Blog Archives
Question Time, Suspension of Standing Orders, Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off
A new Speaker is in the chair and by Thursday will have completed three weeks in the big chair of the House of Representatives this coming Thursday. This Speaker, Peter Slipper has brought in some small, but welcome changes, shorter questions and shorter answers, the scope for more supplementary questions and a shorter Question Time for those whose health is at risk from too much exposure to the stressful event which takes up just over an hour of the political day. However, Ministers still struggle to be “directly relevant” to any question, even Dorothy Dixer’s involve a major focus on the Opposition. The motion to suspend Standing Orders to censure has also become a bit of a joke, being used too often and knowingly to no avail.
The parliamentary reforms of the Slipper Speakership add to those agreed to between the Gillard Government, the Opposition and the rural Independent MPs. They were an improvement on business as usual, seeing questions limited to 45 seconds and answers to 4 minutes, rather than being unlimited as they were prior to this minority government.
Questions under the new Speaker are limited to 30 seconds, a fifteen second drop on the previous agreement and answers to 3 minutes, a further one minute drop on the original reforms, but still the bullshit that turns people off continues.
The new Speaker has done a fair job of attempting to bring Ministers into line, to try and at least get them in the same postcode of “direct relevance” to the question, short of jumping out of the chair and strangling offenders. Many Ministers continue to be in defiance of these rules and today the Prime Minister was sat down for being irrelevant to the question asked, a very positive development indeed.
Answers also continue to be full of vitriolic rubbish attacking Coalition policy more than outlining why their policy is the preferred option, maybe because they aren’t so confident of directly defending their own.
Wayne Swan is one of the main offenders, reprimanded for making the same old, unoriginal and flat “jokes” about the Coalition economic team being the “three stooges”. Perhaps if he quit with the nonsense, people would not have been advocating today for his removal from the Treasury portfolio because of an inability to sell the economic message of the government.
The sad but true fact is that people would probably have the time of day for Question Time if the stupidity was dispensed with and the government focused on selling their policies, sans hyperbole and without so much name-calling and stuff that primary school kids would be envious of. Along with that goes the shouting across the chamber during answers of contention , though that has been a fixture for as long as the parliament has existed and would always occur to some extent.
But that is not all that is grating and making Question Time become redundant and in the interest of fairness, the suspension of standing orders to debate why a censure motion is essential, is becoming a too regular occurrence.
It is not becoming ridiculous because the Abbott led Opposition are using it to try and highlight the failures of this government and the discord and disunity that has been rife since mid 2010.
The censure motion is becoming ridiculous because of the amount of times it is being used to pursue the ALP Government, who are admittedly failing badly at being relevant at most times and making Question Time an almost redundant farce.
There is one real reason why it is a pointless exercise and that is because two of the rural Independents, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are so wedded to this Labor Government, along with the Greens MP Adam Bandt, that it would probably take a Government MP committing murder before they were willing to consider supporting the need for a censure motion. Unlikely…
S0 can we please dispense with all the rubbish in Canberra, our health has suffered enough as mere observers of the Canberra zoo. I would like to be able to increase my “Bio-Age” again. My government must be held to account in the strictest of ways, with the Speaker continuing to be strong and building on that. Ministers and their counterparts must also take it upon themselves to dispense with some of the theatrics, thinking less about getting on the news for 15 seconds and more about trying to develop and sell good policy and while I understand the merits of suspension motions, let’s cool it on this.
The Sunday Sandwich (That’s a Wrap)
Another week in Australian politics and more sensational events which have overshadowed inter-party politics and policy for another seven day period. But this week has been different. A leadership challenge is now afoot
The week began with Kevin Rudd in Mexico G20 Foreign Minister talks followed by the now famous trip to the United States of America.
Little was said by Kevin Rudd about the G20 talks and the same went for his trip to the United States, though meetings he was there for were of a high-level nature, including meeting with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
But then came that bombshell that changed the complexion of the rest of the week. Kevin Rudd called a late night press conference at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC with reporters over there covering the trip scrambling out of bed, rushing to get to what was sure to be a press conference of major significance, given the time and location. Kevin Rudd was resigning his post as Foreign Minister as the position had become untenable in recent weeks with colleagues openly and privately telling him to throw out his leadership ambitions and Rudd saying he did not have the support of his ministerial colleagues.
