Prev
Next

Farewell new paradigm, we hardly knew you

Chris Gardiner

by Chris Gardiner

20 Sep 05:55am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Election 2010, Independents, Parliament, Politics, Rob Oakeshott, Speaker

78 comments

To all those in the The Punch community who wanted – needed – to believe in the ‘New Paradigm’ politics: sorry, we told you so.

Cartoon by The Australian's Nicholson.

In order to gain the Speakership of our Parliament, one of the Independents will have to consider deciding and neutralising his vote on any issue before it is debated in the chamber. Goodbye quaint notion of MPs working together to discern the national interest through rational parliamentary dialogue. Goodbye the New Naïveté.

In the end, the Independents, like most politicians, believe that everything will be better if only they hold the power. This Independent is after the power of the Speakership, because only he can be trusted with the power of the new paradigm.

It’s precisely to combat that self-deceptive hubris that polities like the US and Australia have constitutions. These constitutions put parameters around occasional permutations of personal and party power. Our own constitution is now being tested in the pursuit of personal power, not by one of the nasty dominant parties, but one of the ‘new paradigm’ Independents.

The great 20th century theologian and defender of democracy Reinhold Niebuhr became a conservative liberal as his understanding of human ‘will to power’ deepened, and his thinking on that human trait is relevant here. What we are seeing in the bid for the Speakership of the Australian Parliament is simple will-to-power, no matter how well intentioned the individual is in his pursuit of that prize.

At the same time we learned of the implications of an Independent demanding the Speakership in this hung Parliament, we were also given an honest explanation by the Prime Minister of what deals with the Independents and Greens will mean for all those – over 80% of the electorate - who decided their vote based on what the two parties took to the election as policies. We are now told that those policy promises may have to be broken. That is the logic of any deal done to hold the power that every actor in this drama is seeking.

As one commentator has observed, the complicated New Zealand parliament is taking about 6 months to process legislation, and that is without a hung second chamber. The Prime Minister is now telling us, after rather than before signing off on her power sharing deal, that the ‘new paradigm’ means that voters who backed the ALP horse in the electoral race have to put aside their expectations and learn to love the ‘camel’ that will emerge instead. 

Let’s bury the naïve hope of ‘new’ politics before it creates real disenchantment. Let’s be honest that the rather efficient two-party system that has held power accountable for so long, and held it to the centre, is being displaced by a bigger field of players who are after that power. Let’ s just accept that there will be no beauty in this ugliness – just hard-nosed, will-to-power, politics.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

78 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Barb. Dwyer says:

      06:47am | 20/09/10

      Condemning the cake before turning on the oven,sure it may fail to rise but give the more accountable house a chance to function before we go back to single party dominance that allows the wasting of our treasury resources.

      Reply

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:06am | 20/09/10

      Barb. Dwyer :  The ingredients of the cake have been contaminated with stupidity , greed and power , the cake just will not rise , it will remain flat , unmoving , dead in the oven.
      You just don’t get it do you Barb. ? , there can be no wasting of Treasury resourses , the House will fail to function and any thing that does flow from this distasteful mess , will be a shadow of what it was formerly intended to be.
      For Oakshott and Windsor , elected from conservative seats , which recorded Labor votes of 11% and 7% , to throw in their votes with Labor and the Greens , the realisation of power in their hands , personal rewards , and a chance to wreak vengeance on the National party , has to be the catalyst for their ill-conceived decisions.

    • Scot says:

      12:19pm | 20/09/10

      This is a joke. The go has gone global on all the websites as a laughing political greedy, grasping imbecile that has black mailed the Australian public along with the NBN guru along with the Greens that want to shut down the country, and bring in the death penalty for being old. And Labor NSW taking away the pension rise with the other. Yes the cake mix is a disaster, and we need to throw it in the radioactive toxic bin where it belongs, and start again. These are the darkest days in Australian politics.

    • Bob H says:

      12:48pm | 20/09/10

      I’m with you @Barb.Dwyer, single party dominance has caused a percolation of nine to five journeymen and women rather than smart minds with ideas and drive.  Hanging around long enough to get elected by default is not very inspiring and not how a great country like Australia should be run.  @Wayne Fehlhaber appears to be stamping his feet because his ball has been taken away.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      01:13pm | 20/09/10

      Bob H :  It’s not a of matter my personal wishes in this issue Bob , if you really care about this great country of ours you would understand what is about befall the nation.  Government will be virtually hogtied , they will be unable to function effectively under the new parliamentary procedures forced on to an agreeable Labor party.
      The same mess occurred in New Zealand and it now takes six months to pass major legislation .  Australia is set to grind to a halt because a couple of power hungry turncoats are in a position to blackmail their way to personal rewards .
      Oakshott’s eyes glazed over at the Speakers salary of $238000 per annum , lavish office suites , three staff and an entertainment card.
      Start looking at the realities Bob.  For instance , Oakshott was elected under the National party banner but declared himself an independent after the ballot.
      Gillard is now backing away from election promises because she knows what will happen to the Legislation when it is put up in the House of Representatives.
      If this is how independents work , i say they should openly state to their constituents just who they would support and why , in the case of a hung parliament.  If either Windsor or Oakshott had told their conservative electorates that they would support Labor , they would have been tossed out on their respective political arses.

