The National Disability Insurance Scheme, now renamed DisabilityCare is a step closer to becoming reality after the Queensland Premier Campbell Newman signed an agreement with Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Brisbane. The agreement confirms the funding commitment of both levels of government to the disability scheme.
The deal will see Queensland contribute $1.9 billion dollars over the next decade and see the disability reform starting to emerge in 2016, before it is fully operational in 2019-20. In signing up, Queensland now joins New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory as signatories to the funding arrangements. That leaves Western Australia and the Northern Territory as the only governments still to put ink on the page.
Understandably, excitement is growing about the future of disability care in Australia and that has accelerated with each individual agreement reached between the state and territory governments and the commonwealth. People with a disability around Australia, their carers and families, are slowly rediscovering a long lost hope, that their needs might be sufficiently met by government. Of course there is going to be palpable excitement. Of course there will be some celebration.
But we need to be very careful about how we view recent events. As advocates and supporters of this much-needed reform we must not allow ourselves to get too swept up in the emotion of important days like yesterday. There is no doubt that commitments like that agreed to by Julia Gillard and Campbell Newman are a big step forward, but a lot can still go wrong between now and 2018-19. In fact, there is a need to continue to be cautious until well after the scheme is fully operational across the country. Things can still go a bit pear-shaped.
The first, but most surmountable roadblock is getting the recalcitrant state of Western Australia and the Northern Territory to agree to a funding commitment for the rollout with the commonwealth.
Western Australia wants to sign up but wants more decentralised control of the scheme in the state and that is fair enough, because service delivery should be based on a largely decentralised bureaucracy. Negotiations between WA and the federal government will continue and a resolution of some sort appears inevitable. But caution is still the order of the day here and both the state and the commonwealth must continue negotiations with an open mind and a desire for compromise on the specific issues WA has with the policy.
The Northern Territory will also need to get the pen out and sign a deal with Canberra for the full rollout of DisabilityCare. The NT Government just recently penned a deal to have their own launch site in the Barkly Region. In light of this, realisation of the funding for the full commitment surely cannot be too far away. But again, all possible eventualities must be taken into account, including the negative ones. even though 6 of the 8 states and territories have agreed to terms with the Gillard Government.
Bilateral agreements aside, there is still the issue of where the commonwealth, even the states, will get the rest of the money for the disability insurance scheme, despite the commitments to fund the scheme. At present the agreements are simply words between two parties and in the interest of making sure DisabilityCare happens, the positive developments must be viewed with the utmost wariness until the full policy has actually commenced.
The Opposition too, who will almost certainly be in government come September, will need to be pursued just as relentlessly over its commitment to the NDIS. There is bipartisan support but it means nothing until we actually see the policy up and running.
Finally, we must continue to run a critical eye over the policy even when it is operational. There may be shortfalls in standards of delivery and even funding and we should not be particularly surprised if either of these possibilities arises. In fact, it is completely within reason to expect that both problems may exist, though hopefully the launch sites will allow enough time to remedy most, if not all potential issues.
With the agreements signed to date between commonwealth and state and territory governments, about 90% of Australians with severe and permanent disability and those that look after them can now have a little more hope.
We need to make sure over the coming years that the agreements are transformed from words on a page to deeds.
The politics of asylum seekers has been in the media a lot over the past 5 years, but has been an even more significant part of the political fabric during this term. Specifically, since August, the attention given to what should be a small issue, has accelerated beyond belief. It’s now as if both the major political parties are treating it as one of the biggest issues of the day. It’s simply not, especially in the way it is now being dealt with in a completely negative and dangerous manner by Liberal and Labor alike.
This week in particular has been the most toxic for the asylum seeker debate in recent history. Asylum seekers are now headed to Manus Island for offshore processing and languishing in tents so uncomfortable and so unlivable. To top it all off, asylum seekers that will be released into the community, as a result of the recent influx, will not be able to work.
To top it all off, the Opposition Leader today announced a backflip on asylum seeker policy and it’s not a positive one. Tony Abbott today announced that the Coalition would cut the recently increased humanitarian intake of 20,000 back down to 13,750.
The announcement today is a strange one, given that Mr Abbott and the Liberal Party, just months ago, put the offer of increasing the humanitarian intake on the negotiating table.
