The most predictable feature of the press reporting of a parliament with a minority government and much more fluid processes for formulating policy and negotiating legislation is that the media can’t give up on its usual frame.
(Aside, of course, from the also predictable op/eds in The Australian warning about the evils of The Greens.)
The survival of default reflexes is by no means limited to the more consciously anti-Labor sections of the media. The Age, for instance, has a story this morning beginning:
THE first cracks have appeared in the Gillard government’s alliance with the crossbench MPs, with the Greens signalling they may side with the Coalition on some issues, and a country independent clashing with Treasurer Wayne Swan over the mining tax.
Meanwhile, Patricia Karvelas and Andrew Burrell write:
LABOR’S alliance with the two rural independents has hit its first hurdle, with Rob Oakeshott demanding the mining tax be included in the government’s proposed tax summit, despite Wayne Swan’s refusal to allow the original super-profits tax to be discussed.
Now, any government that lacked a majority was always going to be in a position where it could not control the legislative agenda. Had Tony Abbott and the Coalition formed government, that would have been no different.
No one was ever going to secure an agreement with The Greens, the country Independents and Andrew Wilkie guaranteeing support for every piece of legislation.
What’s interesting is how these developments are couched – in terms of some sort of crisis for Julia Gillard. It would be quite possible for Rob Oakeshott’s desire to see the mining tax debated in the context of the overall Henry Review and Bob Brown’s point that The Greens could amend Labor’s parental leave plan in concert with the Coalition to be reported in a much more neutral fashion. Neither in fact imperil the stability of the executive government. Both point to a more open and deliberative policy process.
We already have parental leave, right? The bill was passed shortly before the last Parliament was dissolved. What are the Greens and Coalition planning to amend?
This framing of the ‘news’ was already prominent in the Age Online last night: ‘cracks… destabilising… spectre… propping up… difficulties’ and so on. These ‘journalists’ are still seeing events through the horse race prism; instead of the MSM focusing on policies and issues, or the egregious lying and implicit incompetence of the Coalition on costings, it is still looking, ready to pounce, on apparent gaffes, clashes and gotcha moments within the government.
The substance of the article suggests the ‘cracks’ are nothing of the sort, yet the inference is that they signify the start of an inevitably burgeoning process. The ‘crisis’ atmosphere, as your excellent piece suggests, having now been generated by these hacks, will now settle in as a given, the context within which all future reports will be framed.
Andos, as far as I’m aware the bill was passed and the payments are due to start in January, so it seems that whoever wrote that bit of gossip, needs to check their facts, a skill which seems to be absent in “journalists” these days.
I wonder if they’ll admit their mistakes.
As for the other stuff, who knows? I have a vague recollection that Oakeshott mentioned he wanted to include the mining tax when they look at the Henry report. However, I stand to be corrected on that.
Anyway, a storm in a teacup, which will be resolved, but nontheless a crumb for the MSM to mull over for all of 5 seconds, a generous estimate of their attention span.
Contacting The Age journalists
from: http://www.theage.com.au/support/
Individual staff members can be contacted using the initial of the first name followed by the surname then: @theage.com.au. Alternatively call (03) 8667 2000.
Agreed Kim. The framing of the debate by the media is fundamental and skewed against Labor. I suspect that this is likely to get worse with the Greens now in a position of real power. Mostly I attribute this distortion to role of the media in manufacturing consent on behalf of the corporate state. It is said by the media that their role is inform the public but it is rarely disclosed that they do so on behalf of the rich and powerful.
It isn’t so much what we are told but why. The ABC is irrelevant, it has merely become another way of redistributing public funds back into the hands of the private sector under the guise of media autonomy. That it is highly corporatised and closely aligned with the private media sector illustrates how thoroughly the conservative corporate media message pervades the public sphere.
Then there is this disgraceful op-ed by Anita Quigley in today’s SMH, which confirms Possum’s prediction that:
On the other hand, support for Oakeshott and Windsor has come from an unexpected source.
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by the quality of reporting in the mainstream media, including, by and large, the ABC. The Left has a real problem here because it is stuck in a conversation with itself, going over and over the same old, moral high ground. Reinforcement of opinion within a relatively narrow band of political influence is of minimal tactical advantage.
The broad Left’s (I accept that this is a difficult term) abject failure to engage with a constituency beyond an urban professional, intellectual base has left it stranded in the political debate at a time when a cohesive, credible narrative is required of it. Engaging in indignant huffpuffery over the proclivities of the mass media may make people feel good but without organisation and engagement the Left is marooned. The anomalies are the Greens and Getup!, who identify as ‘progressive’ but resist declaring themselves of the ‘Left’,and for quite good reason,IMO. As for trade unions, well, the less said the better.