    • Scarneck says:

      02:14pm | 20/09/10

      I agree Barb, we are all fed the same cake just some of us, I suppose,  digest it differently!  and Wayne@09:06am says ” the realisation of power in their hands , personal rewards , and a chance to wreak vengeance on the National party”....what’s the opposite of ill-conceived Wayne?  Any one of these three points would have been a catalyst for the decision made by the two rural independents to back the ALP.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      06:04pm | 20/09/10

      Scarneck :  Sorry matey , just can’t make sense of your post at all.
      It is clear you back the Gillard / Greens /Bandt / Wilkie / Windsor / Oakshott cobbled together mish mash of opposing backgrounds and philosophies which seems to have failed from day one.
      When the inevitable defeat of this rabble occurs on the floor of the House , you will probably have begun to realise just what an abomination has been hung on the electorate by two renegade M.P.‘s posing as independents.

    • Seen em all says:

      07:27am | 20/09/10

      Of course it’s power, do you think these people have Australia at heart, the more immigrants the more labor voters, where else on earth are you going to get a welfare system like we have and don’t think these people don’t know how to scam a system, their culture teaches them how to survive, ours teaches us how to bludge, and that is the driving force to become a politician in this country, it must be the biggest perk in the country for the mediocre professionals, all parties included.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      08:35am | 20/09/10

      Seen ‘em,  does that also include The Sex Party ?

    • Michael says:

      12:57pm | 20/09/10

      If being a pollie is such a bludge, why oh why are you not one yourself? You make it sound like a dream, what with all the perks and no drawbacks…like dealing with voters like yourself.

    • GreenGoblin says:

      04:02pm | 20/09/10

      Strange, can’t say I spend much time dwelling on the prospects of scamming and conniving refugees, whose sole aim is to rip of our welfare system…what a callous thought, why would anyone even think this?  unless of course….

    • acotrel says:

      08:13am | 20/09/10

      Rob Oakeshott should be conscripted into the coalition, then Tony Abbott can be speaker?

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      08:27am | 20/09/10

      good idea acotrel,that would make it easier for Turnbull to inevitably depose Abbott,  but the parliamentary in-house doctors would have a hard time getting both of Abbotts feet out of his mouth.

    • MarK says:

      09:29am | 20/09/10

      No.

      Rob Oakeshott should be conscripted into the Labor camp so he can then become speaker.

      Oh wait…....

    • DougB says:

      11:57am | 20/09/10

      No No, you all have it wrong.  Bob Katter should be speaker, then we’d get some enforcement and entertainment at the same time.

    • Just Sayin' says:

      02:24pm | 20/09/10

      Is insane as that sounds DougB, I have to admit that Katter would not let politicians get away with the crap they currently get away with.  If anyone failed to answer a question, or wasted our money on filibustering, Katter would not hesitate to kick them out of the chamber.  And with numbers so finely balanced, few would be willing to risk such an outcome.

    • Denny Crane says:

      08:19am | 20/09/10

      This is politics, and if Oakeshott becomes speaker, the Coalition does not need to stand down a MP.

      It is the PM’s responisbility to work with the issue, this easy option, is to remove Oakshott as speaker, tell him this is untangible, case closed, i am sure he will accept the decision, with great moral fibre.

      Reply

    • Clare says:

      08:23am | 20/09/10

      It’s amazing that the writer refers to the ‘rather efficient two party system that has held power accountable’  in such benign terms, but any other arrangement ...an independent as speaker for instance….as the spawn of the devil….a blatant grab for excessive power. Changing how things are organised is not some moral calamity in and of itself, and to argue that those from the ‘two party system’ were somehow not interested in power is, well, pretty amusing. These politicians DO have power….we elect them to make decisions for us….but good organisation and transparent systems can limit the abuse of that power.

      Reply

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:52am | 20/09/10

      Oakshott finds the $238000 per annum , lavish office suite , three staff and an entertainment card irresistable . Then , as Chris Gardiner has stated , their is the issue of power , Oakshott sees himself as being in a position to yea or nay any and everything in the House of Representatives. The ultimate power of the govt to function in his hands alone.
      Gillard has already backed away from implementing her campaign promises because she knows what will ensue in the House with Oakshott as Speaker and the hobbling of normal prodedure by Windsor / Bandt / Wilkie.
      If this mess ever gets to fly any distance , it will be ugly ugly ugly. !

