On the QT: Feel the audacity of the Greens!

So today, the Greens took control of the Senate (well the balance of power part of it). I hope you all enjoyed the gay wedding you attended and stopped by the old folks’ home after the reception to administer some euthanasia on anyone looking a bit too inert for your liking.

So the day came and went and apparently nothing much has changed. This of course is just all part of The Greens’ evil plan. First they will lull us into a false sense of security and then just when we’re all comfortable they’ll… unleash their full arsenal and (wait for it, it’s pretty sinister…) vote in the Senate.

Woah.

Amazing.

A party that at the last election got 13 per cent of the vote in Senate now holds 11 per cent of the seats in the Senate.

Shocking.

Or as The Herald Sun editorial on the weekend called it:

Greens leader Bob Brown, is no longer the warm and fuzzy figure once thought of as a harmless, tree-hugging Tasmanian environmentalist.

Senator Brown has revealed himself as a danger to democracy in challenging the potential mandate of a Coalition government to abolish a carbon tax imposed by the current minority government of Labor, Greens and independents.

Uhuh. “A danger to democracy”. I’m not sure “danger” or “democracy” mean what the author of that editorial thinks they mean.

I must first make an admission: I am not a Greens voter. Basically my local member is Andrew Leigh and I am a sucker for intelligent economists who also blog. I may one day vote for the Greens, but the cold-hearted, economic rationalist side of me, has thus far kept me from doing so.

But I like a lot of things about the Greens – especially that they don’t all talk in sound bites.

But the thing I like most about the Greens is that they have seriously screwed with the heads of the Press Gallery.

The Gallery demands “scrutiny” of the Greens, and hate it when Bob Brown plays all coy with them, or calls them the “hate media”.

The big problem with the Greens though is they don’t act like a proper political party. They don’t have public brawls, they don’t leak to the press, the don’t background the press, they don’t particularly feel much need to use the press the way the Libs and ALP do.

They may one day feel like they need to feed the media, but at the moment, not so much. (Also the other parties have safety in numbers, which makes leaks easier to get away with.)

The problem is the media are desperate to be able to get a hold on the Greens.  Mostly they like to think of them as just the far-left of the Labor Party. And on some issue that may almost be true, but that doesn’t mean Greens Senators will act like left-wing ALP Senators (or MPs). One of the reasons I’ve noticed of why people join the Greens and not the ALP is not just the policy differences, but also the bullsh*t that can go along with joining the ALP – the factions, the in-fighting, the egos, the kowtowing to Party heavyweights.

And yes, when Bob Brown goes perhaps there will be some jostling to get his job. But for now, there is no evidence of the destruction of the Party that so many commentators see happening – ooh Lea Rhiannon is now here, feel the instability!!!

And so the press gallery seems to have some dopey need to dip into the hyperbole bowl when writing of the Greens.

Take today. As there was a new Senate, there was to be the usual vote for who would be President of the Senate (ie the Speaker of the Senate). Currently the role is held by ALP Senator John Hogg.

This morning when nominations for the position were opened, the Greens nominated Greens’ WA Senator Scott Ludlam. He lost the vote 62 votes to 9 (ie the ALP and LNP voted together for Hogg)

Here’s how the media reported it:

The Australian:

James Massola

THE Greens have failed in an audacious bid to seize the coveted post of president of the Senate from Labor, as the party flexes its muscles as the chamber's new balance-of-power holder.

The Herald Sun (with subtle accompanying photo of Bob Brown, just in case you think the Greens are in any way serious):

Phillip Hudson

THE Greens have formally taken the balance of power in the Senate today and shifted their seats to the government side of the chamber.

They have also made an audacious bid for the prestigious post of Senate president, which is normally held by the Government.

The Courier Mail:

Steven Scott

GREENS Leader Bob Brown has failed in a bold bid to gain control of important roles of president and deputy president in the new Senate.

News.com.au:

Malcolm Farr

10.52am The Greens have started to flex their muscles.

For the first time in the Commonwealth's history, a Green senator today is representing every state of the nation.

The clean sweep was confirmed today when the half Senate elected last August was sworn in. They included four new Green senators joining five others.

And the changed dynamics quickly became evident when the Greens used their extra muscle to challenged the Government's nomination for President of the Senate.

Yep, “audacious”, “bold”, “extra muscle”.

Except here’s the thing. Let’s go back three years to August 26 2008, the last time the Senate changed. Let’s see what happened when they called for nominations for the position of President of the Senate:

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12.18 pm)—Mr Clerk, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its members to be President. I propose to the Senate for its President Senator Hogg, and I move:
That Senator Hogg take the chair of the Senate as President.

The Clerk—Are there any further nominations?

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania— Leader of the Australian Greens) (12.18 pm)—Mr Clerk, I propose to the Senate as its President Senator Christine Milne, and I move:
That Senator Milne take the chair of the Senate as President.

The Clerk—Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I invite the candidates to address the chair

Wow. So three years ago, when the Greens had 6 members out of 76, and didn’t hold the balance of power, I guess they were also “audacious”, “bold” and displaying “extra muscle” when they nominated Senator Milne to be the President. The difference? Back then they only got 6 votes.

But hey, how about we go back 6 years on August 9 2005, when the Senate numbers changed over – but when the Liberal Party held a majority in the Senate. What happened then?

Senator HILL (South Australia—Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12.47 pm)—Mr Clerk, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its members to be President. I propose to the Senate for its President Senator Calvert, and I move:
That Senator Calvert take the chair of the Senate as President.

The Clerk—Are there any other nominations?

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.47 pm)—Mr Clerk, I propose to the Senate for its President Senator Nettle, and I move:
That Senator Nettle take the chair of the Senate as President.

Wow. So six years ago, when they only had four Senators and had bugger all power, I guess they were also “audacious”, “bold” and displaying “extra muscle” when they nominated Senator Nettle to be the President. The difference? Back then they got seven voted (the Democrats chipped in for a few votes)

There were a couple pretty senior journalists writing those pieces, but today they were shown up by a more junior member of the Press Gallery, Macquarie radio’s, Sarah Wiley who tweeted:

Greens trying to get Scott Ludlum elected senate president. a stunt the greens often pull at the start of a new senate.

And then followed it up with:

Coalition expected to support Labor's John Hogg as Senate President. Usual practice.

Perspective. Good to see.

The Greens have some dopey policies (in my opinion), and Lea Rhiannon will surely say many dopey things. But journalists, would be advised to not lose grip on reality. Just because there are nine Greens Senators doesn't change the world, and today it certainly didn’t make any difference to how they acted when they only had four.

***

Over in Question Time we had the continuing farce of the ALP releasing bits of the Carbon Price policy, but not all, and then acting all shocked that the Liberals might ask them about other aspects. The ALP also again wasted Dorothy Dixers talking about Abbott, instead of talking up their own policies and programs. No one gives a damn what Abbott said about petrol, let it go. Wait until the whole thing is released and in place and then call him on all the bullshit – eg go off to Whyalla and check if it has been wiped off the face of the earth…

Till then forget him and focus on yourself – focus on what you are doing. And for God’s sake get the whole bloody policy out… and Huzzah!! They are finally doing that – this weekend:

This weekend the Gillard Government plans to announce a price on pollution as the central element of a comprehensive policy to tackle climate change, cut pollution and drive the transformation of the Australian economy to a clean energy future.

After hearing a report on the discussions of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, Cabinet agreed tonight that sufficient progress had been made to allow an announcement date to be set for Sunday 10 July 2011.

Considerable common ground has been achieved in the MPCCC talks in recent weeks.

This reflects the genuine commitment of members of the MPCCC to tackle climate change to protect Australia’s environment and support the economy.

While there will be additional discussions with the MPCCC this week, followed by further Cabinet consideration, it is expected that the remaining details will be finalised in these discussions ahead of Sunday’s announcement.

The Gillard Government’s priorities in designing the carbon price have been cutting pollution, protecting household budgets, and supporting jobs.

A carbon price is an important reform that will create incentives to lower Australia’s carbon pollution at the lowest cost to the economy.

It will do this by putting a price tag on the pollution of fewer than 1,000 businesses.

More than half the revenue raised will be used for tax cuts and increased payments to households, which will be generous, fair and permanent and will keep pace with cost impacts from the carbon price in the future.

After announcing the policy the Government intends to introduce legislation to Parliament later this year.

This will be an opportunity for all MPs to decide whether they accept the scientific advice that climate change is real and whether they accept the economic advice that a market mechanism is the cheapest and most effective way of reducing pollution.

Arrangements for media will be released this evening. Arrangements for stakeholders will be announced in the coming days.

This will not lead to any big shift in the polls (there’s little hope of that till the legislation is brought in and the world doesn’t end like Abbott says it will), but at last the phony war is over.

Now the Government has to get on the front foot and sell this policy (note “sell”, not “spin”).

They will have the whole of the winter break to do so. Let’s see how it goes…

Federer releases Let it Be

In the end, the surprise is how quickly it was all over. From the release of their first album in 1963, and then just over seven years later it was all done. From Please, Please Me to Let it Be in seven years. In between nothing much had changed, just the entire genre of popular music.

Things were different then. Two albums in a year was not unusual. Creativity was a furious endeavour. Get something on the page, get it in the studio, get it on the track, get it in the shops.

Now the time it takes to record an album, tour around the world for a couple years and then get back in the studio and record another is spread out.

Year	The Beatles	U2	R.E.M	Radiohead	Coldplay	Green Day	Pearl Jam
1	Please, Please Me; With the Beatles	Boy	Murmur	Pablo Honey	Parachutes	39/Smooth	Ten
2	A Hard Day's Night; Beatles For Sale	October	Reckoning
3	Help!; Rubber Soul		Fables of the Reconstruction	The Bends	A Rush of Blood to the Head	Kerplunk	Vs
4	Revolver	War	Life's Rich Pageant				Vitology
5	Sgt. Peppers	The Unforgettable Fire	Document	OK Computer		Dookie
6	White Album		Green		X&Y	Insomniac	No Code
7	Yellow Submarine; Abbey Road
8	Let it Be	The Joshua Tree		Kid A		Nimrod	Yield
Total	12	5	6	4	3	5	5

Just think, in the time is took The Beatles to go through their entire discography, R.E.M in the equivalent time had not even got to Out of Mind. U2 had just finished the first period – Achtung Baby lay another three years away.  Only Radiohead seems to have kept pace in creative growth. But by the time they brought out their pinnacle of OK Computer – their third album, The Beatles had released 8 albums. It’s hard to argue that The Bends is a good swap for Revolver, Rubber Soul, A Hard Day’s Night and Help!

The rise to the summit was quickly done – if you ignore the years in Liverpool, touring round England and the double stint on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg. When they got good, they got amazing, and then they stayed there.

Well sort of. Sure Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart’s Club Band was great to the point of beyond over-rating (and yet of course it is massively over-rated – it’s not even their best album, how could it be – it has “Lovely Rita” and “When I’m 64”, two very dull and stupid songs), but that same year they released the EP Magical Mystery Tour. The most notable thing about Magical Mystery Tour was how far George Harrison and Ringo Starr in the Beatles Anthology DVD’s sought to distance themselves from the decision to do it. They laid it at the feet of McCartney and even he had to admit, yeah it was kind of naff (but film school students apparently love it he implores!).

But this decline was seen as a blip – after all look at The White Album. Yes look at it. Revolution #9, Wild Honey Pie, Birthday, Yer Blues, Yoko Ono singing on The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill. Lots of dross (but yes, lots of brilliance).

Should we also ignore The Yellow Submarine, which was hardly even worth being called an album? Yes let’s.

And then Let it Be. An album so full of meh that Paul McCartney tried to resurrect it by releasing the “Naked” version, minus Phil Spector’s production. But you can’t change the past. The end was here, and all that was left was for Lennon and McCartney to have it out and go off and make “Imagine” and “Ram”. Except as all fans know, Let it Be, while it was the last album they released, it was not the last album they recorded – that prize goes to the glorious Abbey Road. Truly a high note to end on.

And what, pray tell does this have to do with Roger Federer?

Two nights ago when Federer lost in 5 sets to Jo Wilfred Tsonga, we have to realise that the end is here. The age of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper is gone. It won’t come back. Federer also had had his Magical Mystery Tour period – in 2008 he lost in the semi-final of the Aussie Open, then got beaten by Nadal in the French Open and (gasp) Wimbledon. The decline has begun they said. Vale Federer. Thanks for it all.

And then he came out with The White Album and won 4 of the next 6 Grand Slam titles, and came runner-up in the other two.

But still the decline was to come. And when you look back, you see that like The Beatles, it has all been rather brief. He won his first Grand Slam in 2003, he won his last in 2010 – the same period of time as the 1963-1970 span of The Beatles.

And sure there was another great band during the ‘60s, just as there was another great tennis player besides Federer, but Nadal is The Rolling Stones. He, like they, came second. And yeah you saw the passion perhaps more with him and them. You saw the sweat, the angst, the masculinity. But The Stones were never as big as The Beatles, and they know it. And Nadal even if he sticks around and wins as many titles as Federer will not be Federer. And I suspect he knows it.

There is popular music before The Beatles, and then after. So too with tennis and Federer. When we watch tennis being played now we view it through the lens of Federer – you must be able to serve, you must be able to return, have a whipping forehand, and you must be able to turn defence into attack. What made Federer unbeatable was his ability to keep in points even when running to the back of the court. The ability to cut a forehand that should have been past him back into his opponent’s court at such an angle and such a speed as to render the advantage to Federer’s side of the net.

Nadal was the first to also learn how to do it. Then Djokovic.

And now if you can’t do it, you don’t play.

Watch Bernard Tomic – he already has the defensive-attack shot in his armoury.

Nadal is great. But he plays tennis in the Federer era, as much as The Stones, The Animals, The Who all were within The Beatles’ shadow.

But the fade does come. Sure they were young, – in their late 20s when it happened, but time has an amazing way of cutting down rock-n-roll stars at their seeming peak. The creativity of just four or five year’s previous is dried up. Where once you had Norwegian Wood, Eleanor Rigby and Tomorrow Never Knows, now there is only Let it Be, The Long and Winding Road and Get Back. And yes Get Back is a great rocker, and the other two are not embarrassing. But they don’t change music as we know it.

So too with Federer. Yeah last month in Paris he played great tennis to beat Djokovic in the semi-final, and took it up to Nadal in the final. But no longer do you watch him play and think, we’ll never see the like again. There are others who have grown up watching him play, they know his shots, they have honed their game to be a version of him. No they may never be as good as him, and they certainly won’t change tennis, but no more can we say Roger does things no one else can do.

Tennis has become a game where you try to do things no one else can do.

Roger changed the geometry of tennis. Now we have kids playing who for the last 8 years have been studying his mathematics text-books.

And, criminal as it is, let’s reduce him to mathematics:

Think of the first period of blue bars as Federer’s Hamburg period. Those in the know knew about him – saw big things coming. But no one, just like those who saw The Beatles with Pete Best in the Kaiserkeller, knew exactly what was about to happen.

With 8 points for a tournament win, and 7 for runner-up, between Wimbledon 2005 and The Australian Open 2010, Federer had a rolling 4 tournament average of better than 7. That’s over 5 years. Imagine being that good (and not the absence of gaps – he turns up every time). How good was he? Here’s Nadal’s graph:

An amazing graph as well. As good as almost anyone. But he’s never going to have that 5 years of dominance on every surface. Because Nadal too will feel the affect of age. And his legs are already older than they should be. He has the talent to win as many tournaments as Federer, but I don’t think he has the legs.

But why is the decline now here for Federer? After all he lost in the Quarter Finals last year at Wimbledon. The difference is that last year Federer played a bad match; against Tsonga he didn’t. He played very well. He jumped Tsonga early and pick pocketed the first set like he has so many, many times before. Tsonga was still thinking about tying his shoelaces when he found that first set gone.

In the second, they went toe to toe, before the tie-breaker arrived, and Federer gave a nudge, a wink, a raised eyebrow, and like some bit part actor trying to share the screen with George Clooney, Tsonga found there was room for only one star.

But sitting at home late that night, I was worried. Tsonga looked too good. You knew he could catch fire. And worse than that, you felt if he did, Federer wouldn’t be able to stop him.

The match was high quality. Switching over to watch Djokovic-Tomic was like switching from State of Origin to a standard NRL game. But it was not Federer-Safin Aussie Open 2005. This was just very good tennis being played very well. Federer was serving solidly. In set 3, 4 and 5 he would hold every service game with something close to ease. All that is except one game each set.

And that makes all the difference.

In the past Federer excelled at turning up the juice for that one game where he would break his opponent – usually at 4-4 or 3-4. And suddenly after feeling like he was almost in the match, the opponent – some poor guy who will tell his grandkids about the day he played Federer – had lost the set. 

So it was for Federer against Tsonga in set 3, 4 and 5.

And so this match is not a Magical Mystery Tour, or Yellow Submarine. It is Let it Be. It is not a hiccup, it actually is as good as he can play. And when you look at the graph you see that from when he started winning he never went more than three tournament without a Grand Slam. It’s now been six since his last win.

Tennis fans, and especially Federer loyalists, will hope that there is time for an Abbey Road – that one last Grand Slam where the stars align and for 7 matches he comes back. It is more likely to happen than not.

But even if it does, it will not be anything other than that last moment in the sun. It won’t change the way tennis has been played. It won’t launch a thousand kids onto the tennis court to learn how to play an off-forehand (they already know it – they’ve been practising it for 8 year now).

Is it sad? Inevitably, yes. Unlike music you don’t really get out the tapes of old matches that often, if at all. Sport is live, even watching replays of Grand Finals won by beloved teams are no more than enjoyable moments of nostalgia. But you can listen to Revolver and still want to crank it up just like you did when you first heard it.

But we were here. We saw it. We knew it was special. And so we should not be too sad. Be glad you were present when it happened – because you will bore your grandkids about how no one is as good as he was. They probably won’t get it, just as kids today may appreciate The Beatles, but they laugh to themselves to think people went insane when they came to town.

For some things it is enough to have been there, because even when it was happening you knew it wouldn’t last forever.

The record always comes to an end, and the net always gets taken down.

On the QT: The element of predictability

And so it reached 3:15pm. There was a sense of nervousness in the air. The House was restless; the gallery confused; the people on Twitter techy dishevelled and at a loss.

Surely on this the anniversary of the rolling of Rudd there would be a censure motion? Usually Abbott needs a pretty good reason to launch a censure motion – you know, like the day ending in a Y – so it was pretty clear there would be a censure motion today. But time was slipping by. It was now 3:20 and Jenny Macklin was responding to a question. Would Tony rise to his feet and move the motion? Everyone in the censure motion sweep sat on the edge of their chairs waiting, wondering. Could this be a fantastic day that would see a Thursday Question Time go all the way through uninterrupted.

Such a thing is so rare, so beyond the ken of the current political system, that one only hoped the galleries were full of young children. Of whom one could say – “Go find the youngest child in the gallery, because that's the only person here who will have a chance of seeing this happen again in their lifetime."

But alas. At 3:21 Tony did stand and sought leave to move a motion of censure against the PM. Why? Did this follow repeated questions that had Julia Gillard cowering and lost? Well no. Given all the questions from the Liberal Party were variants of the theme of what have you done in the last 12 months, she was able to talk about anything she wanted. And so Abbott moved this:

That this House censures the Prime Minister for her failure to achieve anything of substance in 12 months of government after supplanting her predecessor on the basis that the government had lost its way when it is clear on any assessment that things have just gone from bad to worse.

Used to be a time you censored PM’s because of serious things – you know misleading the house or allegations of corruption. Now it’s just “things have gone from bad to worse” (you know if you ignore the economic data which shows that things actually haven’t).

Censure motions used to be something to get the journos rushing back into the gallery. A hold the presses type moment. Now, under Abbott, they are jokes. The ALP MPs call out “I move! I move” When Abbott stands up. They know it’s coming. They don’t care. Gillard leaves, and Abbott makes a big deal about how John Howard would never have left during a censure motion, ignoring of course that under the ALP the censure motion was not reduced to the absurdity it has become under Abbott.

No one cares. The TV doesn’t even bother reporting it anymore.

The rest of QT? It too was hardly worth the bother. Oh yeah I guess you could say Gillard was “attacked”, if the Libs asking the same type of questions is an “attack”. The ALP had two main thrusts – the NBN deal announced today by the PM and Stephen Conroy with Telstra and Optus – a pretty key moment that will basically mean the NBN is going to be here regardless of who wins the next election – and Tony Abbott attending a conference at which climate denier fruit-loop Christopher Monckton will be speaking.

The issue with Monckton (aside from the obvious thing that everyone already knew) is that he recently compared Ross Garnaut to Hitler. And not in a subtle nudge nudge way, But with a bloody Swastika! Abbott still intends to speak – though he did condemn Monckton for his statements.

But in the end it was all a bit sideshowy.

In other real news the House and Senate sat later than expected because of this:

28. MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

Messages from the Senate, 23 June 2011, were reported returning the following bills without amendments or requests:

No. 151—Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment 2011.

No. 152—Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 5) 2011.

No. 154—Appropriation (No. 1) 2011-2012 (without requests).

No. 155—Appropriation (No. 2) 2011-2012.

No. 153—Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) (No. 1) 2011-2012, 9:41:34 PM.

   29  MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE—Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

Message No. 156, 23 June 2011, from the Senate was reported returning the Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 with amendments, 9:41:46 PM.

Mr Albanese, 9:42:13 PM, moved—That the amendments be considered immediately.

Question—put and passed, 9:42:22 PM.

Mr Albanese, 9:42:33 PM, moved—That the amendments be agreed to.

Question—put and passed, 9:42:46 PM.

That there was the Budget being passed. So much for the House being unworkable. So much for the Govt losing control of the house. So much for Abbott and Hockey amending and improving the Budget.

What was Joe Hockey doing today? Well he didn’t ask a question during QT – probably because he had been too busy this morning carrying on like a primary school kid getting his advisors to take a cardboard cut out of Kevin Rudd around to various embassies and places in Canberra. He then proceeded to tweet them :

After a long day of travel @KRuddMP decides it is time for a rest at Aussie's in Parliament House http://yfrog.com/kezo5xyj about 3 hours ago via TweetDeck

Then @KRuddMP pops up to Red Hill to look over the land he once controlled. "It should all be mine!" he excla… (cont) http://deck.ly/~gk9Lv about 5 hours ago via TweetDeck

Then @KRuddMP decided to drop in to say hi to his friends at the Indonesian embassy. http://yfrog.com/h8hkrtavj about 6 hours ago via TweetDeck

This morning @KRuddMP visited China. http://yfrog.com/kkrommj

It was utterly juvenile, and only funny on a pull my finger kind of humour level. But what made Joe’s efforts so lacking in comedic timing and class was that he decided to string out the tweets over the whole day  and ended by tweeting a few of them at the same time that most political watchers on Twitter were absorbed in the SBS documentary series Go Back Where You Came From. Having Hockey tweet his “jokes” while the rest of the Twit stream was filled with people expressing horror at women in such appalling conditions that they would sing a joyful song about no longer being raped, showed a decided lack of political nous.

Though he was only slightly less foolish than Scott Morrison who also tweeted during a program that forced people to confront the hell that asylum seekers have to endure each day:

• Is en-route to KL #fb #auspol

What a champ.

***

An announcement

And that my friends ends my regular blog posts on Question Time for a while. In fact it also ends my regular blog posts during the week on any topic.

I have recently moved to part-time (Thursday and Fridays off) and am writing a book for the good folk at Scribe Publications on (rather coincidentally given the last parts of this post) on Social Media: Politics, Policy and Journalism.

As it usually takes about 3 hours each night to write these posts I have decided I will for the next 6 months need to use that time to research and write the book instead.

I will try to write a couple posts a week – but they will more likely be on a Thursday or Friday night and the weekends, and be more weekly summations than a review of the day’s proceedings.

This is all a bit of an ‘I plan not to write so much”, but given this has been my addiction for the last 3 years (3rd anniversary 15th of next month) I probably will make a liar out of myself and bang out some words more regularly than once or twice a week – though the On the QT posts will probably take a back seat as they can be buggers to write – especially if I want to quote things said.

So I will still be here (and as ever on Twitter), but I hope you will excuse my drop in regularity.

I’ll keep you posted on the book progress. I have already lined up some very interesting people to interview, and hope to talk to many more as well.

This blog and more importantly your readership and support has opened this door for me, so I thank you for that.

Oh and by the way, by reading this post, you have just agreed to buy the damn book when it comes out!

On the QT: Like a Broken Pencil

Everything you need to know about Question time can be summed up in the supplementary asked today by Julie Bishop to Kevin Rudd

"Will the Foreign Minister advise the House when he intends to return to Bougainville?"

Some background. Firstly Bishop had sought to ask Rudd a long question about why he hadn’t visited Indonesia, East Timor, Malaysia or PNG to repair the relations that have supposedly been destroyed recently (I guess she is discounting the possibility of Scott Morrison’s little jaunt to Malaysia this weekend helping things).

Rudd pretty much took her to school. Malcolm Farr watching in the press gallery tweeted:

Julie B might not quite be in her weight division

That is – she was a light weight battling a foreign policy heavyweight.

But the question we soon discovered was not a real question anyway. It was just a set up for her supplementary:

"Will the Foreign Minister advise the House when he intends to return to Bougainville?"

Ok. Let me walk you though it… Apparently Kevin Rudd now calls the lodge “Boganville” because there are so many coups in Bougainville and because he probably thinks Gillard is a bogan. So she was really saying when do intend to return to the Lodge.

Get it?

*taps microphone* Is this thing on?

The only reason we know Rudd thinks this is because Senator Brandis mentioned it in Senate Estimate and Niki Savva also mentioned it in her most recent op-ed piece in The Oz.

So that includes about as large a percentage of the population as Alan Jones thinks a carbon tax will reduce world temperatures by.

The Liberal side of the House laughed. Rudd had a bit of a smirk. And the rest of Australia thought, who are these children?

On the ABC, Jeremy Thompson thought it pure gold, writing:

Like a good fast bowler, Ms Bishop had "softened up" Mr Rudd earlier with a series of bouncers about why he had not visited Jakarta, Dili, Port Moresby and Kuala Lumpur, before she unleashed the yorker.

And she hit middle stump.

Which is I guess a good analogy if you ignore that Rudd put the first delivery over the fence.

Personally I agree more with Farr’s assessment on his rolling news.com. blog:

The Opposition has engaged in an elaborate set-up for a joke most members of the public did not get.

Yep. It was a indulgent in-joke. Audiences just love those.

First rule of comedy – you better not need to explain your joke in order for people to get it.

But it got a run in the media because, well it’s a sideshow.

Yesterday in the Senate, in giving his valedictory speech Senator Alan Ferguson had a bit to say about Question Time:

Firstly, if it were up to me, I would abolish question time as it is currently structured. It is a total waste of time and, dare I say it, not much better in the other place, if not worse.

We have in the Australian parliament the worst question time of any parliament throughout the world that uses the Westminster system. I recently went to hear Prime Minister David Cameron answering questions in Prime Minister's question time in the House of Commons. He answered 25 questions in half an hour, and answered every question. In Canada ministers get 35 seconds. In New Zealand they have up to 61 questions in the day, and each one is answered.

There is one difference, and I have talked this over with Senator Faulkner on occasion at the procedure committee: every question is a question on notice, followed by supplementaries. I think the only way that we can ever get some order into this place or into question time is if questions are placed on notice and anybody in the chamber is allowed to ask a supplementary question. It means that there is no such thing as a dorothy dixer, a chance for a minister to then explain at length an answer to that question, because someone on this side of the chamber can add a supplementary and make it a more interesting debate.

I think there has never been a greater waste of time in the Public Service and in ministers' offices than question time as it is currently structured. Ministers, staff and departmental officials spend many, many hours—I do not know just how long, because I have never been in there—preparing for answers to questions in the Senate and in the House of Representatives—questions that may never be asked, because they are not on the Notice Paper and nobody knows exactly what the topic of the question is going to be on the day or whether a certain minister is going to be questioned.

So can I say that I think that in its current form question time in both chambers does us a disservice. Name me one person in the community who is not frustrated by watching question time and seeing questions asked that are never answered. It is a generally known standard: the opposition ask questions they hope the government cannot answer, and the government ask questions where they have already prepared the answer. I have never seen a more farcical waste of time in my life, and I think it is something that ought to be changed as soon as is practically possible, but it will take goodwill on both sides because both parties have been guilty of encouraging and maintaining the current system.

He makes some excellent points. Whenever people praise the glory of the UK system, however, they often forget to mention the PM only needs to front up once a week. I like that the PM is here everyday – though I also understood what Keating was trying to do when he tried to have a day off each week so that Ministers were in the forefront.

But he is right about Dorothy Dixers.

Get rid of them. Wayne Swan today struggled to keep directly relevant to his own Dorothy Dixer, and even ran out of time!

I like Ferguson’s idea that if Government MPs are allowed to ask questions that anyone can then ask a supplementary. That would make things rather interesting.

But to be honest it is not so much the rules in place at the moment, but the attitude. The Libs don’t give a damn about order. Chris Pyne loves being the a pest and thinks disrupting the House with endless quorum calls is all jolly good japes. I guess when you don’t have any policies, you are only left with stunts to pass the time.

Clowns the lot of them.

One thing did happen in Parliament today of note. Here it is:

Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time, 9:24:11 AM—
….
Mr Bandt dissenting—Bill agreed to, 11:01:05 AM.

Consideration in detail concluded.

That was the Bill that Abbott and Hockey attacked with vigour and venom after the budget because it would “strip” benefits from needy middleclass families. Remember how the Government wasn’t making the real tough cuts? Remember how it was turning its back on good, honest, families. 

Here was Joe Hockey the day after the budget:

JOE HOCKEY: You have to make hard decisions and this Government instead is penalising nearly 2 million Australian families. It is penalising over 2 million Australian small businesses. Michael, the Government is claiming to deliver a surplus in two years time but the Budget deficit this year is at a record level, the Budget deficit next year was meant to be $12 billion, it is now $22 billion. The Government is spending $18 million a day on interest alone for the next four years on their debt.

Here was Joe at the Press club:

The Coalition in the last twelve months has announced over $52 billion of savings in detail.

So why did the Liberals let his Bill pass without even a vote? Here’s Sue Dunlevy of The Oz quoting Opposition families spokesman Kevin Andrews:

the Coalition did not oppose the measures that will save the government $2 billion over four years because “we couldn't find equivalent savings measures”'.

Wow. From $52 billion to zero in one month. That takes skill.

***

Oh and for those wondering about the title:

Democracy as a stunt

It’s not everyday a political leader tries to redefine democracy, but today Tony Abbott gave it a shot.  He came out (after some nice leaking to every news.ltd tabloid) and said he was going to move in parliament for there to be a plebiscite on the carbon tax – a vote on the question: “‘Are you in favour of a law to impose a carbon tax?’

The media reacted the way you would expect the media to react (especially those who had been given the leak) – they lapped it up like little puppies. Some of the more serious journalists tried to point out that they really knew what was going on:

Yes, it's a stunt. But it's a good one.

A good stunt? Wow. Talk about the harsh eye of the fourth estate holding our politicians to account. We know it’s a stunt, but hey, why should we hold that against him? Hell we want stunts – good ones mind, take your bad stunts elsewhere – give us stunts that we can run with and make our own – to whit The Daily Telegraph editorial pretty much campaigning for the plebiscite like it was its own idea:

Words are cheap.

At an estimated $80 million, the plebiscite would be anything but - but that may be the cost we bear to make federal parliament answerable to the people.

Actually no, what makes a parliament answerable to the people is regular, freely-held elections. There will be one in later 2013, until then you need to put up with the one that was voted in at the last freely-held election. Don’t like it? Well vote it out next time. It’s a system that has worked well in this country for around 110 years. I think we can say it has passed the test.

Now I know some of you will say, yeah we know all that, but it really is a good stunt – I mean it sounds great – it sounds democratic, who in their right mind would not agree to it?

And I would almost be with you – after all if the Independents voted against it Abbott could say they were against democracy. He would almost have a case (well not really, but he at least would sound like he almost had a case if you didn’t examine it too closely) except this morning Malcolm Farr of news.com.au was reporting this:

10.10am Tony Abbott says the Opposition won't adopt the Government's carbon pricing scheme if it was put to a plebiscite and passed.

The Opposition Leader indicated today only the Government would be bound by the result.

When asked his position should a carbon price be accepted at a plebiscite, he told news.com.au:

"I would still think a carbon tax was bad."

The Opposition argues it is up to the Government to get a mandate for its plan to reduce carbon emissions by penalising polluters.

So Abbott wants the people to have a say, but he doesn't want to have to listen to them?

Huh?

Wait on – wasn’t this Abbott’s idea in the first place? Isn’t he the one who actually wants the people to have a say? I’ll have to go look in my little book of political phrases, but I am pretty sure being able to call for a vote but not being obliged to have to abide by that vote is not within the confines of the English meaning of “democracy”.

Here was Abbott trying out his strategy on radio station 2UE:

JASON MORRISON: The obvious question to ask, if it comes back that in fact more people support the tax than don’t – which would go against all the polls – but if it comes back that way, would you change your party’s position on it?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, obviously, that would be a very powerful message but I don’t want to speculate on what might happen.

Really? What’s there to speculate about? The people vote one way, you agree with them? No? Really? I mean… really?

How about this on 3AW:

NICK MCCALLUM: But you won’t be able to convince the independents though, surely?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, what could be more democratic than having a vote of the people?

Gee I don’t know Tony, what could be more democratic? Oh yes, I know – abiding by the decision of the people! You see holding the votes is easy. Lots of countries hold votes. You seem them reported quite a lot in the foreign news section of the papers. But the democratic ones are those that both sides abide by the result of the vote. Those systems where only one side has to abide by the decision of a vote struggle with the use of the word “democratic” in their system of Government (they generally put it in the title of the country to try and make up for the lack of it in reality). But kudos to you Tony, keep trying to broaden the definition. In time democracy may come to mean what you think it does.

But if you really look at the proposal you know immediately that democracy is not what Abbott is after. You only need to look at the timing. This is the last week in which the Senate will consist of the numbers from the 2007 election. After this the Senate will be made up of those since the 2010 election – and the Greens will hold the balance of power. After this week Abbott loses a lot of power. He no longer can seriously hope to block legislation in the Senate. And he certainly can’t do it by cajoling Steve Fielding (who will be gone) and Nick Xenophon (who will be somewhat redundant).

Abbott wants a vote this week because he does not want to have to accept the views of the people from the last election.

Little wonder that the only independent that matters currently considering Abbott’s proposal is Xenophon, but even his support is not going to do much for Abbott:

`As a general principle, you should (ask the people),'' he told reporters.``But the question can't be loaded, it should be about the specifics, not slogans.''

Hmm. specifics, not slogans? Oh dear. That ain’t Abbott’s strong suit.

It was also ``a bit simplistic'' having a plebiscite asking: ``Do you support a carbon tax, yes or no?''
Senator Xenophon believes the people should be asked to vote specifically on the government's proposed legislation on a carbon tax.

But Abbott wants and needs it simplistic! And waiting for the proposed legislation? That’s no good, because that sure as heck won’t happen by the end of the week.

But in any event, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakschott won’t vote for it, so that kills it.

But thanks Tony, nice try. 

***

I noted earlier this year that Abbott never utters a word without a political intent. Even when the occasion is bipartisan and calls for statesmen like words, Abbott can’t help himself. Last year when Indonesian President Bambang Yudhoyono addressed Parliament last, Abbott decided to use the bipartisan moment to say in his introductory remarks:

We have worked to end people smuggling before. It worked when we worked together before. People smuggling has started again and we can stop it again, provided it is done cooperatively and with a clear understanding of our mutual interests and with the right policies in place here in Australia.

So when today, the New Zealand Prime Minister was present to address the joint parliament, the odds of Abbott demeaning himself and using his welcoming address to raise a political point were pretty short. And so he did:

I also congratulate you Prime Minister for dramatically watering down the Emission Trading Scheme that you inherited. In this country, your sister party will go further and do better. Should we inherited any carbon tax we won’t just reduce it, we will rescind it.

How classy.

At least while Abbott was laughing to himself while he said these words, and behind him Luke Hartsuyker and Chris Pyne dutifully grinned like idiots as well, Joe Hockey sat stony faced and non-plussed. Good to see, Joe.

Quiet please…. play.

And so tomorrow night begins in my house the annual, we’re not going to get as much sleep as we planned fortnight, for Wimbledon is here again.

My memories of Wimbledon growing up are stronger than those of the Australian Open. I can remember being allowed at the age of 9 to stay up and watch Borg play McEnroe in the 1981 final. I wouldn’t be able to tell you who won the Australian Open that year without first having a squiz at Wikipedia (it was Johan Kreik).

This is due to the fact that even from a young age I had a deep sense of embarrassment about the Australian Open when it was held at Kooyong. I wrote about this a while ago so I won’t revisit again suffice to say that the 1981 men Wimbledon’s Final is an all time classic, and the Australian men’s final was between Johan Kreik and Steve Denton.

The thing about Wimbledon is that much like the US Masters Golf at Augusta National it somewhat irks my egalitarian sensibilities – the Royal box, the wearing of white, the bloody Kipling poem above the door (please John Newcombe, don’t read it out to us again, we get it – you’re inspired by it). But all that doesn’t matter – it’s Wimbledon. Sure it’s so full of snobbery that you fancy that if you spent too many days there you’d walk out of the ground with a new surname that ends with hyphen Smyth and a wife suddenly calling herself Lady Felicity, but somehow you don’t care – mostly because there is just something special about it – and maybe it is the snobbery.

There must be something about Wimbledon, because why else would European player like Becker, Lendl, Federer who would have grown up on clay and hard court have this insane devotion to the tournament? Poor Lendl drove himself to such distraction over the event that a guy with an amazing serve and forehand tried to volley in order to win it (note – he was born 20 years too early – Lendl would have won a heap of Wimbledons if he played in this era).

There must be something about Wimbledon to have people staying up past midnight watching each year. Thankfully this year the tournament is being telecast by Channel 7 who are making use of their digital channels to have coverage starting when play starts each day. No longer will we have to put up with Channel Nine treating viewers like scum and not showing the tennis until after some re-run of CSI Miami. 

Is the special thing about Wimbledon the lawn? For me it is. Growing up in the country I was fortunate enough to have a lawn tennis court in our backyard. I think I was a 30 per cent better player on lawn than I was on hard-court. I loved diving for volleys, loved how a backspin backhand could just skid through, loved the smell of the freshly cut lawn (which had been freshly cut by me – it was one of my chores). And now as a pretty avid watcher of tennis on Foxtel the love of grass remains. It is the visceral sense you get when you switch on the TV and instead of them running around on the blue hard courts or the red clay, you see that wonderful green surface. It feels like real tennis.

It even sounds like real tennis. There is no squeaking of shoes like on hard court. There’s no thwacking of racquets on the bottom of shoes to get rid of clay stuck in the soles. All there is is that pure sound of the tennis ball hitting the racquet (oh yeah, and the grunting…)

And even though it is only 3-4 weeks each year that grass rules, that has not caused Wimbledon to decline in anyway. It is not a tournament won by lucky players who only thrive on grass – here’s the list of those who have won the title this century:

Men:
Pete Sampras
Goran Ivanisevic
Lleyton Hewitt
Roger Federer (x6)
Rafael Nadal (x2)

Women:
Venus Williams (x5)
Serena Williams (x4)
Amelia Mauresmo
Maria Sharapova

No stragglers in either list. You win here, you can discount luck.

Even more so can luck be discounted now that the racquets and string technology is such that you don’t really need to be a grass court specialist to win here – though that helps (to whit Venus William’s 5 wins – I would hesitate to call Federer a grass court specialist given he’s won 5 US Opens and 4 Aussie Opens).

In the women’s game this is even more exacerbated where you don’t even need to be a great server (because well, holding your serve in women’s tennis seems to be an achievement in itself).

To pick the winner this year from the women’s draw is nigh on impossible. Serena and Venus Williams are back from long lay-offs with injuries (a year in the case of Serena). Had Serena been playing regularly you would have her as the favourite, but she is very rusty – she got knocked out in the second round of the Eastbourne tournament last week (admittedly by Vera Zonerava). The other issue is that Venus is now 31 and Serena is 30 in September, and well, time waits for no one. Sure 2-3 years ago they could swan around the tour each year and just get excited for the Grand Slams, but the days are tougher now.

I think any of the top 10 seeds can win it. I am not a huge watcher of Women’s tennis, so my tip is much more speculative, but given her strong performance at the French Open, I’m going to tip Maria Sharapova here. This is not good for Sam Stosur who is scheduled to meet her in the 4th round. Stosur, with her great serve, should love Wimbledon. The only problem is when it really gets down to the nitty gritty, her serve is not always so great.

The men’s event? Forget anyone not in the top 4. It is Nadal, Djokovic, Federer or Murray. The rest are playing to hopefully get to a semi final, but in all likelihood to make up the number in the quarter finals.

Of the Top 4, Nadal is due to meet Thomas Berdych in the quarters. Berdych lost to Nadal in last year’s final in straight sets. I would expect the same here. Djokovic looks likely to meet Soderling. That is a tough ask, and in any other year I would give Soderling a big chance. But this year Djokovic is at another level, and it is not a level Soderling can reach. Federer is set to meet Djokovic in the semi, but before then he will probably meet David Ferrer of Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. Tsonga looks like a guy who should play grass well but he has only made the Quarter Finals once. And the last of the top four, Andy Murray is due to meet Andy Roddick or Gail Monfils in the Quarter Finals. Based on how he dealt with Roddick at Queens last week, he should get though to meet Nadal in the semi.

But this year’s tournament has an added aspect. Since 2 February 2004 either Federer or Nadal have been Number 1 – that’s 387 weeks. How long is that? The next longest streak by two players Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg who from 29 July 1974 to 2 March 1980 held the number one spot for 292 weeks – or 95 weeks shorter than the Fed-Nadal streak.

How long have these two players been at the top? Here’s the Top 10 prior to Federer taking over in February 2004:

	Name	Country	Now
1	Andy Roddick	USA	10
2	Roger Federer	SUI	3
3	Juan Carlos Ferrero	ESP	82
4	Andre Agassi	USA	Retired
5	Guillermo Coria	ARG	Retired
6	Rainer Schüttler	GER	84
7	Carlos Moyà	ESP	Retired
8	David Nalbandián	ARG	22
9	Mark Philippoussis	AUS	Retired
10	Sébastien Grosjean	FRA	Retired
11	Paradorn Srichaphan	THA	Retired
12	Nicolas Massú	CHI	444
13	Jiří Novák	CZE	Retired
14	Younes El Aynaoui	MAR	Retired
15	Tim Henman	GBR	Retired

Yep the tennis world has changed a bit since then.

But this tournament is a big chance to see a change, and Novak Djokovic could become the 25th Number One male tennis player of the Open era.

Given the way the tennis rankings work where points last for 12 months, currently Nadal is on 12,070 points to Djokovic’s 12,005. But as they lose the points they won at last year’s Wimbledon once this event finishes, the more accurate way to see where things are at is to take away the points they won last year. 

Last year Nadal won and so he loses the 2,000 points he won for that taking him back to 10,070 points. Djokovic on the other hand only reached the semi-final and so he only loses 720 points, meaning he is sitting on 11,285.

That means he starts the tournament effectively 1,215 points ahead of Nadal. Given that the runner-up only gets 1,200 points, Nadal must win the tournament to retain number one. Even if Djokovic loses in the first round, Nadal must win the tournament to stay number one.

If Djokovic gets to the final he will be number one even if Nadal beats him.

Below is the breakdown of points for the top 4 players – with the score they will be on if they reach certain rounds.

Player	Current points	Minus last year	4th Round	Quarter	Semi	Final	Win
Rafa Nadal	12,070	10,070	10,250	10,430	10,790	11,270	12,070
Novak Djokovic	12,005	11,285	11,465	11,645	12,005	12,485	13,285
Roger Federer	9,230	8,870	9,050	9,230	9,590	10,070	10,870
Andy Murray	6,855	6,135	6,315	6,495	6,855	7,335	8,135

As you can see Federer is small chance to move up to Number 2 and no chance to fall to Number 4. Even if he loses in the first round and Murray wins the whole thing, Murray will still be 735 points behind Federer. If Federer wins the thing, he would need Nadal to lose in the Semi (or worse) for him to go above Nadal (ie Federer would be the new number 2 and Nadal number 3).

So if you are a Djokovic or Federer fan you’ll be cheering for Murray to take out Nadal in the semis.

If you are just a tennis/sports fan, it won’t matter too much, because if these four get to the semi-finals, you know you’re going to see three amazing games of tennis (the two semis and the final). And also by that stage, you’ll be sleep deprived.

But hey, it’s Wimbledon. It’s worth it.