This is why I hate the term “vote with” when they were talking about confidence in an executive. The dullards who write in newspapers would think that means vote with on everything! Do any of the journos know about the separation of powers? Apparently they teach it to primary school kids.
Look on the bright side, Paul — at least someone’s finally realised that ‘kingmaker’ really isn’t an appropriate epithet in this case. I wondered how long it would take them.
This rhetoric of cracks and hurdles implies the pretence of a flat, smooth surface, doesn’t it. The fact that none of the Greens, the Indies or the Labor people themselves have ever pretended for a minute that it was anything of the kind is overlooked or ignored by the use of metaphors like this, which immediately suggest that they have all been dishonestly pretending to be dancing down a flat track holding hands. (And, presumably, singing Kumbaya.)
At times like this I almost wish I were back in academia, teaching media studies. There’s a wealth of new material every day that one could use to set for close reading.
There are several factors at play here.
1. Most journalists are as dumb as dog shit. It’s going to take them a while to learn how the new world will work.
2. Most journalists are lazy. It’s much easier for them to reach for the simple story (crisis) than to think hard about how the new world will work.
3.Most journalists, in their infantile way, like crises, real or imagined. Plus, crisis stories sell newspapers.
4. Most journalists like to think of themselves as players, not just reporters on the players. If they can create a sense of crisis through their stories which then helps create a real crisis, so much the better.
I seem to recall there was an organisation called “friends of the ABC”. Does this organisation still exist? If so it may be worth joining to turn it into a lobbying body to pressure ABC management to return to independent reporting.
Tha ABC was one of the greatest disappointments during the campaign as they seemed to just take up whatever “talking point” the Australian published for the day.
Alison Carabine’s reporting on RN in the morning always got my day off to a bad start. Each morning we were subject “horror crisis in the ALP” while then gushing and fawning over the sheer brilliance of Tony Abbott and his team. I cannot recall an instance of her challenging the announcement and spin put out by the LNP.
News writing is reportage of things that happen.
When nothing happens there is no possibility of news writing.
Reporters overcome this difficulty by writing as if things happen.
The Left has a real problem here because it is stuck in a conversation with itself, going over and over the same old, moral high ground…
And then I stopped reading, BK, because I knew what was going to come next. Left: Too idealistic. Not realistic. Faeries in the garden. Yadda yadda ya. Like 100 – nay 1000 other anonymous commenters who blow in, take a shit, and then fly out.
BK – I think it is you who is seriously deluded. Firstly, how can you use the Left as a monolithic term anymore, when it’s now associated with at least two big parties, each with over 10% of the parties voting for them? And how does one deal with a media that is both hostile and superficial? Especially when dominated by one organisation which sometimes dabbles in illegal activities like phone tapping? Do you ignore their maelevolence? Then you’d be a fool.
BK @ 8
You are spot on!
A large proportion of intellectuals and academics seem happy to wallow in the cosy feeling of being the left, the moral best. Society (at least in Western countries) is telling us loud that the “left” is now irrelevant. I think the great divide is now between those who want to address the fundamental environmental and societal issues of this planet and those who want to cling to Business as usual because they think it is in their best interest. It will be war. A war of influence and those of us who want to change things, need to think about how they going to WIN that war. Keeping writing feel-good analysis that only people with the same inclination read will not help us win the war!
Sam,
I think it is time for those ABC “journalists” with the Leni Riefenstahl fixation to resign. That would be a good start.
I do think that there is a well backed movement to privitise the ABC; set back a little by the failure to get Abbot over the line.
When you see that the ABC has changed sides you will know that a deal has been done.
Huggy
Agree with BK as well- though the other point here is that the media and most commentators have no idea what a Westminster system is any more, OTHER THAN with its major party system overlay.
For former has been around for 400+ years, where the latter barely 100.
All the above is how parliaments with a single party majority work – all the time.
The thing is – 76 votes of any stripe will pass a bill.
However, Gillard can declare certain issues off limit – as tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in her govt.
the indies will run a mile from voting with LNP if Gillard makes an issue one of ‘confidence’ in her govt.
But she wouldn’t want to pull that one too often, and would be well advised to let less controversial ones slide.
Its a new dawn…
‘At times like this I almost wish I were back in academia, teaching media studies. There’s a wealth of new material every day that one could use to set for close reading.’
