Because his Lips are Moving.

Just quickly because I did do an update on this last night, but if you haven’t seen Tony Abbott’s interview on the 7:30 Report last night, firstly you can disqualify yourself from membership of the political nerd club, and secondly you should do so now

Geez. I mean geez!!!

Now, there have been many a column inch written on the interview, the one I agree with most is that by Phillip Coorey, where he writes:

Abbott cultivated his image by cleverly managing to direct the focus away from the many policy positions he has had on climate change, for example, or his broken "no new taxes" pledge, and to concentrate on the government's track record.

Abbott's performance on the 7.30 Report last night makes a mockery of that straight talking claim. By his own admission, Abbott urges people to treat with caution anything he says during the so-called heat of discussion.

The only utterances that can be taken as gospel truth were carefully prepared and scripted remarks such as those made during speeches or policy announcements.

If you believe anything else he says, then you are taking a punt.

Coorey then gives us a nice example of how this now causes us to question everything Abbott has said:

The heat of discussion includes radio interviews, press conferences and, surely the most heated forum of all, the Parliament. These various forums comprise the great bulk of public comment by politicians. Abbott, like the rest, now prefers talkback radio as the medium to get his message across.

Indeed, it was on talkback radio in February that he promised no Coalition policies would be funded by new or increased taxes, a promise he broke a month later when he announced a paid parental leave scheme funded by an increase in company taxes.

If this caveat now applies to talkback radio, does it mean, for instance, that when Abbott told Alan Jones yesterday he did not back Fred Nile's call to ban the burqa, that he was possibly lying and could well change his mind?

Coorey also brings up the attempt by the Liberal Party MPs (and some right wing talkback radio hosts) to spin what he said:

Abbott's boosters were claiming this morning that all the Opposition Leader was saying was that politicians sometimes do not tell the truth and that he should be applauded for this.

The problem of course is that Abbott was not saying anything of the sort, he was specifically saying when the heat is on he’ll make stuff up to win the argument. Here’s his words (note that Kerry is actually giving him a chance to correct himself, but Abbott doesn't see it, and instead hangs himself some more):

KERRY O'BRIEN: So every time you make a statement, we have to ask you whether it's carefully prepared and scripted or whether it's just something on the fly? No, seriously; this is a very serious question.

TONY ABBOTT: But all of us, Kerry, all of us when we're in the heat of verbal combat, so to speak, will sometimes say things that go a little bit further.

Some are trying to equate this with broken promises – ie Rudd lies about climate change, he lied about child care centres etc. But this is not about breaking promises, this is about not even intending to keep the promise in the first place – and Abbott in this case has specifically admitted that on the promise not to bring in a new tax he didn’t mean it at the time he said it.

We know Rudd meant to introduce an ETS – because he actually did introduce and ETS! You can say he should have done better, and he should call an election on the issue, but that’s a different point. All politicians always will break some promises – things change; things that sound good in opposition don’t look so good when you’re meeting with the folk from the Treasury and Finance Departments and they tell you how much things will cost, and how much money you have to spend. They should be criticised when they break them – and it is up to them to give damn good reasons why they have broken them.

But the one thing every single political journalist and opposition MP is after is proof that when the Government said they would do something, that they had already decided not to do it – ie to catch them in a lie. You know – How does the Minister’s statement to introduce Program X square with this leaked Minute from his Department dated two weeks prior stating that the Program X was to be scrapped?

Catching a Minister/ PM / Opposition leader in a lie is the whole ball game.

But Abbott is saying that that whole thing doesn’t matter because if it isn’t a “carefully prepared and scripted remark” you have to assume it could be a lie or not – it’s up to you – if you’re foolish enough to believe it, then it’s not his fault.

Wow! I mean wow!

In politics your word is your bond. Yes we know not everything will happen as planned and promised, but geez, voters have to believe that you actually believe you will do everything you planned and promised when you actually do plan and promise them. Otherwise, what the hell are we doing listening to anything you have to say?

And as I wrote last night, the one statement that has been lost in this kerfuffle (and it still has been lost in today’s news) is a non scripted and non prepared remark that Abbott made in the same interview:

KERRY O'BRIEN: But we are going to hear a lot from you over the next few months leading up to the election and what you are saying ...

TONY ABBOTT: You're not gonna hear any big promises from me.

Really Tony? No big promises from you during an election? None? Nothing? So what are you intending to say during the election campaign – “Vote for me, because I promise nothing”? You see as soon as he does make a promise to do anything, journalists are well within their rights to ask why is he making such a promise given he promised not to do so on the 7:30 Report. They can then follow up by asking whether if the promise he is making is carefully scripted.

Not good, not good at all.

I don’t think this will make too much of a hit in the polls – the polls at the moment are still mostly about the Government, but I think this has pretty well killed the election for him, because it will follow him around like the proverbial bad smell.

But there’s one bright spot from the interview – it also provided the Liberal Party with its election slogan: Vote Liberal – The least bad way of doing it.

Now that’s winning marketing!

Newspoll: 50-50 (or, why so focussed on Julia?)

Today, The Australian, as it does occasionally for little reason that I can think of other than it wants to make sure the media follow the narrative it wants to set, brought out the Newspoll a day early, showing the ALP and LNP split on 50% each. As Possum has noted, this poll makes a lot more sense than the last one, as “the Others” is down from the dopey 12% mark to 8%. If we ignore the last poll and focus on the movement since April 18, we see the ALP has lost 6% of its Primary vote – 3% going to the Liberal Party, 2% to the Greens, and 1% to the others. There’s a fair bit of media talk about no Budget bounce etc,  which unfortunately ignores that a Budget bounce is a media fantasy. It doesn’t exist. So the media might as well report that the Budget has not increased the number of unicorn sightings as talk about a Budget bounce in the polls.  

On the PM’s satisfaction rating, Rudd is still on the nose – 39% satisfied, 51 dissatisfied. It is never a good thing when over 50% are dissatisfied with your performance, but it’s not as fatal for a PM as it is for an opposition leader. The interesting thing is Abbott’s satisfaction rating fell 3% to 42%, and his dissatisfaction rating rose 2% to 45%; meaning we have two leaders no one is really all that excited about.

On preferred PM, Rudd goes below 50% for the first time, dropping from 50% to 49% (so really no real movement statistically), and Abbott goes up 1% to 33% (again no real movement). So we have a case where people are less satisfied with Rudd than they are with Abbott, but more still prefer Rudd as PM. Also, given the LNP has a primary vote of 43%, this means at least 10% of voters who say they would vote for either the Liberal or National Party but are either uncommitted on the PM question, or prefer Rudd. That does not bespeak of a movement for change.

Again, not a great poll for the ALP, but not wrist slashing time (unless you’re prone to panic, which I think some are). Especially when you look at how the Budget fared – 44% said the Budget was good for Australia’s economy, compared to 31% said who said it would make things worse. The interesting thing is only 19% said they would be better off because of the Budget, compared to 30% who said they’d be worse off – suggesting that people don’t mind not getting handouts, so long as they think the Budget is solid. This was the ALP’s hoped for outcome, and I’d say they’ve succeeded.

This is supported by today’s poll from Essential Media (which also had the 2PP at 50:50) which also asked about the Budget. In that poll, 36% said it was good for the economy, despite only 22% saying it was good for them personally. And more importantly when asked about the economy as a whole, 51% said it was heading in the right direction and only 25% thought it was heading in the wrong direction. That gives the Government a pretty solid foundation on which to sell its message (if it can articulate one that is).

Of note as well is that Essential asked how interested people were in the Budget. Fifty three percent said they paid attention compared with 66% last year. Obviously last year was in the midst of the GFC and so people were worried about the economy, but given it is an election year, it is a little odd that less people were interested. It suggests there isn’t a great engagement in politics generally – highlighted by pretty low ratings for the Budget, and lower ratings for Abbott’s reply. In 2007, when Rudd was leading Howard as Preferred PM, more people tuned in to hear what he had to say than they did to watch Costello actually deliver the Budget. People were engaged, and certainly were interested in hearing what Rudd had to say, perhaps to check whether or not he was “safe”. With Abbott there certainly does not seem anywhere near that level of engagement.

The Newspoll also asked who would people prefer as leader of the ALP – Rudd or Gillard. The poll found 45% for Rudd, 40% for Gillard. This was the big story of the day; I’m not sure why. Rudd is on the nose, and yet he’s still preferred as PM to Julia. Why any member of the ALP would look at that and think it was time to change leaders is beyond me – especially when Rudd is still comfortably preferred PM to Abbott.  

Interestingly the Newspoll didn’t ask who voters preferred as Leader of the Liberal Party – especially as last week’s Morgan Poll found Turnbull was favoured with 29%, and Abbott and Hockey were tied on 27%. All I know is, when an opposition party is equal or just ahead in the polls, but its leader is behind on preferred PM, the smart question is to find out if any other leader would be more preferred. I guess The Australian isn’t interested in that narrative…

Interestingly as well they didn't ask who was preferred PM – Julia or Abbott. They did ask this back in February, when they last asked who the preferred ALP leader. At that time Abbott’s satisfaction rating was 44% (compared to 42% now) and his Dissatisfaction rating was 37% (compared to 45% now). So he was actually more popular then than now. So how did he go against Julia? Well, he lost 49% to 38%. Now maybe you think Julia has gotten less popular since then, but I don’t think so. My supposition is she would still be beating him... in fact I would bet by more than then.

Why do I think this? Well the drop in Rudd’s lead as preferred leader over Julia in that time is has been 20% (from a 25% lead in Feb to a 5% lead now). By comparison Rudd’s lead as Preferred PM rating has dropped only 12% (from 28% to 16%). The shift of voters from Rudd to Julia has been bigger than the shift from Rudd to Abbott, and thus I think we can logically state that the number preferring Julia to Abbott would also have increased. But we’ll never know…

Interestingly as well (and yes, I swear never to use interestingly ever again), the poll didn’t ask about the Recourse Super Profits Tax. It does seem odd they didn’t ask it given the glee with which The Australian has been printing stories from mining execs about how bad it is. But who knows, perhaps it was asked and we’ll find out more tomorrow or later in the week.

UPDATE:

All of the above may very well become historical hooey, because tonight on the 7:30 Report Tony Abbott, in perhaps a first for any political leader admitted you couldn’t always believe what he says:

KERRY O'BRIEN: But what you haven't explained is how you can make one promise in one month and then completely change it the next. What happened in that month where you had this sudden explosion of vision?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, again, Kerry, people will make their own judgments about me and if they ...

KERRY O'BRIEN: No, but I'd like you to explain it. Tony Abbott feels with conviction we will not have a new tax in any way, shape or form, we won't have a new tax; a month later, you do.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So every time you make a statement, we have to ask you whether it's carefully prepared and scripted or whether it's just something on the fly? No, seriously; this is a very serious question.

TONY ABBOTT: But all of us, Kerry, all of us when we're in the heat of verbal combat, so to speak, will sometimes say things that go a little bit further.