Despite the fact that both the Coalition and the ALP both do not understand people movements, let alone humanity, the announcement today shows not just a lack of understanding of refugee policy, but also a real disdain for some of the most vulnerable and desperate people.
The budget bottom-line was given today as the main reason for the policy change from the Coalition, saying that the measure would save the budget $1.4 billion over the forward estimates.
The Opposition, upon taking government would fast realise, having reduced the refugee intake so dramatically, that, at best, the boats will stop temporarily. At the same time, pressure would be building up in refugee locations in the region, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia, but also Sri Lanka.
Ultimately, the change in policy would lead to these vulnerable people taking the dangerous journey. There is also a strong chance that asylum seekers would ignore the supposed policy signal that the Liberal Party believes the change would send to boat people and people smugglers.
So of course, many of the costs associated with the problem, including sending Navy vessels to intercept asylum seeker vessels would actually remain and even increase, seriously putting in jeopardy the theoretical $1.4 billion budget saving.
Really then, it is clear that the decision today is not about saving money. It is again about being cruel while this time not even pretending to be kind. There is no favourable outcome from this policy for either asylum seekers or for the government except in terms of winning the xenophobic vote.
Tony Abbott also argued today that lifting the humanitarian intake to 20,000 would send the wrong signal to people smugglers. Well, he is right about it sending a signal. The change will make it harder for people smugglers to justify asking for thousands of dollars when thousands more people will be accepted into the country under the increased humanitarian intake. This is one thing that Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has been right about this week.
Again we have a case of a political leader focusing far too much attention toward domestic political expediency. In doing so, Mr Abbott and the modern-day Liberal Party display a distinct lack of understanding of the broader refugee debate. In fact, there is a water-tight case that both sides are wilfully ignorant of most of the issues that contribute to irregular people movement. Populism has seen to it that the unusually emotionally charged issue will not be dealt with in a rational manner.
There are only partial answers to the solution. The issue is too immense for Australia to deal with on her own. It is both regional and global.
Maintaining the humanitarian intake at 20,000 under an Abbott Government would have contributed to cutting down the number of maritime arrivals.
Australian politics is undoubtedly at a strange place. Since the 2010 election when Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her Labor Government scraped into the power with the support of the Greens and three Independent MP’s, all the usual hostilities have ramped up. Some new battles have even been established too. Much of this can be put down to one simple factor and that is the vicinity of power to the two political leaders. The Labor Party are just holding onto power, only just and the Liberal and National Party coalition still look very close to taking power at the 2013 election despite narrowing poll margins.
Of all the interesting and at times absurd events fomented by the fragile state of play, one of the most interesting has been the growing desire and outward protestations from the ALP , particularly over recent weeks and months, for the Coalition to cost their policies and do so now.
There are always calls from incumbent governments, it is true, for opposition parties to release and cost their policies as early as possible. Why would governments not want to do that? Were that to occur, to be common practice, it would certainly help the reigning political party or coalition to construct a strategy to rip apart the figures.
It has come to light this week that a relatively unusual event has occurred in Australian politics. The Gillard Government, it was revealed, asked Treasury to cost three existing Coalition policies. That analysis found that those three policies would come at a cost of $4.57 billion to businesses in the first year of a Coalition Government from 2013.
As was mentioned before, governments seeking costings in a rather energetic way has always been a bit of a thing. But now it appears to have developed into a fetish. Rarely before have the calls been so relentless and so vocal. Again, that mostly goes down to the thirst for either maintaining or gaining power, a hunger that both sides of politics have at the present time.
Really though, it is completely stupid to be asking, to be demanding that opposition parties release their policies so far out from the election. If the budget state is uncertain and your party have announced, or have a well-entrenched focus on achieving a particular budget outcome, then it would be folly to release your costed policies so far out from the election.
It is almost without doubt that the Coalition will either drop outright or alter, either in part or dramatically, their existing policies. You could almost be sure that the paid parental leave scheme will be different to the existing policy. The rhetoric around that policy has shifted and talk about it from the Coalition is no longer a priority, almost to the point of no words being uttered willingly about the proposed scheme.
Not only that, but the Opposition would surely be considering a number of cuts to existing government programs. That’s a hallmark of Liberal administrations.
An interesting thought does come to mind when thinking about the reasons for the Gillard Government seeking and then leaking costings of Liberal Party policies.
The possibility of a March election has been raised in the last week or so in response to a rush on the part of the Labor Party to get legislation through the parliament before it rises for the Christmas break.
Of course, running up to an election, as a government, you might want to look like you are getting things done, even though to some, too much government is a very bad thing. Australians though, on the whole, while they hate their government, whatever the political complexion, they tend to want, or rely on its intervention.
And so the recent suggestion of the Coalition has some weight. An early poll probably will not eventuate, but the thought must not be discounted.
Really, the most likely reason for the politicisation of Treasury is the thirst for more political blood. Surely the Gillard Government is itching for more momentum, to capitalise on recent movements.
It is the job of the Coalition to release their final suite of policies close enough to the election to put them in the context of the fiscal position but far enough out from the polls so that the public get a good look.
Now is too far out, despite what the Labor Party and sections of the media will have you believe.
The Prime Minister and her government have been enjoying some improvements to their poll fortunes in recent times. The Labor Party have been clawing back ground, at least as far as the Morgan, Nielsen and Newspoll results have shown. The Essential Poll on the other hand hovers at around the levels we have seen from that survey for some time now.
While it appears that the Newspoll is mischievous, bouncing like a kid on a pogo stick and now showing the ALP and the Coalition level-pegging, it appears that the electoral reality lies somewhere between Essential, Morgan and Nielsen where the real electoral prospects for the Labor Party seem to lie.
However, the improvement, while much less dramatic than Newspoll would have you believe, should be pause for some thought. In the Labor Party caucus room they would be pondering mostly positive thoughts. The belief that they are done for, while not dissipating at a rate of knots within the party room, would be receding slowly in the mind’s of some MP’s.
For the Liberal and National Party coalition thoughts would or at least should be turning to what they can do now, to how they can shift strategy to arrest the decline in their vote instead of having to play a game of catch-up.
But let’s for a moment, in the spirit of mischief, contemplate the options that might lie ahead for both the Labor Government and the Opposition. What would they be thinking? What scheming would be happening?
If the result really was level on a two-party preferred basis the ALP would be incredibly buoyant. They would feel that a win at the 2013 election was within reach. Labor Ministers and MP’s think that now in the wake of improving poll numbers, though that belief is still somewhat delusional. The election is far from being lost by the Liberal and National Party coalition.
The Liberal Party would be, if they had not already as a result of the declining numbers, be seriously questioning what might be going wrong. They would be looking at changing tack, changing strategy where their efforts on specific issues are losing traction.
The Coalition would also need to look at beginning to both refine and announce more aspects of their policy agenda. At the same time, they would need to continue to explain that the budget situation is tight. To not continue to further prosecute this case would result in one of the remaining areas of some strength for the Opposition falling away. To not continue talking about it would look like backing away from the validity of their arguments about the budget position.
In terms of leadership, there would be even further clear air for Julia Gillard. The Prime Minister would almost certainly be safe in the run-up to the 2013 election. To come back from the depths of despair, from record low votes, would cement Ms Gillard’s leadership position.
Kevin Rudd, already out of the leadership equation for the most part, would see his prospects for a return to Prime Minister, even in terms of the way his ego allows him to see things, almost completely vanish.
The third candidate idea too would practically cease being necessary.
Leadership of the Liberal Party would also be affected in some way by even poll results. Malcolm Turnbull would at least have distant sight of the leadership, especially if it was the case that the arguments against the carbon price continued to fall away.
Were poll results to actually reach the stage of being level it would be important that the Liberal Party had learned the lesson of Labor. That very public education in the perils of leadership transitions should have taught all political parties that a knee-jerk reaction to poor polling could have long-term negative consequences. There is a possibility though that this argument need only apply to a popular leader and Tony Abbott certainly cannot be characterised in that way.
In terms of going to an early election, ordinarily that would be on the table. However, with a minority government situation, supported by MP’s that want the parliament to go full-term, the chances of that outcome are almost non-existent.
Even if an early poll was a possibility, the decision to go to one would be fraught with danger. Electors could view a snap poll as a move of pure political expediency and therefore not take too kindly to the idea at all.
The polls are undoubtedly getting closer, but how close and how real the narrowing of margins is remains unclear. It is still on the naughty side to be talking of leadership change in the Opposition despite results being less assured. What is almost without doubt is the need for a shift in the focus of Coalition strategy.
