Flick of the Week: Who ever heard of a bank robbers escaping on a plane with fifty hostages?

The last Flick of the Week post I did was back on (ahem) 27 June, which makes this the most overdue one of these posts I’ve ever done. For those who have only been reading this blog for a few weeks, the premise is that I link from one movie to another by way of a member of the cast or crew. I started with North By Northwest; 41 films later I was at Gosford Park. They are meant to be done once a week – they never are. But Flick of the Week sounds better than “Flick of the whenever I get around to it”.  This week’s Flick of the Week takes us with Clive Owen, who played the butler who did it in Robert Altman’s Gosford Park to his role as super bank robber, Dalton Russell in Spike Lee’s most commercially successful film, Inside Man. 

When this film was made, Owen was in the middle of a period where he was jumping to, if not the A List, at least to the “this guy makes every film better” list. He also seemed to be in just about every film at the time. He was certainly one of the hardest working stars going around. In 2002 the year after Gosford Park he was in two films (one of which was a small but vital role in The Bourne Identity); in 2003 he was in another two, in 2004 he jumped to above the line status with his starring roles in King Arthur and Closer, in 2005 he was in another two films – including the freakish Sin City, by 2006 he had settled into a nice pattern and so did another two films – Inside Man and the amazing Children of Men. In 2007? Well how about another two films. In 2008 he took a year off, only to come back in 2009 with three films. The guy likes to work.

One of the good things about Clive Owen is that going in you know you are going to be treated like an adult. His films are not for teenagers. They may have elements of action in them, but these are not comic book movies – the closest he gets is the graphic novelesque Sin City. His characters are men. Perhaps only George Clooney’s characters are as manly – not in a muscle bound sense, but in a these guys have put away childish things sense. Like Clooney (and their forebears like Cary Grant and Bogart) they exude so much charisma, they let everyone know they are the star just by walking across the screen. Owen spends much of the film wearing a mask and glasses, and yet his performance is not hindered in any way.

Inside Man had Owen surrounded by actors – and a director – who also make movies for adults.  Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster will never be battling transformers (if we forget Washington’s role in Virtuosity) and Spike Lee has never been called the African-American Michael Bay. Lee’s films have an edge and sensibility to them that virtually repels the mass teenage audience, but here at least he took on a conventional film almost you think just to show Hollywood he can do it. 

The story, written by Russell Gewitz (who has gone on to write only one other film – Righteous Kill) involves Owen as bank robber Dalton Russell. The film is mostly told in flashback as we see Russell and his gang take a group of people hostage, and Washington as Detective Keith Frasier is called in to negotiate. Washington as Frasier is attired like some postmodern mesh of a 1940s noir film detective by way of the 1970s.

The 1970s vibe runs through the film both in look and also from the explicit reference to Sidney Lumet’s bank hostage classic, Dog Day Afternoon, and the narrative which harkens somewhat to The Marathon Man.

The film in essence is a caper film, and like all good films of this type, the joy is not in the goal but watching them get there. I have watched this quite a few times on DVD, and though I know the ending, I am perfectly content to watch Owen and Washington match wits, and chewing some fun dialogue:

Keith Frazier: Oh, please, do not say proposals... my girlfriend... she wants a proposal from me.
Dalton Russell: You think you're too young to get married?
Keith Frazier: No, I'm not too young... too broke. Maybe I should rob a bank.
Dalton Russell: Do you love each other?
Keith Frazier: Yeah, yeah, we do.
Dalton Russell: Then money shouldn't really matter.
Keith Frazier: Thank you, bank robber!

The essential element of a good caper film is that you like the bad guy; and Russell certainly fits that bill. He belongs in that glorious gallery of rogues who you forget are actually breaking the law – such as Clooney’s Jack Foley in Out of Sight. The plan is also a good one – devilishly good in fact. It took me a good three viewings before I was able to grasp who were all the bad guys, but even now I struggle to pick them – so many red herrings does Lee throw at the audience to put them off.

The narrative structure is quite complex – the entire is a flashback, but within it are flash forwards of Washington interviewing suspects. It means you have to pay attention (a sure sign you’re watching a film made for adults).

It also features a secondary narrative which (of course) becomes intertwined with the primary bank robbery one. This narrative involves Christopher Plummer, as the owner of the bank being robbed, and Jodie Foster in the role of a Ms Fix-it (the kind of role that would be played by Harvey Keitel in a Tarantino film). Foster, I have to say, steals the movie from the guys. As “Miss White” she lives up to her name – dressed in white suits, blonde hair pulled back tightly, and exuding an almost sub-zero coolness. And she does this all the while walking around looking like she knows she could get every guy on the planet to do whatever she wants.

Her job is to ensure that Plummer’s secret about his involvement with the Nazis is not discovered (there is evidence in one of the bank’s safety deposit boxes). This is perhaps the only flaw in the film – not because the storyline is poor, but because the maths is starting to get too hard. This film surely should mark the end of any modern day story involving a Nazi or Nazi sympathiser. Given that a 20 year old in 1945 would now be 85, it is starting to get a bit hard to feature such a character doing anything other than sitting in a retirement home wondering if he should fess up to what he did 65 odd years ago.

But putting that to one side, the storyline adds a nice depth to the usual caper film denouement of “how will they get away”.

The film is most certainly not deep – despite Lee’s attempts to make a comments about New York’s interracial society post September 11, but geez it is fun – intelligent fun.

It is also one of those films that lets you know you’re in safe hands right from the get go. Owen has a great opening monologue, and then in cuts the sounds of “Chaiyya Chaiyya”. The music immediately sets the films apart from the run of the mill action/thriller.

Sure it’s not Chinatown, but it is definitely one of those films you wish they made a hell of a lot more of.

Here’s the great opening (sorry it does cut out at the end rather abruptly):

Previous Flicks of the Week:

Gosford Park – Robert Altman
The Player – Tim Robbins
Bull Durham – Kevin Costner
Field of Dreams – Ray Liotta
Goodfellas – Samuel L Jackson
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

BHP cooks up some climate change policy

There are some things in politics you can expect to happen, but having Bob Brown come out suggesting he and BHP were as one on climate change policy is not one of them. 

This occurred today because the CEO of BHP, Marius Kloppers, on Wednesday at an Australian British Chamber of Commerce luncheon said he thought a carbon tax (as opposed to an ETS) was the way to go on tackling climate change, and that we need not wait for the rest of the world:

MARIUS KLOPPERS: A combination of a tax, regulations, land use actions and perhaps a limited trading system, as opposed to economically elegant but difficult-to-implement over arching system, trading system.

In spite of believing that this will all start with local initiatives, we do believe that such a global initiative will eventually come and we do believe that when it does come Australia will have needed to act ahead of it coming in order to maintain its competitiveness.