From the speech onward you knew that was far from the end of this epic story of a party in trouble not least because of leadership tensions in existence within the party- which usually do no de-stabilise this much. Kevin Rudd was to return to Australia on Friday where he would make a definitive statement on his future, which everyone knew, was almost certainly going to be a tilt for the leadership.
The Prime Minister then came out and announced that on Monday at 10am AEDT there would be a leadership spill and that she would be contesting that ballot. Senior Ministers then began filing out one by one in support of the Prime Minister even before Kevin Rudd confirmed he would contest the leadership vote.
That confirmation from Kevin Rudd came from the second press conference he held on Friday, after his return from overseas, where he outlined his vision for the future and canvassed some of the things he regretted from his past time in the Prime Ministership.
Prior to the official announcement by Kevin Rudd of his part in the ballot, ministers like Kim Carr and Robert McClelland gave their support to the former leader in the event he ran.
On another front, Chris Bowen, the Immigration Minister under Prime Minister Julia and Assistant Treasurer under Prime Minister Rudd indicated that he would encourage the former Prime Minister to run, all but indicating formally that he would support Mr Rudd in the ballot.
But it was Saturday that saw the Rudd camp attract its most high-profile Cabinet supporter, in one Anthony Albanese, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Leader of the House, a day which also saw Senator Mark Bishop, a Gillard backer in the last ballot, switching sides.
The battle looks set to be a win for Julia Gillard to continue her Prime Ministership, looking like polling about 2/3 of the caucus vote on Monday. Though how this could really be seen as a win for Gillard, 30 odd is still a significant number that just contributes to the already toxic image of the Labor Party and damage done to Labor that will just be made even worse when it comes to light during the parliamentary week ahead.
In other news the Gonski Report into education funding was released this week but obviously completely overshadowed by the leadership tensions especially because the Gillard Government has not yet even committed to anything recommended in the report.
The only thing the government has said is that independent schools will not lose a dollar of funding and this would certainly add to the budget woes of the government were it to take immediate action which they need to do at least in the area of disability and indigenous loading.
The week has been dramatic, certainly the most dramatic since the leadership coup in 2010 in my relatively short time observing and commenting on politics from Canberra. Even after tomorrow the story will be far from over with Rudd seemingly likely to continue his campaign to become Prime Minister. I can smell the Labor Party rot from here.
Question Time Ahead of Time
The last day of Question Time for the week in the House of Representatives is upon us and promises no less than has been delivered over the last two sitting weeks in Canberra. Both sides have firmly dug themselves in to their respective attack and defense positions and have not let up except to vary their posturing within those areas. This does not look set to change at least for the day with positions so set in stone that if budged their positions may shatter into countless shards.
The Coalition has been heavy in its attack on three fronts, two of which fit into the broader narrative of economic management which both sides of politics seem intent to capture ground in this area, a traditional strength of the Liberal and National Party Coalition. Over the last two weeks the interrogation of economic matters has centered around the carbon tax, with the mining tax taking somewhat of a backseat for the moment. There is no doubt this line of questioning will continue today, being a central tenet of a future Abbott-led Coalition Government.
The Opposition has also been brutal in its pursuit of Craig Thomson and the Fair Work Australia (FWA) investigation that has been looking int0 allegations involving Thomson and the Health Services Union. In the recent sitting days questions on the matter have tended to focus on the length of the investigation rather than the MP who is a subject of the investigation. Estimates yesterday showed that the case may be drawing to an end but there is little doubt that the Coalition will want to continue its pursuit of the matter despite the angry and frustrated words of the Prime Minister in Question Time yesterday in relation to the saga.
There is also another possible line of enquiry in Question Time which the Coalition may take and that is to ask questions of the Government in relation to the passage of the Private Health Insurance Rebate means testing which passed the House of Representatives yesterday.
The Government will undoubtedly continue to try to paint themselves as the better economic managers, not for the budget position, but for the funds that they hope to raise through their new taxes to provide for Australians in different areas. As I have also repeatedly said, the Gillard Government will also focus on the economic position relative to other nations.
