After the longest election striptease in Australian political history, the supposed “new paradigm” finally arrived yesterday for the first non-ceremonial day of Question Time.
Some of the new paradigm looked a lot like the old one — the rancor, the forced etiquette, the Dorothy Dixers, the creepy smirks and stony glares, the soporific responses to ho-hum questions — but there also came a striking reminder to the government that the ball game has fundamentally changed and the challenges Labor’s minority government face will be unpredictable and, in some instances, insurmountable.
At The Drum Annabel Crabb described the afternoon as a “polite affair” and expressed some surprise at how restrained the “adults” were:
“Given the atmosphere that pervaded the chamber in the preceding 24 hours – a multilateral pestilence of stiffings and welshings – it was faintly surprising to see the gathered adults playing nicely.”
The pollies have been made behaving themselves, but that didn’t stop the Coalition from rubbing some salt in Labor’s election wounds. Yesterday heralded a historic vote: the first time in decades a government has been defeated in the House of Representatives. The opposition passed an amendment to the suite of proposed changes to parliamentary rules and procedures and won — after support from independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott swung their way — by a solitary vote.
As Bella Counihan wrote in The Age:
“This parliament is a close one. How’s that for stating the obvious? Yesterday, we had the government defeated on the floor of the House of Representatives for the first time in 70 odd years, only by one vote. When you’ve got the opposition saying they may or may not pair even for the PM when she’s away, things are going to get even more precarious.”
The Australian’s Matthew Franklin offered a spicier appraisal. Under the headline “PM Julia Gillard mugged by ‘new paradigm'” he wrote:
“Julia Gillard has been stung by the reality of minority government, leading Labor to an embarrassing defeat in the new parliament’s first policy ballot. As Labor counterpunched yesterday by labelling Tony Abbott a wrecker intent on driving the nation to a fresh election, the opposition successfully amended new procedural rules governing the conduct of parliament.”
Dennis Shanahan slipped on his headmaster outfit and insisted “the Gillard government was given a lesson in its own quest for parliamentary accountability”. And Mark Kenny at The Advertiser cranked the dial up a notch, labeling the Coalition’s score “a stunning first-day defeat on the government”.
The new paradigm presents a colorful cast of characters. Most of them have been around for some time, but thanks to prominent media exposure (and labels like “the three amigos”, “ten-gallon Bob”, etc) have taken a more central role in the proceedings — or at least in the manner with which they are reported.
Rob ‘Highlander’ Oakeshott has developed a reputation as a windbag, largely due to his excruciatingly long announcement on the hung parliament’s day of reckoning.
Jacqueline Maley at the Sydney Morning Herald won’t be forgiving him anytime soon:
“When Rob Oakeshott gets up to talk, his listeners need to be fully prepared for the experience. You have to think like an Appalachian mountaineer hunkering down for the winter, or a Kansan farmer battening the doors of the hurricane shelter. It’s important to be well hydrated, but not so much that you will need a comfort break any time soon.”
And then there is Peter ‘Slippery Pete‘ Slipper , the Liberal MP and now deputy speaker famous for “resting his eyes” in parliament, combining a cocktail of dental drugs and alcohol and getting trapped in the disabled dunnies at Parliament House. Malcolm Farr at The Daily Telegraph joined Crikey’s Bernard Keane in casting suspicion on ol’ Slippery, and questioned the government’s decision to plonk him in the deputy speaker’s chair:
“It will take some time for the Labor government to explain why it considered Liberal rebel Peter Slipper such an adornment of Parliament as to be a fitting deputy speaker of the House of Representatives.”
Slipper is a great choice: if he does well, he was their choice. If he stuffs it up, it’s because he’s a Liberal. You can’t lose.
[ Labor government to explain why it considered Liberal rebel Peter Slipper such an adornment of Parliament as to be a fitting deputy speaker]
Surely quite simple. First they wanted the Deputy to be from the Opposition because as Harry Jenkins said yesterday:
[Speaker Harry Jenkins also signalled that he would vacate the chair at will, potentially forcing the Liberal deputy speaker Peter Slipper to give up his vote on key votes. This would reduce the Coalition’s numbers on the floor of the house to 71.]
And secondly, there are suspicions on both sides that Slipper could be a rat. This is almost certainly his last term and there is no love lost between him and his party. (Nevertheless neither he nor Somlyay voted with the gov on the amendment last night.)
And just for the record, let’s get over his shuteye incident. I would be very surprised if that hasn’t happened to every single MP, probably many times, maybe almost every day!
Amendment to previous comment: shuteye problem: except of course Julie Bishop!
I remember being in a Parliament House tour many years ago, and one of the kids asked if members ever fell asleep: there was much laughter and the answer: ‘all the time!’
Labor has been more clever here than any commentator is giving it credit for. Not only is it good for the reasons as posted above. It is also good for Labor as Mr Abbott find the new paradigm beyond him.
He has new members of Parliament. He won the last leadership election by one vote. The hardheads of the party may not believe their own spin that he is the reason they did so well.
As we know NIck Minchin is leaving. The question is how many new comers are hard right anti broadband anti carbon tax etc or more akin to the Turnbull leadership approach?
Mr Abbott has more problems with his party being in line.
In fact on issues like Euthanasia and Same Sex Marriage it could turn out to divide the Coalition more than the ALP.
So the Prime Minister could still see her way to a conscience vote on that to divide the Coaliton.
Not only that but it would gain the ALP votes. The News Broadcasts of the comments of Bill Heffernan and Barnaby Joyce on this issue would I expect be vitriolic. This would chase moderate voters far far away from the Coalition.