Asylum seekers and refugees are never far from the headlines. Indeed from time to time stories involving them are among the most prominent in the news cycle. In recent times, boat arrivals of people seeking asylum have been more than weekly. The debate about what to do about the perilous journey, from Indonesia, Malaysia and Sri Lanka has been up there with the most politicised and most discussed issues of this 43rd parliament.
We have a new policy, a return to most aspects of the Pacific Solution that the Gillard Government continues to work towards implementing. This calls for offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island as happened under the Howard Government.
The Gillard Government has or is working toward implementing all of the recommendations of the expert panel on asylum seekers which was chaired by former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Houston. However, the Coalition want more.
The Opposition, through leader Tony Abbott and Shadow Minister for Immigration Scott Morrison have continued to call for the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas (TPV’s). The Coalition have also called for a return to that policy that Indonesia do not like and will never allow to happen- turning back asylum seeker boats toward Indonesia.
In the case of TPV’s, the Labor Party, as part of the recommendations from the Houston panel are, in effect, implementing an iteration of the Howard Government measure which will cut out family reunion.
But of course, and rightly so, the ALP Government is against turning back the boats This is the case, one, because the ADF sees it as no longer feasible or safe and two, because Indonesia would voice their anger and discontent at our contempt for our regional neighbour.
But it is the evolution of the asylum seeker policy of the Tony Abbott led Opposition, apart from the already announced measures, that will add to the poor treatment of people seeking asylum in Australia who arrive by boat.
Last Friday the Opposition Leader announced an effective minimum prison sentence for the “offence” of seeking asylum, seeking refuge from the fear of, or from actual persecution. The no advantage test, part too of the recommendations of the expert panel, has so far not had a time in offshore detention applied to it. But Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party think it should be no less than 5 years. In the legal fraternity this would be termed a mandatory minimum sentencing provision.
Of course, since mandatory detention was introduced in the early 1990′s, we have had what amounts to a term in prison. At first, a time limit of less than a year was implemented by the Keating Government, but that was removed in favour of an indefinite stay. In effect, the indefinite nature of asylum detention will continue under a Liberal Government with a 5 year minimum stay. The time served would almost certainly be longer.
In further worrying comments, the Opposition also appeared to question the efficacy of a regional solution, saying that too much time was spent on discussing the problem in the region and not enough on tough deterrence measures.
Also of concern in the comments made at the end of last week was what appeared to be utter contempt for the work of the UNHCR, the United Nations’ asylum seeker and refugee organisation. Australia has long appeared to feel this way towards the UN about asylum seekers and refugees. However, that would seemingly accelerate under an Abbott Government.
The Coalition is obviously moving towards an aim of being the most punitive in Australia’s history toward asylum seekers and refugees. At the moment that is just rhetoric, but there is a strong chance that the strong words will become punishing deeds in government, also a strong possibility.
Far from just showing a desire to put forward the strictest regime for asylum seekers, the Abbott-led Opposition appear hell-bent on isolating Australia further from the way the region and the international community should deal with the asylum seeker question.
All this punishment and pain for what gain? Seeking asylum is not a crime, thought it appears there is a wish that it was. Either way, asylum seekers are going to be locked away for at least 5 years under a Coalition Government.
In the early hours of the morning Australian time, voting for the two-year temporary seats on the Security Council. Five years in the making, we thought that the ballot would be tight, that it might take until the second round of voting, if at all, before we secured one of the two vacancies on offer. The odds were good, two out of three nominees would get up. Our competition was Luxembourg and Finland, with many believing the latter to be the overwhelming favourite to secure the first spot.
Ultimately, and surprisingly, Australia prevailed after the first round. One hundred and forty votes was more than enough to get us over the line in a contest requiring 129 votes, a two-thirds majority of the UN General Assembly.
The importance and efficacy of the position on the UN Security Council was questioned by some. What could a temporary spot on a flawed body, where a veto power exists, offer Australia? That was the main question asked. The absence of an explanation, other than having a seat at the table, surely added to the confusion and a lack of interest domestically over what such a role might bring.
In effect though, a short-term chair on the UN Security Council will actually mean little or nothing in the short-term and even less in the long-term.