The decisions that we are taking now on power production will still be with us when we get a global carbon price way down the road.

With about 90 per cent of the carbon emissions from our electricity sector coming from coal fired power stations Australia will need to look beyond just coal towards the full spectrum of available energy solutions.

This had Brown pretty excited and seemingly ready to get all cosy with the might pollutant:

BOB BROWN: It sounds very much like the Greens policy going to the election where we advocated a carbon tax, which is a simple market mechanism but with the ability to build in a carbon trading scheme if the rest of the world, if the US, China, the rest of the world goes in that direction.

While looking at the ability to use the money raised through that scheme to help re-jig the economy and re-green it, direct it towards renewable energy.
…
It's a very mature way to be going. The former ETS was far too weak; it didn't meet the challenge of climate change. We're now in a post election period and this follows the very strong vote for the Greens, have a mechanism for getting everybody together who wants a carbon price to get the best outcome for Australia.

And Mr Kloppers' very timely statement yesterday which is based on pure commonsense will give strength to this committee as it deliberates on the best way forward to a carbon price for Australia to turn back the threat of climate change.

Of course BHP is in no way joining the Greens hand in hand, but I don’t blame Brown for making the most of Kloppers’ statement (and he’s been around far too long to think BHP have gone green). What is more interesting is why Kloppers said it. After all, as Bernard Keane in Crikey today pointed out, in 2008 and 2009 BHP were more than happy to talk about how the ETS would ruin investment and cost jobs.

So why the about-face?

Well first off it is not one at all.

All it is is BHP smelling the breeze and realising what’s cooking in the kitchen is a price on carbon. Kloppers would have seen the comments by Windsor and his comfort with a price on carbon, he would have seen the climate change committee being proposed, he would have looked at the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate next year and he obviously decided if there is going to be change in climate change policy then BHP had better help do some of the changing.

It’s purely a case of making sure that anything that gets done is done to your liking.

Does it mean a carbon tax is more likely now? Well no. After all the mining industry wanted a tax of profits, and we know how nicely they reacted when the Government did introduce the RSPT. For BHP it’s never a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, because if it is spoilt they’ll be ok, and if it’s not, then at least they helped make sure it tasted they way they like it.

BHP coming out like this ensures that should the Government bring out anything not to its liking then it can take the stance of “look at us – we were in favour of a carbon tax; we’re really caring about the environment, our opposition is purely altruistic”. It would also be signalling to the ALP that it hopes the ALP will work with it to avoid the RSPT type shermozzle,. But therein lies the rub – Bob Brown may be loving BHP today, but I doubt he’ll love all the compensation BHP will be demanding.

The reaction by the ALP and the Libs was also interesting.

Julia Gillard played a softly softly response saying:

“Let's just be a little bit sensible here,” she said.

“I've just said we will have the committee to work through options. The government's policy was outlined at the election. We've always said we would need to have a price on carbon. We've always said that we would take a very clear, a very clear view about then impact on our economy and we would work through, we would work through to build community consensus.”

She’s going slow, careful she doesn't scare the horses (too careful for mine). We’ll know she is serious when she utters the same point that Kloppers made:

Carbon emissions will need to have a cost impact in order to change consumer behaviour, in order to favour low carbon alternatives. Now we all recognise that this is a politically charged subject.

No government relishes telling consumers that things need to cost more through higher and more expensive standards, double and triple glazing, and through higher fuel and energy costs, but in this case there really is no easy answer.

All of us who care about this issue need to recognise that making a difference comes at a price and it cannot be glossed over.

This is the big statement needed. A price on carbon will make products that are made through the emission of carbon more expensive. It’s the whole point. It’s why when I wrote my Julia Gillard wish-speech on climate change I had her say:

I say this to you knowing that what I am to tell you is the most obvious thing in the world, but which has for too long been avoided by all in Government: avoided out of fear.

Ladies and gentlemen, I say to you that if we put a price on carbon the cost of electricity, the cost of energy, in short the daily cost of life will increase.

The prices of all things will rise. This is unavoidable.

Why do I tell you this? I tell you it because the Australian people are not fools and I will not treat you as such.

It is supply and demand – the same economic laws which have brought the western world prosperity unparalleled throughout human history.

I hope Julia does not fall into the Rudd trap of trying to convince people that a price on carbon can be done without prices rising. And if she is coming up with a carbon tax where prices do not rise then she is proposing a dog of a policy, and she should realise this is the case.

But that is for the future; her statement today at least did affirm the desire for a price on carbon.

The reaction by Tony Abbott was as predictable as an editorial in The Australian criticising Laura Tingle: he opposed it outright:

"This idea that we here in Australia should put a big tax on our businesses and on our consumers in the absence of similar action from other countries would just put our exports at a terrible competitive disadvantage," Mr Abbott said.

"It's really up to the Government now to confirm post-election what it said pre-election, that they completely reject a carbon tax."

So Abbott would have Gillard reject outright an idea which the CEO of the world’s biggest mining company says we should be undertaking. Seriously.

There are essentially two ways to go about being an opposition leader – the Rudd way and the Abbott way. Were Rudd in Abbott’s current position he would be meeting with Kloppers, discussing issues, coming up with some sort of understanding, in fact doing everything he could to make it look like he was the sensible, consensus maker.

The other way is Abbott’s – oppose everything, always.

Abbott did try the Rudd way a bit during the election, when he had discussions with Nauru. But it was still just opposing the ALP; the Rudd way would have been to get on the blower to East Timor and see if there was anything he could do to help.

It’s the same with the NBN – Abbott has sent Turnbull out to destroy it, whereas he would be better off co-opting it and taking such carriage of it that the Government would begin to look foolish not to accept some of Turnbull’s “tweaks” – tweaks which would in actual fact completely change it and make it the Liberal’s policy. Anything Turnbull suggests now about the NBN will be viewed through the prism of his wanting to destroy it – even any policy they come up with will be viewed as an opposing policy rather than a “here let us do it, we’ll do it better” policy.

And I know you might suggest that Abbott did very well with his strategy, and yes you would be right.  The thing is: Abbott got a 2.45% swing and didn’t win Government; Rudd got a 5.44% swing and won by 18 seats. The Rudd strategy can’t be all bad…

The carbon tax issue still has a lot of traps for the opposition, especially now Malcolm Turnbull is back in the fold. To show just how much trouble a climate change policy could be for Liberal Party unity here’s a tweet by Turnbull this morning in reaction to Kloppers’ speech:

Very thoughtful speech by Marius Kloppers, BHP CEO, on climate change policy

In contrast, here is a tweet by Greg Hunt in response to Gillard’s pretty soft response to the speech:

About to do a doorstop on Gillard walking away from her pre-election promise not to impose a carbon tax

Not exactly as one.

Shadow boxing

Well today the Government Ministry was sworn in (or affirmed) and Tony Abbott announced his shadow ministry.

On the Government side there was the late announcement that a number of the Ministries had been changed – notably the education ones which had been changed to include the word “education” in the title. This was done because apparently unless it is in the title, the work won’t get done. On the 7:30 Report last night we had the utter stupidity of the CEO of Universities Australia arguing about acronyms:

GLENN WITHERS, CEO, UNIVERSITIES AUSTRALIA: They could've easily named the portfolio 'Tertiary Education, Employment and Workplace Relations'. That would work better as an acronym in fact than the clumsy title they've chosen.

Yes, because the acronym is so important. So Julia did the very simple thing, of deciding, well if that pointless little change will make you happy, then here you go, and thus Chris Evans suddenly became the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations. Likewise just to make sure no one was confused about whether “Schools” meant education, Peter Garrett got the E word added to his title, so that he is now Minister for Schools Education, Early Childhood and Youth.

Of bigger import was the announcement last night that Warren Snowden would continue to be Minister for Indigenous Health. It was obviously an oversight – most likely Gillard thought that as there had not been a Minister for Indigenous Health prior to June 2009, they could do away with it, and let Nicola Roxon handle it as occurred before that time. The reaction from the sector however demonstrated that there was an obvious need for the position, and it is sensible that Gillard reacted quickly.

It is a bit sloppy, but to be honest it’s all a bit inside the Capital Circle – I doubt too many voters give a stuff about titles of Ministers. It does suggest however that maybe Gillard’s office needs to make sure they dot the i’s a bit more – or at the very least make sure the basics are done. Certainly though we can ignore dopey stuff like Michelle Gratten’s concerns:

But the symbolism is important. ''I'd like to talk to your education minister about your great education revolution,'' says the visitor from the US. So who would that be? Garrett, the schools minister? Or Evans, the skills minister, who has higher education?

Somehow I think the US state department might be able to direct them to the right person. I also I suspect if a visitor from the US has come all the way here without bothering to find out who he or she needs to talk to then he or she is unlikely to be worth talking to in the first place.

Of the Ministry I see a few key people to watch:

Bowen – Immigration is a bugger of a nut for the ALP to crack. If he does, he’ll zoom up the totem pole. He was a pretty strong performer in Parliament as Shadow Treasurer. About the only time he came unstuck was when he confused the Yuan with the Yen (which was a pity, because at the time he was in the middle of a great attack on Costello’s ability to foresee the GFC). Scott Morrison is a smarmy know it all, so it would be nice to see him taken down a peg. Morrison also hasn’t had an opponent in the same chamber, so it will be interesting to see these two go head to head.

He made a good start on the 7:30 Report tonight describing Abbott as Cnut the Great – a Viking king who according to legend tried to command the tide to stop (and no it is not misspelt!)

Garrett – Education is not an area he is known for. If Gillard had wanted to demote Garrett should could easily have given him Arbib’s job of Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, Sport, Social Housing and Homelessness.  Instead he’ll be going up against the annoying but tenacious little pest, Christopher Pyne. Pyne maybe the kind of person who when at school even the teachers thought deserved to have his head flushed in the toilet, but you can bet he’ll fancy his chances of besting Garrett.

I think Garrett was hung out to dry by Rudd over the Insulation Scheme (interesting side note, today “The employers of a teenage insulation installer who was electrocuted in central Queensland have pleaded guilty to breaching safety laws”), but it must be said his office didn’t exactly mount a stellar defence either. He will need to be a much better politician in his new portfolio – especially as he will be dealing with the always logical teachers’ union.

Burke – Environment, Population et al. One of the many young guys (with Bowen) who has his eyes on a bigger prize later in life. Can he sell the idea of sustainable population without sounding like he is caring only about what voters in the seat of Lindsay think? I’m looking to see if he has any big picture within him.

Shorten – Assistant Treasurer. Yet another ambitious young one (perhaps the most ambitious in parliament besides Turnbull on the other side). But so what? Every single PM in the history of the nation has been ambitious (ok, maybe not Francis Forde). Now he gets a seat at the big table, will be called on to respond on economic Matters of Public Importance, and as Shadow Treasurer will deal with taxation issues – and we have a taxation summit next year, so no doubt Swan will have him doing a lot of spade work. Much is expected of him, many will be watching.

Ellis - Employment Participation and Childcare, and Minister for the Status of Women. The big difference for her to the previous parliament is “employment participation”. Last time it was held by Mark Arbib. It means she’ll be expected to answer questions every month when employment figures come out. It means the opposition can target her on just about any employment issue they wish. It means a big step up from only being asked Dorothy Dixers on the launch of the World Cup big or International Youth Day. The Liberals will be looking for any weak link, and you can bet they’ll test those in new portfolios – especially economic ones. 

Ellis, in her few responses in response to her few real Question Time questions, actually worked best when she dumped the script and showed some fire. She will need that in her new job.

***

The big announcement of the Liberal Shadow Ministry was Malcolm Turnbull coming in as Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband. Abbott in the press conference announcing the line-up said Turnbull’s job was to “demolish” the NBN.

There is a lot of crowing from the media and those who hate the NBN about Turnbull’s role – the sense that he will really show the Government who is boss. To which I say, I recall quite a few people thinking Turnbull as Shadow Treasurer would destroy Swan, and yet I do believe I saw Swan being sworn in as Treasurer today. I recall many thinking Turnbull would destroy Rudd as PM. I also recall Turnbull making his best speech on the Emissions Trading Scheme after the Bill was dead in the water.

Turnbull is certainly a smart man. But he is never underestimated; and frequently, since he has arrived in politics, overestimated. He did not shine as Environment Minister under Howard – either in policy or on the floor of the House. Post 2007 he had some early wins against Swan, but the talk of Swan being replaced died down very quickly.

Yes Turnbull will be better that Tony Smith (talk about low bar to jump over), but he is going up against not just the ALP, but Telstra (let’s not forget they’re desperate for the NBN) and pretty much the entire telecommunications industry who are desperate for Telstra’s wholesale and retail arms to be separated. Sure Turnbull can bang on about costs, but I think his argument has got to be better than it was in his interview on PM tonight:

"In the late '90s, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on subsea cables, essentially broadband capacity, around the world. It was a classic case of built-it-and-they-will-come. All of those sold for cents in the dollar. We're certainly using them [now] but there was a massive destruction of wealth [that resulted from them being built]."