That would be exciting. Unfortunately, media studies courses (and even literature courses, as far as I’m aware) no longer do close reading. It should come back … (There was a lot of talk of textual analysis in a postgrad course I did not so long ago, but that’s as close as things got).
Down and Out of Sài Gòn (apparently not an anonymous handle?) you said:
“And then I stopped reading, BK, because I knew what was going to come next. Left: Too idealistic. Not realistic. Faeries in the garden. Yadda yadda ya. Like 100 – nay 1000 other anonymous commenters who blow in, take a shit, and then fly out.”
Perhaps you should have kept reading instead of jumping in to misrepresent me. I see nothing of substance in your counter-argument but I have to admire your passion. Perhaps if you directed your strong feelings to a sensible analysis instead of silly jibes, you could make a meaningful contribution.
I tackle some of these issues in my new blog:
http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com/
Yes Paul Norton, I had a double take reading Anita Quigley on the train to work. Anita Who? And she writes:
Yes, imagine indeed, because I’d put money on her never having been to or spoken to a resident of Shalvey.
I just checked & the last media release from Friends of the ABC was in 2007, so it appears to be dormant. Maybe a non starter but I will check out membership.
To read the MSM one would think Australia had lurched significantly to the right but of course the facts do not support this. The LNP only picked up just over 1% of the 2pp swing and the Greens picked up over 4%, but this does not crack a mention. This fact supports the ALP forming the minority govt but the howling indignation is a much better story.
This Lament of yours, Kim, which I share, assures that journalists are in general, ethical, professional, check their facts – note to any practicing journalists reading this: there’s this thing called a telephone and nowadays you can use it anywherte, anytime, any place, to check or verify a source. You don’t have to go back to the office – They are also, if professional, unbiased in their reporting. Now, I know we have a few journos like that in Oz, but the content of our newspapers suggests most have them have died off.
Trevor @ 22
Friends are not dormant. I joined them yesterday and they have been working during the election. I encourage everyone who wants to do something about the ABC to join them. It only costs $30.
See my post here for more stuff you can do or be involved with.
Lefty E #17:
I’d agree, and conjecture more generally that a large percentage of our political jounralists are lamentably ignorant of the constitutional and conventional basis of our system of government, something which first became clearly evident to me in 1993 when I read newspaper reports referring to “State government legislation to overturn the High Court’s Mabo decision”.
Lefty E: it doesn’t even take 76 votes to pass a bill; just more ‘ayes’ than ‘noes’ (or vice versa). With a balance this fine, there could be some interesting abstentions.
Paul @ 23 and Kim,
So you don’t see the irony in these laments? You whinge and moan about the main stream media – complaining about bias, about hyperbole, about ‘sticking to the narrative’….. and yet I read your posts and all I see is bias and hyperbole – with a few juvenile insults chucked in for good measure.
Now when the mainstream media starts calling Bob Brown some derogatory nickname like ‘ratty’ or ‘Mr Rabbit’ then I think you’ll have something to whinge about!
The problem you’ve got is that you’re looking on to mainstream political debate in Australia from a fringe position – of course everything you see will appear biased to the right. Have you ever considered that mainstream media is not biased at all – it’s just reflective of mainstream opinion, which in Australia is a very centrist position. Have you ever considered that mainstream Australia would read your hyperbolic postings with wry amusement and dismiss them as biased and conclude ‘they just don’t get it’.
LeftyE @ 17 – hopefully the pressure to not have controversial issues become an issue of confidence in her government she will be willing to allow for a lot more conscience votes. So things which traditionally would not get through such as gay marriage, voluntary euthanasia, etc which have broad community support but very vocal minority opposition will get through.
Andrew, you need to wake up to yourself, learn to count and then come back to us with something sensible.
The broad left, however you define it is not and never has been a ‘fringe position’, and even less so after this election. From then on your argument makes less and less sense.
ANdrew @ 27
Have you ever considered that mainstream media is not biased at all – it’s just reflective of mainstream opinion, which in Australia is a very centrist position.
Could you tell us please what a “centrist” position is?
Mainstream is made up of variety of “positions” surely; from conservative to progressive. I would even suggest that many people hold both ” conservative” and “progressive” positions on different issues. Where is the centre in that?
It just happens that some positions (e.g ” we are swamped by illegal boat people”, “ineptness of state Labor government” are voiced more louder and more often than others!
