Inside Parliament House the year is punctuated by the progress of the seasons. With 17 courtyards throughout the building, nature is expertly managed to remind us what month it is and the uncompromising procession of life’s cycle.

Order, order! The rabble inside Parliament. Picture: Ray Strange

As the year gets underway we arrive for the autumn session at the beginning of February. The roses at Parliament House are in the busy process of producing bursts of colour.

Each flower is subjected to the searing trials of the sun testing its form and structure. Only the most robust survive a week, none survive a fortnight.

The autumn session of parliament is dominated by the budget. Ministers, who finished the previous year unveiling their best projects, commence the session by defending them against the glare of the Finance Minister.

Propositions are tested. Priorities are assessed. And as a Minister’s pet project begins to wilt, the inevitable fate of even the most beautiful rose, is a stark reminder that reality can be very savage.

As May approaches the roses have subsided but a much grander display beckons. The turning of the leaves on the silver birch trees produces a bright gold blaze of brilliant foliage in one of the grandest demonstrations of a deciduous autumn that can be found in Australia.

Such a majestic show from the trees heralds a big moment in the chamber as the Treasurer makes his annual budget statement. The political and floral cycles are anchored in this one moment.

The Parliament House winter is stark. The trees are bare and the building quiet as politicians head back to their electorates to connect with their constituents. Amidst the silence the clean white branches set off by Canberra’s clear blue skies provide a distinct beauty.

With spring comes the pretty extravagance of the blossom trees. But it is another phenomenon at this time of year that steals the show.

Located on the annual migration path of the Bogong Moth, Parliament House is said to act as a giant light-trap for these insects. For a week or two the building is overrun and with the prey comes the hunter.

Just as the birches outside my office thicken with green, the peace and tranquility of the gardens is shattered by the snap-happy black beaks of Currawongs feasting on the moths.

These great, gluttonous black birds jump and swoop amongst the trees so busy grabbing the next mouthful they lose their footing and slam into windows.

To have a coffee outside in the Senate courtyard is to be in the midst of a feeding frenzy as bird asserts its dominance over moth in a grisly display of nature’s ruthlessness every bit the equal of the Liberal Party room.

The poor moths all fattened up for the flight south to their summer home in the Snowy Mountains don’t stand a chance.

Inside, the carnage continues as floors are covered with the dusty splat of yet another dead moth. For a politician it is disconcerting. Seeing the powerful feed so relentlessly on the weak can shake your confidence. It begs the question: where do I fit into the political food chain?

Life in politics is on the edge. One vote the wrong side of an election spells the end of a career that could have been glorious but for a single changing of a mind. Watching one moth plucked midflight by the currawong while another is left to fly safely to its destination seems poignant and familiar.

After a few weeks the moths are gone and the karmic disturbance is over. We can stop feeling our own mortality and delight in the blooming roses brought on by the return of heat to Canberra.

Last week the heatwave which has engulfed south eastern Australia in recent times even visited the Opposition. It was applied like a blow torch to the Leader by a sceptical group which simultaneously denied its existence.

For those of us on the other side the behaviour of the Liberal Party was as curious as the random flight of the butterflies. Flitting from one place to the next without any apparent direction the Liberal Party finally landed on the wrong side of the CPRS.

It was the climax of a full and changing year. As Government members, the show put on by the Opposition was certainly entertaining if far from conclusive. The Lincoln buffs were citing his bible quotations: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The parliamentary year had come to an end and the questions of climate are yet to be faced.

There was nothing left for us to do but leave the House of Reps entrance for the last time this year, walk across the driveway and smell the roses.

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • paul says:

      06:57am | 08/12/09

      Richard, please explain how you intend to ‘expertly manage’ national growth to 35 million people in Australia using strategies and planning that has been subject to any sort of searing debate or deep thought? Or was the overpopulation policy a throwaway diversion, while you were copping heat on the recent refugee issue?

    • mcdazz says:

      09:43am | 08/12/09

      So, just to clarify this, do you believe that the emissions and pollution we are all putting out into the environment has absolutely no effect on the environment or us at all?

      And do you also believe that reducing our emissions/pollution will have absolutely no impact on the future?

      I look forward to your response.

    • D'oh says:

      12:02pm | 08/12/09

      [face palm]

      And I guess you still believe that everyone spending over $1000 a year more will fix it.

      Additionally, your comprehension is slipping mcdazz, emissions and pollution does not mean just CO2 and that is what they are trying to charge us for.  You wanna talk pollution, you gotta talk NOx and SOx and in Australia there are already very tight regulations regarding the emission of these dangerous pollutants.

