On the QT: Combet has them at the jump

OK, Question Time today, as ever was pretty dull, but yesterday and today Combet has been having a bit of fun with Tony Abbott’s predictions about the impact of the carbon price. Today Combet rather tortiously made mention of predictions made about the impact on sporting event to get onto talk of the Spring racing carnival, wherein he ran his eye over the Liberal Party form guide  (the good stuff starts at the 2:04 min mark)

Now here’s the best things about it :

Turnbull knows how to laugh at himself (and perhaps also at the current Liberal Party Leadership) – and even Kevin Andrews begrudgingly cracks a smile.

Scott Morrison is less impressed, but still chuffed that he’s getting a mention:

But Julie Bishop? We are not amused:

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:

On the QT: No majority; no policy worthy of it

The ending of the nice, short three day week of Parliament began with the Green’s MP Adam Bandt moving this motion:

That this House:

(1) condemns the Gillard Government’s deal with Malaysia that would see 800 asylum seekers intercepted in Australian waters and sent to Malaysia; and

(2) calls on the Government to immediately abandon this proposal,

The motion passed 72-70 with the Libs voting with the Greens and of the independents MPs, Katter and Wilkie voted for and Oakeshott and Windsor voted against.

The motion of course has no legal weight, and was little more than a symbolic statement from the Greens (the Government has yet to lose a vote on a legislative matter in this hung parliament). It was embarrassing for the Government to lose this vote, but given the Government is pursuing the Malaysian policy in the first place, I don’t think embarrassment is something they are worried about. The bigger issue will be when the Green’s Bill which would require Parliament to approve to any deal involving the expulsion of asylum seekers to a third country comes up for a vote (the Libs however might ponder the consequences of that Bill on their own Nauru plans and vote against it).

But when we arrived at Question Time, lo did the heavens open and what we discovered is that this very day in Australia, democracy was destroyed and we had in fact become a Third World dictatorship.

Question Time consisted of a mere five questions. Now in Question Time quantity often can have a strong inverse correlation with quality, but this lack of number did not sadly result in much that was of much worth.

There was some mirth though, so it had that going for it.

Abbott opened with this delivery:

My question is to the Prime Minister and it follows up on my previous question. Can the Prime Minister confirm that never before in Australia's parliamentary history have both houses of this parliament condemned a government policy, and can she confirm that the government now intends to defy the express will of both houses of this parliament?

Well yeah, I guess it is a first, but I guess as well it has been a while since there was a minority Government…

After a supplementary, another question from Abbott and one from Julie Bishop, Abbott rose and took everyone by surprise and moved a motion to suspend standing orders. The surprise being not that he moved this, but that he did it at 2:25pm and not 2:52 (which I had in the suspension of standing orders sweep).

If nothing else this motion showed that Tony Abbott was not suffering a hangover from the Press Gallery Mid-Winter Ball held the night before, because he turned up the volume and shouted hither and thither in a manner that would have had many a tender headed MP or journo reaching for the aspirin:

Now I have no problems with those arguing the Malaysian deal is a dud policy, but the problem for Abbott is that when he (or others such as Scott Morrison) rise to attack it, they find themselves in the same swimming pool of hypocrisy in which they accuse the the ALP of floating – maybe at different ends, but the same pool nonetheless.

For we see Tony Abbott say this:

The parliament and the people of Australia are sending a very clear message to this government and to this Prime Minister: this Malaysian people swap is just not on. It is just not on because it is cruel, it is costly and it will be ineffective.

Now I always thought the point of the Liberal’s Pacific Solution was to be cruel to be kind? Isn’t the whole point that the result is a deterrent? It seems not. For hear now as Tony Abbott talks about Nauru:

I have seen where boat people will be accommodated—and well accommodated. I have seen where boat people's children will be educated—and well educated. I have seen the police headquarters which will deal with security issues involving boat people in Nauru. And I can tell you this, Mr Speaker: there are no rattans in Nauru and there are no whipping posts in Nauru.

Well accommodated? Well educated? A new police station? How will that deter anyone who has been living through hell, persecuted, starving and desperate for a new life? Here was Tony Abbott last year when the Government opened the Inverbrackie army barracks as a detention centre:

"Bringing asylum seekers to a place like this is hardly sending the right message to the tens of thousands of potential boat people in our region," he said. "[It] is basically saying to the people smugglers and their customers that the welcome mat is out, that the red-carpet treatment is available.

"You do not send idyllic picture postcards from Australia to the people smugglers and their customers."

No I guess what you do is say they’ll be going to a place where they will be well accommodated, their kids well educated and where the police will be responsible… you know, like Australia.

This is always the big logical fail aspect of this debate. We go from wanting to be cruel (you know – to be kind), but when one side (bizarrely in this case, the ALP) is too cruel, the other side starts talking about being kind. Well then why are we bothering with being kind in Nauru when we can be kinder and do it for less cost here in Australia?

Nauru won’t work as a deterrent anymore because everyone knows that if you are a genuine refugee, Nauru does not severely limit your chances of ending up on Australia (or New Zealand), and Abbott is now going to such lengths to say how great the place is that it may actually seem pretty great to asylum seekers!

Oh mother, how did we get here?

I think the ALP’s regional solution is worth chasing, but there are so many factors that need to fall into place for it to work that it is something you don’t want to do on the fly – which this policy smacks of.

My concern is that the Malaysian solution might just work – which means that any hope of decency on this issue will be gone for good (OK it’s probably gone already and has been for a while now).

Julie Bishop also rose to speak on the suspension motion. She decided not to bother the thesaurus too much and instead referred to Julia Gillard as “this arrogant Prime Minister” three time before she drew a breath (she used arrogant 10 times in her 5 minute speech – it was a bit of a theme). She then got slightly carried away:

This is the type of behaviour we see in Third World dictatorships. This is the kind of behaviour, overriding the majority of both houses of parliament, overriding the will of the parliament, overriding the views of the majority of the elected members to this place.

Third World dictators generally don’t allow members of the opposition to stand in Parliament, while broadcast on free TV, and criticise and abuse them. But hey, maybe Third World dictatorships, like conditions on Nauru, have recently become kinder and gentler.