However, while the benefits of having a spot on the Security Council are few and far between, now that we have won the election, it is important that the role is taken incredibly seriously despite the fact that there are many factors which make the role practically pointless.
Australia must, over the two-year term, make a lot of noise and throw itself at the role without fear or favour. To not now fully and actively engage with the actions and processes, whether flawed or not, would actually damage our relative standing in the world.
This government and the next must be willing to sufficiently fund the position for the entire period we occupy that temporary spot. By virtue of the fact that the Labor Party, through former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd actually launched the bid and continued with it, it is clear that the ALP have a commitment to fully funding the 24 months that we will have a vote on the Security Council.
It is also equally as clear that while the Liberal Party disagreed with the priority of seeking election to the UN body, and still appearing sceptical of the benefits of such a move, they will commit to taking the temporary tenure seriously if in government. The Shadow Foreign Minister Julie Bishop confirmed as much this morning.
But that commitment from the Coalition does not come without conditions and rightly so.
As Julie Bishop said, the Gillard Government must now, since it really failed to prior to the bid, set out a clear list of priorities for the two years we have on the Security Council.
Later this morning, after Julie Bishop’s comments on breakfast television, the Prime Minister outlined the key issues that will be pursued and not surprisingly Afghanistan was at the top of that list, closely followed by Syria. Action has already been pursued in relation to the former and ongoing commitments will undoubtedly be wholeheartedly supported by the Security Council and the UN as a whole entity.
In the case of the latter, Syria, concrete and decisive action has already been blocked by the obstructionist body, with Russia and China using the veto power . In that sense, Australia, needing to pursue action in relation to Syria, are and will be fighting a losing battle.
We must have a focus and also a recognition that we cannot save the world from itself, even individual countries, in such a short period of time.
In commenting on the win this morning, Julie Bishop made another very sound point. We must use our time on the Security Council to push for reform of the UN. That task is immense and we will inevitably fail. The threshold to force change in the processes and workings of the UN and the Security Council is as high as the bar is to actually get resolutions to pass. But this is too important to not voice an opinion on and a strong conversation at the very least has to be commenced.
The time for complaining about the bid is now over. The emphasis now has to be on giving our diplomats the resources and governmental support needed to give a difficult task their best shot. To do otherwise would mean showing contempt for the world.
The carbon tax, price on carbon, carbon price, fixed price carbon reduction scheme, call it what you want has by far been the most talked about public policy decision made, with the prodding of the Greens in order for minority government support. It has been the subject of political debate ever since Prime Minister Gillard uttered those words “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” just a short time out from the August 2010 election. The political to-and-fro over the carbon price has been ferocious with the Opposition making their disdain for such a policy, one they once supported, a central feature of the discourse of the last two years.
Over recent months there has been much discussion and debate over specific elements of the carbon price. We’ve seen the floor price dropped so that our framework, once transitioned to an Emissions Trading Scheme, could be linked to the European Union ETS in a common carbon market.
There had been much talk and pleading from different quarters, calling for the floor price to be dropped ahead of the floating price which begins in 2015. However, we were repeatedly assured by the Gillard Government that the floor price would remain while simultaneously it seems, the government were in discussion with the Greens, convincing them that abandoning the floor price would be okay.
Then there’s also the other not so small matter of the ALP deciding to abandon plans to buy back and secure the closure of the five dirtiest coal-fired power stations.
Both these decisions bring an amount of uncertainty to the usefulness of the scheme, with these facets of carbon pricing seen to make it easier and more certain that the carbon reduction benefits of such a policy would be realised. Now, that task of reducing emissions and the hopes of raking in sufficient revenue to pay for the compensation and other benefits of the Clean Energy Future appears to be on very shaky ground. If the aims are to be achieved, they will now be done the hard way.
These moves imply that the Labor Party were worried about the policy, particularly the public perceptions of the price on carbon, which has since improved markedly. They make a government already low in confidence and in the polls publicly appear uncertain of their prospects, scared of the electoral defeat which is still highly likely, some time after July next year.
This slippery and slidey approach to the carbon tax policy has also been mirrored in the use of language by the Coalition. The same messages and implications have broken through from the altered usage of words to describe the pollution reduction scheme, as were received through the dumping of the floor price and the decision to not close down the dirtiest power stations.
