A Little Health Q & A

Today over in America, the House of Representatives helped join America with the rest of the world and kinda sorta put that nation on the road to universal health care (still needs to get through the Senate). The US Health Care Bill would be laughed at in this country (as too would the  debate – can you imagine an Australian politician thinking it was great that now Australians who changed jobs would no longer have to worry about their health care – yep that’s how stuffed is the current US health insurance system). The Health debate in Australian is significantly advanced on that of our US cousins, and thank God we don’t have any (or should I say not too many) Tea Party style nutters that permeate around the American political  arena and on the Fox News Network.

Here we can have a debate on health and know that it is pretty unlikely either side is going to start saying the other wants to kill old people, or that the leader is possibly an insane serial killer. 

Tomorrow’s debate at the National Press Club between Rudd and Abbott on health will, I suspect, not be riveting television (the appearance of the “worm” on Channel 9 not withstanding). The main debating issue today has been the actual set up of the debate. The Liberals have rather spuriously called for it to be put on prime time so more people could watch it. Yeah right – I suspect it would rate close to bugger all – most people don’t give a stuff about politics till elections. The other issue was the format – it’s to be a 5 minute opening statement each, then 10 questions from journalists – with the respondent getting 2 minutes to answer or a minute to respond to the other’s answer. If they’re both asked a joint question, they get two minutes each.

The Liberals have already betrayed their insecurity with Lib Party Federal Director, Brian Loughnane, trying to float the balloon that if the debate were to be “serious” it would be on a wide range of issues. Sorry Brian (and Tony), we’re talking about Health now – Abbott was the one who got all hairy chested about having a debate, Rudd just pulled a swift one and made sure the debate would be on his terms.

Now of course the media are all in a tizz over whether or not Rudd has done the right thing – saying he’s giving Abbott equal status etc etc. All I can say is it would be bloody nice if the media were to give Abbott some equal treatment and not let him bring out utterly stupid policies, make utterly stupid appointments, and make over the top utterly stupid statements, and then just explain it away by saying “oh that’s Tony”.

Seriously, if in 2007 Rudd had appointed someone as incompetent as Joyce to shadow-Finance, brought out as ill-conceived a paid, parental-leave scheme as has Abbott, and then said a cancer ward in Darwin should be renamed “the Kevin Rudd Cancer Ward”, or that Australia should try and emulate New Zealand’s basket case economy, John Howard would be still teasing Peter Costello about when he was going to hand over the keys to the Lodge.

Instead the media have been like school girls sitting in a booth at Arnolds, waiting for Tony “the Fonz” Abbott to click his fingers so they can giggle and go out the back for some heavy petting. 

But still, tomorrow the media get a chance to ask some questions. What will they ask Tony Abbott? He has no policy at the moment, so what can they ask? All he can say is he’ll bring in something better, and he’ll run it better than Rudd. Perhaps Abbott might announce some flashy-but-meaningless policy – some more “direct action” no doubt – you know, more nurses in aged care or more funds for sick children or perhaps another increase on the cigarette tax to pay for everything (or hey, he could say he’ll sell another public asset).

On Insiders on Sunday Misha Schubert suggested the Libs might try and trump the ALP policy by pledging a 100% take over of hospital funding. George Megalogenis quickly pointed out that going to a 100% federally funded model would be a disaster, as the Federal Government would have next to bugger all control over any other area of state Government expenditure. But will Abbott throw out the suggestion tomorrow as a bit of a thought bubble? I doubt it – in fact I expect Abbott to play very straight bat on any policy ideas.

But what about Rudd? There’s obviously more to come from the Government's Health and Hospitals Policy, so he may release some new stuff tomorrow – though he needs to be carful that it doesn’t look like he is treating health policy as a debating gimmick. But he can fill in a lot more details, and for what to fill in he can take some advice from Tony Abbott. In last Thursday's mini-debate in Parliament, Abbott threw a few questions at Rudd:

• Who will administer the casemix funding system that he says is the salvation of the public hospital system?
• What is going to happen to the public servants currently with the Victorian government who understand it? Will they march en masse to Canberra?
• How are the local hospital networks going to be established? Who will run them?
• Will they be determined by federal law and federal regulation or will it be entirely a matter for the states?
• If the states do not actually meet the requirements to put in 40 per cent of funding, what penalties will be imposed on them?
• Does he give a guarantee that no country hospital will close as a result of his casemix funding?

Just what is this “casemix” funding system you ask? Well as Abbott rightly points out it is the funding system currently being used in Victoria. You can read about it here. This is what it is in a nutshell:

Casemix refers to the use of classifications that bundle patient care episodes into clinically coherent and resource homogeneous groups.  Casemix commonly means the mix of types of patients treated by a hospital. It is an information tool that allows policy makers to understand the nature and complexity of healthcare delivery and that enables the measurement of hospital performance, aiming to reward initiatives that increase the efficiency of hospitals.

Does that clear it up for you? Err me neither (but I’ve never claimed to be a health economist).

Nevertheless, were I one of the ten journalists, I would be looking closely at Abbott’s questions, and working out which one is most relevant (obviously if you ask the last one, you are a Liberal Party shill, but hey someone always seems eager to take that role). Were I one of Rudd’s advisors, I would be looking at those questions and making sure I’ve got good answers to them – and if not on the basis of currently released policy, think about releasing some more information tomorrow. On the other hand if they are irrelevant I’d be making sure Rudd has a very good answer to show why they are irrelevant.

The details are important. Too often the ALP gets lost in the magic of the big picture and forgets that the Conservative forces love details. Minutiae – the more irrelevant the better – is what is used to bring down big-picture plans. Take the BER – is the media talking about the big picture of helping Australia stay out of a recession? Hell no, instead they’re being fed and reporting on stories about 16 projects that may or may not (mostly may not) be a bit sloppy. Yep 16 out of 24,000 projects, and suddenly the media starts throwing around “bungled”!

The problem for the media and the Liberals is that in Julia Gillard the ALP has someone who can argue big picture and minute details equally as well, and so all these “bungles” generally end up getting shown as complete hooey, (especially when raised in Question Time).

Rudd (and Roxon) don’t need to sell the big picture – the public has already bought it, and wants to mount it on their wall. Today’s Essential Media Report shows that 58% of the electorate is in favour of Rudd’s plan as is (heck 46% of Coalition voters support it!), and only 12% are against it (the 30% of the rest neither support nor oppose or don’t know). What Rudd needs to realise is the Liberals will use tiny details to try and win over the 30%. You know the drill – fear and smear “if Rudd doesn't know how to do “X” then the entire scheme is unworkable”. “X” might actually be irrelevant, or only a minor part of the plan, but unless Rudd can effectively demonstrate that is the case (or that he does know how to do “X”) it can be the small tear that rips apart the entire policy.

Rudd needs to work hard to convince the electorate that regardless of what Abbott says, he’s got the details of this policy down pat – he needs to show that he knows more about it than does Abbott, and he needs to appear two steps ahead.  Sure Abbott will have to come up with his own plan, but here’s the thing: if Rudd can sell this policy so well that it does actually get the states onside and keeps the public as well, then whatever Abbott come up with won’t matter.

Similarly if Rudd appears to have put out something that is half-baked and lacking in far too many details – too many things that “will be released in due season” – then it might not matter either what policy Abbott brings out, because Rudd’s will be dead (ETS like).

Tomorrow’s debate won’t win or lose the election – it’s just a blip – in the long road ahead. Rudd needs to forget about “beating” Abbott in the debate, and concentrate purely on selling his policy to the people – the people are holding the big picture up on the wall, they want to hammer in the nail and hang it; all they need to know is that if they do, it’s not going to fall down in a week’s time – they’re looking to Rudd to convince them it’s ok. Go to it Kev.

The ten journos to ask the questions will be:

Paul Bongiorno - Network 10
Sandra O'Malley - AAP
Sue Dunlevy -The Daily Telegraph
Lyndal Curtis - ABC Radio
Mark Riley – Network Seven
Laura Tingle – Financial Review
Matthew Franklin – The Australian
Michelle Grattan - The Age
Jayne Azzopardi Nine Network
Karen Middleton – SBS
Andrew Probyn - West Australian

I’m a huge, huge fan of Laura Tingle, so we know at least one question will be intelligent. Mark Riley, I think is far too interested in getting “gotchas”, then in policy. Matthew Franklin will probably ask Abbott why the Government's plan will cause the closure of all country hospitals.

In some ways I am actually more interested to see the questions each journalist asks – and to whom. I think it may be very revealing.

Flick of the Week: “What do you mean I'm funny?”

This week’s Flick of the Week takes us with Samuel L Jackson from his role a hit man in Pulp Fiction to his small role in the Martin Scorsese masterpiece – Goodfellas. Jackson’s role is small and ends badly, but it was the start of a pretty good decade for him – he would pick up significant supporting roles in Patriot Games, Jurassic Park and True Romance, before breaking out of the “oh he’s that guy from” roles with Pulp Fiction. I think we can safely say that when he was playing this small role, he would not have been thinking he would be the guy to get a starring role in the Star Wars films (were he at that point thinking George Lucas might make another Star Wars film). In this film he has a couple lines, and then gets shot by Joe Pesci.

First off let’s deal with the Oscar issue. Here were the films nominated for Best Picture in 1990

• Dances with Wolves
• Awakenings
• Ghost
• Goodfellas
• The Godfather: Part III

Who in their right mind would now ever think to put Ghost in a list with Goodfellas? Who in their right mind now would ever put Dances with Wolves above Goodfellas? Now I actually don’t mind Dance with Wolves – I think it goes on a might too long, but I recall enjoying it mightily when it came out, and there are worse films you could be forced to watch. But better than Goodfellas? Please. Truly one of the worst choices made by the Academy – somewhat understandable at the time – given the big hoopla about Costner over coming the odds and making a successful western. But geez. Then again they weren’t alone – the Director’s Guild of America, for crying out loud, gave their Best Director Award to Costner!

There is one other gangster film that was ignored by the Academy that year – the Coen brothers’ Miller’s Crossing. It is a very different type of gangster film to either Goodfellas or The Godfather III, but I would rate it second only to Goodfellas as Best Film in 1990.

So what is it about this story of mob guy Henry Hill that makes such great viewing? There are so many great things, but for me, the first time I saw it, I just knew from the great opening line of "As far back as I could remember I've always wanted to be a gangster" that I was about to see a great film. There’s just something so indefinably wonderful about knowing from the opening minute of a film that you’re in safe hands. Most of this credit has to go the Scorsese – his direction is amazing – from the long shots to the use of music, the pacing of the film is amazing. The last 20 minutes involving Henry Hill being paranoid about being trailed by the police is pure cinema adrenalin. (He of course lost the Best Directing Oscar to Kevin Costner – that must still hurt.)

Does the story glamorize the mob? Not at all – there’s not really anyone who is at likeable here – interesting yes, but you know that they would as soon kill you as they would smile with you, and there’s not a hell of a lot of honour among these thieves.

The actual story leaves out quite a lot of Henry Hill’s life – for example the fact that he served in the 82 Airborne for three years – but what is left in is sensational. Unlike The Godfather movies, this one is set well below the top level mafia – Henry Hill was a soldier in the mafia, and so this film has none of the family motif that pervades The Godfather films. Hill is a worker – his job pays well, has lots of fringe benefits, and also is very dangerous involving very dangerous people. The interest for the viewer is of course to see this world most of us would never come into contact with. Since The Sopranos, the novelty of seeing how wiseguys operate is largely gone, but the breadth of time covered by Goodfellas makes for fascinating watching as we see Hill’s rise and fall.

The acting is superb. Ray Liotta is so good, that he’ll never be able do anything that will shake the impression in viewers that he is Henry Hill. Robert De Niro as Jimmy Conway gives one of his last great roles (yes, sigh it is now 20 years ago), and Lorraine Bracco is excellent as Hill’s wife Karen. It was great to see such a strong female role in a mafia film – unlike Kaye in The Godfather movies, Karen is no naive outsider; in the end she is up to her armpits in cocaine along with Henry. But of course the film is stolen by Joe Pesci as Tommy. Pesci won the film’s only Academy Award, and it was certainly deserved. His “what do you mean, I’m funny” speech is outstanding – you know he’s only acting, and yet you feel he might very well kill everyone in the room, just for the fun of it.

Pesci at the time was going through an absolute golden run of supporting roles – in 1989 he was Leo Getz in Lethal Weapon 2, in 1990 as well he was Harry the crook in Home Alone, the next year he played David Ferrie in Oliver Stone’s JFK, then in 1992 he was Vinny in My Cousin Vinny. But here’s the weird thing: in 1998 he reprised the role of Leo Getz in Lethal Weapon 4, and then wasn't in another film till his old friend Robert De Niro gave him a role in the 2006 film The Good Shepherd. Eight years! And then he goes another four years without a film credit – he’s in two films this year. In this film one of the small characters he shoots is played by Samuel Jackson, and yet Jackson – the bit player than (the year before he played “Black Guy” in Sea of Love) is now a major star. All of which just goes to show that fame and the acting business are fickle.

The film at the time set a record for the must uses of the word f*ck (300 in 145 minutes), a record since bested by among other Scorsese’s gangster follow-up Casino. And no, it’s not a film for the squeamish – there is lots of violence. But damn, it’s great cinema. By the time the film is finished you feel like you’ve ridden a cinematic rollercoaster, and you know you’ve seen a true master working at the peak of his game.

Perhaps the most famous scene is the long shot of Henry taking Karen to dinner at the Copacabana . Thankfully it’s on You Tube – and this version is preceded by an excellent short discussion of the shot by the cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus. It is this type of shot that elevates Goodfellas above the pack, and into the very top echelon of films. Genius.

Previous Flicks of the Week:

Pulp Fiction – Frank Whaley
Swimming with Sharks – Kevin Spacey
Working Girl – Sigourney Weaver
Aliens – Bill Paxton
Apollo 13 – Ron Howard
American Graffiti – Richard Dreyfus 
The Graduate – Dustin Hoffmann
All the President’s Men – Jason Robards
Once Upon a Time in the West – Henry Fonda
Mister Roberts – Jack Lemmon
Some Like it Hot – Billy Wilder
Witness for the Prosecution – Marlene Dietrich
Touch of Evil – Orson Welles
The Third Man – Trevor Howard
Brief Encounter - David Lean
Lawrence of Arabia – Claude Reins
Casablanca – Humphrey Bogart
The Big Sleep – Howard Hawks
His Girl Friday – Cary Grant
Charade – John Williams
Schindler’s List – Liam Neeson
Love Actually – Emma Thompson
Sense and Sensibility – Ang Lee
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon – Michelle Yeoh
Tomorrow Never Dies – Pierce Brosnan
The Thomas Crown Affair – Renee Russo
In the Line of Fire – Clint Eastwood
Where Eagles Dare – Richard Burton
Zulu – Stanley Baker
The Guns of Navarone – Peter Yates
Breaking Away – Dennis Quaid
The Right Stuff – Ed Harris
The Rock – Sean Connery
The Longest Day – Richard Beymer
West Side Story – Ernest Lehmann
North By Northwest - The first one

On the QT: When Julia attacks!

Today in describing Thursday’s Question Time, The Australian's Samantha Maiden described it as Gillard “entered the killing zone”. It was a great description of events, and I want to revisit just how brutal was Julia. Given only true political nerds read Hansard (and yes, I raise my hand), I decided to bring Hansard to Grog’s Gamut. I’ve only done this once before (not coincidentally it was to relate another Gillard performance). It is a bit of a long post – but it will be 7 weeks before the next Question Time, so indulge me!

To grasp the full context of her work on Thursday we need to quickly go back and look at a question given to her on Wednesday from the new Member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher. Fletcher is pretty intelligent bloke – he is very good on communications policy as a former advisor to Richard Alston when he was Minister for Communications, and he was also as a Director with Optus. But he is babe in the parliamentary woods, and he was about to meet Julia the red fox (or as some like to call her – the powerfox!). 

Fletcher’s question concerned the Gordon East Public School, comparing a building done under the BER with one built in 2005:

Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr FLETCHER (3.05 pm)—My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to the case of the Gordon East Public School, which in 2005 built a new and large specialised learning room for $170,000 at $920 per square metre. This year the school’s stimulus project has cost $2 million for four small classrooms and internal works in an administration block at $4,870 per square metre. Does the minister regard this as value for money?

Now Julia has had a stack of these types of questions – they are hardly going to trip her up. But she doesn’t always have the details of every school at hand, and in those cases she adopts a pretty strong defence:

Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for his question. I say to the member that if he wants this example looked at I would be very happy to have the department look at it. As I indicated to the parliament as recently as yesterday, there is a dedicated audit squad in New South Wales that is looking at cases as they are referred. Indeed, even before this parliament was sitting this week or last week, the audit squad was out checking on value for money. It has already checked 102 schools, and that process to verify value for money goes on.

A good solid opening; nothing fancy.

Can I also say to the member that, when we investigate claims made by members of the opposition in this place, we often find that people are not comparing apples to apples in terms of cost. I understand how that can happen. When a local builder is asked to quote they might quote to fit-out stage, because that is what they are used to quoting, but not give a quote that includes all of the internal fittings in the way that the Building the Education Revolution program does. So we often find that the figures given to us are not ‘apples to apples’ quotes. The member obviously wants this looked at.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Fletcher thinks Gillard is now trying to dodge the question and so starts to interject. He should be listening to her – she will make him pay… Julia does not forget such impertinence…

Ms GILLARD—If he stops yelling at some point and provides some information then we will ensure that the information is looked at by the department. If there are any issues arising from that look by the department, the matter will go to the New South Wales audit squad.

And so she ends. Not a stunning performance, but she certainly wasn’t troubled. Fletcher can enjoy 24 hours of thinking he got into the ring with the best Parliamentary prize-fighter and he sort of held his own.

Which brings us to Thursday. The first question Julia gets from the Opposition comes from the National Party's Kay Hull, concerning another school. This time Julia is more than prepared:

Building the Education Revolution Program
Mrs HULL (2.57 pm)—My question is to the Minister for Education. I refer the minister to the case of the Berridale Public School, which received a prefabricated, transportable library under the school halls program with the basic cost being $385,000; yet the total cost of the project is $895,000—an additional $510,000 to deliver and install. How can the minister justify such expense when a standard four-bedroom, two-bathroom Timberline homestead delivered and installed to site within 100 kilometres from Lisarow, New South Wales, costs only $143,000?

What a scandal! It’s the type of thing 2GB’s Ray Hadley and The Today Show have been banging on about all week. Will Julia be forced to play defence?

Ms GILLARD—I very much thank the member for her question because it will enable me to clarify some claims made about the Building the Education Revolution Program. On the claim made by the member about Berridale Public School, I am very happy to answer that claim—very happy to answer it.

“very much thank”, “very happy to answer”? This does not bode well for Kay Hull.

The details of this are actually very obvious and could have been obvious to anybody who made some basic inquiries.

“Basic enquiries”? Well that rules out most of the Opposition…

There has been a comparison published about construction at the Berridale Public School of a toilet block and there have been some suggestions that the construction costs for this mean that the construction costs for the new library there are somehow not right.

I inform the House that the toilet block there is 36 square metres and the new library facility is 162 square metres. They are not comparable buildings. When you go down to the square metre cost, on the square metre cost you find that one comes in at $4,766 and the other comes in at $5,500—not significantly different.

It would be weird to new comers to Australia's political system to hear our Deputy PM talk about costs per square meter, but this is what the Opposition likes to focus on – so Gillard is responding by demonstrating she is well and truly across the facts.

Then on the question of comparison with residential construction, I inform the honourable member that there are different building codes and different standards for school construction than for residential construction—different glass, different safety standards. All of the things about the building are different and more costly because it will be there for children.

This is actually a point that has been crying out to be made for a while now – it is dumb to compare the cost of a library with the cost of a four bedroom home – the building codes etc are completely different (and yet the media does it.. sigh).

Opposition members interjecting—
Ms GILLARD—On the question of the Building the Education Revolution—

Note that to this point all Julia has talked about is Berridale Public School and the library facility. The opposition are angry because she’s not talking about precisely what they want her to talk about – but she is without a doubt being relevant to the question.  But the troops to the left of the Speaker are getting very antsy, most likely because they realise this question is about to blow up in their face:

The SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. The members for Wakefield and Canning will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The members for Wakefield and Canning then left the chamber.

Wow! Two kicked out in one go! Admittedly the House was on a general warning but, still, that’s some nice work! Chris Pyne obivously wants to join in with the hubbub:

The SPEAKER—It would be very nice to think that you would be the last Mohican here, but I am not sure. I call the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Pyne—Can’t get rid of me.
The SPEAKER—Don’t test me.
Mr Pyne—I am very hard to kill with an axe, as someone once said.
The SPEAKER—Order! Whilst I know that this is good natured, there is still the general warning. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call for a point of order.
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, the minister was not asked a question about what she is answering. She was asked how she could explain the $510,000 to install a prefabricated library in country New South Wales.
The SPEAKER—The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.

When Pyne stood up apparently one member of the Government called out asking if Gillard was being “too relevant”!

Ms GILLARD—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Of course, I have just been dealing with the question of costs at the Berridale Public School— exactly what I was asked. On the question of the Building the Education Revolution, I say to the House the following: a question was raised with me yesterday by the member for Bradfield about costs and construction at the Gordon East Public School. So serious was this matter—I would have thought they would have wanted an answer but obviously not; you do not really care, do you?

Now Julia is drifting away from the question, she’s onto the Gordon East School from Wednesday– so we know what to expect:

The SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Ms Julie Bishop—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there is a process if the minister wants to add to an answer. She should answer the question she has been asked now, which is the $510,000—
The SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Deputy Prime Minister will relate her material to the question.

Ms GILLARD—I was asked about the question of costs and the Building the Education Revolution program. I have been dealing with the matter involving Berridale and I am very keen to deal with the matter involving Gordon East Public School, a matter about which the member was so concerned that he personally delivered a letter to my office requiring me to attend—

Bishop – perhaps correctly assuming this ain’t going to end well tries again to put a stop to it:

Ms Julie Bishop—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if the minister wishes to add to an answer from yesterday she can do it at the end of question time. There is a question now about Berridale Primary School and $510,000 in additional costs to install a prefab building. She should answer that question or sit down.
The SPEAKER—Whilst it is not something that is to be encouraged, this is not the first time that an answer has been added to directly in this manner. It becomes in my mind, when it is clearly indicated that that is what happening, six of one and half a dozen of the other about the timing. I am happy to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to continue, but I would urge her in the circumstances to do it briefly.

Ms GILLARD—I was asked yesterday by the member for Bradfield about Gordon East Public School. So concerned was he about this matter that he brought a letter round to my office asking for an audit team to attend at the school at 8.30 on Friday morning. I can report to the House that I have investigated the matter. I rang the school principal. I would have thought he would have wanted to know what the school principal had to say.

Pyne now comes in, but the problem is now it is obvious that the question has completely backfired on the Libs – Pyne is forced to intervene to try and stop Gillard from quoting a Principal (not a good look).

Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this is actually an important point, because another aspect of the standing orders is that you do not allow the Leader of the Opposition to take a personal explanation whenever he is being defamed in the House; you make him wait until the end of question time. So why is there one rule for the government and another for the opposition?
The SPEAKER—That reflection on my actions is through the coloured glasses that the Manager of Opposition Business has. I am happy that what I am doing is consistent with past practice. Let us get it crystal clear about personal explanations. There is nothing in my actions that is in any way different to the way in which they have been handled for at least the last 24 years that I have been a member of this House. In respect of adding to answers, there is ample precedent by both sides of the chamber in that 24 years where this device has been used. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. I have urged her to come quickly to a conclusion in her answer.

The problem is that not only is the question now proving to be a disaster for the Opposition, so too are the numerous points of order, because they have given her and Albanese time to quickly rearrange tactics:

Ms GILLARD—Given I do have extensive information about this matter and that clearly the opposition is not interested in what a school principal has to say, I will deal with this matter separately in the House. Obviously, its desperation to cover it up will just mean than I will be continually interrupted if I try to do it now.

Gee, whenever will she get a chance to deal with the matter, I wonder?

Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr NEUMANN (3.06 pm)—My question is the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the rollout of the Building the Education Revolution and of responses to this?

Boom! This was a textbook case of how to use Dorothy Dixers to your advantage.

Ms GILLARD—What a wonderfully perceptive question from the member for Blair. It enables me to inform the House about the circumstances at Gordon East Public School raised with me yesterday by the member for Bradfield—

A great response – she had the ALP member laughing loudly, and the Opposition realising they had been totally outflanked. Fletcher, perhaps still thinking he was Gillard’s measure began to start hurling invective.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Ms GILLARD—who is yelling and screaming now. He may just want to listen. So concerned was he about this matter that he ran a letter around to my office—

You always know Gillard is confident when she starts referring to members of the Liberal Party as though they were little school boys. Fletcher couldn’t take it.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Bradfield will leave the chamber under 94(a) for one hour.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Bradfield is named.
Mr Broadbent—Mr Speaker, having regard for the newness of member!
The SPEAKER—I appreciate that, and it hurts me to actually do it, but I think that it has to be done.
Mr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I move that the member for Bradfield be suspended from the service of the House.
The SPEAKER—I am sorry that this has caused that type of disquiet but I can assure all members that—even under the general warning when they were interrupting me in my thought patterns—I have absolutely thought about this very carefully.

I’ll cut out all the Hansard of the votes; needless to say Fletch was booted. Without even letting Gillard begin, so desperate were the Liberal Party not to let her talk, that good ol’ Bronnie Bishop was on her feet before Julia was even able to continue speaking:

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I would refer you to footnote 264 on page 552 of the practice which sets out how a minister may add to an answer. She has the choice of seeking indulgence from you or alternatively giving a written answer to the Clerk. In either case, if she insists on trying to add to an answer you really must ask her to sit down and follow the proper procedures of the House.
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Blair has asked a question relating to the update of the rollout of the Building the Education Revolution and the Deputy Prime Minister it is responding to this question.

Julia is not at all perturbed that 5 minutes has intervened since she last spoke, she continues as though nothing has happened – not a stride lost.

Ms GILLARD—I continue with my response to the question from the member for Blair. The member for Bradfield has now left the chamber having been named and I will explain why he should also be ashamed. Yesterday in this parliament he raised with me a question about the Gordon East Public School. He talked about buildings built there in 2005 and claimed they had a $920-per-square-metre cost. He compared this with the current Building the Education Revolution work and claimed that had a $4,870-per-square-metre cost. He said this matter was of the highest urgency. He demanded that I meet him on Friday at 8.30 a.m. at the school with an audit squad.

Julia relates the facts as suggested by Fletcher (and sections of the media I should add), it is all a setup however:

He was so worked up about it I thought I would look into the matter directly myself, so I rang the principal of the school, Ms Gail Smith—and a lovely lady she is.

Uh oh. She has spoken to the principal. She calls her a “lovely lady”. This is not good. She is meant to only go by media reports – after all that’s all the opposition uses!

Of course, the member for Bradfield is unlikely to know that, because he has never spoken to her in his life about the Building the Education Revolution program. Never once has he spoken to her about the Building the Education Revolution program, but I did and I can inform the House exactly what she said because I noted it down.

Oh sh*t. She noted it down. This really can’t be good.

First and foremost, the first she had ever heard about an audit squad turning up on Friday was when I told her about it, the member for Bradfield having never seen fit to raise the matter with her.

Julia has just made it sound like Fletcher is not only pig-ignorant, but also damn discourteous to the principal. Now she gets to what the principal precisely said:

On the BER project at her school she said:

“The school is so excited. The four new classrooms are just beautiful. The plans are on the Web. The classrooms are state-of-the-art with a sink, a withdrawal room, an environmentally friendly natural cooling system with a special roof cavity and water tanks. The classroom should be finished towards the end of the next term and will be home to the kindergarten class, two year 1 classes and a year 2 class. The kids can’t wait.”