      Reply

    • Scarneck says:

      02:44pm | 20/09/10

      Wayne, wipe your chin (you’re dribbling). A speaker (only) has the deciding vote, do you seriously believe that all legislation passed requires the speakers vote? “The ultimate power of the govt to function”  this lies in the hands of the 150 elected members who are bound by our constitution, changes to this must be taken to a referendum, it’s not a simple matter of Oakeshott taking out an eraser and telling us “this is how things are done now”

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      03:05pm | 20/09/10

      Scarneck :  Don’t blow your nose matey , your entire brain will be gone.
      Seems you dont understand the seriousness of the situation at all .
      Oakshott knows , Gillard knows , and everyone else except you knows that it will require just one vote from the independents failing to support Labor and the Gillard experiment is over.
      My comment on ” the ultimate power of the government to function ” is in the context of that being how Oakshott sees himself. Read my post properly ,  if you can read .

    • dovif says:

      03:38pm | 20/09/10

      Scarneck

      Actually the speakers have 2 powers,
      he can send people out of the chambers into the naughty corner
      he can vote if the vote was tired ie 0-0

      So it is not inconceivable that he could send everyone out of the chamber and then pass all his own legislation with 1 vote .... but then the legislation goes to the unelected men of the senate

    • Mal says:

      04:11pm | 20/09/10

      A more nobbled, neutered, pointless and poisoned government we have not seen in my 47 years other than Whitlam’s fiasco

    • Just Sayin' says:

      04:17pm | 20/09/10

      Dovif, that’s absurd.

      Firstly, you can’t pass legislation without quorum, and quorum for the lower house is 30 members.
      Secondly, even if he actually could do that, the GG would never sign the bill.  It’s a power the GG rarely (never) uses, but it is designed for unusual situations such as the one you describe.
      Thirdly, he’d be sacked from the role before he got halfway through.  And they would have plenty of time to sack him, as members have to be individually named before they can be ejected.

      So yes, what you suggest is inconceivable.

    • Scarneck says:

      04:21pm | 20/09/10

      Sorry Wayne, but what’s changed since the election outcome was known?  We all knew the seat numbers were 76-74, we all knew Gillard had to nominate a speaker, this is the very reason why the independents and the Green said they would support Gillard on the floor, we all knew it was going to be a slim margin on the floor, what we didn’t allow for was Oakeshott wanting to re-invent the wheel. BTW…I blew my nose, my office is now messier than a Cadillac driving down Elm Street.

    • John Carvan says:

      09:11am | 20/09/10

      Rob Oakshott has joined the list of politicians and other political players whom I hope never to hear again because of their cant and self serving political obsession to get themselves in front of a camera. The list also includes Wilson Tuckey, Barnaby Joyce,  just about any Green, Annabel Crabb, Andrew Bolt and Tim Costello.I am sure that there is a host of others.

      Reply

    • Bob H says:

      12:55pm | 20/09/10

      Rob Oakshott needs to work on his delivery and the content of his act   before you can compare him to such classic entertainers as Tucky and Joyce.

    • Harriet says:

      09:20am | 20/09/10

      What rubbish Chris! Of course the new paradigm could not work when people such as Pyne were part of the negotiation. Pyne reneged on the deal, as was expected! At least the Independents know how to proceed from here on in.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:33am | 20/09/10

      What deal, would be made for when Liberals did not get the support of the independents? If you don’t support us we will do this… Its stupid. There is no deal between liberals and the indepndants, only one between labor and the independants, the party they have put their support behind.

    • Nicole says:

      10:49am | 20/09/10

      Harriet, Oakeshott wants to have his cake and eat it too. There lies the problem. Adam is 100% correct, there is no deal between the independents and the Liberals.

    • MarK says:

      11:17am | 20/09/10

      Explain fully and exactly how “Pyne reneged on the deal”.

      Not because Oakeshott says so.

      The actual process he agreed to and signed of on with what he saying might happen now.

      A full explanation please.