Seconding what adrian has said #29, what has been most interesting about the noise coming from the media these past couple of years is the intensity of the vitriol directed against political actors of the centre and centre-right from a hard right perspective, which is very much what the liberal centrist blogger Possum was referring to in the post I linked to and quoted #6.
The bias of the media is not the problem.
What is the problem is the dumbing down, the trivialisation, the “gotcha” mentality and the laziness and the game playing.
The ABC are the worst offenders as far as the “gotcha” mentality is concerned, and Kerry O’Brien is the worst of the worst, with Fran Kelly not far behind.
“They just don’t get it”.
Well they do and they don’t. Rupert’s shills are owned rather than manifestly stupid although Dennis, Janet, Glen and the terriers of the “News” tabloids regularly test their restraining devices.
Possum’s polemic reads more like a call-to-arms than mere commentary. Concise, courageous common sense.
Making nice with bullys like “Murdoch and his myrmidons” is a sucker play. These people are beyond reason when their game is peddling space to advertisers.
“Say, guys, look where we can display you?” Isn’t this the hottest platform in the land?”
That’s where Citizen Rupe and his organs have real clout. Tory governments are traditionally compliant and run Rupert less interfernce although he’ll deal with anyone to turn a buck. Mr. Murdoch is above all else a bidnessman. Nibble away at Rupe’s “platforms” and they will require more ‘maintenance’ than they are worth. They will slowly slide towards irrelevance as the revenue stream diminishes.
Every new NBN fibre connected ‘neath our terrestrial crust hastens The Delaware’s drift from influence. How does a mogul stop a boat when he’s missed it?
A poster on PB suggests that an effective way to “engage” The Dirty Digger is to selectively boycott advertisers in his OO. He further suggests that the government cease ALL advertising in the Australian and places the ads on the govt. website as well as in hard copy AFR/ Age/ SMH instead.
“Fairness and Balance” are achievable if the price is right.
Yes, we do already have a paid parental leave scheme, but it is barely adequate. Both the Greens and the Coalition want to see the scheme extended to six months and want to see supperanuation included as part of the scheme. These would be the biggest amendments.
If this is how they report a general comment, I can’t wait to see how they handle the parliamentary debates and votes themselves.
How many synonyms are there for crisis? And is there a point where the rhetoric is so overblown there is nowhere left to go? We shall soon find out!
@34 – the point Bob Brown made was that there would be nothing to stop the Coalition and The Greens introducing a private member’s bill to that effect.
Andrew @ 27,
I’m almost tempted to reply oh, what’s the use, but I won’t. I’ve spent a lot of time studying the media, particularly the print media, from the mis 18C onwards. From the time newspapers were created proprietors have come down on one side or the other -to use some rather confusing terminology, because its meaning varies across the English speaking world , they have be either pro=Whig or pro-Tory. Or in Australian terms, pro-Labor and anti-Labor. While there are some rare instances of pro-Labor press they are quite rare. Usually newspapers are run by to put it kindly, anti-Labor interest groups. It is the lack of the balance of any kind of press, even our national broadcasater to give Labor and the left generally a fair go, that is lamentable.
Now, your lament about language .. Mr. Rabbit/Ratty etc. Blogs have for the most part taken the place of the political pamphlet/ Indeed they are its wquivalent on today’s internet. Now, I’ve read a lot of political pamphlets from the time of the English Civil War on, through 18C London and the period of the American Revolution, even some 20C ephemera, It is in the nature of political pmphlets to be partisan, and to bemoan that they are, misunderstands their purpose.
Hope trhat seeps through to your brain soehow,
I don’t think the Government can hurt Murdoch much by withdrawing advertising. The OO loses shitloads of money already and always has done. It has been cross subsidised by the profitable parts of the Empire.
Murdoch keeps it going because likes having political influence for its own sake and because that influence buys him profit elsewhere (pay TV policy, for example).
Re: private members’ bills. (Must avoid joke about private members and hung parliaments).
Suppose the Greens and Opposition team up to pass a bill in the House and Senate. Can the PM advise the GG not to give the bill royal assent?
@39 – Interesting question. I don’t know the answer – she presumably would be within her constitutional rights to do so, but politically, would that be wise?
Theoretically maybe, but I can’t see why she would.
The Gillard government already has the guarantees in place from the Greens and the Indies to guarantee supply bills, which is all that matters in terms of executive government. Passing legislation is not part of the executive function, and basically all sides have to accept those chips falling where they may.
‘Imagine how western Sydney residents are feeling today …’
Pretty much the same as they were feeling yesterday or last week or before Christmas I’d say Anita. S/he who would speak for the masses should first understand they hold politics and politicians in almost as low regard as they hold journalists.