In fact, the language to negatively describe the carbon tax has changed more than the policy itself.
First we had the Opposition describing the carbon price as a “cobra strike”. This characterisation said to people that the impacts of the carbon price would be immediate and deadly for certain sectors and the economy and the population more broadly, the venom spreading fast across the economy and gradually breaking down bodily (economic) organs.
Next up was the description of the carbon mechanism as being a “python squeeze” on the economy. This screams slower suffocation of the organs of the economy, but still ultimately says that the patient will die but the death might well be slower. It also gives an air of avoidability, that suffocation can be more easily overcome than a deadly poison coursing through the veins of the economy.
The latest expression to be used by the Opposition Leader is that the price will be like an “octopus’ embrace”, its tentacles grabbing hold of various parts of the Australian economy, far and wide, as well as the people. Presumably though, it’s not a Blue-Ringed Octopus as they’re poisonous.
Curiously, if a Blue-Ringed Octopus wasn’t in mind with this example, it’s the only one that doesn’t imply that death is a near certainty.
Either way, both the language to deride the climate change policy of the Labor Government and the policy itself have undergone changes, with the shifts in both sides ostensibly implying the same thing, uncertainty over their relative positions.
Question Time for Monday began almost entirely as predicted, with the protests by some members of the Islamic community in Sydney being the first thing mentioned in Question Time after procedural matters. Both the Acting Prime Minister, Wayne Swan and the Acting Opposition Leader, Julie Bishop rose, on indulgence to condemn, in no uncertain terms, the actions of a violent minority of demonstrators who caused mayhem in Sydney on the weekend. But the actions on the weekend did not result in any questions as predicted prior to the commencement of parliament. There were simply the statements by the two leaders and then Questions Without Notice began for the day.
Question Time on Monday, as far as the Coalition was concerned, was pretty evenly split between two issues. There was the return of the usual prominence of the anti-carbon tax campaign, which has taken somewhat of a backseat and then there was a number of questions in relation to the visa of a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an extremist group, who spoke at a conference here.
The Gillard Government through the Dorothy Dix pursued, as has become their strategy for some time now, a much broader range of policy areas in an attempt to highlight positive differences in policy and perceived shortfalls of the Opposition in these policy areas. There were questions on the economy, taxation, duplication of the Pacific Highway, disability, healthcare and school education, all now regular features in questions from Labor backbenchers.
Question Time on Tuesday looks like it will play out in a similar fashion to Monday. It now seems likely that the Coalition will return to asking questions related to the carbon tax, around power bills quite likely, as it was today. Questions on the carbon price could also centre around the dropping of the floor price as well as the decision to not seek the closure of the 5 biggest coal-fired power stations and the impacts of the policy on businesses not compensated for price impacts.
Questions about the Hizb ut-Tahrir conference matter may continue tomorrow, but if this occurs it seems likely to not be as prominent as it was today.
Another issue which may compete for top billing, but was non-existent during Question Time today during Opposition questions would be matters related to spending priorities and the budget and what services would be cut, or taxes increased to pay for the significant new policy promises from the ALP.
Even more certain is the broad range of areas that the government will ask questions of itself on during Question Time. This will likely included comparative economic performance, healthcare and school education reform and could just as likely include infrastructure. taxation, the environment and families and community services questions.
Nobody was asked to leave the chamber under Standing Order 94a, but that could all change tomorrow as our parliamentarians begin getting back into the parliamentary groove.
Congratulations Australia, we’ve almost made it through another week of parliament, and more importantly, Question Time. It’s not been the most rancorous, loud or boisterous of weeks, but nonetheless, it hasn’t exactly been subdued. We could hope that this is down to the words of caution from Malcolm Turnbull about how poor the parliamentary and broader political debate has been, but it’s more than likely that it’s just been a slightly nicer week of behaviour from our federal parliamentarians.
It’s also been a bit of a strange week in the way of the questions asked by the Opposition. For the most part, the Coalition, led by Tony Abbott has not prosecuted the case against the carbon tax. Most of the focus this week from the Liberal and National Party Coalition has been on the state of the budget. They’ve asked how, with lower government revenues and more high cost promises in recent weeks in particular, that it will be possible for the government to return to surplus in time.