When Anthony Albanese rose to speak against the motion he revealed not only the core problem with the whole farce of a debate about the Government defying the parliament, but also the core problem with the asylum seeker debate itself. For not only did the Parliament vote against the ALP’s Malaysian policy it voted last year against the LNP’s Nauru policy. Back on 28 October 2010 Scott Morrison moved a plethora of motions relating to the Liberal’s asylum seeker policy. Among them was:

That this house:
(3) calls for the introduction of proven policies proposed by the Coalition to address unprecedented irregular maritime arrivals to Australia, including:

(a) the application of temporary visas for all persons who have arrived illegally in Australia;
(b) the reopening of a third country processing centre in Nauru for irregular maritime arrivals to Australia;

The vote on that motion was lost 72-73 – Katter voted for it. Oakeshott, Windsor, Bandt and Wilkie voted against.

So we have a wonderful situation where neither side, if it had to, would be able to pass legislation  to introduce its asylum seeker policies.

Which to me, given the two policies on offer, feels like a correct result.

***

The other news today was that Greg Combet announced there would be a $15 million advertising/information campaign on the carbon tax. That this would happen eventually is not a shock given it was in the budget. But to announce it before an agreement has been reached and without bothering to get the independents and the Greens to sign off on it (as members of the Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change) is, to put it mildly, dopey.

David Speers on Sky News revealed that the story of the advertising campaign was going to be revealed tomorrow and so Combet announced it today to beat the story. Why they are even bothering to tender at this point for a firm to do the marketing is yet to be explained. 

Little wonder Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor were criticising the decision. And yes I know the $12m is squillions less than what the Howard Govt spent on advertising for Work Choices and for the Private Health Policy and on the GST. The point, however, is that once again the ALP finds itself looking like it has moved ahead without ensuring all the i’s have been dotted and t’s crossed.

The basics, guys. Geez, get the basics right.

On the QT: No smoke, no fire

The day’s events in politics started with the massive scandal that Nicola Roxon back in 2005 wrote a letter to cigarette company Philip Morris seeking their attendance at a $1,500 a table fundraising dinner. This was of course after the period when Mark Latham had banned tobacco donations. The big scandal of course is that Philip Morris executives didn’t attend, and didn’t give her campaign any money. Which means… errr well err something.

Oh yeah, apparently as well back in 1999 she also attended a tennis match as a guest of Philip Morris.

Uhuh.

That’s it?

That’s the smoking gun?

That’s all they got?

Geez.

It reminds me (as so much does) of Yes Prime Minister and the episode The Smoke Stack. The PM, Jim Hacker gets behind (on the surface at least) a push to destroy the tobacco industry. Humphrey Appleby in an attempt to scare Hacker off brings up tobacco hospitality:

Sir Humphrey Appleby: All the hospitality that we've enjoyed at BTG's [British Tobacco Group’s] expense. Champagne receptions, buffet lunches, the best seats at sporting and cultural events.
Jim Hacker: What's the problem?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The tobacco companies may release this embarrassing information to the press.
Jim Hacker: It's not embarrassing. I've had drinks at the Soviet embassy. That doesn't make me a Russian spy.

Now sure Roxon has been raging about the Lib’s donations from tobacco group – but while she did send out a letter in 2005 (back when she wasn’t even Shadow Health Spokesperson!) she hasn’t received any money from them, and she certainly hasn’t had anything to do with them since she’s taken on the Health portfolio.

If that’s all they got, then they’ve got nothing.

Abbott in his doorstop this morning said “she’s got a lot of explaining to do”. A lot? Really? OK, let’s see how she does:

"Our party does not take tobacco donations. It has not since 2004. I've asked for my records to be checked. No representatives attended and no donations were made to this event, but clearly those letters should not have been sent."

So Tony, need anything else?

The problem for the Libs is by attacking her for this inevitably it leads to these types of questions:

QUESTION: Isn’t it hypocritical though, considering you’re still receiving donations from big tobacco, to be going on about this?

If the Libs go this way they have to go all the way and ban their own receiving of tobacco donations. They’re not in a great hurry to do that, which is why this morning in Parliament they moved a motion to get Roxon to come in to the House and explain herself, but when the cameras were on during Question Time they did not ask one question about it.

I guess the problem for the Libs aside from the donations is that when you get down to it CIGARETTES WILL KILL YOU. And whatever the politics, whatever the “hypocrisy” the Libs have to decide whether or not to support a policy that will reduce the take up of smoking (and the only proof you need that it will work is the reaction by the cigarette companies – unless you think all their advertising against the policy is because they don’t want to sell more cigarettes).

Roxon sending a letter in 2005 or going along to the tennis in 1999 ain’t changing the fact that CIGARETTES WILL KILL YOU.

It’s nice to know that some issues are black and white.

Incidentally I want to award my special Press Gallery Mid-Winter’s Ball prize of the “Lisa Simpson Runaway Freight Train Soft Question of the Week” to whoever was the gun reporter who asked Abbott this question today:

QUESTION: Mr Abbott, the Labor caucus were called into line yesterday. The Prime Minister told them not to go out and voice their opinions out in the media. Is that a direct response to you calling on Labor MPs to stand up for their electorates, particularly mining electorates?

Wow. You really had him on the back foot there. What a cutting cross examination. Be proud.

***

The other issue of the morning was the Newspoll. It was horrible for Labor and worse for Gillard. 45-55 on 2 party preferred and Gillard with a awful minus 20 satisfaction rating. The Oz of course hid the results under a bushel (that’s a joke for you first time readers).

The last Newspoll showed the ALP vote going up by 2, this one showed its vote going down by 3. Let’s do our fortnightly compare and contrast. See if you can pick the Newspoll that showed the increase in support for Labor and the one which showed a decline:

    

Subtle ain’t it?

The polls are horrible, but they don’t mean too much yet. I can’t see them improving greatly until the carbon tax and MRRT are in place and we all see that Abbott has been talking horsesh*t.  But that is no comfort for any ALP member – especially if the polls stay at this 45-55 level then by the time the tax comes in it may just be too late to change – the electorate will be set. The Govt needs to get back to at least within shouting distance, or by this time next year (ie after the carbon tax legislation has gone through, the ALP might think anyway that it is time to make changes – because yes, they are that silly)

They could start by doing better at Question Time (and press conferences) and heeding some advice from The Oz’s excellent blogger, Jack the Insider who quite rightly points out they should stop talking about Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party. When getting questions from Abbott and the Libs on carbon tax etc, sure throw his own quotes back in his face, but how about using Dorothy Dixers to trumpet your own policies?