If he is going to focus purely on returns on the NBN investment in terms of profit, then he is lost. People see the NBN as a public good. The Government has sold it as akin to roads and rail. We don’t expect the road across the Hay plain to return a dollar profit, but we sure as hell expect it to be there, and we sure as hell expect it to be as good as any road in Sydney or Melbourne.

He also has stated talking about the NBN in “opportunity cost” terms. This is also a favoured tactic of those who dislike the NBN – ie every billion spent on the NBN is another hospital that could be built. It is a pretty weak argument. People know another hospital isn’t going to be built instead of the NBN. The argument may sound logical, but its much like smokers who quit knowing they are never actually going to go on the round the world holiday with all the money they will save.

The problem for Turnbull is people see the NBN as a “need”. He and the critics see it is a “want”. Voters are prepared for the Government to pay for needs –in fact they expect them to do it.

Turnbull will need to look at the spending as it is rolled out – is it on time etc – but he also needs to win the big picture argument. And he is a long way from doing that yet.

He is also handicapped by being up against Conroy. Turnbull’s usual first gambit is to attempt to prove to everyone that he knows more about the topic than his opponent. It is why he started off by asking Swan about the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU). He wanted to show that he knew more about economics than did Swan. The problem he has with Conroy is he won’t be able to bamboozle him with talk of gigabits etc, this means he’;ll probably talk up his “business savvy”, but that takes us back to him thinking about profit instead of public good.

Conroy is also in a different chamber, so Turnbull will denied the mano-mano conflict he so loves.

Turnbull is easily the best placed person in the opposition to tackle the issue, but we should also realise that Abbott is no dummy. He’ll know that if Turnbull stars in this portfolio, and Abbott himself stays miles behind Julia as better PM, the leadership whispers will talk.  It could be Abbott has looked around, thought Turnbull will pound away, not really get any great wins, but at least give the Libs some credibility on the issue. He may also have thought that if he tells the media Turnbull will “demolish the NBN” he is setting the bar impossibly high, and thus dooming him to, if not failure, at least not success.

Of course I could just be very cynical.

The other notable movement on the Shadow Ministry was the dumping of Steven Ciobo. It is notable because Ciobo is young – 36 – and that he was by no means a failure. He was Shadow Minister of Arts, Youth and Sport. He didn’t make any real stuff ups and certainly did not deserve demotion. He also overcame looking like Steven Jacobs – a severe handicap for any politician.

But of course he was a Turnbull man, and we know Abbott has Turnbull and his supporters best interests at heart…

The dopiest decision was appointing the weakest former Shadow Minister – Tony Smith – as “Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tax Reform”. Given that shadow Parliamentary Secretaries are little more than appointments given out to people to keep them on side by giving them some extra pay, it does not bode well for the opposition’s election campaign to take a new look at the Henry Tax Review. That is unless you think Smith is a technical details person.

The funniest “appointment” is Jamie Briggs as “Chairman, Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee”. Huh? We’re listing party committees in the Ministry list now are we? Just silly.

The Cabinet Picks and Pans

OK, here’s the list.

Cabinet Ministers

Julia Gillard Prime Minister Wayne Swan Deputy Prime Minister Treasurer Kevin Rudd Minister for Foreign Affairs Chris Evans Minister for Jobs, Skills and Workplace Relations Simon Crean Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government Minister for the Arts Stephen Smith Minister for Defence Nicola Roxon Minister for Health and Ageing Jenny Macklin Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Anthony Albanese Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Stephen Conroy Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity Kim Carr Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science Penny Wong Minister for Finance and Deregulation Peter Garrett Minister for Schools, Early Childhood and Youth Robert McClelland Attorney-General Joseph Ludwig Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke Minister for Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water Martin Ferguson Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism Chris Bowen Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Craig Emerson Minister for Trade Greg Combet Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

A couple things. The big promotions are Combet and Emerson, who come from outer Ministry roles into the Cabinet. Both are good decisions. Combet at Defence as was rumoured I think was a jump too far – and I think he is a much better fit in the role of climate change than was Wong. Emerson in Trade is good as well – the guy actually understands economics. I would have actually liked him in Finance, but probably was never a chance.

None of the former Cabinet who are still there were dumped. Combet, Emerson and Rudd come in for Faulkner and Tanner. The reason three fit into two is that Simon Crean gets a new Department, and Gillard’s old Ministry of Employment, Education and Work Place Relations gets split up twelve ways from Sunday, and the Minister of Human Services is no longer a Cabinet position.

The ones who don’t change – Swan, Roxon, Conroy, Carr, Albanese, Fergusen, Macklin, McClelland. The rest have moved in some way.

Simon Crean gets a brand new spanking Department. In the last government, Warren Snowden was Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery, so the regional aspect of that will presumably move from the Health Department into the new Department. Albanese was formerly Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, so the last part of that will shift to Crean as well. Crean also get Arts which used to be with Garrett in the Dept of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (which is no more). Arts is used to being shifted around, but it is a bit of an odd fit.

Wong gets Finance instead of the rumoured Bowen, who gets the rather unfun Immigration and Citizenship – poor bugger. Don’t know what he did to Julia to deserve that, but he’ll be in the firing line.

I like Wong at Finance. The Minister for Finance needs to be adept at saying no and not being pushed around. She fits the bill nicely (and you can take that anyway you like!).

Smith going to Defence was pretty much the rumour last week, and it seems sensible.

Burke shifts from Agriculture and picks up Environment and Water – the first of which was Garrett’s, the second was Wong’s.

Garrett’s been pretty well demoted to the oddly titled “Schools, Early Childhood and Youth”. Have no idea what this means. Kate Ellis was the Minister for Early Childhood and Youth, but she was not in Cabinet. I have no idea why he is “schools’” Minister and not education. Very odd. He will not have carriage of the Building the Education Revolution stimulus package; that will be run by Chris Evans who moves from Immigration to all things jobs related (and the skills part of education).

Joseph Ludwig goes form the ubiquitous Cabinet Secretary and Special Minister of Sate role to Agriculture. A promotion of sorts I guess.

Within the Cabinet it’s a bit hard to always judge what is a demotion or not – eg Burke going from Agriculture to Environment and Population is really neither here nor there. Bowen goes from Human Services to Immigration – yes a promotion, but would you want it?

Now the outer Ministry:

Tanya Plibersek	Minister for Human Services Minister for Social Inclusion
Brendan O’Connor	Minister for Home Affairs and Justice Minister for Privacy and FOI
Kate Ellis	Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare
Mark Arbib	Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development Minister for Sport Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness
Nick Sherry	Minister for Small Business Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism
Warren Snowdon	Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Defence Science and Personnel
Bill Shorten	Assistant Treasurer Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation
Mark Butler	Minister for Mental Health and Ageing
Gary Gray	Special Minister of State
Jason Clare	Minister for Defence Materiel

Plibersek gets a promotion from Housing and the Status of Women (the last part no longer exists – UPDATE – this now goes to Kate Ellis). Human Services was in the Cabinet, but now isn’t. Not sure why, might have something to do with Plibersek taking time off to have a baby, and thus Cabinet responsibility on top of everything may have been too much to ask.

O’Connor gets Privacy and FOI – all of which fits nicely together (and under the Attorney General Department).

Nick Sherry goes from Assistant Treasurer to Small Business. A slight Demotion perhaps, but not really – Emerson was Minister for Small Business so it’s no minor role.

Shorten, Gray, Butler and Clare are the big winners – getting promoted from Parliamentary Secretary roles to Ministers. Clare is all of 38 years of age, and holds Keating’s old seat of Blaxland, so keep your eyes on him.

Shorten had to be promoted. And I don’t give a stuff about the “he’s just getting rewarded for knifing Rudd”. He should have been a Minister under Rudd. He was wasted (even though he did good work in Disability Services).

Arbib has been moved from”Employment” to a whole bunch of things, none of which smacks of a promotion. The Indigenous community may be somewhat miffed by getting Arbib and losing Snowdon (who was Minister for Indigenous Health – which no longer exists), but I think you really have to over-egg it to say he has been rewarded fro his role in getting rid of Rudd.

Kate Ellis has been promoted from Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Youth and Sport to Employment Participation and Childcare. Employment Participation is getting pretty hard core economics. She can expect to get a few more difficult questions in parliament than she did in the past. People will be watching to see how she does.

Only one Minister was dumped – Justine Elliot who becomes a Parliamentary Secretary.

Speaking of which, the Parliamentary Secretary list…

David Bradbury	Treasury
Jacinta Collins	Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Julie Collins	Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Mark Dreyfus	Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
	Cabinet Secretary
Justine Elliot	Foreign Affairs and Trade
Don Farrell	Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water
David Feeney	Defence
Mike Kelly	Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Catherine King	Health and Ageing
	Infrastructure and Transport
Kate Lundy	Immigration and Citizenship
	Prime Minister and Cabinet
Richard Marles	Foreign Affairs and Trade
Jan McLucas	Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Of the old, gone are Maxine McKew and Bob McMullen (no longer in Parliament). Richard Marles and Mike Kelly stay at the same level, and dropped are Ursula Stephens, Laurie Fergusen, Anthony Byrne.

In come two of the Rudd knifers – David Feeney and Don Farrell. Farrell assumes a position that should be for an up and comer at the spritely age of 56, an utter waste of a pick I have to say.

Nice to see Kate Lundy finally get a job .

The weird position is Mark Dreyfus. He is Cabinet Secretary which used to be a Cabinet Position, but is now just parliamentary secretary level. Guess he won’t be wielding quite the power that John Faulkner did when he had the role. 

And now to the really interesting part! Let’s look at the old and new Departments (because isn’t everyone excited about the bureaucracy?). On Monday the Administrative Arrangements Orders will outline where everyone goes, but for now we can make some educated guesses.

First the ones that haven’t changed:

OLD	NEW
Treasury	Treasury
Foreign Affairs and Trade	Foreign Affairs and Trade
Defence	Defence
Health and Aging	Health and Ageing
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy	Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Finance and Deregulation	Finance and Deregulation
Attorney-General	Attorney-General
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry	Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Resources, Energy and Tourism	Resources, Energy and Tourism
Immigration and Citizenship	Immigration and Citizenship
Human Services	Human Services
Climate Change, Energy Efficiency	Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

The people working at these places are currently laughing (I’m assuming Human Services will stay as a separate Department, but we won’t know till the Administrative Orders come out). Not for them any worries about where they may be working a week’s time. Treasury, Health, Broadband, Attorney-General, Families etc, and Resources have the easiest time of all – not only does their Department not change, neither does their Minister. Easy-peasy.

Now the Departments that have have some minor tweaks:

OLD	NEW
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research	Innovation, Industry and Science
Infrastructure and Transport, Regional Development and Local Government	Infrastructure and Transport
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts	Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water

These three will just say goodbye to some staff (and hello to some new ones), but most will stay put. I have no idea where “communities” will come from. They also get to have some new acronyms. DIISR (pronounces disser) becomes DIIS. Albo’s of Dept was always just called DITR, so now it’ll just be DIT. And DEWHA becomes errr DSPCEW. Good luck with that.

Now the real shake ups:

OLD	NEW
Education, Employment and Work Place Relations	Jobs, Skills and Workplace Relations Schools, Early Childhood and Youth
	Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government (and the Arts)

The first gets split into two. Those who work in there will be wondering who will move where, which buildings and what part of education goes to schools, what goes to skills etc etc. There’ll be some who will have transferred for a short period, and now have the joy of wondering if they are permanently in a different Department to their old area etc etc. Lots of fun.

The second lot have no idea what the hell is going on – including where they’ll be working (ie not even the suburb).

And the acronyms? How about DJSWR, DSECY and RARDALGA?

Fun for bureaucrats a plenty!

Friday Night Relaxer

Well that was a pretty full on week: a week at the end of which you really need a rest. I could write about Rob Oakeshott turning down the Cabinet position, or about the Greens possibly working with Abbott to pass legislation, or about the fact that tonight Malcolm Turnbull put out two tweets with links to studies on the impact of climate change that suggests he is either angling for the Shadow Climate Change position, or that he is just reminding Tony Abbott that the science is pretty well not crap.

But geez, it’s Friday! Let’s take it easy.

Some interesting non politics news – Tomorrow When the War Began took in $5m in its first week. A great result for an Aussie flick. Some context: Animal Kingdom made $4.8m all up, Wog Boy 2 made $4.9m, and I Love You Too took in $2.4m. The wonderful Bran Nue Dae took in $7.6m. Mao’s Last Dance made $15.4m and the way it looks TWTWB should go over the $20m mark – though this weekend’s figures will let us know if that will happen. If it does it will be big. Here is the list of Aussie films that have made over $20m at the box office (and yes, I realise it’s not accounting for inflation)

CROCODILE DUNDEE $47,707,045
AUSTRALIA  $37,555,757
BABE: THE GALLANT PIG  $36,776,544
HAPPY FEET $31,786,164
MOULIN ROUGE $27,734,406
CROCODILE DUNDEE 2 $24,916,805
STRICTLY BALLROOM $21,760,400

So it’s not exactly a huge list. Though inflation would get  a few over that line – The Man From Snowy River made $17.2m in 1982, which is around $50m in today’s money. Gallipoli made $11.7m in 1981 or about $38m in 2010 dollars.