On Sam’s question, the relevant sections of the Constitution would be Sections 58, 59 and 60 which state:
One presumes that the Prime Minister could offer her advice to the GG as to how she should exercise her dicretion under Section 58. However, as Kim has noted it would be politically problematic (especially in the current circumstances) for the PM to advise the GG to refuse assent to a Bill carried in both Houses.
Sam @ 39 it’s hard to imagine such a scenario in which the House would still be prepared to declare confidence in the government. The bill in question would presumably deal with a matter of substantial importance – there’d be no point doing it otherwise. One way or another, the government would almost certainly resign.
Good question Sam! Alternately, can the public service be instructed by the Minister not to implement it? (Technically the PS serves the Government, not the Parliament.)
Has anyone found an article from a legal expert that explains how this might actually work? (Mods: might be worth a separate post too)
So, if the Greens political party and the Coalition pass some kind of amendment to the brand new paid parental leave legislation how do they know what the impact on the budget will be?
Presumably the Parliamentary Budget Office would be of assistance, but that won’t be up and running for a while…
The Coalition wanted to place a levy on large businesses to pay for their idea (the costings of which were a tad rubbery)… does that mean the Greens political party also wants to collude with the Coalition in raising company tax?
All this speculation is fun, but I wish reporters would think a layer or two down when asking these kinds of questions.
Re. Anita Quigley- “cash-strapped councils leaving suburban streets a potholed mess”.?
Girlfriend doesn’t know the difference between federal and local.
I don’t think that necessarily follows, Ken. Not every Bill is considered as a test of the confidence of the House. Labor would have to push against such a Bill so hard that a separate motion of no confidence was put forward, and I can’t see them being that self-destructive on something like parental leave provisions, which is the example currently being floated.
@43 The PM can surely advise the GG, but it is entirely up to the GG’s discretion how to act on any bills as shown in the relevant sections you have quoted (no mention whatsoever of the PM). That’s the way it’s always worked. We rely on convention in our system of Government, but I’m not sure what the convention would be in this case or why it should be different. Is there a precedent in this country (maybe from the early years)?
Regarding Anita Quigley, she’s from the usual gene pool, having worked for The daily Telegraph.
Obviously Fairfax has decided to replace Miranda Devine with a Devine clone.
I notice she even has Devine’s illustrator, Edd Aragon, some of whose cartoons are almost as nasty as Devine’s writings.
Devine has left?
Who pays the piper calls the tune.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2009/10/they-do-things-differently-at-newscorp.html
An internal staff memo from the Adelaide “Advertiser”:
“There are many conflicting instructions, blanket bans on certain words and subjects, and a lack of trust in the reporter to choose what to focus on…
Management often dictates an editorial line it wants reporters to take that is in conflict with what our contacts say. Much of a day can be wasted trying to find one person to say what management wants them to say. This is not reporting, it is fabricating news…”
Many statutes only come into force when they are proclaimed, in the Government Gazette. The delay in proclaiming is usually to give the public service time to gear up with the necessary processes, forms etc. So a government might just delay and delay proclaiming the thing …. but it wouldn’t look too good.
Josh, Devine has gone back to her natural habitat, the Murdoch papers.
tigtog@48, I don’t think that’s right. In SA there never was a formal vote of (no) confidence, just a vote on the speaker. This was taken by everyone as a de facto vote of no confidence in the Libs, who promptly handed in their commission to the Governor.
So Gillard could basically declare anything to be a de facto vote of no confidence and play chicken with the independents. One imagines this would be more likely for appropriations bills (including parental leave), and it will be a judgement call each time, but it does make for interesting times!
(Having said that, the Greens would be friggin’ stupid to risk bringing down the Gillard Government in this way. I don’t think they are that stupid.)
@Josh, the vote on the Speaker at the commencement of a new parliamentary session is traditionally taken as a test of the confidence of the floor. This is a longstanding Westminster tradition, pre-dating the formation of the Australian Parliament.
Other no-confidence motions have to be formally moved on the floor. Voting for or against a Bill’s passing is not on its own a formal test of the confidence of the House.
After discussions with Friends of the ABC I should point out that my call for a senate inquiry is a tad naive. Basically there are many forces at work, including the Murdoch camp who are constantly lobbying to get rid of the ABC (Murdoch Jr actually said that having the BBC in the UK was undemocratic!). So a senate inquiry could be misused by these forces to achieve this goal. However there is important legislation that lapsed when the election was called that is to do with board appointments to the ABC. Basically this is to do with ensuring merit based appointments. I had thought this was achieved but it has not. Now is the time to push for it to be done.
I encourage everyone to join FABC and lend them assistance, it looks to me that they have been fighting against titanic forces for a very long time with very limited support.
Mr Denmore @ 20
I tried to post a comment on your blog but it didn’t seem to be working. Its good that you are putting your stuff on a blog like that. Keep it up.
@ 46 – They’ll know when appropriations are drawn up.
Assent is a tricky one: though Im a lawyer Im NOT a constitutional lawyer, so with that caveat, here’s my quick take:
On all matters, the GG under s62 formally takes advice from the Federal Executive Council “to advise the Governor- General in the government of the Commonwealth”
The exec council will be labor dominated (maybe Oakeshott too). This is key feature of it being an ‘ALP’ minority govt. So there’s the first thing.
However, s58 makes assent a matter for the “GG” not the “GG in council”. But it also says that is all “subejct to the consitution” which could (likely) make that subject to s62. there’s probably a case on this already – again, Im no constitutional lawyer!
The exception may be s83 for budegtary appropriations (GG in council), though the wording there is really about interim supply in the first month of any govt (ie before passage of supply).
However, as someone suggsted on PollBludger, it could be that she takes advice on legislative matters from the parliament direclty under these circumstances, and executive advice from the exec council.
Love to hear from a proper constitutional lawyer on this!
“Voting for or against a Bill’s passing is not on its own a formal test of the confidence of the House.”
Thats right Tigtog – though the exception is where teh PM makes it an issue of confidence (ie wil resign if this one passes).
As I said above, the indies will run a mile from this situation for their own reasons – so Gillard is probably safe from LNP shenanigans on this score.
Substantive motions may be treated by the government as votes of confidence.
For example in 1929, Bruce made it clear that passage of the Maritime Industries Bill was such a vote and upon the defeat of this bill on the floor of the house advised dissolution of parliament and a new election.
In the UK in 1924 the MacDonald government treated the establishemnt of a committee into the Campbell case as an issue of confidence and similarly requested a dissolution when the vote was passed.
Apropos Paul Norton @ 7 citing The Bird himself who sez:
Well at the risk of the Bird’s appearance here, I guess the poor guys wouldn’t mind paying if only Tones could arrange it for them to bonk the rich girls?
61:
In the history of the Commonwealth only one bill has faailed to receive assent, and AFAIK no bill has ever been passed against the express opposition of the government so I don’t know that there would be any cases on this. (Note, I’m only a bush lawyer
)
Thanks for that clarification, Martin B.
I can’t see why there is speculation that Labor would be rushing to declare even a substantive motion as a vote of confidence though – what’s in it for them as the situation currently stands? Especially as they’ve said to the Indies that they are willing to guarantee that they will not go to an election until after the mid-term for this government? They would be excoriated from all directions, and it would definitely hurt them at the polls. Who forces a motion of no confidence that will dissolve the government unless they think they’ve got a solid winning margin with the voters?
I see this speculation as wasted energy that is actually buying into the framing of fragility and instability that Kim cautions against in the original post.
paul @6
Following your link, I just fired an email to Herald’s letter editor in response to Anita Quigley’s shoddy journalism. I encourage everyone to do the same so that progressives’ voice can be heard on MSM. (I ‘ve had two letters published at the Herald during the election, just shows if we try hard enough we will get heard)
dear editor,
Anita Quigley’s shoddy attack piece on Rob Oakeshott is full of bile, ignorance and hypocrisy. For a start, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott have never promised full support of every thing on Labor’s agenda, only supply and confidence which is essential to form a minority government, therefore it should not surprise any journalist who is paying attention that disagreement over policy details would occur on the first day. Like an impatient toddler who can’t sit through the ad break during an episode of Playschool, she sneered on the length of time Oakeshott took to consider his decision and quipped Iraq “has a better chance of stable government”. Does she know that thousands of Iraqis actually died due to politically motivated violence? does she know that six months after the Iraqi parliamentary election, they are still not able to form a government? She then grossly misrepresented the regional support packages covering health, communications and education the two independent MPs negociated as merely “gold-plated” fibre cable broadband and complained it has taken priority over infrastructure needs of Western Sydney. Again, if she is paying attention, she would know that Labor has also promised 2 billions for the western Sydney rail link between Parramatta and Epping. Oh wait a minute, maybe she was too busy complaining before the election that the rail link was vote buying and pork barrelling. If she is so concerned about Western Sydney, why didn’t she write to her local MP and ask for better representation? After all, in a hung parliament each member has equal leverage and importance. She insinuated corruption over Oakeshott’s office refurbishment, without offering any shred of evidence. She accused Oakeshott of laziness and skipping Friday parliament sittings, but does she know that it was the Liberals who threw a big tantrum over proposal for extra Friday sittings so that they can fly home early for weekends?