Aside from the Malaysian asylum-seeker policy (which is still in flux and I am somewhat content to see what the UNHCR says about it when it finally gets signed) this Govt has a fair bit to talk up – especially on the economy. It is not like the NSW ALP which was just a shemozzle of dodgy approvals and idiotic decisions on electricity generation and infrastructure.

Personally I think the Govt should ignore the opposition and so far from “stifling” the left winger Doug Cameron, he should become the ALP’s Barnaby Joyce. Back under Howard, Joyce was in effect the opposition within Government. He was there offering a supposed alternative and threatening to cross the floor (always to not do so when it really mattered). Senator Cameron would fill that role perfectly. He could be there arguing for gay marriage, talking up asylum seekers and any other lefty issues. Will he ever win any of these fights? Probably not, but much better for the ALP to be seen to be having a discussion.

Sure The Oz will run with dopey headlines like:

PM struggles with backbench dissent

But if properly managed such “dissent” can be a winner for the party. Cameron already is being described as “outspoken”, he has a quirky sort of persona – given his heavy Scottish brogue . So give him a bit of a head – let him say his bit on certain issues. The Govt should not worry about what The Oz writes about it – let Dooog get a national profile that has people in the suburbs thinking at least the ALP is interested in the social issues people assume the ALP should care about.

For all the laughs Barnaby brings when he talks about economics, there are people in the electorate who like what he has to say and like that he is in the coalition saying what he says. The ALP could do with an official “rogue Senator”.

Make people at least feel like there are those in the ALP  who are fighting for issues that make it seem to have a social heart.

Don’t stifle the dissent – use it.

***

The Governor of the RBA Glenn Stevens gave a speech. As ever his words were analysed like there are the economic Talmud. It didn't change the market’s expectations of a rate rise next month, but it did contain some interesting titbits:

… macroeconomic policies must be configured in the expectation that there will need to be some degree of restraint. Monetary policy has already been exerting some restraint for a while. Looking ahead, our most recent analysis (as published in early May) concluded that the underlying rate of inflation is more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years. This central expectation – subject to all the usual uncertainties inherent in forecasting – suggests, as we said at the time, that ‘further tightening of monetary policy is likely to be required at some point for inflation to remain consistent with the 2–3 per cent medium-term target’.

This isn’t much different from what has been said in the last few statements after decisions made on the cash rate. But then he had a very quick look at fiscal policy (ie the budget).

Fiscal policy is also playing a significant role. The ‘fiscal impact’, calculated as the shift in the Federal budget position from one year to the next, is forecast to be minus 2 per cent of GDP in the 2011/12 fiscal year. A further, though slightly smaller, effect is forecast by the Treasury in the following year.

That is all those wanting to argue the Budget is putting pressure on inflation need to look elsewhere.

As I say – the Government has a good story to tell on the economy: it needs to keep telling it and forget about Abbott while they’re doing it. He doesn’t have any policies anyway, so just ignore him until he does.

Let’s face it – they’re at 45-55; there isn’t much point keeping with the strategy they have now.

On the QT: No blog.. sort of

Sorry all – family life interrupts. No blog tonight… err except this blog saying that there is no blog.

Oh bugger it, a few quick things:

The Bushby saying “meow” to Wong thing in Senate Estimates was interesting but hardly needed a thorough going-over in Question Time by Tanya Plibersek. The media already had the vision and were going to run hard with it (it sure as hell negated any need on their part to listen to anything else said in the Estimates committee). And actually I don’t think Penny Wong needed any help. Her response to Bushby (and then to Brandis with his weak attempt to fudge the issue) was perfect:

She showed a hell of a lot more restraint than I would have.

Unfortunately what was missed in the focus on this was the Treasury – especially the Secretary Martin Parkinson and Head of Macroeconomics David Gruen – were adopting a very much more assertive approach than even seen by Ken Henry when he attended Estimate. Henry would often suggest his mirth at the idiocy of questions from Senators with a long pause and then a “I’m not sure that’s right Senator” type line. This morning Parkinson and Gruen would not let any off hand remark go through to the keeper.

Mathias Corman was given a lesson in economic modelling by Gruen, and Parkinson fairly well flew at Barnaby Joyce when Joyce rather idiotically suggested the National Accounts figures had been leaked because they were all in the newspapers (Joyce seemed not to grasp the difference between an economists estimate of the numbers and the actual numbers). Actually Joyce’s demeanour was just as disrespectful as Busbhy – but in some ways worse, because it displayed not just ignorance of how to act like an adult, but also ignorance of the law and basic economics.

When the Hansard comes out I might give it a bit deeper going over.

The GDP figures did come out, and yeah they were not great:

Why did they turn out so bad (minus 1.2% for the quarter)?

Yeah mining in QLD tanked due to the flood and Cyclone Yasi (and as an aside the contemptuous way Joyce in Estimates referred to the cyclone and the floods was fairly astonishing for a Senator of Queensland).

But worry not (well at least about GDP and the mining sector) because look at the terms of trade:

Yep. They’re pretty amazing.

What does it mean for interest rates? The market did not exactly get scared by the figures.

There’s still more chance there won’t be a rise in the cash rate next week, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility (though I would bet against it – on the back of the GDP slump, I think a rate rise would not do wonders for consumer confidence – especially when you look at how much we are saving:

It looks like a lot of people are deleveraging (perhaps baby boomers plunging back into their super to make up for the wipe out in 2008-09), and also people not feeling the most safe about life. But the RBA will sit down and say – yeah we know there were floods and a cyclone, but geez, we’re still looking good. That fact is why nowhere will you read anyone talking about recessions today.

While we’re here, let’s see how that union-led wages breakout is going (you know the ones that we were told would kill the mining industry once WorkChoices was removed)

Or this:

Hmm. Don’t you hate it when the facts don’t match your argument?