      Or maybe you just don’t want us to take you seriously, I think I might just treat your posts as such in the future.

    • mcdazz says:

      01:57pm | 08/12/09

      @D’oh:

      Oh, I’m sorry - what part of:

      “...do you believe that the emissions and pollution we are all putting out into the environment has absolutely no effect on the environment or us at all?” didn’t you understand?

      Where did I mention CO2 specifically?

      Oh, that’s right - I didn’t.

      I asked a reasonably general question about emissions (not just CO2) and pollution.

      If you had read any of my comments - in particular some of my comments today, you’d already know my stance on Climate Change.

      Here’s a helpful hint for you though - instead of a face palm, give yourself a face slap.

      I think you might need it.  grin

    • Rohan says:

      04:35pm | 08/12/09

      another [facepalm] on the way I suspect, coming from mcdazz’s comments.

      Mcdazz the current measures proposed by the Rudd government ONLY target the element of Carbon under the ETS (ie a CARBON PRICE). Has nothing to do with pollutants.

      A fraud. A con. To make people like Goldman Sachs, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull a heap of cash. We won’t see a documnetary on it from Michael Moore though.

    • 6c legs says:

      11:46am | 08/12/09

      I enjoyed your post, Richard. And after seeing for myself the Currawongs having dust baths outside the PMs office on 16th November - I think for a “Pollie” you almost get nature…[small dig in the ribs] But if you want a real Autumanal display you need to get yerself down here to Tassie! ( I won’t mention the local [state] labor pollies have made themselves unelectable come March -*groan*)

      Cheers, and enjoy your break getting to know your family again. grin... KBK.

    • Phil says:

      03:16pm | 08/12/09

      Richard,

      You lot along with a few of your fellow commi posters have egg on your faces over the ETS. You all thought you could simply get away with a big tax without any need to explain it without being able to tangibly quantify the numbers. Please tell me and all Australians what the temperature will be in 10 years time with or without its introduction? You cant and you know it.

      I can afford the $ 1-3,000 of an ETS but although I believe the planet is changing, just as it has for many thousands of years, and will continue to change in the future, introducing an ETS is not the answer. WE ALL NEED TO REDUCE POLLUTION

      However your government is not interested in truth, they are interested in social engineering, lies and deception. From Economic Conservative, to spending psycopath in 12 months. From money in the bank to well in debt in 2 years, amazing. A hard budget. PURLEASE.

      I cant wait for the hard action to restore the budget in May next year. Trouble is no politition will take any pay reduction, pay any extra tax etc.

      How much ETS tax would our patrol vessel pay for the three week 2 star holiday your government recently provided the Sri Lankans in Indonesian waters?

      How much ETS tax would be required for the use of the private jets by your fellow elected members of the labor party say in the last year?

      With you lot its like Al Gore do as I say, not as I do. Al Gore’s home electricity bill is 16.5 times higher than the average americans. He flies all over the world telling everyone that Carbon is evil, yet emits more than most by a very large margin,

      You lot banged on about John Howard using the Jet as his private Taxi, yet Kevvy spent far more on travel than John Howard.

      Most Australians want action on climate change. That is agreed.

      How to achieve this is yet to be determined.

      Australia has woken up to you lot and your new tax, and you will ultimately be punished for doing so. You have the DD trigger you wanted on this and other legislation. GO FOR IT. Hey the Libs may loose, but it may mean labor only in power for another 3 years as of now, not 3 more years as of Nov 2010. We could save one year of labor wrecking the ecomomy and debt.

    • Sim says:

      05:03pm | 08/12/09

      Not a bad comment. I think there is a vast difference between taxing people and small business then there is making policy for sustainability and the environment.

    • Public Record says:

      05:46pm | 08/12/09

      Rohan said “the current measures proposed by the Rudd government ONLY target the element of Carbon under the ETS (ie a CARBON PRICE). Has nothing to do with pollutants”

      Sadly, I’m sorry to report that Rohan has himself done a complete face plant. He is wrong. Totally utterly absolutely *wrong*. I don’t know how he came to think that.  But where-ever he got it from, it needs to be corrected.

      It is now commonplace, as in the Australian revised ETS and elsewhere, to say “carbon” as shorthand for *all* the greenhouse gasses at the root of global warming; including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and the various others; most especially those made by our own activity (whether at home, in industry or on the farm) : “carbon” for short, or sometimes written as “CO2 equivalent”.  Common use, seriously.

      Easily checked. 
      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/national-targets.aspx
      Further reading from the official Aus source, the Dept of Climate Change.
      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/impacts.aspx
      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/cprs.aspx
      http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/reduce.aspx

      No point in slinging off at this source, either. It reflects the revised ETS as it stands.

