Anyway, Abbott’s latest effort, at the Menzies Research Centre yesterday, had some very similar blah to his last one – you know the drill by now: “party of ideas”, “constructive opposition” and so on, framing lots of statements like “we will oppose” this or that. After all, Abbott says, you don’t win government by agreeing on stuff… Oh really? John Howard circa 1995 and 1996 might disagree.

Somehow, he still hopes that government will fall into his lap. I’m not sure, then, why he’s gone to so much effort to annoy the Independents over the fracturing parliamentary reform agreement. Given that it was a signed document, the whole notion of “only believe what I put in writing” seems to be a thing of the past.

In pursuing a constructive course (supposedly), Abbott’s first cab off the rank isn’t anything as blatantly political as some of the thought bubbles (perhaps attributable to Christopher Pyne) about putting up motions calling on the government to give billions of dollars to hospitals in Denison, Lyne and New England, but some legislation. Abbott will show he is not just about opposition by putting forward a bill to overturn the Queensland government’s Wild Rivers legislation. Think about that for a moment (being constructive by stopping, overturning).

This, I presume, is mainly designed to ensure that the government is defeated on the floor of the House. And also so the Coalition can make a lot of noise about greenies, Labor states and its Noel Pearson endorsed primacy on Indigenous issues.

Of course, the Gillard government has already acknowledged that it may be defeated on the floor of the House. And that won’t matter unless it’s a confidence vote or a supply bill.

The other thing Abbott may not have factored in is that the politics of opposition will be different this term. He won’t just have to convince The Australian‘s leader writers and opinionistas, but actually make a case on the merits to the Independents. Nick Xenophon has already said he’ll be willing to listen to both the Queensland government and those Indigenous people who oppose Pearson’s stance (and they’re out today saying they’ll be taking that case to Canberra).

It’s a very complex policy issue, and if the various positions are actually subject to deliberation and public debate, “defeating the government” may not be either as easy as the Coalition might presume nor mean what they think it will mean.