And as for Question Time? Let’s just say Harry Jenkins may have the confidence of the house, but he doesn’t have its respect.

And that is me not writing a blog.

On the QT: One sentence is not a report

The parliamentary nonsense started this morning with the latest Newspoll coming out in The Oz showing that the the ALP’s 2PP vote had increased 2 points and narrowed the LNP’s lead from 46-54 to 48-52.

Naturally this was reported as “Coalition’s Election Winning Lead Survives Internal Squabbling” and had Dennis Shanahan writing that “ALP Fails to profit from Lib ructions”. You can see this poll prominently there on the front page of The Oz… well if by “prominently” we mean squeezed into one lousy column over on the right. 

Apparently Hockey and Turnbull having a bit of fit in one week was, according to Shanahan, meant to destroy his leadership and put the ALP back in front. Yeah right.

But hey, when you need to make up a story that has Abbott looking, it is always best to start with a strawman.

On the personal ratings, the poll confirmed what everyone knows – no one likes either Abbott or Gillard.

The poll – like all polls – of course is flawed due to the premise of asking who would people vote for were an election held on the weekend, and we can pretty much bank on there not being an election till late 2013. The ALP will hope that is long enough to get enough people to change their minds; the LNP hope it is not so long that people will start to use them.

The poll was pretty well ignored because of two things that, unlike polls, dealt with real things that matter.

Firstly the announcement of the deaths overnight of two soldiers in Afghanistan. Such events always immediately serves to make politics so putridly stupid – especially when the politics seems not to include discussion of this real thing that matters.

The graph on the left shows the deaths in Afghanistan of coalition military servicemen and women.

The trend ain’t good.

Is it going to get better? Is it worth sticking out? I suspect there are a few on both sides of the political aisle who are having private reservations but both the ALP and LNP are trapped in a “can’t debate it” mode, for fear of looking like they are advocating “cut and run” or God forbid, suggesting that any of the 26 Australian servicemen will have died in vain.

When a death occurs, both sides adopt the appropriate tone, and we certainly mourn the loss and feel for their families. But we seem to dismiss debate. I have always been behind the Afghanistan War. It was a just war, and had Bush and Co not decided to go wandering off to Iraq in March 2003 there actually was a chance of success (just look at the casualties back then). But now?

How will we really know we have achieved success? Better still, how will we know we have failed?

Surely the lives of the men fighting and dying for their country deserve us having a bit a of a proper discussion about it. I doubt we’ll get one any time soon.

The other big discussion was that via Ross Garnaut, who announced his final review. It came in at 244 pages, and his summary a nice brisk 48 pages. So you’d figure that with all that meat the debate in Parliament would be pretty solid.

Well you would if you had never watched Question Time before.

Tony Abbott opened proceedings with a quote from Page 17 of the summary:

Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price.

He (and Hockey and Bishop after him) thought this belled the cat and also had shown Gillard and Swan (and I guess Combet) to be liars for saying that the carbon tax will be paid by the top 1000 polluters.

Sigh.

Yep, this is where we are.

Firstly no one since this debate has started has suggested the cost of putting a price on carbon won’t be passed on to consumers. Here is Julia Gillard back on 1 March in Parliament:

Ms GILLARD —… We will put a price on carbon, a price on every unit of carbon pollution. It will be paid for by businesses and as a result, because our business community is smart and adaptable and innovative, they will work out ways of pursuing their business and generating less carbon pollution. They will work out ways of making sure they pay less of a price when carbon is priced. Then they will enter into contracts, they will make investments on the basis of understanding the rules and understanding that carbon will be priced. And as they go about making those transitions, innovating, making the new investments of the future, we will work with those businesses in transition to a clean economy.

Having priced carbon and seen that innovation, yes, there will be pricing impacts; that is absolutely right. That is the whole point: to make goods that are generated with more carbon pollution relatively more expensive than goods that are generated with less carbon pollution. But because we are a Labor government this will be done in a fair way. We will assist households as we transition with this new carbon price.

Or then there was this on 21 March:

Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I was indicating, the division here is whether you want to put a price on polluters and give assistance to households or whether you want to take money off households and give assistance to polluters. We will put a price on pollution. That price will be paid by polluters. We will generously assist households for the price impacts that they will experience. I have been very upfront about that.

One of the best things in my opinion in this debate has been that Gillard has not been afraid to state that a carbon tax will make prices go up. For Abbott, and other Liberal shills to suggest Garnaut’s report says something new, or something opposite to what Gillard or Swan or Combet have been saying, requires indulging in the most absurd levels of self-delusion.

The reason of course Abbott is making this argument is because he wants people to think a carbon tax is like a GST – in that 10% gets added on at the checkout – or even worse, like income tax, and so each fortnight people will see a deduction from their pay. It is not in Abbott’s interest to deal with facts. Facts are awful for Abbott – expect him to continue to steer well away from them.

The next bit of “gold” for Abbott was Page 77 (this time in the full review) where Garnaut writes this:

In the long run, households will pay almost the entire carbon price as businesses pass carbon costs through to the users of their products.

Again we should file this under “No sh*t Sherlock, see above”. But no, he thought he had nailed Gillard with this.

Gillard responded by saying Abbott was:

… misrepresenting the force of Garnaut’s words. You can’t rely on one sentence and ignore the force of others…  Instead of looking at the occasional words reads the whole lot.

Well let us not read the whole lot, let’s just look at some words from the very same page Abbott was citing:

Using direct action measures to achieve a similar amount of emissions reduction would raise costs much more than carbon pricing, but would not raise the revenue to offset or reduce the costs in any of these ways. The costs might be covered by budgetary expenditure, but this affects who pays the costs, not whether the costs are there. Other people’s taxes have to rise to pay for expenditures under direct action.

Oddly Abbott didn’t quote that part. Or how about:

In addition, unlike regulatory or direct action measures, a market-based mechanism can collect revenue in a way that is more efficient than some existing taxes, for use in raising productivity, promoting equity, encouraging innovation in low-emissions technology, providing incentives for sequestration in rural Australia, and easing the transition for trade-exposed industries.