    • D'oh says:

      08:00pm | 08/12/09

      @ Rohan, I gotta stop the face palms, I might hurt myself given the number of questionable posts by some.  As for the capture all carbon price (incredibly poor choice btw) that is a common mistake so don’t feel too badly about it.
      @ EVERYONE, just assume that whenever mcdazz posts,  someone somewhere will palm their face.
      @ mcdazz, as rightly pointed our by Public Record, CO2 has been defined alongside the dangerous pollutants.  As such, under an ETS we will be paying for them.  Given that the claim that global warming is caused by increasing CO2 levels is now in question (see ‘Climategate’), paying for the emission of this gas is plain wrong.

      @ Public Record - so, you gonna add Rudd’s compensation to the public record too??

    • Public Record says:

      09:08pm | 08/12/09

      I guess D’oh means the assistance to households for the revised ETS costs.  Jeeze these fellows always want to be spoon fed one way or another.

      As has been said in numerous posts on The Punch in the last 2 weeks, its already *on* the Public Record. And in the most obvious place possible.  HInt Hint Hint.

      As for his CO2 argument, he’s simply wrong. But as he’s not bothered to check or think through what greenhouse gasses and “CO2 equivalent” means, hardly surprising. It’s *our* total warming contribution, simply brought together in a single measure, and we must start to fix it.

      As for the email theft, that’s just a sneaky diversion - selective release with intent to mislead and no grasp of content or meaning. Rather than damaging the science case developed over the last two decades, it’ll quite likely turn out to be a plus.

      But then, keep us all waiting another 10 or 20 years and the odds are that our part in the warming will be impossible to ignore. Just far far more expensive to fix.

      All on the public record, and found with about 3 or 4 mouse-clicks.  Surely not too hard to click on some links and read a bit further is it?

    • Phil says:

      10:06pm | 08/12/09

      Public Record. You along with the commi who posted this piece have not answered my questions. Please explain how I have made wild, unsourced claims?

      Fact. Al Gores own household electricity bill is far greater than the average American. He makes more flights internationally and domestically than 99% of the polulation.

      How many of the Labor Polititions have installed Solar Power in their home. Peter Garrett I would imagine, but how many others?

      I merely made statements and asked questions that you obviously a political staffer has not answered.

      Do you believe that an alternative to an ETS exists? Could it be possible that we could introduce alternate sources of Electricity, Nuclear for example?

      Household Assistance. Why! I thought you wanted to save the planet, not pay those who this tax may effect in the words of Penny WRONG 110% compensation. Is that not giving them a pay rise. Many would have older cars that produce more poluttion, would they not? Many of these same people would smoke would they not? Just like Kevvy last Christmas, lets give the lowest common denominator some free money. Maybe Kevin wants the part in The Santa Clause 3.

      Why not reward those who take action, rather than just tax everyone regardless of what they attempt to do to combat this scenario or continue to pollute willy nilly!

      Finally why would we believe anything a confused woman dressed as a man says given her obvious pre determined ideas and ideals.

    • Public Record says:

      11:14am | 13/12/09

      Phil said: “I can afford the $ 1-3,000 of an ETS”
      Wherever he got that his costs from, we can’t check as he doesn’t say, so we cant see whether it is he or his source that’s wrong, or how. But we can check the public record, which is what I did, and politely provided the links so anyone incl Phil could check the facts. The revised ETS would cost an average of $624/household overall - before compensation, while for a two-income family with kids on a combined income of $100,000, the cost would be about $1000 - before compensation.

      Short summary - Phil’s claim of $1000-$3000 is unsourced and wildly wrong.

      Next, he claims I’m a “commi” (whatever that is) and then a political staffer.  He knows nothing about me. Both his claims are wild, both are unsourced,  and both are untrue. Not that its any of his damned business, but as a retired private citizen I have never been a member of any political party, nor have I ever been employed by one.

      Phil and people like him can hold any opinion they like. So can we all. We can either take time to write civilly with reason and checkable fact, or by personal abuse and wild, unsourced claims and accusations -  as Phil has done.

      Which way is best for looking at the big issues of the day?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Wow the official Chewbacca website looks like it was designed by... a wookie http://t.co/SCTBVbVt

Paul Colgan

@GrogsGamut We need a government quackdown

Paul Colgan

Good story by @ashermoses on the mass gaming of a website poll about alternative medicine http://t.co/3XNE2BF5

Anthony Sharwood

OK, so am I the last person in Australia to see this Herald front page mockup thru the Rinehart lens? http://t.co/LSNBPkVl

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter