Thoughts on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Sacking

I have confused and conflicting thoughts running through my head about whether the demise of Kevin Rudd's Prime Ministership was a good thing.  

I feel sympathy for Kevin Rudd.  Just last year (maybe 6 months ago) he was the most popular Prime Minister in the history of polls.  He appears to have been taken completely by surprise as was everyone else.  He had the look of a man betrayed and robbed of his very identity at his press conference.  However, I feel that his true style of leadership and character was beginning to break through his carefully crafted public image.  Kevin07 was beginning to look like a façade created to win the election.  There were reports of foul language, abusive antics, bullyboy tactics and his authoritarian and exclusive leadership style.  These made me feel a little cheated.  Was the person voted into the Prime Minister's office really what we thought he was?  But I still feel a sense of bewilderment at the betrayal of Kevin Rudd and the speed at which it was done.

I also feel a great sense of optimism.  Seeing Julia Gillard speak today, before being sworn in, confirmed for me that she is smart, capable, down-to-earth, experienced and generally likeable.  She has always been a good parliamentary performer and some argue one of the Government's best.  I think that she will be a good Prime Minister.  I think the contrast between her and Tony Abbott could not be greater.  I think that she can tweak some of the policies that led Kevin Rudd to nose dive in the polls and lead her way to a strong election performance.  

I originally felt dismay that Julia Gillard wasn't elected by the Australian People.  But I quickly moved past this.  We don't have a Presidential system, we elect parties and they chose the leader.  This is the system we have.  Technically, Kevin Rudd wasn't elected Prime Minister by the public but put in that position in the same way Julia Gillard now is, elected by the ALP caucus. I think it speaks volumes, that in our system, parties are not beholden to poor leaders and can change if needed.

I also have a fear that this will not be the catapult that the ALP powerbrokers think will shoot them to election victory.  Kevin Rudd will be blameless, Julia Gillard will have lost her chance at leading our country, the ALP will be left in the wilderness of opposition again and Tony Abbott will be taking our country further to the right than even John Howard would have dared dream about.  

But ultimately I am filled with a sense of pride that Australia has a female Prime Minister.  I didn't fully appreciate the impact for women of having a female Prime Minister until my wife stood with tears in her eyes watching Julia Gillard being sworn in by Governor General Quentin Bryce. She said to me at this point, "I can't believe there are two women in those positions."  For men who have always seen men in these positions I struggled to understand the importance.  But for her it was a momentous occasion that hopefully shatters the ceiling of what young girls can dream of!  

And I like that most of all.  Good luck Julia.  Do my wife proud!

Strategic blunders on both sides of the house!

Both sides of the political spectrum are not hitting the mark when it comes to the battle for our vote come the election later this year. There are fundamental problems with both sides for differing reasons.

The Rudd Government has developed a habit of sensationalising issues with grand statements like the one used to push for Climate Change. Prime Minister Rudd claimed that "climate change is the great moral challenge of our age." This may be true. But if it is, why did he shirk this great moral challenge? This is type of grand statement has been repeated on many occasions – Tax reform, Health reform, Indigenous issues ('The Apology'), Asylum seekers, Grocery watch ect...

On each of these occasions, grand and catchy statements were made to highlight how important the issue was only to be followed by either little tangible action or withdrawal all together. The Prime Minister shelved the ETS, made changes to border protection rules which rolled back human right enhancements made by the Government and tax/health reform fell well short of being actual reform. The Government is falling short on issues because it is either overstating the problem or failing to live up to the challenge.

The Opposition, on the other hand, has far greater problems. They are over time becoming a rabble of ill disciplined motor mouths. The problems began with the Leadership debacle which saw Tony Abbott ascend to the position of Leader. He then took a massive gamble and placed Barnaby Joyce in the Finance portfolio. This spectacularly backfired which saw Barnaby demoted. Then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott admitted to lying in the heat of debate and said the only thing you could believe were his carefully scripted remarks. While this may be true of most politicians, to say it shows how uncontrolled he is. Then Julie Bishop made some incredible statements regarding the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat over the use of Australian Passports in the assignation of a senior Hamas Leader in Dubai earlier this year. She said that Australian spy agencies used forged passports as well. Although she later said she had misunderstood the question. She also said that the expulsion was done for political reasons. Of course it was. It was done for the reason of sending a message to the Israeli Government that Australian Passports are off limits.

The main problem for the Opposition is that they cannot control their message. They hold more extreme views than the Howard Government did and now those views are boiling over and can no longer be hidden from view. They see a political point scoring opportunity in everything the Government says or does. They are an opposition for opposition's sake. And under Abbott they are a scary, extreme and reckless alternative Government.

I hope both sides can improve and provide us a more effective Parliament that can truly reform Tax, Health and bring down the cost of living expenses. I hope they can stop political point scoring and work on fixing the problems facing our country.

Now that may be too much to ask for.

Payback! LNP Style

When Aidan McLindon and Rob Messenger left the fold of the Queensland LNP they should have been aware that they would be subject of a fierce backlash. But this week the LNP hit out with claims that Rob Messenger used his Parliamentary travel allowance to visit Townsville, the location of his budding romance to now his now wife. They suggest he may have done this inappropriately, considering he is the member for Burnett just north of Hervey Bay.