Oh geez! Just picture those excited and happy school kids – Julia makes it sound like these are kids the Liberals want to make cry!

“The workers are working hard to deliver the new classrooms, even working on Saturday. Some concrete was poured yesterday and the kids were just so excited. From whoa to go the school community has been involved. The plans went to the P&C.”

The workers coming in on Saturday?! Bloody hell, this sounds like one of the old Angry Anderson A Current Affair specials when there’d be a challenge to build a classroom for sick kids in 24 hours! The damn community is right behind the thing. “From whoa to go”!! This sounds like some sort of paradise scheme!

Now she gets to Fletcher's argument from Wednesday – remember the claim about a 2005 building being so cheap, and this one being so expensive? Let’s see how that claim stacks up when we apply the old truth filter to it – Julia continues to quote the principal:

“To compare these classrooms to the 2005 classrooms is just not right”—the principal said, because—”The 2005 classrooms are modular. The new classrooms are brick. The 2005 classrooms do not have any of the facilities like the withdrawal room, the sink, the cooling system and the water tanks. The BER money extended so far it went to refurbishing the administration building”—which she described as:” …stunning. It was a once-in-a-lifetime chance.”

Well hell, talk about getting the entire thing wrong – having the principal of the very school you were claiming had been dudded by the BER coming out and saying not only was the money well used, they even had some left over to refurbish the admin building and then to describe the entire operation as “a once in a lifetime opportunity” is not good at all. Not good. And the Liberal Party (and some of the media) should remember this – every electorate in the country will have numerous new school buildings – and all of them will feature in the ALP advertising at the next election. It will be very effective – happy kids, happy parents, happy workers…

But is Julia satisfied with just that? Hell no! Now she twists the knife:

If the member for Bradfield was one of the clapped-out old stagers from the Howard government who was on their way out to pasture, you might say one thing, but this is one of their new, quality candidates that produced this load of old cobblers. The people they are putting in this parliament!—the member for Bradfield is one of the bright new hopes, a new, quality candidate and he cannot even pick up a phone and ring and a principal. That is too hard for him, too complicated. He is so out of touch with his local community. He has absolutely no idea what is going on. Can I make a suggestion to the member for Bradfield, who is now out of this place for 24 hours? He had better spend it eating a lot of humble pie and the very first thing he should do is pick up the phone to this principal and explain he is an idiot and he is sorry.

That my friends is how to absolutely destroy someone in the House of Representatives. “The people they are putting in this parliament!” Not even Keating could have got the tone as perfectly contemptuous as was Julia at that moment. 

But she’s not done yet. In her sights is also Andrew Lamming, the Liberal Member for Bowman, who had dopily made a comment about the BER – did he really think Julia wouldn’t take his words and use them against him? Has he not been paying attention for the last two years??

On the question of moderately better performances by people in the opposition—and this is one moderately better performance out of the box, would you believe it, from the member for Bowman? Yes, I did say that and I cannot believe it.

When Julia praises you in the House, I suggest you run – because you are about to be savaged:

A little bit of honesty once in a while seeps into the Liberal Party member. They try and fight it, but once in a while it makes its way in, and today the member for Bowman said:

“Look I’m very grateful for every one of the projects in my electorate. They are all of high quality and the community appreciates them”.

Given the campaign they have been running in this parliament, a journalist, with a slightly incredulous tone, said:

“Just on school stimulus, though, in your opening statement you said you are happy with the projects in your electorate. Is that right?”

And the member for Bowman said: “My projects in the electorate don’t have any of the problems that have been described by others of waste or mismanagement as far as I know. I also talked to all of the principals and they are delighted with them in my electorate.” Correct.

The journalist was incredulous, given the nature of the campaign in this parliament, and said to the member for Bowman:

“So you are delighted?”

And the member for Bowman said: “Absolutely, yes. Yes, I’m happy”.

Isn’t this telling us everything we need to know about the shallow, hypocritical, incorrect campaign being run by those opposite? There they are: the member for Bradfield cannot even be bothered speaking to a principal and when the member for Bowman does he finds out the truth which is that they are delighted with the Building the Education Revolution program.

Poor Lamming, he and every other Opposition MP knows that they can either not talk about the schools being built in their electorate (which people in their electorate will be thinking are “once in a lifetime opportunities”), or they can say something positive, knowing full well Julia will use their words as bullets in a little game call “Hunt the Liberal MP”. Politics is cruel (especially when you vote against something damn popular and successful) .

But Julia is still not finished – she now lets fly a bit of information she has gleaned about the tactics of the Opposition:

This morning I had more of an insight into the way that the opposition works when it comes to Building the Education Revolution. Let me conclude on this—it is about the member for Calare, and you will want to hear this.

No Julia, believe me, the Libs don’t want to hear this, as Joe Hockey tries to explain.

Mr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is relevance. I would ask her to be relevant—this has been going for how long?
The SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question.

Ms GILLARD—I understand the member for North Sydney has to remind people that he is still here from time to time.

Ouch. Hockey has been reduced to ballast on the front bench of late, and Julia certainly lets all of Parliament know that it hasn't gone unnoticed that he no longer gets to do much. Politics is a cruel game – especially when you lose a leadership ballot.

But in conclusion, the member for Calare, obviously preparing for question time today, has put through a call to the Catholic Education Office in Bathurst, obviously hoping to chisel out an anti-BER statement. And what have they said? They said that they are happy; they have got absolutely no complaints.

Gillard here has let it be known to the Opposition that she has contacts in the Catholic Education Office, so they will have to tread very carefully if they want to fish around for stories.

All I can assume is that today, by the Leader of the Opposition, would have been ‘Biff a Bishop Day’ if they found out some problems from the Catholic Education Office. Obviously they are happy, principals around the country are happy, principals in the member for Bradfield’s electorate and in the member for Bowman’s electorate are happy, and the opposition stands revealed for the shallow pack of hypocrites they actually are.

And thus for good measure she ends with a bang – Julia is not one to hold off on kicking an opposition when it is down.

And can you believe it – after this answer they decided to ask her two more questions!

The masochistic desire must run deep in the current Liberal Party.

On the QT: Let’s talk about health, baby. Let’s talk about you and me.

Today’s final Question Time for the summer sitting period exceeded all expectations – which wasn’t hard given there weren’t any. The first question from Scott Morrison on asylum seekers suggested that today was going to be like every other day for the last two weeks – a tennis match between the serves from the Opposition on asylum seekers and insulation, and returns by the Government on Health. But it was not to be.

The first Dorothy Dixer to Rudd was (not surprisingly) on Health, but quickly things departed from the norm. Rudd began to goad Abbott into responding, to his rhetorical questions, and then said that the leader of the opposition was as usual silent on the matter. Abbott rose on a point of order saying if the Government wanted to give him leave to talk about Health he would be happy to.

And so the Government did.

It was a premeditated tactic designed to do a number of things – firstly, to try and wrong foot Abbott, and see if he could talk off the cuff about Health policy; and two (and much more importantly) to make the topic of the day all about Health policy. 

Abbott was not troubled at all by having to give a speech with no preparation – and as a former Health Minister for 5 years, if he couldn’t talk about Health you would be worried. Abbott also loves the Parliamentary debating style – he loves having a crowd behind him. And he was quite effective, delivering some good sound bites which the media will no doubt say meant he savaged Rudd.

The problem was he also fell for the third trap the Government had set – namely that without notes Abbott is more likely to go a bit rogue as it were, and start saying things that don’t sound so good out of the heat of the moment of Parliament. He talked about the Cancer Centre at the Darwin Hospital saying "It ought to be called the Tony Abbott Cancer Centre in Darwin”. He referred to the PET Scanner provided to the North Shore Hospital in Sydney, saying “It ought to be called the Tony Abbott PET Scanner at Royal North Shore." He also gave an interesting quote when he said “I don’t claim to have been the world’s greatest Health Minister”  I am sure he was thinking he would be clever with a reference to Keating's title of “World’s greatest treasurer”, but all he did was give the Government an easy tag to pin on him.

But these missteps aside, the fact is that he was confident enough that when Albanese moved that he be allowed to keep speaking for another 5 minutes it looked like a hollow move on the ALP’s part. In the last 5 minutes however, he did start to repeat himself and he fell back on his old 2007 lines such as referring to Rudd as Doctor Death, and he couldn’t stop himself from attacking Rudd personally – it seems with Rudd opposition leaders can’t stop making it personal. But nonetheless it was a good performance – a real “rouse the troops performance” – devoid of content, but good on style.

Rudd by contrast was fully prepared and delivered a solid speech. It would not have won the day, but he did enough with a nice opening likening Abbott to Latham (a bloody long list that is). The advantage Rudd had however was that the whole point of the debate was to highlight how the Libs had run away from the Health debate. A case in point – not once in Abbott’s speech did he talk about his own plan for hospitals. Rudd honed in on what I think the ALP sees as Abbott’s weakness – that he is good at making a headline, but no good on the details. Rudd ended by taking Abbott’s line about not being the world’s best Health Minister and described him as the worst Health Minister the nation had ever had.

Now if proceedings had needed there, the Libs could have headed off for the break feeling quite chipper. But it didn’t, and unfortunately for them Abbott went over the top – no doubt feeling rather puffed up by his own performance. The first question after this little debate was from Abbott to Rudd, and he referred to a statement made by Rudd in 2007. I was expecting it to be about turning the boats back or some such, but no, it was about Rudd saying he thought there should be three debates between the leaders during the election. Abbott wanted to know if Rudd would commit to that, and then he snidley asked if Rudd would he improve his debating style.

It was very poor tactics by Abbott – far too much self-satisfaction. He forgets that debating styles in Parliament don’t go down as well outside the place – in fact Rudd performs a lot better in debates outside of Parliament than he does in. And so in believing he would win any debate with Rudd he over-reached. This allowed Rudd to have great fun referring to Abbott’s Health debate with Roxon during the last election for which he turned up last and then told Roxon that suggestions he could have got their on time were “bullshit”.

It also allowed Rudd to say yes they would have three debates and what’s more he suggested they start them next week with one on Health and Hospitals policy. And so at the end of Question Time Rudd got up and formally challenged Abbott to a debate on Health at the National Press Club next Tuesday.

That sound you just heard was the Liberal Party tactics committee tearing up their plans for from here till Budget Day.

The tactic by the ALP to allow Abbott to speak for 10 minutes in Parliamentary prime time was a a risky one, but they wagered it was worth it, because they wanted the issue of the day to be Health policy and not insulation or asylum seekers. They wanted the last day of Parliament to be on the topic that they wanted; they would not have dreamed that the Libs would let them make it the issue for next week as well.

The other thing is that Abbott asked some pretty good questions in his speech. The problem is that gives Rudd till Tuesday to come up with a response, and leave Abbott lacking some new things to target Rudd .

Next Tuesday is going to be a big day – and a tough day for the Libs because I think there are two points to the debate – the least important of which is who “wins the debate”. No one really cares who wins the debate because each side will think the other did – and the media will come out with “a both sides fought a draw” blah blah. But what I expect will happen is that Rudd will announce another major part of the Hospitals plan (remember he has indicated there is lots more to come). If he does and Abbott has nothing but rebuttals, then the story will again be about the new plan the Government has, and the opposition will look like just being anti for the sake of being anti.

But here’s the real problem for Abbott: if he comes along on Tuesday with some new policy himself, he will also be doing just what the Government wants him to do as well. The Government wants Abbott to release policy, because then they can do to it what they did to his Paid Parental Leave scheme. Policy is Abbott’s very weak point. He is an attacker of things, not a creator of well thought-out plans. He likes someone else to say something and then he does his best work ripping into it – it’s what he spent most of his time doing as Minister for Health. The Government would be wagering that the Libs are a long way from coming up with a fully-costed, well thought-out Hospitals scheme. So the challenge for Abbott on Tuesday is whether he risks being upstaged by Rudd, or does he come out with a new policy that will then be subjected to scrutiny from here till election day.

Either way the topic is Health, and that’s where the Government wants it to be. The only recent newspaper poll on Health is the Nielsen poll from last week (where were you this week, Newspoll?) which showed that 79% supported the federal Government taking a greater role in the funding of the federal Hospital funding (38% strongly supporting it). Heck 69% of Lib-Nat supporters were supportive of it!! That my friends is a popular policy.

After Abbott’s debate question, Quesiton Time continued some sort of normalcy. Nicola Roxon had a Dorothy Dixer on Health (pointing out Abbott hadn’t mentioned doctors once in his speech), and Tanner had a Dorothy Dixer on the ripping of $1b out of Health.

The Opposition asked one question about insulation, before making its second mistake of the day – they decided to target Julia Gillard over Education Spending.

The problem was that Gillard was in Gary Sobers like form today. She saw all the questions coming and a she absolutely destroyed the attack. She was asked about a school building at a NSW Primary school. In the course of her answer she referred to a claim yesterday made by the opposition about the Gordon East School. This did not amuse the opposition at all. If there is one thing they hate is dumb, incorrect claims from yesterday coming back to bite them in the arse. Here was the Live Minutes of her answer:

Mrs Hull, 2:57:46 PM, to Ms Gillard (Minister for Education)
Member ordered to withdraw
Speaker ordered Mr Champion to withdraw for 1 hour for interjecting after a warning had been given by the Chair, 3:00:35 PM Mr Champion left the Chamber at 3.01 p.m.

Member ordered to withdraw
Speaker ordered Mr Randall to withdraw for 1 hour for interjecting after a warning had been given by the Chair, 3:00:42 PM Mr Randall left the Chamber at 3.01 p.m.

Point of order, Mr Pyne, 3:00:56 PM, Ms Gillard, 3:01:36 PM, Point of order, Ms J. Bishop, 3:02:15 PM, Ms Gillard, 3:02:33 PM, Point of order, Ms J. Bishop, 3:03:04 PM, Ms Gillard, 3:04:19 PM, Point of order, Mr Pyne, 3:04:57 PM, Ms Gillard, 3:06:21 PM

The Libs kept protesting her talking about Gordon East Primary – making points of order whenever she tried to read out what the Principal of the School had said this morning to Julia on the phone.  They made so many points of order that Julia and Albanese were able to quickly come up with a great plan – after Pyne’s last POO, Julia said she would conclude her answer and endeavour to provide the information to the House at a later date.

Cue the very next Dorothy Dixer to Gillard on the Building the Education Revolution. The ALP were laughing in delight as Julia stood up and thanked the member for that “Wonderfully perceptive question”. She then read out what the Principal of the school had said to her on the telephone:

“The school are so excited!… The kids can’t wait”… The school has been involved from whoa to go…. Comparing the new classrooms to the 2005 ones is just not right, the 2005 ones are modular, the new ones are brick… It was a once in a lifetime opportunity.  

And on and on she went. She then quoted the Liberal Member for Bowman, Andrew Laming, praising the Education stimulus in his local paper. God it was a sight to see.

And then guess what? Alex Hawke got up and asked the very next question to Gillard regarding the funding for special needs children at a number of Catholic schools. He prefaced the question by saying he could guarantee the Minster that he had spoken with a number of Principals who were not happy at all.  One of the schools he mentioned was St Lucy’s. Now if you go on its website you see that they were in Canberra today as part of a rally to get more funding for disability education services (a cause very close to my heart). The problem for Hawke was that he also ended his remarks by referring to funding for the building the education revolution.

That was all the opening Gillard needed – except she had one more thing: she had actually spoken this morning also to the Principal of St Lucy’s and she was more than happy to relate their conversation to the House. Julia related how the education stimulus funding had enabled St Lucy’s to build a lift and refurbish the toilets. The school was originally set up as a school for the blind, but now catered to special needs, and thus they needed a new toilet block (to replace the 1960s one), and the lift, as you can imagine, is a great help for the children. It was just amazing stuff – it made you want to cry out with joy about how great the stimulus funding has been. The Libs hated it and both Pyne and Bronwyn Bishop came up with very, very lame points of order.

Gillard ended by pointing out the federal funds to Catholic schools were administered by the Catholic Education Office, and she thought it rather weird that with Abbott as leader that they the Opposition was now going to start bashing the Catholics…

Wayne Swan then interrupted the Julia show with a little interlude to point out in the last six months that the Opposition had only asked 2 questions on the economy. (Julia had previously commented when Hockey had made a point of order during one of her answers that she “understood the Member for North Sydney has to remind people he’s here from time to time”.) Swan also made a nice comment about Barnaby Joyce, wondering if he would be making the claims about US sovereign debt next week during Obama’s visit.

And then something extraordinary happened. The Liberals asked Gillard another question. It would be like a fielding captain looking at an opposition batsman on 234 off of 200 balls, and saying to his bowler – try and get him out with some slow, straight ones. Pyne trundled up and asked a question about the Hastings Public School. The only problem is that Julia had already addressed this issue comprehensively this morning in an interview with Fran Kelly. After asking his question, someone from the Government benches mutters “brave man”. Yep, brave like the charge of the Light Brigade. Into the valley off death went Christopher, and he wasn’t going to come out alive. If this were a school yard Gillard would have had the entire playground standing around in a circle yelling at Pyne: “stinky, stinky poo pants!”

It was embarrassing how in command she was. Bronwyn Bishop made a point of order, and Julia referred to her as “the future of modern liberalism”. She hit the Libs for six over the mid-wicket boundary with facts, she hit them for six over the long-off boundary with statements by Principals, she hit them for six over the square leg boundary with budget figures. It was almost criminal the way she taunted them, and thus it most in keeping that the Attorney General got to answer the last question to bring a nice steady end to proceedings.

Yes the right-wing media will try to keep up the line that Julia is going to take over from Rudd (heck even Kerry O’Brien asked her tonight on the 7:30 Report). But what that media should also mention is that back in February when Newspoll asked who they preferred as PM – Abbott or Gillard, Gillard won 49% to 38%! The media can talk all they like about fantasies of Gillard taking over from Rudd. What they should mention is that the ALP have two people who quite convincingly can beat Abbott.

If that, and the way they were tactically outplayed today, doesn’t give members of the Liberal Party pause, then I don’t know what will.

On the QT: It must be love

Here was Tony Abbott in August 2008, talking about Peter Costello: "I suppose we are all publicly saying what a terrific bloke he is, what a fantastic political talent he is, how much we miss him. We love him. We want him."

Methinks the love ain’t being felt so much today, after Peter Costello wrote in The Age of Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme:

Abbott undoubtedly thought he had to say something on International Women's Day - he keeps being told he needs more appeal to women voters - and so he adopted the Crocodile Dundee approach. In the movie, a New York mugger pulls a switchblade on Mick Dundee. Our hero laughs at the blade, saying, "That's not a knife, this is a knife'', as he pulls out his 30-centimetre hunting blade. The terrified mugger disappears into the night.

And the point of Abbott's proposal is to tell the public that Rudd does not have a maternity leave scheme. "This is a maternity leave scheme," he declares.

In this kind of politics, if your opponent has a bad idea you try to outflank it. Your opponent has a mildly bad idea, so you come up with a more extreme one and have a race to the bottom.

But strangely I do suspect there is some love between the ALP and Tony Abbott – there must be, after all remember how when at Primary School when a boy likes a girl he does everything he can to annoy her? Well the ALP seem to be doing something similar to Abbott on the issue of Health. They are really annoying the hell out of him – it can only be their way of showing love!

The issue of course is again the “ripping out of $1b from the health budget”. As I said yesterday it’s not really true, but it’s not really false – and so the ALP will keep saying it again and again, and they’ll be able to provide enough proof to justify their argument. The Government today used six Dorothy Dixers to ask about Health. Rudd in response to the first used the $1b line and it had Julie Bishop on her feet asking it be withdrawn because saying it “causes disorderly responses”! Yep, Bishop wanted it withdrawn because it made the Libs get all cranky and annoyed, and it forced them to be disorderly! Little wonder that Rudd was able to scornfully say later that “You know when the Member for Curtin [Bishop] takes control of the tactics things are going real bad”.

The Opposition was again on the issue of Insulation – Abbott warning that each roof was a “ticking time bomb”, and he wanted Rudd to commit to inspecting all 1.1 million of the houses that have had insulation put in (though we presume he doesn’t think Rudd should do it personally). Rudd pointed out that the number of fires caused by insulation has dropped massively since the introduction of the scheme. He of course is absolutely correct. Will it matter? Probably not. Quite often in politics, truth is a fudgy thing (as demonstrated by the $1b figure). The media is not interested in the facts on either issue – to explain the facts takes more time than to run with the “perception”. And thus we’re reduced to both sides seeking to run with their skewed facts as hard as they can.

Next up was Asylum Seekers. The Libs were commenting on the finding by the NT Coroner that he believed three of the asylum seekers on SIEV 36 deliberately set fire to the boat. The Libs wanted to know why the three had been granted a permanent protection visas, and when would those visas would be cancelled. Each time (he was asked four times) Rudd responded that the Government would wait till the outcome of any criminal proceedings before taking action. I’m not actually sure why the Libs want the visas cancelled – they haven’t really explained their reasoning. Surely they don’t want them to be deported, because one would think they would like any criminals to face justice here? No doubt they’ll explain their case eventually…

The only other topic to get a run from the Opposition was Education Spending. Gillard played a pretty straight bat to the question.

Some of the Libs were cheering when Gillard got up – as though that would annoy Rudd. You see there is a very dumb line being run (mostly by The Australian) that because the last Newspoll showed Abbott with a slightly larger “net-satisfaction” rating, this meant Rudd is now a drag on the ALP vote! Yes it has gotten that dumb out there in media land. The problem with that line is that it assumes leader’s satisfaction ratings are zero-sum – ie you can’t be satisfied with both Rudd and Abbott – which you can (you can also of course be dis-satisfied with both). It also assumes Newspoll is the Gospel, and the other polls don’t matter at all.

It also assumes that you ignore everything else that is polled – most crucially Preferred PM which has Rudd currently leading 55% to 30%. Yep, the ALP is going to ditch a PM who is 25 point ahead. What dills.

Thankfully psephologist, Aristotle decided to shed a bit of intelligence on the issue. He looked at the respective Newspolls at the same time in each of the last 10 election years – looking at Two-Party Preferred and the Preferred PM.  He ordered them from best results for the Opposition to the worst. Here’s what he found:

Voting intentions two party preferred
2007 - ALP 61%  L-NP  39%....(Opposition led by 22%)
1995 - ALP 43%  L-NP 57%.....(Opposition led by 14%)
2001 - ALP 56%  L-NP 44% ....(Opposition led by 12%)
2004 - ALP 54%  L-NP 46%.....(Opposition led by 8%)
1992 - ALP 47%  L-NP 53%.....(Opposition led by 6%)
1998 - ALP 53%  L-NP 47%.....(Opposition led by 6%)
1987 - ALP 51%  L-NP 49%.....(Opposition trailed by 2%)
1989 - ALP 51%  L-NP 49%......(Opposition trailed by 2%)
2010 - ALP 52%  L-NP 48%......(Opposition trails by 4%)

Better Prime Minister
2007 - John Howard 36%  Kevin Rudd 49%......(Opposition leader led by 13%)
1995 - Paul Keating 35%  John Howard 47%....(Opposition leader led by 12%)
1992 - Paul Keating 36%  John Hewson 42%....(Opposition leader led by 6%)
2001 - John Howard 35%  Kim Beazley 41%.....(Opposition leader led by 6%)
1998 - John Howard 36%  Kim Beazley 36%.....(Opposition leader equal)
2004 - John Howard 43% Mark Latham 42%.....(Opposition leader trailed by 1%)
2010 - Kevin Rudd 55%  Tony Abbott 30%........(Opposition leader trails by 25%)
(Note: There's no comparable better prime minister figures from 1987 and 1989, as Newspoll only measured these during the election campaign.)

In red are the two times in those ten elections that there was a change of Government (yes, remember it doesn't happen very often). In green is where the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott are now. Yeah, Rudd’s really going to get rolled by Gillard.

Look, I don’t mean to say the ALP can’t lose the election. I’m saying the media – especially The Australian – should show some intelligence when talking about the polls and Rudd’s and Abbott’s “popularity”.

But back to QT.

The Dorothy Dixers today were pretty spritely. Wayne Swan had the most fun with Costello’s comments, lauding Abbott as “a miracle worker” for being the first person to unite Peter Costello and Paul Keating! It was a good line and made up for him referring to the Productivity Commission as “PC” so he could compare them with “the other PC – Peter Costello”. Swan is obviously buoyed by the good economic figures that keep coming out. Today the data on private dwelling constructions were released. They were excellent – a 15% increase in the last quarter of 2009. All those builders will not be thinking the Government has dropped the economic ball.

Tony Bourke got all shirty with Abbott for having appeared a few weeks back at a rally of NSW farmers protesting state vegetation laws because the event was centred around Peter Spencer who protested the laws by sitting on a pole and going on a hunger strike. Bourke pointed out that politicians on both sides had in the past always avoided having anything to do with such stunts for fear of encouraging similar self-harmful behaviour. Tony Abbott however turned up this time to the rally, demonstrating in Bourke’s opinion that Abbott was “erratic, self-obsessed and has a twisted morality”.

And Bourke is bloody well right – and he should have added that the rally consisted of a group of nutters more at home in one of the far-right wing Tea-Party rallies in America. It was so loopy that the National Farmer Federation didn’t want a bar of it.

But it was the last Dorothy Dixer to Rudd that really brought out the love. It was an extremely unsubtle question asking Rudd how was the Government making amends for the “ripping out of $1b from the Health Budget”.

So how did it go down? Let’s check the Hansard minutes:

Mr Melham, 3:18:29 PM, to Mr Rudd (Prime Minister), Point of order, Mr Pyne, 3:19:06 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:20:36 PM,

Mr Pyne, 3:21:12 PM, moved that the Prime Minister be no longer heard.

[Div No. 310], 3:21:30 PM to 3:27:34 PM, Ayes 60, Noes 83

Mr Rudd, 3:28:50 PM, Point of order, Ms J. Bishop, 3:29:13 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:29:50 PM, Point of order, Mr Pyne, 3:31:37 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:32:57 PM, Point of order, Mr Dutton, 3:33:32 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:33:56 PM

Member ordered to withdraw

Speaker ordered Mr Haase to withdraw for 1 hour for interjecting after a warning had been given by the Chair, 3:34:08 PM,

Point of order, Ms J. Bishop, 3:34:49 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:35:02 PM, Point of order, Mrs B. K. Bishop, 3:36:23 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:36:53 PM

No, I think we can safely say they didn’t appreciate Rudd’s way of saying that he likes Abbott!

Rudd kept repeating after each point of order, how sensitive was the Liberal Party on this issue. He put the $1b in terms of hospital beds – 1,025; he put it in terms of GP training places – 760. It had them extremely riled up – so riled up they even produced some Excel graphs on A3 paper showing the increase in the Health Budget over the 5 years of Abbott’s term as Minister (you always know when you’ve annoyed Julie Bishop and Peter Dutton – because they go straight for a big prop).

It didn’t stop Rudd at all; and it won’t stop him in the future; and it won’t stop the ALP running lots of adverts during the election campaign on the $1b ripped out of Health.

And Abbott knows he can’t do a damn thing about it. If he did he would move a censure motion on the issue, or at least a Matter of Public Importance. But he can’t because there’s enough “truth” in the $1b figure for it to be valid. Just as there’s enough “truth” in the insulation scheme for the Libs (and media) to keep saying it is bungled.

So both sides will keep pushing their version of truth, all the way till election day.

So enjoy – it if annoys you, just think of it as their way of saying they love your vote (but know that they won’t respect you the morning after election day).