Unbelievable, it essentially means that every statement he makes from hear on in will be met with the question – so is this a carefully prepared and scripted statement?

He also said something else that I think will come back to bite him:

KERRY O'BRIEN: But we are going to hear a lot from you over the next few months leading up to the election and what you are saying ...

TONY ABBOTT: You're not gonna hear any big promises from me.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But what you are saying is that the public are not going to know from one day to the next when you are saying something that's absolutely rock solid and when it's not. Are there two Tony Abbotts?

No big promises in an election campaign? I’ve got a feeling that that was not a carefully prepared and scripted statement.

AFL Power Rankings: Round 8 (or reality checks and balances)

So last week Adelaide wins a game by playing well in one quarter; critics said they’d need to put in a four quarter effort if they wanted to win again. In an attempt to disprove that cliché, the Crows again played well in only one quarter and they… lost.

In footy, there’s something to be said for clichés.

In the first few rounds of the season Fevola looked to have fitted in nicely with the Lions. Some people were thinking, maybe he’s changed his spots, maybe having Jonathon Brown in the forward line has got him to straighten up and fly right – Carlton supporters were all thinking, just wait, just wait. On the weekend, Fev might have been injured, we guess… but he played like Carlton supporters knew he would eventually. My bet is they don’t miss him.

Collingwood beat the Dockers in a top of the table, and now have another top of the table clash with the Cats. With all due respect to the Dockers, this feels like a real top of the table clash. In fact it feels like the Grand Final preview – and will get a crowd around 90,000 if it doesn’t rain. In a season, where for the firs time in quite a few years, there is no one team that looks like dominating the minor season, this match will decide which team will be the benchmark.

A few jumps around the top of the Power Rankings – the Bulldogs make a big jump, but to be honest it feels like a very weird season that hasn't quite settled down yet.

	Rank	LW	Team	Record	Comment
	1	1↔	Collingwood	7-1	Yep, they’re looking good. The big test, and perhaps the biggest game of the year, this Friday. Should be a cracker.
	2	3↑	Geelong	6-2	As I said last week, when they’re going no one can stop them, and I think they’re pretty well going – this week will be the test.
	3	4↑	Carlton	5-3	The Blues ran over the Power in the last quarter – which gives them great momentum for this week against the Hawks.
	4	2↓	Fremantle	6-2	A set back, but they still look good, though a trip to the SCG is never easy, and they will want to win to stop the jitters from setting in.
	5	9↑	Bulldogs	5-3	Things for the first time for a while clicked, and they played like everyone thought they would prior to the season. Need to beat North this week to consolidate.
	6	5↓	St Kilda	5-3	The Saints have hit a major speed hump – good thing their next 3 rounds are the Eagles, Crows and Tigers.
	7	6↓	Port Adelaide	5-3	Port were found wanting in the last quarter, they now travel to Darwin to play Melbourne.
	8	7↓	Sydney	5-3	A bad loss, this week against the Dockers is setting up as a big test of whether or not they’re good enough to play finals.
	9	8↓	Brisbane	4-4	Wow, four losses in a row. The Lions must be grateful to the AFL that they now get to play the Crows, so at least that’s one win they can pencil in.
	10	11↑	Essendon	3-5	A big win for the club, that keeps them in touch. A win over the Tigers this week will have them just a game out of the eight.
	11	12↓	North Melbourne	4-4	North played 3 good quarters and 1 horrible one. They very nearly blew it. Will not be so lucky if they do that against the Bulldogs this week.
	12	10↓	Melbourne	3-5	Hmmm…. it’s starting to look like those 3 wins were a bit of a mirage in the desert. With Port, Geelong, Carlton and Collingwood ahead, things don’t look too bright.
	13	13↔	West Coast	3-5	A rare win away from Perth; now they face the Saints to see if they can win 3 in a row.
	14	14↔	Hawthorn	2-6	Oooh the Hawks nearly lost that one. Is their season back on track? You’re kidding right? They nearly got beat by Richmond! Carlton this week is a more honest test.
	15	15↔	Adelaide	1-7	Like last week they only started playing in the 4th quarter. They looked good then, but by then it was too late.
	16	16↔	Richmond	0-8	Another of the very many good honest losses by the Tigers. But to be honest, their supporters should feel positive about the future – Jack Riewoldt will be a star.

The Man to Sell the RSPT

There were three very good articles today on the Budget and the Resources Super Profits Tax.

The first came from Ross Gittins, who pointed out that of course the Budget position had improved because tax receipts improved (he says “of course”, because this drives every single budget). But he also notes the the ALP can legitimately claim credit for reducing the deficit, because their policies also played a sizeable part.  He writes:

Economists studying budgets focus their attention on what the government does. Did its decisions bolster the economy and help to minimise the downturn? Then, when the cycle has turned around, did it curtail its stimulus to get the budget back in surplus as soon as possible and start paying down the debt racked up during the recession?

The answer to the first question is yes, the government's alleged reckless spending on fiscal stimulus did play a significant role in keeping the recession so mild.

Treasury calculates that the fiscal stimulus added about 2 percentage points to the growth in gross domestic product in 2009. Since the actual growth was 1.4 per cent, this says that without that stimulus the economy would have contracted by about 0.7 per cent.

Next question: having used its discretionary spending to minimise the downturn, is the government now turning off that spending, and limiting any new spending, to allow the recovery to get the budget back in the black as soon as possible?

Surprisingly, the answer again is yes. That's why most economists were giving the budget a tick this week.

What’s that? The Government is turning off the spending? But didn’t Tony Abbott say “this reckless spending must stop”? One might almost think he doesn’t understand economics…

Gittins continues:

The first element of the framework was the requirement that its explicit stimulus measures be temporary - that is, one-off. Because that spending was temporary, and most of it has passed, the stimulus is being withdrawn. That is, it is now exerting a contractionary influence on the economy.

According to Treasury's calculations, the withdrawal of the stimulus will subtract about 1 percentage point from gross domestic product growth this calendar year, and a further 0.75 percentage points in 2011.

So the next time some bloke at work or at the pub tells you Rudd should wind back the stimulus, feel free to say, errr you do realise they have, and that they’re winding it back such that it is taking 1 percentage point off GDP growth – ie it has been withdrawn exactly as planned (and desired by so many in the media).

The next article was a surprising one for me, it was by Angela Shanahan (not a person with whom I often think – yep I’ll be agreeing with this article). She writes about the Resources Super Profit Tax, noting:

There is a big difference between a 40 per cent super tax on mining profits and the ETS, or indeed most other taxes. The difference is that for once it is not the already overtaxed average Australian paying it, but rather the great big companies that are getting rich from Australia's natural wealth.

There’s a phrase Rudd and Swan and Co must tattoo to their eyeball – getting rich from Australia’s natural wealth

Shanahan (Angela, not Dennis) compared Australia's current arrangement with that of how Norway taxes the miners digging up its natural resources (and Australia does not come out looking good by comparison). She finishes with a very telling point:

Unlike Norway, Australia is simply digging up its natural resources and selling them. Yes the spin-off profits stay here and yes the companies pay tax, but all the nervous talk of killing the golden goose only makes it clear that until now we have been too focused on the present benefits of our resources and not enough on how the profits they earn can be harnessed for our future.

From a calmer perspective, the mining tax is probably Rudd's only real long-term policy, and it might be good for Australian economic and social policy if managed correctly.

Interestingly a few commentators have noticed a shift in the government's rhetoric. Finally it has begun to replace the opportunistic working families mantra with a more substantial one: the future.

The fact is the RSPT is exactly the type of policy the voters elected Rudd to do – long term reform. The concern for some in the ALP (the more nervous ones, who have little knowledge of history) is that Rudd has damaged his standing so greatly that he won’t be able to sell this great reform. This brings me to the last good article – that by Laurie Oakes.

Oakes writes of Rudd supposed angry moment on the 7:30 Report. Mirroring what he wrote on his twitter feed, he writes:

WHEN Kevin Rudd showed a bit of fire in his The 7.30 Report interview with Kerry O'Brien, it was almost certainly a political plus. Every time the extract was shown on TV, his minders cheered.

Instead of the usual robotic Rudd, here was a real human being. Instead of hiding his message behind an impenetrable wall of sound, the PM - for a change - spoke with feeling.

All that stuff about rants and tirades and loss of temper was nonsense. Comparing Rudd's performance with a Mark Latham brain snap was ridiculous.

As for Tony Abbott's response ... well, as always, you had to admire his front. With a disapproving shake of the head, the Opposition Leader told journalists: "Look, if he's like that on The 7.30 Report, what's he really like behind closed doors? That's all I can say."

This, of course, is the same Tony Abbott who swore at Nicola Roxon in front of the cameras after arriving late for a debate during the last election.

The good thing about Oakes is he has a political memory longer than that of an elephant who has just won the world elephant memory championship. Too many members of the Canberra press gallery have the political memory of a gold fish who even other gold fish think, geez, his memory is bad.

He also pointed out (as may I add, so did I in my last blog – yeah great minds!) that Rudd needs to sell the RSPT if he wants to win the election, and he needs to sell it a hell of a lot better than he did (or didn’t) the ETS:

The truth is that Rudd cannot allow Abbott to win the mining debate or his Government is dead meat. He has to get out there and market the tax whether he thinks it's his job or not, and make a better fist of it than he did with the ETS.

And a bit of genuine passion now and then would not be a bad idea.

Now when I think genuine passion about the mining industry, as a child of the 80s, I think of one man – Bill Hunter spruiking for The Big Australian (BHP) (not to mention his great work in the mini-series The Dismissal as RFX Connor). Personally I think the ALP should be giving him a call*. They need to get him to talk about how the RSPT is great “for every Australian”.

I don’t know if he is an ALP man, but he looks like one, and if Bill Hunter thinks the RSPT is ok, then who would disagree?

*While googling looking for the old adverts, I came across an article in the SMH by Matthew Murphy last week, where the suggests Hunter should be employed by the miners to do their dirty work. Leading me to think, “Bugger, that was my idea!”

On the QT: Making Meltdowns out of Molehills, and Molehills out of Fertiliser

Today’s Question Time was prefaced by dopey reports this morning regarding Kevin Rudd’s appearance on the 7:30 Report last night – an appearance where he finally did what I suggested he should have done three weeks ago, and got some passion into his explanation of why the ETS was put on the back burner. The interview (you can watch it here) that the 7:30 website in all its stupidity has subtitled: “Angry Rudd Defends ETS Backflip”, pretty much merely involved Rudd giving as good as he got from Kerry. And yet this morning, half the Canberra Press Gallery were calling it a meltdown, or gleefully repeating Greg Hunt’s claim that Rudd was acting like Latham (a claim that surely means the use of Latham as an adjective has well and truly jumped the shark). 

“The Punch” decided to get Tim Wilson from the Institute of Public Affairs to write about it under the heading of 7.30 meltdown shows PM is hot under the collar, which I guess shows what The Punch lacks in intelligent articles it makes up for in dumb hyperbole.