Ok, here.
Anne Twomey, ‘The Refusal or Deferral of Royal Assent’, Public Law, pp. 580-602, Autumn 2006
Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 07/58
Abstract:
If a Bill is duly passed by both Houses of Parliament and presented to the Queen or her vice-regal representative for royal Assent, can ministers advise that assent be deferred or refused?
discusses some interesting precedents at state level and in other countries, but I’ll just quoite this bit:
@68 – I think tigtog @ 66 is right – this isn’t the right thread for this discussion.
66: This kind of thing is clearly optional for the government and yes circumstances would have to be extreme. It would need to be a matter of policy absolutely central to the government, but on which the Indies were at least wavering, and you would expect that the government would want public sympathy on its side.
Sorry, will move.
Whats the other thread?
There’s certainly an arguable view about that the GG could reject the Exec Council’s advice on assent if a bill was duly passed by both houses.
Out here in the West we’ve had highly partisan coverage from the states only newspaper. The egregious Paul Murray is especially upset that Labour fell over the line and has written a couple of dreadful opinion pieces. I’m sure he railes against Labour every day but fortuntely my other half only buys the paper occasionaly.
More pleasingly, Australia’s richest man can take his bucket and spade home and get stuffed.
In some ways what’s not to like? The West Australian is pissed, Twiggy Forrest is pissed and Colin Barnett is ropeable.
We might even avoid the LNG processing plant 50km north of Broome now that the Greens hold some sway.
“I see this speculation as wasted energy that is actually buying into the framing of fragility and instability that Kim cautions against in the original post.”
I think its important to understand the relevant aspects if the Westminster system in relation to these issues though.
I can say with ‘cifnidence’: Not all of them with favour the “chaos ahoy!” view. Many will settle the horses. Many parliaments work this way all the time – not rarely, but always (eg PNG, Solomons)
PS happy to move to another thread, but cant see one
PPS NZ, Canada, UK, India all have “hung” palriaments too (I say this lest the PNG, Solomons examples play into rather than against the chaos theory!!)
BK if this is your argument
then you are obviously aware that a broad left is about as useful a term as the broad right.
You also avoid the obvious conditional that public engagement by the left via the right controlled media is problematic regardless of any narrative the left may have. This is akin to asserting that the media operates in an unbiased manner in the interests of the public which is clearly counter-factual. Labeling such observations as “bleating” misrepresents the facts.
The mainstream media has a long history of reporting only what is convenient or supportive of the ruling class. The only change I perceive currently is the same forces have not yet achieved a dominant position in the so-called new-media space.
I’m not sure it’s a case of the the media not getting it. I think the media gets it alright, but has a vested interest in keeping alive the story about illegitimacy.
See my new posting on the Failed Estate here
“See my new posting on the Failed Estate here”
OK.
I did.
Spot on.
Particularly the bit about the dollars and the spike in reading the OO.
When it comes to trying to figure out capitalism’s motivation you can’t go far wrong with ‘follow the money’.
Since Lefty E is still here I’ll make one further historical reference (but am also happy to move elsewhere if there’s a suggestion).
As mentioned in the paper I linked to above, in 1877 in New Zealand Premier Grey advised Governor Normanby to refuse assent to a Land Bill that had originated in Parliament by the previous Atkinson minority government and had been continued by his government but amended in a manner that he didn’t like before being passed by both houses. The Governor refused to withhold assent, and the British Colonial Office later gave support for this course of action. This is the clearest precedent for the notion that the Executive cannot properly advise the Crown on its role in the legislative process.
Like LE I note that I am interested here in clarifying the boundaries (and grey areas) of what is possible in our constitutional system and am not intending to suggest that any of these course of action are likely or reflect a government in crisis.
Congrats on your new blog, Mr Densmore. It looks great, and I’ll be following with interest.
I’d wondered myself how much of a kick our dwindling MSM would have got from this election campaign.
Nice detectice work Martin.
That’s the view I’m coming to: Quentin Bryce would be ill-advised to refuse assent to any bill passed by both houses, irrespective of the view from the Federal Exec Council (ie ALP),
Hence, the main tool in the government’s hands will be whether or not to declare a given piece of legislation an issue of confidence. This they can certainly do (though the bill would need to have a certain gravity in and of itself). as I say, I reckon the indies will run a mile from any such bill proposed by the opposition.
the only thing Im not clear on is bills that have a major impact on the budget and expenditure. These may be in a different category – possibly “GG in Council” issues, possibly not…. Ill have to read up more…
Certainly, I hear the Greens have already said they wont support bills in this category from the opposition.
“Sam says: ” I agree with you 100%. They did not hold either party to account. What they did was indulge in gossip, scare mongering and gotcha questions. The media did not do or at the best very little evaluation of policy. Most ignored both parties’ policies. Many in the media did not question false information given out by many people. I am not sure whether they did not know what they repeated was false or they choose not to question. Many of the reporters and journalists appear to be bias or poorly educated in politics, the standards of the ABC have sunk to the level of the MSM. Are they inept or are they seeking jobs in the MSM.
The Ruddbot did himself in but surely 30 years worth of the media looking for the slightest difference of opinion in political parties led to Rudd and before him Howard self destructing because no one could actually take them aside and chide them? The media helped turn them into 17th Century French Kings and then wonders why these governments implode.
So the irony is delicious. We now have a mess of independants, greens and labor after this climax of control.
Personally I like it because real politics is messy. We might finally get real debate about how to deal with climate change and a raft of other important issues.
@ phil263#15 says:
“A large proportion of intellectuals and academics seem happy to wallow in the cosy feeling of being the left, the moral best.”
Maaaate is there anything more vile than intellectuals and academics. No way they are the scum of the earth. Maaaate you are the true Aussie, the full bbq, making money, you beauty, go Brissie, best country in the world.
Query -
BK=Bob Katter?
Re that piece by Anita Quigley, last time I checked it had already had ~375 comments, with almost all condemning the subject and nature of the piece.
For the first time in my life I was moved to write a scathing complaint to their ‘customer service’ address about the nature and substance of many pieces, but specifically citing that piece.
I suggested that I was going to campaign in whatever little way I could against anyone reading or taking any advertising out in anything to do with them and generally support an online debate and campaign against the current tripe they offer and their declared ambition to provide a worthwile service to the Australian public.
The Anita Quigley article appears to have now been pulled from the front page currently.
If I did that on my own accord during a break at work, I’m certain that would reflect that a significant number of other people also would have been also moved, but I very much doubt any honest response from the SMH on what they recieved.
As I said there were already over 375 comments largely slamming the whole nature of the article when I last checked, let alone the specific bits of crap within it. At least they published the negative comments… others obviously don’t even bother with that.
I definitely couldn’t be bothered looking past their front page right now.
I hope they pulled it (from the front page only?) because they got burnt by informed and passionate responses from members of the public.
Um, Labor and the Greens got 49.7% of the Primary Vote. That’s a rather large constituency.
You can still access the Quigley article online from the front section just below the headlines.
I wonder if it was commissioned in the same way as the Bettina Arndt article a few weeks back to test the waters re how much nastiness can be directed at the independents this time.
I couldn’t get past the first paragraph myself.
perseveration is the clinical term for the media response
“We propose a new taxonomy for perseveration consisting of three categories which are distinctive at the levels of clinical features, process, and neuroanatomy. Stuck-in-set perseveration, the inappripriate maintenance of a current category or framework, involves an underlying process deficit in executive functioning and is related neuroanatomically to frontal lobe damage. Recurrent perseveration, the unintentional repetition of a previous response to a subsequent stimulus, involves an abnormal post-facilitation of memory traces and is related neuroanatomically to posterior left hemisphere damage. Continuous perseveration is the inappropriate prolongation or repetition of a behavior without interruption. It involves a deficit in motor output and is most common in patients with damage to the basal ganglia.”
from Varieties of perseveration
Jennifer Sandsona, and Martin L. Alberta,Neuropsychologia
Volume 22, Issue 6, 1984, Pages 715-732
I believe it is good to have more than one opinion in any group. How many families are there that everyone agrees? I dare to say, they would be rare. This does not mean the family is fraying at the edges. Different opinions make for strength. I hope we are not going to have headlines that the sky is falling in, every time there is a disagreement. A strong PM will be able to pull all views together to make strong policy this country needs. We are in for interesting time, if the media and the opposition can get their act together. It is much harder to be constructive than destructive. It takes more imagination and lateral thinking.
Well, maybe one of ‘em is finally getting it.