The price on carbon though has repeatedly made appearances throughout the week so far. But the comparative absence of questions on the matter from the Coalition is very surprising, given that it’s been the central plank of Opposition attacks since the government got back in power under minority government.
There has also been a question or two from the Opposition over the week about asylum seekers. This has been in relation to the re-opening of the Nauru and Manus Island immigration facilities recommended by the Houston panel just a matter of weeks ago. They’ve also been centred around pushing the government to adopt other elements of the Howard-era ‘Pacific Solution’ which included Temporary Protection Visas, colloquially known as TPV’s and turning back the asylum seeker vessels when safe to do so.
The government again this week has been all about a broader explanation of government policies and promises. They’ve spent this week talking about education, health, infrastructure, jobs, skills, wages and vulnerable groups of people in the community.
It’s more than likely that the Opposition will continue to pursue the government over the budget and their spending priorities and whether or not new or increased taxes will be instituted to pay for the shortfalls in revenue and existing funds after these promises are funded.
They will likely again have a question or two, perhaps a number of questions, devoted to the carbon tax which no longer has a floor price and now won’t rely on the closure of the five biggest coal-fired power stations in order to reduce emissions.
Just as likely, but perhaps less prominent as has been the case this week, is the possibility of a question or two on asylum seekers and the now almost ready detention centres on Nauru and also the one on Manus Island.
The strategy of the Labor Party, through their use of the Dorothy Dixer has been just as predictable, though the mix of questions slightly uncertain. This however, changed yesterday. With the Queensland budget calling for big staff cuts and NSW also looking to take a slice out of education funding, the government used answers to warn that a Coalition Government at the federal level would do the same. These questions though will likely still cover the areas of education reform, health, infrastructure, communities, families, employment, wages and skills.
This in some way, shape and form has been the way it has been all week and will likely continue to be until the next big issue comes along to steal some political thunder.
Another day of federal parliament and Question Time has passed us by. Tuesday was a bit of a noisy one, louder than Monday anyway. Tuesday’s session of Questions Without Notice saw the Member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs booted from the lower house under standing order 94a for abusing a point of order he raised in relation to an answer from the Acting Prime Minister, Wayne Swan. Despite that, a wide array of issues were canvassed from across the parliament, though the variety of policy areas was more diverse on the government side through the use of the Dorothy Dixer.
The Opposition spent the bulk of Questi0ns Without Notice pursuing the government over their spending priorities, in particular the so-called “big new spending” announced by the government this financial year. The questions pointed out the spending and revenue problems that the Gillard Government faces as they prepare to, most likely in vain, return to surplus next year. Most of the questions asked whether or not taxes would be raised in order to aid the government in returning to surplus.
Though there were a majority of questions focused on the budget, the price on carbon did make a much larger return to the Question Time arena on Tuesday, with questions about hospitals and the carbon tax and closing coal-fired power stations which will at this stage no longer occur as the government seeks to cut carbon emissions.
Oh, and there was the obligatory asylum seeker question from the Coalition at the start of Question Time.
The government again was much less focused on one or two issues during Question Time and continued using the Dorothy Dixer to ask a number of different questions on different policy areas. There were questions on the economy, supporting those in need, the so-called ‘super trawler’, schools investment, health, jobs, skills, wages and housing.
Because of the predictable nature of this, the 43rd parliament, it is almost certain that the strategy for Questions Without Notice for both sides of the political divide will remain the same, or at least largely identical.
On Wednesday, again the Coalition will most likely focus questions to the government around the budget. They will again ask how the government will return to surplus with new and continued spending commitments and whether or not this will require tax increases or whether or not it just won’t happen.
A second major focus may be the price on carbon again which was the focus of the second part of Question Time on Tuesday afternoon. This will likely focus around coal-fired power and businesses and organisations that are impacted by the carbon price but will not receive compensation from the government.
Of course, it being the Coalition, there is always the distinct possibility that there will be at least a question or two on asylum seekers and refugees as the government prepares to send the first boat arrivals to Nauru.
The ALP for their part will again try to prosecute their case for having acted in a wide selection of policy areas. This will likely include again, the comparative strength of the economy, schools investment, health, vulnerable people, jobs, wages, skills, housing and infrastructure.
The only unknown is how bad the behaviour will be, but we can all live in hope that it might just be a little more constrained and dignified than we have become accustomed to when it comes to politics.