Blog Archives
Question Time Ahead of Time
Today marks the last sitting day of the parliamentary week and the last day of parliament before the budget is announced in Canberra on Tuesday May 8 by Treasurer Wayne Swan. Consequently economics will continue to be the focus of the day in Question Time and the energy of our politicians will be at an almost anxious high as they try to get attention on their programs for Australia and the Opposition throw everything at the Gillard Government in trying to hold them to account.
The focus of the Opposition will continue to be on the two or three key areas that the Coalition have pursued for some time now in their Question Time and broader political strategy. The two main focal points of the Abbott-led Opposition questions today will continue to be both the carbon tax and the mining tax which have had varying degrees of focus since both have been announced. They have both now been passed by the government and the Coalition will continue to pursue them as they come into force and for any negative impacts they have.
The Coalition also may ask some questions of the ALP Government about Fair Work Australia and its investigation into Craig Thomson, a long-running affair which has provided much political and parliamentary material for the Liberal and National Party Coalition.
The Opposition is likely to also ask questions of the government about the deal announced today to keep Holden producing cars in Australia for the next 10 years at least.
The government, as has been its strategy all parliamentary year will be to focus on their big programs, at the moment the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) and how the revenue from it is projected to benefit the community, including low income individuals and small and big business. Some Dorothy Dixer’s, as has been the case this week may be devoted to other topical or even less discussed policies, like the Murray-Darling Basin Plan which received questions in the House of Representatives yesterday.
The Gillard Government will certainly use some Dorothy Dixer’s to ask ministers associated with the car industry about the deal with Holden to keep car production in Australia for at least 10 years and to highlight the benefits of this for the local and national economy.
The usage of the motion to suspend Standing Orders is another eventuality that cannot be discounted, particularly as we head toward a grand total of 50 of them for this the 43rd parliament of Australia. The motion however is less likely to occur as the topics discussed have been the focus of the motion in the past.What may work in favour of a suspension of Standing Orders is another topical issue presenting itself before Question Time today, likely not the Holden issue, or the fact that it is the last session of Question Time until the parliamentary week beginning the 8th of May.
Look for fireworks and restless pollies slanging remarks across the chamber today in the Lower and Upper House. Expect to see a high number of ejections from both sides and even Ministers sat down by the Speaker for not being “directly relevant” to questions asked by the Coalition and even their own side as they attempt to use Dixer’s for having a go at Coalition policy rather than explaining their own. Get your last fix for over a month from 2pm AEDT today
Question Time Ahead of Time
There are only two more days left in the last parliamentary sitting period before the budget is handed down by Treasurer Wayne Swan on behalf of the Gillard Government in May. As a result, the ALP Government will be competing hard with the Coalition for the remaining two days in Canberra this week to try to create momentum going into what will have to be a very difficult fiscal tightening if the government are to reach the surplus they have promised. All this and more points to a big two days of Question Time before parliament rises late tomorrow.
The Coalition look set to continue pursuing the government over questions about the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) and to significantly focus on the already passed carbon tax which comes into force in just a matter of months. Both the carbon tax and the MRRT look like they will focus of a High Court challenge and this will play out in the coming months.
The Opposition may also decide in small part, to continue to pursue matters related to Craig Thomson and the Fair Work Australia investigation into alleged improprieties at the Health Services Union which have already seen a recommendation that 3 former officials in Victoria face Federal Court action.
The government look set to continue to focus on the economy specifically through the revenue raised by the MRRT and how it will fund programs and tax cuts for business.
There looks set to be less and less “Opposition bashing” during the answers to Dorothy Dixer’s in particular but also in responses to questions from the Coalition thanks to very strict policing of the “direct relevance” Standing Order which saw the Treasurer kicked out of the parliament under 94a for one hour yesterday and others effectively warned to become relevant.
The noise, with two days in parliament to go will surely be at a high, with temper tantrums flaring up from time to time throughout the hour and ten minute session of Question Time. A number of MPs will surely be removed for an hour under Standing Order 94a. Who will they be and just how entertaining or frustrating will Question Time be? Find out at 2pm AEDT.