Now it would be naive to think that this did not come from LNP HQ as McLindon took the first strike last week by suggesting that Party President Bruce McIver had requested him to pay some of his electorate allowance into a marginal seats fund.

What interests me is the question of how long the LNP had known of the travel usage. It was from 2008-09. Why had they not recommended investigation by the Crime and Misconduct Commission. If proven this may amount to an illegal use of travel allowances which should be investigated by the CMC. Would the LNP have sat on this had Messenger not spectacularly left the LNP? I think they would have.

I don't think we have seen the end of the open fighting between these rebel MP's and the LNP. Or the Labor party for that matter. All this saga does is strengthen my opinion that the LNP is not fit to govern, no matter the public image of the current government.

I swear I was just resting my eyes.

Peter slipper MP denies vehemently that he was asleep during the joint sitting of Parliament for the address of Indonesian President Susilo Bangbang Yudhoyono.








Fran Bailey on a junket at NATO, even though she had announced her retirement at the next election.









It appears that on both occassions the story was the same - both must have been caught at times when they had inadvertently shut their eyes, as they were not asleep. You can read Peter Slipper's denial here and also Sharman Stone covering for her colleague here.

What amazes me is how the photo of Peter Slipper got into the public arena.  Either an usher is extremely brave or one of Slipper's fellow MP's has snapped him and farmed it straight to his home town paper.  Either way it took guts!

You be the judge - Asleep on the job or not?

Barnaby go back to what you’re good at!

On my iGoogle homepage today was the following quote attributed to Peter Ustinov an English Actor and Author:

"Her virtue was that she said what she thought, her vice that what she thought didn't amount to much."

Although I do not know to whom Ustinov was referring I immediately thought of Barnaby Joyce. Joyce is a hard hitting take no prisoners kind of politician. He prides (and sells) himself on being a straight talking conviction politician. But he has a tendency to speak first and think later. Many will criticise Kevin Rudd for his outlandish use of words (and sometimes even making them up) but you will never find him producing the rhetoric that Barnaby sprouts which could seriously damage our countries credibility on the world stage and does seriously undermine his own parties economic credibility. Whether it is on foreign ownership or Australia being unable to repay its debts.

Barnaby should seriously consider returning to back benches. He is much more effective as a back bencher who says what he wants without needing to fully understand what he is saying. He is much better with the one-liners than with the detailed knowledge of policy and economics that the Shadow Finance Minister requires. It is truly amazing to see how Barnaby is faltering. It must be truly difficult on the front bench when a seasoned retail politician can flounder so much and so regularly. And it is beginning to show in his demeanour and style. His performance against Lindsey Tanner on the ABC's program QandA was nothing short of horrible. Barnaby looked rattled, aggressive and generally hostile. This is not how a Finance Minister should be. 

He is not doing his team any favours and continues to provide journalists with the distraction of asking every Shadow Cabinet Member questions about Barnaby and his position rather than on either their policies or the criticisms of the Government. 

Barnaby you should return to your strengths, sniping very funny one-liners from the tall grass! Because you are doing little good as a Shadow Finance Minister, other than to the Labor party.

Anna Bligh’s Leadership: Doomed or Destined?

There remains speculation about whether the leadership of Anna Bligh will last until the next election. This speculation is no doubt being fuelled by the unions and members against privatisation. There is real disharmony between a number of unions including the Queensland Council of Unions and the Government over the Governments post election announcement of the sale of certain public assets.

The government claims it is the only way to continue the building program but unions either don't believe it or don't care. The Government however would not be surprised that it is receiving large scale backlash from the Unions and Labor Party members. Privatisation has been strongly opposed by the Labor Party and is a central component of Labor Party policy and their "DNA". Anna Bligh would be hoping that they can get these sales completed before the next ALP State Conference. Perhaps this is why there is talk of a special conference. Because you can't unscramble an egg so to speak!

But is Anna Blighs' leadership under threat? Are there any real alternatives? The Government appears to have a united front on the asset sales. All ministers appear to support the decision. This would then make any change irrelevant on the grounds of stopping the asset sales. Besides this major point there are only a few Members of the Government who could successfully step into the breach should a coup occur at George Street.

The names bandied about as potential leaders include Deputy Premier Paul Lucas, Attorney General Cameron Dick, Treasurer Andrew Fraser, and Speaker of the House John Mickel.

Since Paul Lucas was given the poisoned chalice that is the Health Portfolio he has managed it quite well. There has only been one incident of note, the overpayment of some staff, but most of this was during a period while he was not the Minister. He has been a strong performer over time and would be seen as a natural successor. But how would he distance himself from Bligh? To make a change in leader there needs to be a shift in the debate not just a different face sprouting the lines. I think the public would find it difficult to believe that there was a difference leader in Lucas.

John Mickel has had the benefit of being in the Speaker's job since the March election. This has seen him largely out of the public eye which has increased his image as a strong leadership contender. But the media would not let him forget the so called "gravy train" incident that occurred on his watch as Transport Minister.