But still, cracking the $20m mark still means something. Here’s hoping it does.

***

On Twitter today, The Chaser’s Chas Licciardello linked to some great adverts for baby carrots at the advertisement blog: AdFreak (now there’s a sentence you don’t get to write very often):

On the blog I saw a list of the Top 25 “epic ads” of all time.

One of them was this one from Britain for Hovis Bread, it is just a brilliant concept that others must have seen and thought, bugger, why didn’t we think of that:

Number 1 on the list is the one below for Pantene Shampoo (yes, shampoo). It came out in 2008, so I’m surprised I haven’t come across it before, and maybe I’ve been living in a hole and everyone is thinking, well duh, it’s the Pantene advert, haven’t you seen that before? All I know it is absolute genius. I have no idea how someone gets asked to do an advert for shampoo and comes up with this.

As a big softy who loves movies like It’s a Wonderful Life that require a few hankies nearby, this advert just hits me in a perfect spot.

I don’t want to buy Pantene Shampoo after watching it, but I wish someone would make a movie about this girl:

Find more videos like this on AdGabber
Have a relaxing Friday night

New world and old (sigh)

Today we saw the new and the old world represented in the media and politics.

First the new media world, and an excellent piece by Annabel Crabb on The Drum, where she argues that a minority Government means the media needs to adjust:

A disagreement between Tony Windsor or Rob Oakeshott is not an "emerging division" or a "first crack" or a "worrying sign of instability".

It is simply what is going to happen, from now on.

It is a point which I fear will fall on deaf ears, but it is good that she said it. Crabb however goes further:

But I think there is going to have to be a change in the way we report politics, and seeing as this campaign prompted more complaints and scrutiny and analysis of the way political reporters operate than any other I can remember, I hereby take the gamble of hoping you, dear reader, might be interested in a quick discussion of how that change might occur

What she proposes is quite exciting for those who crave deep and informative reporting. Sure it should be the norm, but let’s not quibble, let’s take advantage of this new “paradigm”:

All that Windsor and Oakeshott have agreed to do is guarantee supply - ie the passage of money bills - and confidence to the Government, except in egregious circumstances of corruption or similar.

Everything else will be the subject of item-by-item debate.

A Gillard policy being "in peril", or an independent being "at odds" will not be unusual.

What will be newsworthy is when a Government minister finds an innovative way to secure support. Or when an Opposition successfully proposes an alternative approach. Or when an obvious policy compromise is actually agreed upon, rather than being ignored for the sake of political "strategy" or pride or high-handedness, which is altogether too regularly the case in Canberra.

In this environment, in this glut of disagreement, perhaps we in the media can wean ourselves off the quick headline, and MPs can free themselves of the fear of speaking plainly.

Perhaps the media and the MPs can wean themselves off it, I fervently hope they can. But as Crabb acknowledged earlier in her piece, the MPs won’t do it for fear of the media targeting them as “mavericks” or as creating a rift in the party. Here’s hoping though that things can change. Crabb also gives journos some ideas for the new way of doing things:

1.Divisions - that's what votes are called - will matter.

This means that for the first time in generations, reporters will need to turn up to the House of Representatives chamber and keep an eye on who sits where when a division is called.
…
2. Second reading speeches will matter.

These are the speeches in which MPs indicate the gist of their thinking and arguments on any particular piece of legislation.
…
3. We won't just be reporting on the success or failure of the government's ideas.

Not if the Opposition makes intelligent use of its opportunities. When the government of the day had the numbers in the House of Representatives, it was able to prevent private members' bills from being debated or brought to a vote in the chamber. Now that neither party controls the numbers, there is a far greater chance that legislation not originating from the Government will be aired and discussed.

A huge change from he said-she said, and then let’s talk to some journalists about what he and she said.

A glorious dream maybe, but one very well worth pursuing, and I believe the journalist who does follow her advice will be miles in front of the pack – it will be tough work, because it will require analysis and insight on policy, but geez the rewards for readers would be massive.

On the new politics side there was Julia Gillard at her first caucus meeting after the election:

Ms Gillard confirmed there would be a “serious review” of the election result and the “future direction of the party”.
…
She warned that the challenge for Labor was to “set out that clear agenda of what we stood for as to our opponents, not be worried by each day's 6pm news”.
…
Ms Gillard said despite Labor's achievements, it was clear from the election that the party had to renew its “sense of purpose”.

Oh geez, can I get a hallelujah?

Ms Gillard portrayed Labor as the “navigators of the future” and the party of optimism, stressing that strength now lay in working more as a team.

Yes! Do it. Please, do it.

The ALP needs to look itself in the mirror and ask itself why it wants to be in power. The answer cannot be because it just wants to be in power. There needs to be a reason underlying it, and we need to know it, we need to believe in it, and we need to care about it - it will be tough work, because it will require explanation and analysis of policy, but geez the rewards for the country would be massive. 

And then there was old world media best exemplified by Anita Quigley’s tirade of unsubstantiated bile directed to Rob Oakeshott in today’s SMH:

Meanwhile, back on the north coast where the sun seems to always shine, Rob Oakeshott announced he would spend the next few days pondering the offer of a seat in cabinet.

Just a few days? Sure you don't want 17? We know how you don't like to rush these things. At this rate, Iraqis have more chance of a stable government over the next three years than we do.

Welcome to life as we now know it - held to ransom by a few men from regional Australia revelling in their newfound fame and clear disdain towards the majority of their fellow countrymen and women.

Men who don't seem to care much about home affordability levels, climbing rents, increasing population densities, apartment blocks ruining traditional suburbs, traffic congestion, dirty and unreliable trains, cash-strapped councils leaving suburban streets a potholed mess … to name just a few of the burning issues which affect millions of us.

Oh really Anita? Got any quotes from either Oakeshott or Winsdor to support your accusations? Got any policies they have put forward that support your accusations? Got any quote from Windsor and Oakeshott in response to your accusations? Got any evidence at all, or are you just going on your interpretation of events gleaned from whatever part of the Oakeshott’s speech you listened to (because it sure as hell doesn't seem like you were able to pay attention for the – God forbid! – 17 minutes!).

First impressions might be that Rob Oakeshott wants to simply spread fairy dust. For all this talk of sunshine and beautiful politics, he would be better suited behind the lectern as a pastor at a group-hugging happy-clappy church. But now we're stuck with him as one of the most powerful men in the country.

I don’t even know whee to begin. I mean geez. Fairy dust? Happy-clappy church? Are we supposed to take her seriously at this point?

Oakeshott is now pondering just how powerful his future will be, and whether to accept the shameless offer of a cabinet seat. How can he seriously reconcile a position in the Labor ministry and remain an independent?

He's been around politics long enough to understand that he will be required to toe the party line.

It would be naive in the extreme to think otherwise and yet, he tells us, he needs a few days pondering and to consult his wife. There are financial benefits to consider too, as short-sighted as that would be. Does he honestly think his electorate would tolerate for a moment re-electing an independent who opted for the pay rise that goes with being a Labor minister? That would be delusional.

My God. She essentially accuses Oakeshott of wanting to accept the ministry purely for the pay rise. Has he ever said anything that remotely suggests that? I mean it’s not like he has complained about having to take out a second mortgage on his home like another MP did, or that Oakeshott has complained when he lost office he was forced to take a pay cut.  But still forget facts, he wants the money, that must be the reason!

She also assumes she knows the deal of the Ministry offer. She assumes that Oakeshott will be bound by Cabinet loyalty, whereas we don’t even know if the position is a Cabinet position. He may not be attending any Cabinet meetings at all, but is operating as a junior minister under a larger portfolio. No one knows, but hey, let’s just assume – and let’s assume the worst, because it’s not like facts matter.

She ends with this:

While Oakeshott likes to give the impression of a cheesy, affable, boy-next-door country lad who has reluctantly found himself thrust into this situation, seemingly, it's not the case at all. He's been grooming himself for years for bigger things.

Tony Abbott said on Tuesday while he was disappointed with Windsor and Oakeshott's decision to give Julia Gillard a 76-74 majority, he believed they "were acting in good faith". Many, me included, aren't buying it for a moment.

He’s been grooming himself for years for bigger things?? Yeah that’s why you leave a major party and run as an independent, because independents always get the big things in politics. I guess Oakeshott always planned that a hung parliament would occur and that his vote would be needed to form a Government. Geez, he’s sharp that bloke. And you’re not buying it Anita, and neither are “many”? Well fortunately for us you don’t need to buy it; it’s already been sold.

The Australian's editorial also found itself a bit tardy on the whole new paradigm:

We believe tax reform equals lower taxes, but we are not sure Labor agrees now that it has to answer to high-taxing Greens and rent-seeking regional independents. Greens leader Bob Brown has accused The Australian of trying to wreck the alliance between the Greens and Labor. We wear Senator Brown's criticism with pride. We believe he and his Green colleagues are hypocrites; that they are bad for the nation; and that they should be destroyed at the ballot box.

It is hard to believe that “the national paper” could include such a rant from an opinion writer, but in its editorial? Just be sure you remember that line whenever you read anything written about The Greens in The Australian over the next three years. The editorial also included this bit of piffle:

Ms Gillard's embrace of the Greens underlines the vacuity of her party: this alliance would never have been agreed by Bob Hawke or Paul Keating, who led a party with a clear direction and beliefs.

Bullshit. Hawke and Keating would have done whatever it took to stay in power were they in Julia’s position. Hawke especially used the greens movement in 87 and 90 to win. If the Greens had been a party with 9 Senators back then, he would have done deals as well. This alliance is not a coalition, despite what The Oz editorial writer might wish us all to believe, it is a deal – a deal that kept her in power – Hawke and Keating would be proud.

There were some in the Liberal Party struggling as well with the new world. Here was Christopher Pyne outlining Tony Abbott’s vision of a kindler,gentler polity:

"We will not sit around smoking a peace pipe singing Kumbayah,"

"We might, for example, choose to move for a judicial inquiry into the school halls debacle and if that is voted through the parliament, then the government will be required to do it".

Yes a judicial inquiry into a program despite a report into it which found no illegal behaviour and around 97% satisfaction. The AWB guys must be laughing at the suggestion.

"The government won't know at any point whether they will have the numbers to pass their bills," Mr Pyne said. "There will be no-confidence motions moved in the government in cases of incompetence. The government can expect to be given a torrid time".

Given the Libs’ view that a program which helped save the nation from a recession and produced an overwhelmingly positive response constitutes gross incompetence, I guess we can expect the usual once a week no-confidence motion as occurred in the last 2 1/2 years.

Sigh, meet the new paradigm, same as the old paradigm.

UPDATE: Just when I thought I would never read anything as pathetic as Anita Quigley’s op-ed piece, along comes Glenda Korporaal from The Oz writing about the fact that Julia does not have… wait for it… a handbag. Try this on for size, and see if you can keep down your lunch:

JULIA Gillard may have chosen a dress for her first visit to the Governor-General as the newly elected Prime Minister of Australia, instead of her traditionally efficient power pants suit.

But she continues to show her superwoman characteristics by walking into events sans handbag.

She wore a dress?! What a hussy!

 While the rest of us who apparently hold up half the world struggle to fish out our mobile phones from overstuffed handbags, our Julia strides the corridors of power hands free.

Even the Queen and Margaret Thatcher tote the inevitable handbag, carefully matching the shoes. But Julia positively glides around, confirming her superwoman status by operating without the usual female props.

Well geez, I know my wife takes her fashion tips from the Queen and Margaret Thatcher. God knows all women should behave like a pair of 84 year olds.
…
The typical overstuffed female journalist's handbag can also include notepads, tape recorders, mobiles, printouts of the latest assignments and contact books.

And that's without having kids in tow. While one does not want to do a Bill Heffernan here given Gillard's historic achievements, it is certain our first female Prime Minister has never had to go through the tote-bag-as-mobile-nursery routine that is the lot of mothers of young children. Getting out the door involves an Everest-like expedition preparation with a hold-all crammed with baby wipes, bottles, nappies, clothes, snacks, Panadol and toys.

Oh, so glad you don’t want to do a Bill Heffernan.

What utter tripe.

And they wonder why everyone laughs when Murdoch says people will pay for this stuff behind a pay wall…

Listening for the new told lies

So on August 24 Tony Abbott said of the new paradigm: “I think we can be a more collegial polity than we have been”.

Did anyone really believe him?

Today, James Massola and Joe Klein  in The Oz did a nice recap of how the Liberal and National MPs have taken the decision of Oakeshott and Windsor (the SMH also noticed the love and cuddles from the Liberals). So how have they taken defeat? Not well is probably the nicest way you could put it. Thisclose from going batsh*t nutso is probably a more accurate description.

It took all of 2 minutes after Oakeshott’s decsion for MP Bob Baldwin to get on Twitter and write:

To think Windsor & Oakshot were going to vote any other way was a folly, the 17 days was nothing more than grandstanding to say the least

You would think if the guy is going to attack Oakeshott he could at least learn how to spell his name.

It is interesting that today the Libs and Nationals (and other assorted conservative media types) were not attacking the ALP (that will come later) but were going in boots first, studs up at Oakeshott and Windsor.

