomi, one could only conclude that the appalling attire of Messrs Somlyay and Entsch is designed to trick people into thinking they’re Howard battlers. Which in a sense they are since they’ve been in Parliament for yonks without making any impact other than doorstops (though I should praise Entsch for speaking out against the Defence of Marriage homophobic crap that Latho/Roxon’s ALP rolled over on). Somlyay used to have a nice line in double breasted suits.
But it seems now that a nice piece of Italian cloth might bring back PJK memories?
7.30 Report tonight showed still photos of the Barnaby/Heffernan STOUSH. Heffernan is a disgraceful thug.
Really quite bizarre – the first day they control the Senate and they’re almost literally beating up on each other.
Long may it continue.
States rights forever!
Howard’s worst nightmare has come back to haunt him – Joh in 87, Barnaby in 05. Beware the Queensland Nats in rural populist mode!
Steve, I see you’ve adopted a suitable rural gravatar for la nouveau regime. But don’t let Heffernan see it – or he’ll ask you tricky questions about your investment in a piggery.