Question Time Ahead of Time
It’s Tuesday in the last parliamentary sitting week before a short recess leading into our politicians meeting in Canberra to hear what the May budget will bring. Debate is set to continue to be vigorous through the rest of the week with the of the conflict determined for some time now and redrawn from time to time when topical daily or weekly issues have been uncovered.
There are three main subjects on which Coalition questions during Question Time today could be based, the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT), Craig Thomson or the carbon tax. The former, the MRRT was passed last night by the Senate and so is most likely to dominate Coalition questions in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Craig Thomson affair was in the news again yesterday because the Coalition demanded a more explanatory medical certificate than was provided in order to grant him a pair for the rest of the week. A specialist has provided advice on the health of Craig Thomson and the Coalition have since granted him a pair. Therefore it is less likely that the Craig Thomson story will play a role in Question Time, except perhaps a question or two on the investigation itself.
Like it has been for some time, since the broken promise and before and after it was debated and passed by the parliament, the carbon tax could also play part in the Coalition strategy.
There is one last possibility for questions and that is any issue that arises in the media today that is very topical which the Coalition may choose to run with for the day in Question Time. It would appear that the mining tax is the most topical issue of the day and that there are no other topical issues that the Coalition will use for its questions in the parliament from 2pm today.
The Gillard Government will focus the use of the Dorothy Dixer on the spending involved with its tax on miners and what this will mean for different constituent groups. The government will certainly too use part of each answer on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax to attack the Coalition for opposing the tax cuts which are funded by the MRRT. Questions on the broader economy are also likely if government questions are not completely dominated by MRRT statements.
One a broader front, the usage again of the motion to suspend Standing Orders cannot be discounted as we head toward its utilisation 50 times some time surely in the near future though it seems less likely to be invoked today due to the fact that all the likely issues to be interrogated today have extensively been used for such motions before.
So it should be a fairly predictable Question Time from 2pm AEDT, though the exact mix of questions is still open for debate and determination at this stage. It cannot be discounted that there will arise, between now and the commencement of Question Time a topical issue that will supersede questions on issues that have already been canvassed for a prolonged period of time.
To watch all the action and theatre, if you’re a politics wonk or just a sucker for punishment, tune in to Question Time from 2pm AEDT on your television or your radio.
The Sunday Sandwich (That’s a Wrap)
The hostilities in the battle that is Australian politics have ceased for the week as our politicians rest and recuperate for the last sitting week until the May budget begins next week. It was a frantic week in Australian politics with plenty of vigorous and often over the top debate. Parliament this week welcomed (well mostly), Senator Bob Carr, the new Gillard Government Minister for Foreign Affairs, a former NSW Premier and more recently private citizen who brought some public commentary baggage to the role and created controversy with comments this week on Papua New Guinea. Our politicians, particularly Coalition, ALP and the Greens were engaged in fierce debate over tax cuts to big and small business related to the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) before the Senate. There was also debate over the appointment of a new Future Fund chairperson and for a time, debate on customs and border protection.
Sadly, Saturday saw the passing of Margaret Whitlam, wife of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam at the age of 92 not long after a fall which saw her hospitalised. Gough and Margaret Whitlam shared an enduring partnership, a testament to their undying love for each other which lasted almost 70 years.
Parliament House in Canberra saw the arrival of a person who Labor seem to be resting an amount of their hopes on, Senator and new Foreign Minister, Bob Carr. The Senator sat on the back-bench for his first day of parliament after being officially welcomed as a member of the Senate on the first sitting day of the week. Later that day Senator Carr was sworn in by the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce as a minister and member of the Executive Council.
It didn’t take long for the newly sworn minister to create controversy with comments threatening to impose sanctions on the PNG Government if their political woes are not resolved. This quickly drew rebuke from the government in Papua New Guinea and just as swiftly led to a political backdown of sorts with the Senator saying his comments were taken out of context.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax, or MRRT for short again took a central role in the political debate of the nation, a part that it has played since the Gillard Government re-negotiated and re-framed. The MRRT, before the Senate has caused the Greens and the Coalition, according to the Labor Party at least agree that higher taxes for big business are the go, even though the Coalition have clearly stated that they oppose the tax and therefore the tax cuts associated with the package. The tax will go to a Senate vote next week.
The Future Fund has received a big focus this week through the Gillard Government selection for the role, businessman and recent education review chief David Gonski getting the gong. A government nomination for a public board is usually a political appointment so there is nothing new from this angle on the appointment of Mr Gonski.
What is different though about this is the utterly shambolic process entered into by the government and the fact that the ALP Government did not listen to the recommendation of the board. David Gonski was appointed to search for a replacement to the outgoing head of the Future Fund and to consult with other members of the board for their thoughts. The board wanted current member, Peter Costello, the former Treasurer and creator of the fund and the government then went ahead this week and announced that the man who was to search for the replacement, Mr Gonski himself would be appointed to the role, ruffling feathers.
Customs and border security earned a place in Question Time and political debate in Canberra this week and in the NSW Parliament after an Australia Post licensee in the Sydney suburb of Sylvania Waters was charged with importing and selling 150 Glock firearms since August 23 last year police allege. Both Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell linked this crime to customs and border security.
Parliament returns again next week for the final sitting week before the budget is handed down by Treasurer Wayne Swan in May and looks set to continue to be a fiery affair. The Minerals Resource Rent Tax will face a vote this coming week in the Senate and looks set to be the focus of most debate in both chambers for the week and undoubtedly outside of the parliament. The Fair Work Investigation into Craig Thomson will surely share some of the focus at least as fair as the Coalition strategy goes. The only question remaining is what unknown issues will take up the remaining attention of our parliamentarians as they race toward the major fiscal announcement in May?
Question Time Ahead of Time
The day is Thursday, the last day in a sitting week in the Parliament of Australia in Canberra and that usually means fireworks as parliamentary politics winds down for the week. Yesterday it was the unexpected topic of customs and their role in gun control which stole the show in Question Time in the House of Representatives. Today the proverbial battle lines should be much clearer with the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Victorian branch which has just concluded the sure focus of Coalition questions to the Gillard Government.
The Fair Work Australia Investigation into Victoria Number 1 branch has reached a conclusion and was reported yesterday and will see 3 former officials from the union seeking possibly pecuniary penalties as a result of their alleged actions in the Federal Court of Australia. The officials will not be subjected to criminal prosecution.
At the same time the Commonwealth Ombudsman has commenced an investigation into the actions of the General Manager of Fair Work Australia, Bernadette O’Neill over the 3 years of the investigation into the Health Services Union. The complaint seeks an imminent end to the investigations into the Member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, in addition to answers over the snail-like pace of the overall investigation into the union
The Coalition, likely led in the questioning by Tony Abbott and key front-bencher’s like Christopher Pyne, Joe Hockey and Julie Bishop will continue to pursue the government over the issue focusing on the length of the investigation and seeking help to draw the remaining examinations to a close in the very near future.
The Opposition may follow up with a few questions following on from yesterday where it launched an attack on the Government over the importation of firearms and government cuts to customs.
The ALP Government will certainly continue to highlight the spending that is associated with its mining tax, the MRRT in particular, but also the carbon tax. The government is also likely to draw attention to the Coalition and the Greens blocking the big business tax cuts, albeit for different reasons with the Greens blocking it because big business in their mind shouldn’t receive cuts and the Coalition, because the cuts are associated with the mining tax which they say they will rescind.
There is a high likelihood that the tensions which have been exhibited all week, including yesterday when more than a handful of Coalition MPs were booted for an hour under Standing Order 94a will continue today. This would likely see a comparative number of MPs booted, again heavily expected to be from the Coalition side.
A motion to suspend Standing Orders is also a high possibility, likely in relation to the Fair Work Australia investigation into the HSU and Craig Thomson, a focus of Opposition questions for some time now.
All will be revealed and debated with nothing held back from 2pm AEDT
Question Time Ahead of Time
It’s Wednesday and that means only two more days of the parliamentary sitting week lie ahead for our federal politicians in Canberra jockeying for momentum going into the May budget. Question Time is likely to be a loud, argumentative and at times farcical affair. Many eyes will be on the Senate where the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, sworn in as a Senator and Minister yesterday will face his first Question Time in the role.
The Opposition without any shadow of a doubt will continue to focus their Question Time efforts on pursuing the Labor Government over its carbon tax and Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) which has a parliamentary report handed down today.
While the Fair Work Australia investigation into Craig Thomson still proceeds at snail pace, it can certainly be expected that there will be a question or two aimed at the Gillard Government over the issue.
The fallout from the Skype sex scandal in the Australian Defence Force may also get an airing in Question Time from the Opposition as it did yesterday in relations to comments from Major General John Cantwell.
Equally predictable is the government focus of their backbencher questions to Ministers, also colloquially known as the “Dorothy Dixer” or “Dorothy Dix”. Again these questions will likely focus on the economy through the spending related to the MRRT windfall as well as other spending allocations made by Prime Minister Gillard and her government.
In the Senate, the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr will draw the most focus from interested observers, though not face the most questions as both the government and the Opposition are set to pursue different lines of inquiry. The new Foreign Minister is likely to get a question from his own side, but may also get a question or two related to the Defence Minister from the Coalition in the prism of overseas operations.
There is also a distinct possibility that the Coalition will attempt to suspend Standing Orders in an attempt to challenge the Government after not answering questions though that seems less likely than in recent days because of the exhaustion of content on that front.
Yesterday Question Time in the House of Representatives was quite feisty and resulted in a handful of ejections for one hour under Standing Order 94a, one of those being a Government MP. Two Ministers were also sat down for straying out of the ballpark of relevance in their answers and that is a positive development. So be watching today at 2pm AEDT where the drama that is the play called Question Time looks set to continue with loud interjections, irrelevant answers and plenty of name-calling.
Question Time Ahead of Time
That wonderful institution that we know as Question Time returns today with a vengeance in both chambers of Parliament House in Canberra today for a two week sitting period before the much anticipated budget gets handed down in May. This sitting period promises much of the same that we have been exposed to for some time as far as behaviour and content goes, with both parties likely focusing on much less than a handful of topics for the Opposition to pursue and the Gillard Government to attempt to highlight in a positive manner. The Senate will be a focus this week with a very interesting addition.
Question Time this week in the Upper House will be the focus of much political attention with the newly confirmed Senator for New South Wales and Foreign Minister designate, Bob Carr entering the federal parliament for the first time as part of the federal government. For Question Time today the former NSW Premier will warm the backbench, being sworn in this afternoon.
The Tony Abbott led Opposition are set to continue their attacks on the economy through the prism of the carbon tax, nearing commencement and the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) which the government will aim to get through the Senate before parliament rises in anticipation of the budget to be announced in May.
The Opposition will also likely decide they need to continue to pursue the Craig Thomson saga and Fair Work Australia over recent allegations of the independent body stonewalling, even flatly refusing to cooperate with police attempting to investigate claims of wrongdoing.
The Government will certainly continue to utilise the “Dorothy Dixer”, that wonderful free kick opportunity to spend more time talking about the Opposition than their own policy on also talking about the economy. This will continue to be about the comparative strength of the economy versus that of other major developed nations rather than the individual circumstances of the Australian economy. Dixer’s from the government benches will also focus on the economy, as they have done for some time, on perceived benefits of government spending packages, particularly related to the MRRT.
Another regular feature of Question Time that cannot be ruled out, in fact, that the good money would be on, is the high likelihood of the Opposition pursuing a suspension of standing orders to debate a censure motion.
How many MPs will be booted under Standing Order 94a? Will any government minister be sat down for “irrelevance”? How much noise will there be? Will Bob Carr ask a Dixer before hitting the front bench tomorrow? All questions will be asked and answered at 2pm AEDT. Will you be watching?