Hmm, nope – guess Tony must has skipped over that paragraph. Oh heck, let’s be bold and even read on a few more pages further (page 79):

A carbon price has some short-term negative effects on productivity growth and incomes—although less than direct action that secures similar reductions in emissions.

The summary is not Abbott’s friend either:

We would be damaged in other ways, too, if we sought to do our fair share through direct action. We would rely on the ideas of a small number of politicians and their advisers and confidants. While some of these ideas might be brilliant, in sum they would not be as creative or productive as millions of Australian minds responding to the incentives provided by carbon pricing and a competitive marketplace.

That would not be the end of the costs.

The really big cost would be the entrenchment of the old political culture that has again asserted itself after the late 20th century period of reform. The big rewards in low-emissions investments would go to those who had persuaded the minister or the bureaucrat that their idea was worthy of inclusion in the direct action plan—if not under the government that introduced the direct action policies, then under the governments that followed. That would entrench the return of the influence of the old Australian political culture in other areas of economic policy.

As a public servant it warms my heart that Abbott has so much faith in our ability to pick the winners – though oddly, Abbott doesn't seem so desirous to brag about how and who will be deciding who gets the money under his direct action plan. Curious don’t you think?

And that was Question Time. There was an odd question from Bob Katter of live exports of meat, which to be honest I couldn't quite grasp if he was in favour or against a ban on live exports (though I believe he is not – purely because we shouldn’t foist our Christian non-torturing of animals beliefs on those of starving Indonesians who take delight in being as cruel as all Hell to cattle).

There was also Nicola Roxon having fun with Abbott’s back down on plain packaging on cigarettes.

But the big event (and by big I mean of zero interest to anyone with a life) was when Speaker Harry Jenkins named Bob Baldwin. This resulted in a vote to have him kicked out for 24 hours, which the Government lost – in effect meaning the House did not have confidence in the Speaker. The vote was lost because Tony Windsor and Bob Katter were not present and Rob Oakeshott voted with the Opposition (for reasons, not completely infused with logic).

Now you would think winning such a vote would have the Libs in raptures, but the mini-conference being had by Abbott, Pyne, Bishop, Hockey  and a couple others during the vote showed that they were rather worried about what it all meant. What it did mean is that Jenkins announced that he would consider resigning. This would require, under Standing Orders, there to be an election for the Speaker:

19 Vacancy in office of Speaker

(a) If the office of Speaker falls vacant during a session the Clerk must report the vacancy to the House at its next sitting. The House shall proceed to the election of a new Speaker either immediately or at its next sitting, using the procedure set out in

standing order 11.

So the job would not automatically go to the Deputy Speaker, Liberal Peter Slipper. BUT it would have been highly likely that the ALP would have nominated Slipper. This would have meant (had Slipper won) the ALP would need 1 less votes to pass legislation (through their gaining Jenkins vote).

Clearly this was not the election Abbott wants to have. The way he jumped to his feet as soon as the vote count was called betrayed his clear concern that Jenkins would resign. This was no mere politeness and courtesy on Abbott’s behalf – his body language and demeanour betrayed his worry. Rather than be triumphant at winning the vote, his face reminded me of the class clown who has just realised that the teacher can in fact keep everyone in the class in during lunch if they all do something wrong. Bluff seemed to have been called.

But the events did not reflect well on anyone. The Govt did poorly to lose the vote – where the hell were Windsor and Katter (OK Katter often buggers off as soon as he asks a question). What was Oakeshott thinking? Did he grasp the possible impact of his vote? And Abbott has also let the Govt know that he really does not want to push the Parliament to the point where Jenkins has to resign. If and when Jenkins does again name someone, I seriously doubt if any motions of full confidence will stop him from resigning if the Govt loses the vote.

One of the things about Brinkmanship is that when you pull back, everyone knows just how far you are prepared to go.

On the QT: The stench, it rises (so too does the economy)

The day in Parliament House started with The PM and Tony Abbott and most other MPs attending the Biggest Morning Tea Fundraiser for Cancer at which both Gillard and Abbott gave speeches.

Tony Abbott, as is his way, decided to use the bi-partisan occasion to be partisan:

It’s great to be here, great to be in the presence of the Prime Minister and so many distinguished colleagues, including the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, the Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, good to have you in the country, Kevin and of course – I’m sorry, I’m sorry, just, the devil made me say that, I’m sorry about that, Kevin – and of course the Shadow Minister for Health, Peter Dutton.

Aside from the fact it shows Abbott is as vacuous as those journalists who think it is astonishing that Australia's Foreign Minister spends a fair bit of time in Foreign countries, it also demonstrates yet again that Abbott is incapable of uttering a public remark that does not have some political barb. The devil made him do it? Gee I’ll have to remember to use that one next time I say something stupid. How pathetic.

Question Time began with the PM and Abbott acknowledging that today is National Sorry Day – the day that acknowledges the historical mistreatment of Aboriginal people. Tony Abbott, as is his way, decided to the use the bi-partisan occasion to be partisan:

I should observe today that this parliament could improve the economic prospects of the Aboriginal people of Cape York if it passed the private member's bill on Wild Rivers.

Again, how pathetic. If Abbott wants to argue for his Wild Rivers Bill he had his chance when it was before parliament – or perhaps he could go see Steve Fielding and try again – but to raise it during such a motion is to suggest it has universal support of Aboriginal peoples of Cape York – which it does not. I was not surprised though by Abbott’s statements. What surprised me is that he didn’t suggest the Government was destroying the Aboriginal people through imposing a great big new tax on everything. But I guess he had to leave something for Question Time.

Actually if he wanted to be political, perhaps during his speech where he paid tribute to Kevin Rudd for his apology to the stolen generation in 2008:

I should also acknowledge former Prime Minister Rudd for having the vision to say sorry on behalf of our nation. That was an historic day and we all pay tribute to him for that act of statesmanship.

He could have stopped and said – “Well not all of us pay tribute. Sophie Mirabella and Peter Dutton here on my front bench don’t share that praise, because of course they boycotted the apology…” 

But on to Question Time, proper.

It started with Tony Abbott getting all huggy and concerned about asylum seekers and whether or not they will be caned in Malaysia. Julia Gillard responded by citing her joint statement with Malaysian President Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak, which says:

transferees will be treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards.

And yes that is nice. But will they? What if they don’t? How will we be able to check? Who will determine what is being treated with dignity, respect and in accordance with human rights standards? Former Australian Human Rights Commissioner and current director of Equity and Diversity at the University of Western Sydney, Dr Sev Ozdowski, on the 7:30 Report tonight said the old Howard Pacific Solution is preferable to this Malaysian deal.

Things have come to a pretty pass for the ALP when they’ve arrived at that stage.

The key aspects of the “regional solution” is that there would be no advantage in getting in a boat to come to Australia, but secondly was that the other nations involved in the regional solution would be acting with the United Nation High Commission for Refugees. If Labor wants to keep any sense of morality they need to make sure there’s just a wee bit more than the word of the Malaysian Government – like getting some bloody tight oversight of the condition of the 800.

But really – why bother? It is so fraught and likely to end in tears. Will it “stop the boats”? To be honest I don’t care. But then I guess I don’t care much about polling in western Sydney.

The big news from the Government side was smoking – or more to the point the donations to the Liberal and National parties from smoking companies – in particular those from British American Tobacco. Nicola Roxon revealed some information she had discovered:

The coalition denies it is being influenced by big tobacco, but I have discovered something that seems to throw this into question. It is a policy that comes from big tobacco themselves—British American Tobacco, in fact. I think some of those opposite might particularly like to hear this because, despite their protestations, British American Tobacco makes the statement on its own website that their worldwide policy when it comes to donations is:

“Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company ...”

The Liberal and National parties deny that these contributions have any influence, but the donors say that is the only reason they can actually make a donation.

Those opposite might be interested to know something else that is on this website.

According to British American Tobacco's own figures, they made political donations in only three countries around the world in 2010. In Canada they made a donation of £1,000 and in the Solomon Islands they made a donation of £2,000. In Australia, they made a donation—to just two parties in this place—of £111,000. So 97 per cent of British American Tobacco's money is spent here on two parties—the Liberal Party and the National Party.

The BAT webpage outlining the donations lists all the figures. It looks really bad – but Roxon is being a bit sneaky because US campaign financing means that

No foreign nationals can directly contribute funds to a campaign, nor can they decide how the money is allocated. The donations have to come from US citizens or residents.

But it is still not a good look for the LNP – there’s fair bit of smoke stinking up their policy position.

Roxon was excellent in taking apart the Libs, but I wish she wouldn’t roll out her “It is time to kick the habit, Mr Abbott” line. I know it gets a run on the news and radio. But geez it is woefully lacking in wit.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen was also very much on the front foot – this time against Scott Morrison. Morrison asked if legislation passed yesterday which enables asylum seekers to make claims under the United Nations Convention Against Torture would mean those being sent to Malaysia would be able to use the law to delay their being sent.

The question oddly had Morrison appearing to be against the new legislation but also against the opportunity for asylum seekers to use the legislation to avoid being tortured. It wasn’t particularly clear if he wants asylum seekers to be able to avoid being tortured in Malaysia or not.

Bowen dealt with the claim pretty comprehensively:

Mr BOWEN (14:25): I cannot confirm that, because it is completely untrue, as the member for Cook well knows. He has completely misrepresented the complementary protection legislation once again, as he has previously, and completely misrepresented the arrangements with Malaysia.

I am happy to go through this methodically for the benefit of the member for Cook. The Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of Malaysia have released a statement that outlines the agreement reached by them. That statement says that Prime Ministers Najib and Gillard have agreed that core elements of this bilateral arrangement will include that 'transferees will be treated with dignity and respect and in accordance with human rights standards'. That is what the agreement between the two prime ministers says very clearly. It has been confirmed by the Malaysian High Commissioner to Australia since then that these transferees will be treated humanely under the terms of that agreement.

The member for Cook chooses to misrepresent the situation in relation to Malaysia. The member for Cook comes in here and cries his crocodile tears about the situation for asylum seekers in Malaysia, at the same time as criticising us for taking too many asylum seekers—for taking 4,000 asylum seekers—out of Malaysia. The hypocrisy of the member for Cook is exceeded only by this point: as the House would recall, last November the member for Cook proposed an arrangement similar to that proposed by the government in relation to a transfer agreement, except that instead of Malaysia he proposed Iran. I wonder how he would have gone negotiating with President Ahmadinejad the protections that this government has negotiated.

My God what a scummy debate we have – where the treatment of asylum seekers in Iran is being used as a benchmark. The stench of hypocrisy that wafts over both sides of the House is so strong you would need a lifetime supplies worth of Glen 20 to get the air to any normal level of freshness.

The economy was also not being ignored either today.

Once again there was a bit of an effort to target Swan. But – as has been the case all week – it was all very much about absolutely nothing. Joe Hockey after QT tried to keep up some sort of an attack with a Matter of Public importance on:

“The failure of the Treasurer to respond to imminent threats to the Australian economy”

The only problem was today out came the latest Capital Expenditure figures which detail investment in the economy and various industries.

They did not exactly show an economy under imminent threat: 

The trend volume estimate for total new capital expenditure rose 3.3% in the March quarter 2011 while the seasonally adjusted estimate rose 3.4%.

The trend volume estimate for buildings and structures rose 2.6% in the March quarter 2011 while the seasonally adjusted estimate rose 4.5%.

The trend volume estimate for equipment, plant and machinery rose 3.8% in the March quarter 2011 while the seasonally adjusted estimate rose 2.4%.

This is not what you would expect to see in an economy about to go belly up due to gross mismanagement.

But I know, the mining industry is the really important one – and that’s about to die (though how it survived the end of Work Choices is beyond me). So how is that going? Have a look on the graph on the right. 

Huh. Not too bad it seems.

In fact:

The trend estimate for Mining rose 2.1% in the March quarter 2011. The buildings and structures asset type rose 1.5%, and equipment, plant and machinery rose 2.9%. The seasonally adjusted estimate for Mining rose 2.8% in the March quarter 2011. By asset type, buildings and structures rose 2.6% and equipment, plant and machinery rose 3.7%.

Not too shabby.