Andrew Fraser has ascended the ALP and Government ranks quite quickly to be a 32 year old Treasurer. There is no doubt that he has the Premier's job in his sights one day but he will struggle to win over the public when has to be the public face of the Government's hard decisions. Fraser has been a controversial figure since he instituted the Local Government Amalgamations. But Fraser has shown he is as tough as nails and gets the job done. But I don't know how palatable he would be with the general public as leader.

First term Attorney General Cameron Dick has made one of the biggest splashes on the political scene in a long time. He was made AG only a couple of days after being elected to Parliament. Since then he has instigated long overdue reforms of the Criminal and Civil Justice System as well as actively appealing decisions that are too lenient by community standards. He also has the political advantage of not being around for the past 10 years of Labor rule and can distance himself, if only slightly, from any previous Government decisions. He is however a first tem politician and this would be exploited by the LNP to tag him as too inexperienced to be trusted with the reins of power, albeit incorrectly. He is extremely capable and intelligent and will be a future leader but probably not just yet.

With these four being the obvious and only choices when it comes to leadership alternatives the Labor party would be best to remain with the status quo. Anna Bligh has been a strong leader since taking on the job. She has acted as a Premier should. She is not a populist, pandering to her base (unions). She acts on what she believes will be best for the State. Now she may be wrong about what is best for the State but at least she has convictions and is prepared to stick by them. Unlike the LNP who support the privatisation of everything the State owns except when it will win points at the ballot box or increase infighting in the ALP. If the ALP are to go into the next election with any chance, Anna Bligh needs to finalise the asset sales quickly and sell to the public the increased convenience in their lives as a result of the infrastructure building.

But as a first step I am sure Anna will be making a Christmas wish to remain leader past the middle of next year!

I want the Federal Senate on my Jury!

With all the excitement of the Liberal Party spill it would have been very easy to miss that the Senate Committee looking into the Godwin Grech / OzCar affair handed down its report on the 25^th November 2009. And after reading it I want the any one of the Senators on Privileges Committee on my jury if I am ever charged with a crime.

Their conclusion was that they were "unable to arrive at a conclusion that a contempt was committed by Mr Grech" based on his inability to appear in front of the committee due to a medical condition. This is despite Mr Grech having given "to the Economics Legislation Committee [evidence] that was objectively false and misleading, and although the committee was also misled by references to an email later revealed to have been fabricated by Mr Grech."

The committee also made these conclusions from the evidence it received:

At [6.8]:

• Mr Godwin Grech gave a misleading impression to the Economics Legislation Committee about the amount of work involved in his advocacy on behalf of Mr John Grant.
  
• Mr Godwin Grech gave evidence to the committee about his dealings with the journalist, Steve Lewis, that was untrue.
  
• Mr Godwin Grech did not disclose to the committee that he had created a record of the email that he asserts he believed existed.
  

Collusive pre-arrangement of questions and answers for an undisclosed purpose

• Mr Godwin Grech suggested to the Opposition that the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill 2009 should be referred to a Senate committee for the purpose of getting his 'evidence' about alleged corrupt conduct by the Prime Minister into the public arena.
  
• Mr Godwin Grech met with the Opposition Leader, Mr Turnbull, and Senator Abetz in Sydney for the purpose of showing them the 'evidence' he had of alleged corrupt conduct by the Prime Minister.
  
• Unbeknown to Mr Turnbull and Senator Abetz, Mr Grech's 'evidence' of this alleged corrupt conduct had been created by himself as a record of an email that he asserts he believed existed.
  
• Apart from Mr Grech's recollection, which he asserted may be faulty or false, there was no evidence put before the committee that an email resembling Mr Grech's record of it ever existed.
  

So basically the Privileges Committee found that there was overwhelming evidence that Grech had concocted an email to allege the Government had asserted undue influence in order to bring down the Prime Minister. He was in effect a Liberal spy assisting the Opposition and although the Committee found no evidence of wrong doing on behalf of Senator Abetz he clearly had seen the email prior to questioning Mr Grech. This may not point to collusion on behalf of the Opposition member but it clearly shows that Mr Grech had developed a quite elaborate plan to bring down the Prime Minister.

Now, my blog is not about Mr Grech's involvement nor is it to denounce him for his actions as this has been done many times over. It is to highlight the weakness of this Committees conclusion.

This committee states that it "is frustrated by its inability to arrive at a conclusion as to Mr Grech's culpability, both because of the state of his health, and the practical difficulty of testing the claim of medical incapacity advanced by his treating doctor."

What practical difficulty? In Queensland (and I am sure every other state) we have a mental health tribunal. It assesses the person's mental state at the time of the offence and deems whether they are fit for trial. Why does the Federal Senate, with all the power and resources at its disposal, not have some mechanism to test the claim of medical incapacity? This is a cop out and the committee should be disgusted with themselves.

This committee has taken the easy road by brushing under the carpet a serious matter which caused great public scandal at the time. If fabricating evidence and lying in front of a Parliamentary Committee, to bring down a Prime Minister no less, is tolerated then what will be acceptable to the Federal Senate next?