ADFA, No Scapegoat There, This Time…
The Gillard Government, via its Defence Minister, Stephen Smith has announced, albeit in an abbreviated fashion, the findings of no less than 6 separate inquiries into Defence Force culture in the wake of the so-called “Skype sex scandal” which saw a young female Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) cadet filmed in the act of intercourse. This disgraceful act was then transmitted to other ADFA candidates via webcam on Skype. This event triggered the series of committees and inquiries which reported today.
A number of complaints came to light in the wake of the announcement of this serious of inquiries, showing that the Defence Force has much work to do to stamp out inappropriate acts and indeed the event which precipitated the flood of reviews into the Defence Force became subject of a criminal inquiry which is ongoing.
The findings of the reports, including the DLA Piper Review will see further investigation into what the Secretary of the Defence Department Duncan Lewis called “plausible allegations” arising out of the initial examination of near to 800 complaints brought to the notice of the Review. These investigations date back to allegations of inappropriate behaviour as far back as the mid 1900’s and may well see a stream of criminal cases brought in the future.
A new body has been recommended by DLA Piper to investigate the claims along with a possibility of an apology to complainants and even compensation floated as potentially appropriate methods of rectification. Surely though, allegations of significant veracity should be referred directly to an independent investigative body like the police, not some body, no matter how “independent” set up by the Australian Defence Force. Yes, many cases may fall outside the statute of limitations and they should be dealt with in a swift and appropriate manner but where possible, all suspected criminal behaviour should be a matter for the police.
In the wake of the events which brought all this action into being, the Commodore of the ADFA was stood down pending an investigation into the propriety of his actions following the grievous incident involving the female cadet. This inquiry found that Commodore Bruce Kafer had no case to answer for his actions.
So there is to be no immediate scapegoat for the terribly damaging events that have occurred within the Defence Force and particularly the ADFA in this case. The Commodore who was in the position of highest authority will escape punishment for overseeing and not being able to identify and respond to what is a sick culture within areas of the Defence Force at the very least.
It remains to be seen whether any one individual or series thereof will be held responsible for events involving ADFA or those who have allowed the culture in the wider ADF to continue will be made to be responsible for their dereliction of duty. This certainly differs from previous practice in government where someone, usually of relatively high office is made a scapegoat, a smokescreen to distract from broader action which can be politically painful, but hey, we may have another apology or a further review and don’t we just love those…
The Politics of Sweaty Palms and the Live Export Trade
Another day and another shocking video emerged overnight on Lateline, showing what is believed to be Australian cattle being mistreated in an overseas abattoir. This further shocking footage has led to Animals Australia and others, including some parliamentarians getting louder in their advocacy for the live export trade to cease altogether. This comes not a year after the live export trade was temporarily shut down by the Gillard Government, under Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig, until the government saw fit to reinstate it under assurances from the respective parties, a ban that caused the industry some woes, largely in the Northern Territory.
A new package of oversight was worked on over a period of time between the key stakeholders in government and industry with a focus on processes in an attempt to ensure that the horrific images would not be replicated anywhere else in the future.
Of course these dreadfully disturbing images have now been repeated in an Indonesian abattoir, in footage just as sickening, if not more than the previous recording.
Nobody ever said, after the legislation in response to the original video, that the same sorts of images would never ever see the light of day again, would never force us to think had we gone far enough. Indeed it was always that the legislation would have an eye to improving the welfare and livelihood of cattle that Australians send overseas, to a country which slaughters their animals in a particular manner for cultural and religious reasons. To attempt as best as practicable to cut out the practises which have led to such barbaric deaths.
The question is, do we need to get sweaty palms over this and engage in the kind of politics of panic that such an event seems to invoke? Or do we deal with it in a pragmatic fashion, realising that our cattlemen need that market and that the Indonesians would be assisted in having our cattle available to them, being in relative proximity in our region?
There is a cultural and religious freedom element in this argument, as has been said in the past, the methods of slaughter are part of long held ideas about the Islamic culture. Do we seek to deny any nation that right or do we engage with them in much better ways of performing their traditions which have animal welfare firmly in mind?
Yes, we could certainly look at better ways of monitoring the supply chains and the situation in individual slaughter houses and that is probably a fair argument. However, on this count we can also go too far, by having officials in another country too often in an oversight capacity we run the risk as a nation of offending the sensitivities of the Indonesian people and in a way their sovereignty.
What we must do is ensure that there is a stronger level of training provided to and observed by all abattoirs, not just in Indonesia, but in other similar nations. We could perhaps observe more times a year than at present, each abattoir slaughtering Australian cattle and provide the kind of ongoing training and updated equipment, with the help of Indonesia that would allow for the killing of our animals to be done much more humanely on a more regular basis
What we do not need is a sweaty palms, knee-jerk reaction in panic to an horrific, but as far as we know isolated incident which would see all live trade, not just to our Indonesian neighbours, but to other nations which practise Islam cease altogether. Both not acting further and banning the live export trade altogether are harmful in their own ways for both our reputation overseas and our economy. Nobody wants to see the kinds of nauseating images we have been exposed to in recent times, nor do many want to see our live cattle not being exported. Cool heads, not clammy palms must prevail.
aussiepollies 
Finkelstein Would Kick Up a Stink Online
Mar 6
Posted by Tom Bridge
Bloggers of even middle of the road status beware, Ray Finkelstein QC and his media inquiry believe that we as a collective society are a flock of sheep who will follow opinion we read in a sheep like manner. The inquiry also assumes that what bloggers do is provide a news service. It seems, if the recommendation gets implemented by the Gillard Government, that bloggers will be subjected to the same purview as print and other media.
First it must be said just how incredibly stupid it is to classify what is written in any blog as a news service of any sort, no matter how factual the content. A blog is always formed of opinion which is gleaned from facts which are broadcast in different forms. It can too be the case, that blogs do not base arguments on facts in purveying arguments, but they can be easily found out.
The media inquiry headed by Ray Finkelstein QC recommended that bloggers whose site has more than 15 000 hits per annum be subjected to the News Media Council which would police all forms of information media, including television, print and online media. Aside from the fact that blogs are not utilised as a news service, 15000 hits would undoubtedly take in a wide array of political blogs, both amateur and professional.
One obvious question arises immediately and that is, how on earth will a media regulator know when a particular website reaches the threshold for monitoring of balanced commentary? Will they have the power to contact site administrators to determine when a blogger meets the policing requirements? Or will it be up to the individual author or site manager to self nominate? Either way, how stupid.
The onus would be on these bloggers, likely too this very website, to break from their respective market niche or ideological bent and provide “fair and balanced” commentary, again deviating back to providing basically a news service when all a blogger does and does best is become a polemicist.
Not only this but it would likely turn some bloggers into more bland and harder to read communicators if they were forced by some sort of but not really independent body to report rather than rant. Every blogger knows that it is much easier to communicate your point when you feel strongly about it.
I have little problem with the actual news provided by television, print and online news media being of a “fair and balanced” nature, based on reporting fact rather than opinion, but then, who is it that determines just what is fact and what is complete nonsense? Some part government, part privately appointed body? I think not.
It would be a very dangerous move for an already on the nose Gillard Government to act not just on the recommendation for a News Media Council but to couple that with the body being given the power to strip people of their opinion because their blog has a mid-range level of popularity. It is frightfully clear that those on the left do not believe the individual has the power to think for themselves and that goes along with their ideology but to tell people who may have a a somewhat popular blog that they cannot have an online opinion, well that just stinks.
Share this:
Posted in Australian politics
Leave a comment
Tags: "fair and balanced" commentary, 15000 hits, Australian Government, Australian politics, balanced commentary, blog, bloggers, collective society, Gillard Government, ideological bent, media, media inquiry, media regulator, News Media Council, opinion, polemicist, political blogs, Ray Finkelstein QC