But of course it must be expected to fall into a big heap very soon, given the whole “imminent danger” and all:

Hang on, that expected expenditure in the start of 2011-12 looks like a bloody big jump.

Estimate 2 for Mining for 2011-12 is $83,326 million. This is 70.6% higher than the corresponding estimate for 2010-11. Estimate 2 is 5.5% higher than Estimate 1 for 2011-12. Buildings and structures is 2.6% higher and equipment, plant and machinery is 21.7% higher than the corresponding first estimates for 2011-12.

Oh, that’s because it is a bloody big jump.

I guess all those mining companies are just betting that the MRRT and Carbon Price won’t happen…

In Hockey’s MPI speech he also said this interesting little thing which gave away just how trivial is the whole “what did Swan know and when did he know it thing”. In trying to prove that Swan and the Govt expected WA to raise the royalty rate to 7.5 Hockey said this:

Of course, on 2 July 2010 the government announced the deal that they had done with Xstrata, BHP and Rio. In the fact sheet associated with that deal, it says:

• The MRRT will also provide a full credit for state royalties paid by a taxpayer in respect of a mining project
  
  It goes on to say:
• State royalties are assumed to be equal to 7.5 per cent of sales revenue and are credited against the MRRT liability to produce the net MRRT liability.

What does that mean? It means that there was always an assumption by this government that the state governments would remove concessions and it was prepared to rebate up to 7.5 per cent.

What it also means is that if the Government has budgeted for the increase, then the WA Government raising the rate will not actually blow a hole in the Government’s budget.  It is why Hockey hasn’t been mentioning budget holes in relation to this. And what it also means is that this fight is about he said/he said and nothing else. It doesn’t make one difference to the economy or anything happening to real people.

In short, it is Parliament Question Time.

The other big issue of the day was the Liberal Party nicely unravelling. For some bizarre reason the Opposition Whip, Warren Entsch, decided to send out an email to all Liberal-National Party MP in which he rebuked five Libs for missing a division. One of the five names (right at the top) was Malcolm Turnbull.

That not one person in the Opposition Whip’s office did not think the email would get leaked is rather astounding.

Did they really think putting it in writing was the best way to do it? Whatever happened to the old quiet chat?

Turnbull of course took it all in his stride and spent a good while talking to the media about how he wasn’t going to respond to the email:

"[To] send a letter out like that it's effectively a press release, that's the obvious intent of it. That's what happens when you send letters to half the Parliament."

“Clearly somebody has leaked it, but when you send a letter or email to every member of the government, or the Coalition, the reality is the chances of it finding its way into the hands of the press are extremely high - probably not 100 per cent, but 99 per cent.”

All is not wonderful in the Liberal Party. The tensions can be kept under a lid for only so long – especially when the strategy of getting quickly back into power doesn't seem to be working. As Albanese pointed out today (interestingly it was mentioned in a tweet last week by Possum):

…. as of today, at 1.30, we have passed 112 pieces of legislation through this House—112 supported, zero opposed by this House of Representatives. And we have done that in just eight months. How does that compare with our predecessors? Those opposite would like to say that this parliament cannot function properly because it requires proper negotiation. The fact is that in the first 12 months of the Howard government 108 bills were passed by the House of Representatives, so we have been more efficient and more productive on this side of the House in terms of getting legislation through.

The Government may be down in the polls, but in Parliament it is cruising. Many Libs would be coming to the realisation that they will not go to the polls till near the end of 2013, and that is two budgets away, and a long, long time to put up with Tony Abbott standing for nothing.

Don’t put down your glasses yet. The 2013 race isn’t run.

On the QT: “You should be made to wear earphones”

Yesterday I made note that very, very little of what occurs in Question Time has a connection with the real world. Today was a nice example of that, which make you think “there is no sense in trying”.

Yesterday, as well, I made note that Joe Hockey was nowhere to be seen, well today he made up for it – stepping up to the plate no less than seven times. And all of his questions were directed to Wayne Swan. And all of his questions were on the one issue. So you’d have to figure the issue was a big one – you know the type that might end his career.

Well no.

The issue related to the WA Government announcing in the state budget last week that it was increasing the the royalty rate on iron ore fines from 5.625 per cent to 7.5 per cent by 2014.

Wayne Swan a day after the decision went on AM on ABC radio and said this:

WAYNE SWAN: Well first of all Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us.

There were discussions before the budget last year about how he would support a resource rent tax and that there would be significant investment in Western Australia as a result of all of that.

And that is the road that the Commonwealth Government has gone down. We want to use the revenue from the resource rent tax to invest in infrastructure and mining communities, to give a tax cut to small business and a lowering of the corporate rate. That's what we are going to do with the revenue that we receive when that legislation passes the Parliament.

But what Mr Barnett has done here is just very strange. He didn't communicate with us about this move in this budget. He didn't get our tick. He didn't discuss it with us. And Mr Barnett I think is simply playing a political game.

Now this morning, via The Oz, WA Premier Barnett says that was a load of hooey and that Swan knew last year that WA was going to increase the royalty fines, because a letter was sent in May suggesting that they would do it.

Hockey, never one to miss a chance to make mountains out of molehills, came bounding up to the dispatch box off the long run and thundered to Swan seeking him to explain his misleading “the Australian public” (or at least the audience of AM).

Hockey – acting like he had found Swan with a walkie-talkie in the Watergate building – asked about letters from the WA Government, briefs from his Department to him suggesting that WA might raise the royalty rate, and other discussions he had on the issue. And then to top it all off, Hockey thought he really had the smoking gun, when he got Swan to admit that the day before the WA Budget Swan’s chief of staff was given notice of the change by the chief of staff of Barnett.

Swan could have got all defensive and suggested “someone's got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press”. But he didn’t need to. The attack was hardly withering.