What really showed out was that the old heads of the press gallery knew it was all a bit of nothing – Laurie Oakes on twitter wrote:

Those who claim Rudd on 7.30 Report was "ranting" or "Lathamlike" must have watched a different interview from the one I saw.

He then had a go at his colleagues  in the press gallery tweeting to Samantha Maiden (of The Australian):

Greg Hunt first made Latham comparison, but media have pushed "cranky pills" "ranting" line that gives it substance.

As I wrote yesterday, Laurie Oakes use of twitter is putting many of his younger more tech-savvy colleagues to shame.

But to Question Time:

Abbott started things off with a slow long hop to Rudd based on a report in The Australian that Ken Henry had been heard saying in private that a slow down in the mining industry would be no bad thing (by the way, once again proving, that if you want to know what line the Liberal Party will take each day, you should be reading The Australian). Unfortunately for Abbott, Henry put out a statement refuting the story, so Rudd dealt with it easily (most likely because he had also read the report in The Oz).

The first Dorothy Dixer of the day was to let Rudd talk up the Govt’s achievements. I have to say it was all a bit by rote, he really didn’t fire up until the next question from Julie Bishop (she who could fly home to Perth on a plane powered by her own sense of self-satisfaction) who asked if Rudd agreed with his speech of last year where he said that to delay action on climate change was to be a coward and lacking leadership.

Once again, like yesterday, Rudd had no problems with the question – and seemed to enjoy it, no doubt due to the delicious irony of the opposition "being the party who voted down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme blaming the Government for not passing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”. The Libs can be as gleeful as they like about Rudd backing down over the ETS, but they don’t seem to have cared that bugger all of the ALP Primary vote went to them – and that part of the reason might be that those annoyed by the ETS back down, know that Abbott is a complete flat-earther when it comes to climate change.

It all goes to the wonderful Liberal-Party Catch 22 electoral fortunes. If Turnbull were still leader they would have picked up most of those lost ALP votes, because he believes in climate change, but if Turnbull were still leader there would be no lost ALP votes to pick up because the ETS would have been passed.

During Rudd’s speech the opposition got a bit excited, and Speaker Harry said that he thought they might be a bit quiet as he thought they would like to be able to sit in the Parliament for Abbott’s Budget reply speech later that night. Albanese quickly chimed in – only 51% of them do (referring to Abbott’s slim victory in the spill last November). This Harry said was not helping things (but it was really).

The first Dorothy to Swan on “budget discipline” allowed him to say that the nation under Abbott would “feel the full steel of a recession”; given that small business would already have an “iron fist up the bracket”, the ALP is painting a positively medieval picture of life under a Tony Abbott Government.

Albo also had much joy at Sophie Mirabella declaring earlier in the week that she would like to see the return of the Regional Partnership Program (known pretty widely as the Regional Rorts Program). Mirabella raced to the dispatch box for a dopey point of order, and as he came back Albo muttered of her – “she never saw a trough she didn’t like” (and yes he had to withdraw it).

The best other Dorothy Dixer was Julia making great fun of poor Paul Fletcher (who we know from “When Julia Attacks” fame). Fletcher made the foolish error of turning up to the opening ceremony of a BER project in his electorate – and not only that he gave a speech on the day. Julia was pretty ruthless as she showed the house the glossy photos of him at the event, smiling and looking so proud of the building that he would have voted to not be built. Poor bugger, wait till next sitting week when Julia will no doubt have a copy of his speech to relate to the House.

After this it was question upon question based on either something some mining executive has said to the press or in a meeting, but not to the ASX (here’s a note to journalists around the traps – when a listed company does something that will affect its earnings outlook, it has to inform the ASX, so it might be best to check if they’ve done that before breathlessly announcing that mining explorations etc things are being “shelved”), or on the effects of the RSPT on prices.

This latter type of question gave us the joy of Andrew Robb, who I am told again and again, is an excellent economic mind, asking Swan about the price of fertiliser under the RSPT. I mean… geez. Robb got quite angry (or was that “passionate”) when the ALP laughed at his question. But seriously, if the RSPT is so bad the Libs should be able to pull it apart without resorting to asking what would the price of x and y be under it. 

Hockey then tried to attack the budget asking Swan what would happen if the RSPT didn’t raise what it says it would raise. Well hell Joe, they’re called budget projections. Every Budget makes projections about how much each tax in the budget would raise – if the taxes don’t raise what they predicated they would the budget goes more into deficit, if (as happened last year, and most years) the taxes raise more than they predict, the budget deficit will be reduced by more. If Hockey thinks he has uncovered a massive big budgetary scandal, then I have major concerns about what their economic strategy will be…

***

Which brings me to Abbott’s Budget reply speech.

Now I have to say I had low expectations, but Abbott to his credit well and truly kept under them. For the first 20 minutes he showed that he had learned nothing from the Health debate, as he went in negative against Rudd and the Government and even threw in a couple of his “jokes”. His body language was odd – sort of hunched forward – and he spent crucial minutes railing against the Government without offering any of his own policies.

In 2007, Rudd’s Budget reply speech out rated Costello’s Budget Speech. People knew he was likely to win the election, and so wanted to have a look at what he had to say. I doubt many tuned in tonight, and many that did would have switched back to Masterchef after the first 10 minutes of negative ranting. And by the time he did get to policy it was rather underwhelming.

He confirmed they’ll continue with the classic sell the car to repay the house mortgage policy of selling Medibank Private. I predict the ALP will run hard on this issue especially in Queensland where privatisation is going down like a bucket of Andrew Robb’s fertiliser. I would have more respect for the policy if they had an efficiency reason for selling it, but no, they’re just selling it to pay off debt that is already being paid off. It lacks common sense – which I guess is why Hockey and Abbott like it.

He also stated he’ll dump the NBN. Well there goes Tasmania, where it is already being rolled out.

He said he’ll “restructure” the BER projects – whatever the hell that means (it means he doesn’t have to say which ones he’ll be cutting the funding for).

He said he’ll put a freeze on Public Service recruitment for two years. Interesting jobs policy… so what are all those university graduates who each year get a job in the public service now going to do Tony?

He admitted that WorkChoices had gone too far, and that mistakes had been made… and then said how great it was! As Vizzini would say, Inconceivable!! He might as well have said, please make WorkChoices an issue at the election – and so it is to be – Bernard Keane tweeted soon after:

Took Julia Gillard exactly 42 minutes to produce a Workchoices press release.

Abbott then pledged to cut Government advertising by 25%. (That sound you heard was every person who ever saw a WorkChoices advert or a Private Health umbrella advert throwing up). I wonder if he’ll base the 25% cut from John Howard’s final year?

He then made his big announcement… that Joe Hockey will be announcing more policies next week!! Which is kind of like saying, I don’t really get all this big economic stuff, so I’ll handball that task on to someone else.

If Abbott was hoping to convince people he knew his way around a budget balance sheet, he failed dismally.

But of course that wasn’t what he was about. His strategy is that the Resource Super Profits Tax will win him the election – he’s going to fight Rudd on the issue. The problem of course is he likes to paint Rudd as a coward for not taking tough decisions, and yet he is essentially forcing Rudd to take a tough stance that will essentially hurt the argument that he doesn’t take tough decisions.

But I’ve given up looking for logic – probably because there’s too much focus group work going around on both sides.

The Government now has to sell its RSPT well –a whole lot better than it did the ETS – and a good way to start is for Rudd to keep up the same attitude he took to the 7:30 Report last night. Be bold in your sales pitch; be confident, and be clear. (Oh and maybe let someone other than Penny Wong do it).

On the QT: Scoundrels with Iron Fists and Flim Flam

The Question Time after the Budget is always a bit of a nothing affair for the opposition – unless the government has totally screwed up things the night before, they are reduced to asking questions which have been anticipated long before by the Treasury and thus there’s little chance for them to trouble the batsmen, let alone take any wickets. But that doesn’t really excuse the Opposition for adopting exactly the same tactics as were adopted last year.

Here’s was Turnbull last year:

Mr TURNBULL (2.13 pm)—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, if the International Monetary Fund’s recent World economic outlook shows the Australian economy growing at only 1.1 per cent in 2010, his budget projects growth in Australia only a year later to be 4.5 per cent, more than four times the IMF’s projection?

In other words they attacked the figures, rather than attack the policies.

This year it was much the same – and like last year they then followed up with questions referring to page such and such of Budget Paper 1, Appendix whatever, to make it seem like they were all over the details.

The periods that Tony Abbott looked most happy where when he asked his first question, and then when after Question Time he made mention of David Cameron becoming the British PM – in the process somehow making it sound like the Liberal-Democrats in the UK were in some way analogous to the Liberal Party here. In between the laughs weren’t in huge store for the Libs as they tried to take apart a budget they has been pretty well received.

Abbott’s first question had him smiling like he thought he was the funniest kid in class, asking Rudd why he was only an economic conservative in election years (this of course runs completely counter to the Howard-Costello model where in election years they became big spenders, and in other years pretended they were economic conservatives). Rudd was having none of it, and launched into Abbott pointing out that an economic conservative is one who advocates counter-cyclical government spending – ie when the private enterprise side of the economy is shrinking the Govt expands and vice-versa.

That definition might not pass muster with the lads of the Institute of Public Affairs, but Rudd certainly nailed Abbott (and Howard and Costello in absentia) when he pointed out that they spent pro-cyclical – ie they expanded Government spending when the private side of the economy was also expanding – leading to (everybody together) 10 interest rate rises in a row.

Now this budget has been derided by some as boring, but of course that’s only because (like last year) all the bad news was dished out earlier. Ross Gittins was one of the few to notice this in the context of the budget – as the dumping of the insulation scheme, the child care centres, the tax on smokes, the RSPT, the superannuation guarantee, the company tax rate drop had all come earlier, and all were crucial to the budget bottom line.

Those who think Swan and Rudd have brought back the Budget into surplus without any hard choices – ie ones that will hurt them in the polls, must ask themselves what they think the childcare centre decision, the dumping of the ETS (and its associated costs) and the increase in smokes has done to the ALP’s polling? I guess they don’t count as hard because they only dropped the ALP’s 2PP by 5%…

Abbott then got onto the theme of the day, namely the Budget is all based on guess work and hope (though sadly we were denied a repeat of Hockey’s phrase from yesterday that the government was taxing hope). He asked what would happen if the mining boom went south.

It’s always nice to hear members of the Howard Government criticising a Government for relying on a mining boom – back in 2007 they were criticising Rudd for talking too much about what to do after the boom here was Howard in June 2007:

Mr HOWARD (Bennelong) (Prime Minister) —I am intrigued every time the Leader of the Opposition talks about the mining boom. It sounds as though he wants it to come to an end, and maybe that is because he knows that if his industrial relations policy is introduced it will come to an end. …

So the vision is between the soaring optimism and hope of those on this side of the parliament in relation to the mining boom and the dreary pessimism of those who miserably sit opposite.

Can someone tell me if the boom survived the ALP’s industrial relations policy?

Joe Hockey got into the action question five – asking Swan about the possibility of the decline of terms of trade that is in the budget as a contingency to the forecasts. He referred to the “wafer-thin surplus” which had a few thinking of Mr Creosote from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life. 

Swan took to the question with glee saying that the “first refuge of a scoundrel is to trash the forecasts” – which I guess means that someone really needs to rewrite all of Jane Austen’s novels. But nonetheless Swan was in fine form – and I have to say he was very good in his National Press Club Speech today. Joe Hockey obviously didn’t watch it because his next question mirrored one asked by a journalist after the speech – a question which Swan had dealt with easily then, and he dealt with it even better this time, given the net practice he had had in the press club speech.

Kevin Rudd also got in on the fun times when in response to a question by Ian Macfarlane which again questioned the budget figures he made use of some good work by Laurie Oakes in relation to Joe Hockey and his inconsistency of criticisms of last year’s budget.

A few months back, after watching an Oakes interview one Sunday I suggested somewhere (probably on twitter) that perhaps Oakes was past his prime, and it might be best he give it away. I have to say that was up there with my prediction yesterday to a work colleague that the Lib-Dems would definitely do a deal with Labour. Oakes has been in great form of late, and he has also shown an excellent ability to be taught a new trick, by taking to twitter in a way that puts a lot of younger journos to shame.

He is quite chatty on twitter -  often replying to others and he makes some pretty cutting points. He also has shown that twitter is not merely for use to relate what is happening but can also be used to make some very pertinent points. Here are his comments on the budget  starting from last night:

• Swan has done his job.Responsible. Tells a story. No gimmicksor tricks. #budget
• Swan says Budget not about a political equation. Nonsense. Restraint seen as vote-winning message. Bid to restore sense of competence. about 21 hours ago via web

This is a very good point – no budget is ever delivered free of political care. What is amazing is that Rudd and Swan have made an electoral virtue of Budget restraint. This is a long way from 2007.

He then got on to Joe Hockey’s response to the Budget:

• Last Budget night Hockey blasted Treasury as far too optimistic.Tonight he says Treasury figs last year were far too pessimistic. about 19 hours ago via web
• Back at Parliament House. Might as well have slept here.Consolation? Joe Hockey got less sleep. about 11 hours ago via web
• Hockey Budget night 2009 said of Treasury's "surplus in six years" forecast: "No-one's taking that seriously." about 10 hours ago via web
• " Treasury has some pretty heroic assumptions in their forecasts for how quickly we come out of recession." Hockey May 13 2009. about 9 hours ago via web
• Hockey last night claimed Treasury were saying a year ago "that this was the end of the world". about 9 hours ago via web
• Today Hockey denies that last Budget night he blasted Treasury as far too optimistic but now says their figs were far too pessimistic. about 9 hours ago via web

By this morning Joe’s response to the Budget had pretty much been destroyed by anyone who follows Oakes’s twitter feed (and that is 3,473 people at the moment). It was an excellent example of how twitter can be used to make a cogent argument – and is not actually limited to 140 characters. Sure the younger journos would be posting links to Hockey’s statements etc. But Oakes showed that a good journo is one who can perform in any media (now if we can only get Laura Tingle on twitter).

And for those who missed Oakes’s interview last night it is certainly worth a watch:

Of the rest of QT, the highlight was Lindsay Tanner welcoming Andrew Robb to the line-up of Shadow Finance Minister against whom he has faced since 2007 – the number is now up to five (or as Tanner called it, a basketball team). Tanner challenged Abbott to come up with some savings measures in the Budget, adopting the standard Government line in an election year, saying:

'We are approaching the business end of the season where the Australian community are going to ask for some detail. There's a lot of rhetoric, there's a lot of fluff, there's a lot of flim-flam. We have had virtually no detail from the leader of the opposition yet.'

Of course there won’t be any tomorrow night in the Budget Reply speech (there never is), but what will be interesting is how many tune in to watch it. From memory Rudd’s Budget reply in 2007 rated almost as highly, if not more so than did the Budget that year. If Abbott’s doesn’t rate, I think you can take that as a strong sign that most Australians don’t expect him to be PM after the next election, and thus he is not worth bothering with (especially for a boring economics speech).

The final light note was courtesy of Craig Emerson (who else), who after a pretty measured response suddenly switched to vaudeville and said that Abbott was going around calling himself the “iron man”, whereas what he really had, according to Emmo, an “iron fist in the face of small businesses” - “An iron fist! Here’s one up the bracket!” Emmo said with the appropriate hand gesture. Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.

Ah Emmo, always there to give political sketch writers a hand.

Tomorrow is the last QT for the week – the usual short first week of the sitting period, and then it’s another week off, though the way the Government has been enjoying the past two days back in the warmth of the House of Reps, I’m betting they wish they could be back next week.

On the QT: Is it still March?

The First Question Time of the winter sittings is always a bit of an odd affair. As it is on Budget Day, the opposition knows full well that anything that gets asked or said will not rate a mention in the next day’s papers, and the issue of economics is really brought up in real terms as the Treasurer is busy in the press gallery lock-up, and any other questions will be fobbed off in “wait till 7:30pm terms”. Apparently this was a “torrid” Question Time, though having watched a few of them, and given that torrid implies some heat, I can say I thought this was a rather luke-warm affair.

You would think the opposition would have been full of vim and vigour given the recent polls showing them at 50-50 with the Government. Instead what we saw was a back to March type session, where the opposition's questions were a scattershot attack, and Rudd was taking Dorothy Dixers on health and the economy.

I was expecting the Opposition to be full of voice – shouting at Rudd to call an election. I was expecting question after question talking about lack of guts etc etc. Instead the first question to Rudd from Abbott was on the Resources Super Profits Tax and the miners, based on Xstrata’s claim today suspending an exploration project. If this question is any guide, we can count of Abbott using any claims by the miners as basis for questions. And if Rudd’s response is any guide, he is not going to be one bit troubled.

Julie Bishop then rose to ask if Rudd was considering levying a Super Profits Tax on other industries that earned profits in excess of 6%. It was a typical Julie Bishop delivery – straight, with no swing, nor any movement off the pitch. Rudd dispatched it to the boundary with ease.

The most exciting the proceeding got in the early stages was when in response to a Dorothy Dixer on the economy, Rudd said that “This Government has become a friend of small business”. I don’t think he was meaning to imply it hadn’t previously been on friendly terms, but whatever, the opposition didn’t like it, and it finally brought them to life. Unfortunately up next was Chainsaw Macfarlane who laboriously asked a question that seemed to have something with the terms of reference of the consultation with the mining companies for the RSPT (or something, I got a bit lost trying to follow it). It was hardly the pressing issue of the RSPT – or if it was he totally confused it all.

By this time Rudd was able to stand at the non-scorers end while the Minister for Resources and Energy, Marn Fersn took the striker’s end to face up to a Dorothy Dixer on the Strayun Minng Indstry, and the cmplx issue of cnslttshun.

God bless Marn. Question Time would be poorer without him and his lack of vowels.

After another pedestrian delivery by Warren Truss (has there ever been any other kind of deliver by Truss?) Tony Abbott took to the greatest moral challenge of our time – climate change. You would think given the dumping of the ETS has perhaps caused the most damage to the Rudd brand, that he would be somewhat trepidatious in this issue – not at all. He skipped down the pitch and belted it for six. The reason why is Tony Abbott himself. Abbott’s question on climate change and Rudd’s back down on the ETS would carry some weight if Abbott hadn’t been the one who caused the ETS to be defeated, and if he hadn’t last week told a group of Primary School kids that the world was hotter during the time of Jesus and Julius Caesar.

Rudd made merry with Abbott’s speech to the kids, and though he only mentioned the Jesus line, he must have been thinking of Caesar when he referred to Abbott as “the man who assassinated the Member for Wentworth”. He ended by calling Abbott the man who destroyed bipartisanship on the issue, and you could have been forgiven for forgetting it was Rudd who was supposedly in trouble on the issue – because it seemed like he wanted more questions on the topic.

That no further question on the ETS were asked may show that this issue is not as good for the opposition as they hoped (though I’m always loathe to suggest there’s some strategy to the Liberal's questions), but certainly I cannot see Rudd being worried by it, unless they get more cutting. The problem is, the Libs can’t get away from the fact that if they think it is bad that the ETS has been delayed, why don’t they pass it? If they don’t want it passed, then what are they asking Rudd to do?

Next up was Chris Pyne on cost per square foot etc of the School Halls Program. He quoted from the Rawlinson Construction Handbook (see tradies – he’s one of you!). Once again Rudd dealt with the question with ease – mostly because he was able to refer to the Auditor General’s report – that will be used for as long as the Government can to put away any questions in QT on this issue.

The next few questions tried to work on a theme that Rudd had failed to keep his promises. The first was from Greg Hunt on the scrapping of the insulation scheme. It was the only time Rudd played and missed. He reverted to Rudd-speak, and obviously wanted to finish his answer as quickly as possible. Sharman Stone then followed up with a question about the dumping of the Childcare Centres. It could have been a good question, but as usual it became too broad and allowed Rudd to boast about the 50% child care rebate, but again I expect the opposition to sharpen their attack on this issue – the problem being of course that Sharman Stone will never trouble anyone with her questions, let alone a skilled performer like Rudd.

Then Scott Morrison came into the attack to deal with the old favourite of asylum seekers. The opposition did not like Rudd’s response because he gleefully referred to Morrison’s claiming that putting asylum seekers up in Hotels was something the Howard Government only did under exceptional circumstances. Rudd pointed out it was Howard Govt policy in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005…. The result can be gauged by the live minutes:

Mr Morrison, 3:17:23 PM, to Mr Rudd (Prime Minister), Point of order, Mr Morrison, 3:20:43 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:21:34 PM, Point of order, Mr Pyne, 3:22:26 PM, Point of order, Mr Pyne, 3:24:06 PM, Point of order, Mr Morrison, 3:25:20 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:26:16 PM, Point of order, Mr Morrison, 3:27:24 PM
Member ordered to withdraw.
Speaker ordered Mr Morrison to withdraw for 1 hour for raising a frivolous point of order, 3:27:54 PM  Mr Morrison left the Chamber at 3.28 p.m. 
Mr Rudd, 3:28:47 PM, Point of order, Ms J. Bishop, 3:29:45 PM, Mr Rudd, 3:30:05 PM, Point of order, Mr Farmer, 3:30:35 PM

And that was basically the end of the “torrid” day. Though Kate Ellis did talk about the World Cup bid, and Tony Burke talked about locusts (say what you like, you can’t say the range of topics is narrow in Australian parliament).

Today’s QT showed what the Opposition's attack will be – broken promises. But from their effort today, they’ll need to work on their delivery, because the pitch was looking pretty flat.