This morning we had Kevin Andrews on ABC24:

The vibes coming from Rob Oakeshott were pro-Labor and frankly I don't think Tony Windsor's ever gotten over his falling out with the National Party.

Soon after on ABC Radio George Brandis made his feeling known:

Most Australians wanted a change of government. Your government has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team.

Then there was Ron Boswell:

It must be pay back and there's no, there's no secret of the fact that Windsor, since John Anderson did him over in a pre-selection, he's had a chip on his shoulder for 10 years.

Christopher Pyne chipped in:

“What went wrong yesterday is that common sense didn't prevail ... it defied commonsense”

And throughout the day Warren Truss, Barnaby Joyce and Eric Abetz all let the independents know their time will come.

At all of this, Windsor and Oakeshott must be thinking, thanks guys for vindicating our decision. I mean how dopey is it to blame the independents for having a problem with the National Party, surely the National Party should be wondering why they (and Katter for that matter) have an issue with them in the first place!

There is a hell of a lot of avoiding of looking in the mirror over on the LNP side at the moment.

The media have also had a nice little time (as expected) over Windsor’s comments about thinking Abbott would likely win an election. As Ben Eltham wrote in an excellent piece on The Drum “it is clear from any balanced analysis of their statements that the independents made their decision on policy grounds”.

Also, why the hell shouldn’t Windsor want to keep this parliament going for as long as possible? The longer he is in the current position he is in the better the chance he will be able to get things done for his electorate. Any MP that did otherwise would be a fool.  The four independents (5 if you count Crook) all know come the next parliament their votes will likely be irrelevant, they would be stupid to shorten the time they can hold the whip handle.

It is also rather odd that some in the media think it is more democratic for a government to go to an early election, especially given the bleating in the last 12 months about whether or not Rudd would go early and how it would be regarded as a cynical move. Now it seems going early would be the proper and right thing to do. All part of the new paradigm I guess. All part of letting the sunshine in.

The other joyous event of the day for the media was the “collapse” of the alliance between the ALP and the independents. All because Wayne Swan wants to bring the MRRT to the parliament, and Tony Windsor thought it was going to be part of next year’s Tax Summit.

Please.

This is hardly the end of the marriage (such that it is). For a start they were actually asked about the issue in their press conference after they made their announcement. Oakeshott was asked (around the 40 second mark ) if the RSPT and MRRT would “go back to scratch”. Oakeshott answered “look I doubt they will” – pointing out “there is more than one stakeholder in this”. 

But today because Windsor said he thought it would be in the Tax Summit and Swan said it wouldn’t be, apparently it was all over. Tears and bitterness all over Canberra.

Calm down, folks.

Here’s a little tip: Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott did not pledge to agree on everything. In fact they pledged to agree on nothing except votes on no-confidence and supply bills.  Everything else is up for negotiation. Everything. And guess what? They will disagree with many things over the next couple of years. All it means is that the Government will have to negotiate with them.

This is actually not that big a deal really. The Government has had to do this for every piece of legislation in the last 2 1/2 years in order to get things through the Senate. But ask yourself this – if you were Julia Gillard who would you rather have to do deals with: Windsor, Oakeshott, Wilkie and Bandt, or Steve Fielding?

Which brings us to the first part of the the difficult life for Julia Gillard: until June 30 next year she still has to deal with a lame duck Steve Fielding. I am sure though he’ll act in a reasonable and logical manner…

But the bigger issue is the new rules regarding Private Members Bills. In the past these were proposed by members of the opposition and then left to die, now they will get debated and voted on. And given the Libs with Fielding and Xenophon could pass a Bill in the Senate, there is the very odd situation where Liberal Party legislation could get passed if the Libs could get four of the independents to vote with them in the lower house.

I am not sure how this will go if the Bills have budgetary implications, but I do predict a fun old time in the Parliament.

The other fun old time for Julia Gillard will be Question Time. The new “direct relevance” clause in the standing orders will mean presumably that when Abbott asks about a specific school building done under the BER that does not mean she can talk about the BER in general, but will have to actually talk about that specific school building. 

This will be pure hell, and you can bet the Libs will do the old death by a thousand cuts tactic – ie a program could have 150,000 successes and 10 failures and they will ask 10 questions in a row on those 10 “failures”. The difficulty for Gillard will be to talk about he successes while still being “directly relevant”. Personally, I think putting things in their proper context is always directly relevant, but whether or not this will fly under the new paradigm is yet to be seen.

The ALP are fortunate they have a PM who loves the theatre and cut and thrust of Question Time as much as does Julia. The new rules will however make Question Time truly riveting watching for politics nerds, rather than an occasion where even political obsessive compulsives were looking at the clock wondering when it will all end.

The other fun task for Julia is to come up with a Cabinet and outer Ministry.

The word on the 7:30 Report is that Rudd will get Foreign Affairs. Of the others who I can’t see being shifted there is really only Swan as Treasurer, Albanese in Infrastructure (the guy obviously loves his job so much it would be a shame to move him), Conroy in Broadband (the NBN was the big winner of the election – and now the filter is effectively dead, he can really be the good news guy of the Government), Carr in Innovation, and possibly Roxon in Health. But the rest? They could go anywhere. It is a jigsaw puzzle that I do not envy her trying to solve.

As soon as you suggest someone takes over a new role, you have to think of where (if anywhere) to put the person previously holding the position.

Is Tanya Plibersek going to take a break from the Ministry while she has her child? If so, there’s another gap to fill. Shorten surely must get a job – he has done very well as the Disability Parliamentary Secretary, Combet also looks set to go from the outer Ministry to Cabinet. But does he get Defence? Defence is a very senior job. Personally I would prefer he get Climate Change. But then where does Wong go? Given his Parl Sec position, Shorten could smoothly go into Family and Community Services, but then where goes Macklin? And on it goes

Gillard is lucky that the Ministry she herself once held – Education, Employment and Work Place Relations will definitely be split – she would never be silly enough to give someone else as much power as she herself had. So that gives her some room, as does no Tanner (sigh) and no Faulkner (sigh).

But it is a wonderful game she has to play – one that needs to end up using the talent in the best possible manner, but also one that doesn't put too many noses out of joint – including those of the independents. Good luck – it’s like playing scrabble on an air hockey board

I end with two tweets by South Australian Lib Senator Simon Birmingham and Lib MP Jamie Briggs, both of whom showed their colleagues how to take a defeat:

@Birmo democracy - swings, roundabouts & other stuff harder to explain ... upwards & onwards towards the next election ...

@Briggsjamie a disappointing result but time now to re-group and fight hard to build for a victory at the next election

Certainly a case of treating the two imposters of Triumph and Disaster the same. I tips my hat.