The Government will also surely direct some Dorothy Dixer’s toward the means testing of the Private Health Insurance Rebate which, as already noted has passed the House of Representatives.
The Speaker looks set to continue using Standing Order 94a for rowdy Opposition MPs without let-up, though we have seen Government MPs being booted from the House for one hour, particularly in recent days.
The real interest as far as the Speaker goes will be how much of a leash Mr Slipper will give the Treasurer who has tested the patience of Coalition MPs and supporters with repeated infractions this week particularly.
You know the drill, 2pm today on the TV and on the radio or in the wee hours of the morning for a replay on your TV. Enjoy the show!
Warming to the Slipper Speakership, Well Aspects of it…
Last year as I was out buying groceries I learnt of an amazing event unfolding in Canberra which seemed to take even the most seasoned political commentators by surprise. This was the resignation of much loved Speaker Harry Jenkins and the subsequent installation of Peter Slipper as Speaker. This event left the Coalition by surprise and many as it did many of their supporters and the general public. It also caused widespread anger from those in the same quarters. Anger at the decision and defection aside, no matter what party it is aimed at, the debate has now moved on to the actions of the new Speaker at the end of the first parliamentary sitting week of 2012.
I must say that I held very low hopes for a fair and balanced Question Time after the events of the last parliamentary sitting day in 2011. Notwithstanding the fact that the events would have caused the loud anger that ensued, it appeared that Coalition MPs would become the subject of a brutal political vendetta.
This seems to have changed this year and my expectations of the Slipper Speakership have subsequently become favourable to the Speakership. I say this as there have only been two ejections of Coalition MPs under the much loved Standing Order 94a during the 3 days of Question Time this week.
The new Speaker has also embarked upon instituting some parliamentary reforms of Question Time which I view with a reasonable level of favourability.
To further shorten the length of both questions and answers, further than those under the agreement beginning the “new paradigm” is a very positive development. This has seen the length of time allowed for answering a question in Question Time down to 30 seconds, 15 seconds shorter than under the previous agreement reached between the Government, Opposition and the rural Independents. Further, answers have been reduced by one whole minute, down to 3 minutes.
Now, those who know me and what I stand for in relation to this area will know that I do not find this ideal, it is true, I think it could be reduced even further to cut down some of the rubbish which can all too often invade questions and answers. However, it must be said this is a positive development and not at all one I expected.
A further change under Peter Slipper as Speaker is the removal of a warning before the booting of an MP being too loud or un-parliamentary. This is neither here nor there. There are some circumstances where I believe more leeway should be granted, such as if a member is plainly being loud on one or a small number of occasions. There are plenty of times under any Speaker where some being loud are caught and others not so it is a bit unfair to them. On the other hand for more serious infractions such as language deemed inappropriate or for defying the Speaker then an automatic ejection is an entirely sensible outcome.
On renaming of the Main Committee, to the Federation Chamber, I see it as just a name change to part of our parliamentary democracy. It is if anything an homage to federation we are and in that way somewhat of a tribute to the founding fathers of our nation Australia.
There is no doubt the new Speaker is growing on me, in the performance of his new role anyway…
Question Time Ahead of Time
The second Question Time of the political year is only hours away and if the short affair yesterday is any indication then it will certainly be another rowdy affair. Yesterday questions were dominated by the topic of the ec0nomy, albeit from different angles from either side of politics. Nevertheless the Craig Thomson affair was broached as was a dental scheme in Medicare by the Greens MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt.
The Coalition does look set to continue to focus on the economy in their questioning of the Gillard Government in relation to spending and therefore the NBN as well as taxation, read the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) and the carbon tax. The investigation of Craig Thomson by Fair Work Australia (FWA) should also be featured, likely more than yesterday. Whether or not the questions are about the Gillard Government having faith in the MP or the body conducting the investigation is another story, though for my mind it is likely both would be canvassed, even in the same individual question.
The Government as they did yesterday will also likely focus on the economy as it has been foreshadowed as the issue of focus in recent weeks, the Government conceiving it as a comparative strength. Questions will likely focus on what benefits people will get from the spending and taxation the government has undertaken or has legislated to undertake. The ALP Government through its Prime Minister and Treasurer will also likely focus on the Australian economy with other economies, particularly European ones.
One unpredictable factor is the issues that will be canvassed by whichever Independent MP/s will be given the opportunity to answer a question, though you can be sure that if it is one of the rural and regional MPs, the questions will either be on further regional assistance or a “half-dixer” on issues the Gillard Government agreed to support them on in return for helping deliver the ALP minority government.
Another factor in the boisterous affair that is Question Time, as far as the House of Representatives is concerned will be robed Speaker Peter Slipper who has brought new rules to bear in the conduct of Question Time. From yesterday on, the Speaker indicated that there will be no warning of MPs who are too disorderly, the dreaded 94a now at risk of being used on a more regular basis.
The Speaker also flagged further changes to Question Time in relation to the time length of both questions and answers. This is a very positive development and with a reduction in time out goes some of the mindless rubbish and confected anger that all too often invades Question Time.
The scene is set, the participants in Canberra are ready for the main event that is Question Time in just under 4 hours from time of writing. Will my predictions play out, unlike my Coalition predictions yesterday? Will I be blindsided again, predicting the wrong parliamentary tactics? Be watching or listening at 2pm AEDT to find out.
The Disconnect Between Talk and Action in Australian Politics
The tax forum being held in Canberra which ends today raises the important question: When does talk need to stop and action commence? Now, there are various possible answers to that, with varying merits of their own. There is clearly too often in politics, in recent years especially, an emphasis on holding a review or multiple reviews in a particular policy area before taking action. The question we must ask then is: Is this the way?
First, to be absolutely clear this is not about whether or not there is a mandate, these arguments apply for when in government and assume a mandate exists.
The shortest and most idealistic answer to the question of when is enough talk undertaken? is that politicians, in a perfect world should hold ideological convictions. Those convictions, in turn should be called upon in relation to a policy issue, ideally predicted prior to it occurring, or at the least in the early stages of the situation. Politics is after all a contest of ideas and all parties represent an ideology or set of ideologies they hold to be superior, so then they should trust action in line with those applicable ideologies to result in the best outcome.
Perhaps an equally idealistic and altogether very important way of dealing with politics and the political/public policy process is that of ‘professionally seasoned’ politicians or ‘real-world reviewers’. By this I mean there existing politicians in Ministerial and Parliamentary Secretary roles, who possess some form of wide experience in their particular role in the broader workforce prior to entering politics. I call this approach idealistic, yet important because it would be very hard to bring about getting experts in every field to want to enter into politics, yet to do so would quite likely mean better and faster responses to policy challenges.
The next best outcome is that talk leading to action is as the result of a single report, review, summit, forum, talk-fest, inquiry which has brought together experts or the expert opinion of one. This is a somewhat frequent occurrence in the political process at the local, state and federal level. It bypasses the need for a parliament full of experts, however this option ban be expensive as the cost of a review is likely in the multi-millions. Furthermore, time lost discussing the issue can add an uncertain financial cost to eventual action. Often too reports on an emerging problem may come into the political sphere and either be not acted on or not acted on in full.
The final and most unhelpful, stifling and expensive option is to conduct multiple examinations of an issue before acting on it. This is what we are seeing at the moment from Canberra with the Tax Forum that ends today. We have already had the Henry Review at a cost to taxpayers, just like we had countless reviews before action was taken into indigenous disadvantage. The result will be and is being found to be higher than it otherwise could have been. Not only that, multiple reviews show lack of ideological conviction, that you do not know how to act or react to a problem and most importantly, implies you do not trust expert opinion.
So the time for talk is ideally over almost before it began. It is ideal to have ‘expert politicians’ in a broad range of policy areas, including in specific niches. It must also be learnt from now on, that whilst one review or whatever you would like to call it may be a political necessity, they must be used and acted upon fully. Ideology, if it is to still be seen to be different between the parties must prevail upon politicians to act immediately according to party beliefs. Anything else other than immediate or almost immediate activity should be held up as being more costly and thoughtfully derided as such.
aussiepollies 