The Libs – predictably – launched a motion to suspend standing orders. But the wording of the very long motion is interesting and gives away just how dopey were the Liberal’s tactics:

Mr Abbott, 3:10:23 PM, moved—That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Warringah moving immediately—That this House calls on the Treasurer to explain to the Parliament why:

(1) he falsely stated on ABC Radio on 20 May 2011 in relation to the removal of a concessional rate of iron ore royalty by the Western Australian Government that “Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us,.. But what Mr Barnett has done here is just very strange. He didn’t communicate with us about this move in this budget. He didn’t get our tick. He didn’t discuss it with us.”;

(2) he failed to disclose that in early 2010, Western Australian Treasury officials advised the Commonwealth that WA proposed to remove this concessional royalty rate;

(3) he failed to disclose that on 10 May 2010 the WA Treasury wrote to the Commonwealth Treasury advising that the WA Government proposed to remove this concessional royalty rate;

(4) he failed to disclose that on 17 May 2010 the Commonwealth Treasury provided a brief to the Treasurer advising that WA proposed to remove this concessional royalty rate;

(5) he failed to disclose that on 17 May 2010 he gave a press conference in which he acknowledged that WA was “looking at very substantial increases in the royalties”;

(6) he failed to disclose that on 17 May 2010 he gave a speech in which he stated “We’re prepared to talk further with state governments who might have been making their own plans to capture a fairer share of resource wealth through lifting royalties.”;

(7) he failed to disclose that the minerals resources rent tax costings prepared by Commonwealth Treasury assumed a state royalty rate of 7.5%, which is the iron ore royalty rate in WA with the concession removed;

(8) he failed to disclose that in February 2011 he directed the Commonwealth Grants Commission not to modify its methodology in response to WA’s proposals to remove concessional royalty rates;

(9) he failed to disclose that on 18 May 2011 the Chief of Staff of the WA Premier telephoned the Treasurer’s Chief of Staff to advise that WA would be removing this concessional royalty rate in its Budget on 19 May 2011; and

(10) after these examples of evidence that he was aware of WA’s proposal to remove this concessional royalty rate, that he stated on radio that WA had not communicated its intention to do this.

Now that looks like a long list. But when you look at all of them you see a lot of “proposed” (which is not the most definitive statement ever – and certainly not “announced”), and that the first six relate to a period before the Minerals Resource Rent Tax was thought up, which did change the policy ground rather a little. But the really big thing missing from the whole motion is the call for a censure of Swan. All they wanted was for him to “explain” himself.

Well big deal.

If they really had something they would have gone for his throat.

When it all boiled down, they had nothing of any real consequence.

The Libs might say Swan lied, but the key parts of Swan’s statement on the ABC are him saying this:

He didn't communicate with us about this move in this budget. He didn't get our tick. He didn't discuss it with us.

Well I think the WA Govt telling you 24 hours before they announce it in the budget is kind of the equivalent of someone telling you they’re going to hit you in the face just as they hit you in the face. The Libs certainly aren’t suggesting the Government gave the increase a tick, nor are they suggesting that there was any real discussion. So it all comes down to what you mean by “communicate with us”.

But here’s the real point. What does it matter even if the WA Government did communicate with Swan? Swan is not, for example, denying he contributed funds to an organisation without declaring it, or even lying on radio about bringing in a new tax.

If Swan had lied it does not mean the Commonwealth Government is suddenly liable for something which it otherwise would not, or that Swan had done something untoward. The actual impact of whether or not Swan lied is strictly political – there are no real world implications. It’s not like with the “Rudd-Utegate” emails, where if they were true it would essentially have shown that Rudd was trying to get his mate some special treatment.

And even more pathetic for Hockey's and Abbott’s attack is that they are suggesting all this “misleading” occurred to the ABC in a radio interview, not in Parliament. Now if Swan said in Parliament that his office had never received a phone call, or that his Department had never received any correspondence on 10 May 2010 etc. Well then he’d be in trouble, because he’d be lying to Parliament. But this?  This is Swan making a political case in an interview on radio that the Libs disagree with. That’s not a lie; that’s politics.

Big deal. 

But when it comes to lying to the media, the best defence on such matters was that given by a Minister:

"Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament as a political crime."

And when I say “Minister”, I mean Minister in the Howard Government.

And when I say “Minister in the Howard Government”, I mean Tony Abbott in 2000.

Back then he was found to have lied to 4 Corners about his involvement in funding the legal campaign of disaffected One Nation members to have it declared invalid under electoral laws. Abbott established the fund before the 1998 election, but did not declare it to Parliament until after the election. In 2003 Annabel Crabb reported:

But last night's statement confirms that only two weeks after making that denial, he established a formal trust, Australians for Honest Politics, which collected $100,000 to funnel into anti-One Nation legal actions.

Mr Abbott confirmed that at the time of making the statements to Four Corners, he had already promised to underwrite the legal costs of disaffected One Nation litigant Terry Sharples.

"Strictly speaking, no money at all had been offered," Mr Abbott said last night.

"The lawyers I organised were acting without charge and the support for costs which I had promised would only become an issue in the event of a costs order being made against Sharples."

Mr Abbott apologised for the "flippancy" of remarks he made to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2000.

Asked by the newspaper about his fund-raising work for the trust, he replied: "Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament as a political crime."

I guess things have changed for Abbott now.

But the real big ‘who gives a damn’ about all of this is that the Libs spent the entirety of Question Time asking Swan about the WA Government’s decision but focussed on Swan instead of focussing on the real issue of what will that decision have on the Budget.

What will happen to the budget surplus? Has the Government got a contingency in place? What will happen to the GST carve up? What will happen to proposed infrastructure spends in WA? What if QLD raise royalties? Will the MRRT need to be amended? Why didn’t the Government anticipate this increase? etc etc etc.

Playing the man is fine, but here the ball was there to be won and the Libs completely missed it.

It was a real “something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is” moment.

In the Matter of Public Importance moved by Julie Bishop after QT on “The adverse impacts of Government policy on the mining sector” she reeled off dates of letters and correspondence and briefings and phone calls like she was some big-city lawyer, but she rather forgot to talk about the impact of the decision – and she sure as hell did not get round to actually talking about “The adverse impacts of Government policy on the mining sector” (mostly because for all the bleating by the mining sector and the Libs, the sector is doing quite nicely thank you).

Tomorrow night is the State of Origin, so the Libs probably won’t bother going for any big hits tomorrow – knowing full well the public and media on Wednesday night and Thursday morning will be focussed on Rugby League – and so today was a good day to attack the Government's policy. Instead they focussed on politics and wasted another Question Time.

Talk about mixed up confusion.