    • Harriet says:

      12:02pm | 20/09/10

      Let them be known by their deeds. Pyne was Turnbull’s right hand man when a deal was done with Labor on the ETS. Remember how the Liberal’s negotiated that deal. History shows the Liberals reneged on that deal, the leader was rolled etc. Pyne came out OK though, he could spruik the new Liberal direction and cause as much commotion on the floor of Parliament.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      12:52pm | 20/09/10

      Harriet :  You just don’t get it do you ?  Christopher Pyne and the Liberals did not reneg on anything at all . The Labor party has made it’s deal with the turncoats but they are beginning to realise that the independents and Greens have a firm grip on the political balls of the Labor party . That is one of the reasons Gillard is backing away from her election promises.
      The Liberals did not enter into any deals on the E.T.S. either . Malcolm Turnbull had a view on E.T.S. which was his personal view but the Liberal party collectively had their own direction and that is why the Leadership was changed.
      This mish mash of differrent backgrounds and philosophies calling itself a govt. has virtually no chance of surviving on the floor of the House of Representatives , let alone govern.

    • Nathan says:

      01:19pm | 20/09/10

      @Harriett, What Oakshott wants is unconstitutional. It is written in the Australian Constitution that the Char can oly get the Deciding vote in a deadlocked scenario. He can not vote otherwise.

      If Oakshott wants to disregard the Constitution, he has to take this to a refferendum.

    • MarK says:

      02:07pm | 20/09/10

      “...a deal was done with Labor on the ETS. Remember how the Liberal’s negotiated that deal. History shows the Liberals reneged on that deal, the leader was rolled etc.”

      Let me rearrange a few things here Harriet

      A deal was done by Labor with the Australian people in 2007 when they said they would bring in an ETS or CPRS or any other combination of letters you wish to combine. Remember how central it was to their election spiel. The party that was GOING TO DO SOMETHING about carbon and climate change. History shows that the the only first term PM to be rolled by his party and Australia’s first woman PM by negotiation were responsible for reneging on their promises to the electorate in 2007.

      ucwatididthar?

    • Harriet says:

      03:13pm | 20/09/10

      Well everybody lets forget how the Liberals reneged on deals with Independents and Labor lets look closer to home. Do any of you remember Telstra and good old Barnaby Joyce . Joyce did a deal with Howard , so that Howard could sell Telstra. Barnaby hung out for a long time but eventually capitulated. The Liberals reneged on their deal with the Nationals. Don’t believe me,  then why do you think Windsor and Oakeshott looked to Labor for broadband!

    • Gregg says:

      03:16pm | 20/09/10

      Re Pyne, Turnbull and the ETS Harriet, at least you saw some democracy in action for whilst Turnbull may have supportrd the ETS and still does, the Liberal Party allows for its parliamentarians to not only express dissent but for the leader to be challenged on policy in an open manner ehich is what happened.
      Subsequently, Rudd did backflips and all sorts of gymnastics until he was skewered by Gillard’s dagger.
      That has not stopped her from less skillful gymnastics and a dagger may well await her.
      Meanwhile Labor parliamentarians are not really living in democracyland for they all have to toe the line and that is going to be much more difficult when you have Greens and Independents attempting to drag them up to lines none of them are too keen on.
      The Ultimate and rightful PM may yet come out of Julia’s mess far quicker than even she wants to happen.

    • Ryan says:

      03:56pm | 20/09/10

      @Harriet: The leader was rolled because he was no longer representing the views of his party and the electorate. The Liberal party remains representative of its constituents even in hard times, the Labor party on the other hand are accountable to the unions then themselves by the looks of things, that’s why there is no “U” in Labor, its a party that doesn’t represent “U”... ever!

    • MarK says:

      02:00am | 21/09/10

      Hi Harriet - still waiting for you to explain how Pyne reneged on his “deal” with the indies.

      Oh and Windsor and Oakeshott looked to Labor not for broadband but for more personal reasons than Telstra.

      Good ole payback alive and well on the right.

      So - explanation please kthxbai

    • Bill says:

      09:33am | 20/09/10

      What about Oprah?  Can’t they make her Speaker?

      Reply

    • Shane says:

      12:59pm | 20/09/10

      I’m with you Bill!

    • Chris L says:

      06:47pm | 20/09/10

      If we’re going to outsource we should offer the job to Robin Williams.

    • Steve Thompson says:

      09:43am | 20/09/10

      Rob Oakeshott is not an Independent. He’s a Freelancer.

      On a more serious note, his idea about deciding how he would have voted on any bill or motion and instructing one or the other side to “partner” him and not vote, just means that he would in effect have a deliberative vote unlike Speakers before him. This bloke is so naive and inexperienced, he would be totally out of his depth as Speaker.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      09:56am | 20/09/10

      It seems pretty clear to me.  The ALP want this thing to work.  The Coalition don’t.  This is nothing to do with party affiliation - if Abbott had cobbled together a majority the boots would be on different feet.

      Where the problem lies for the Coalition is that Abbott and his team appear to lack finesse.  Their bull-in-a-china-shop lurchings will only entrench the current position by alienating the independents.  The Coalition appear to be expecting to rise victorious from a crash, without realising that their manouvring for a crash is the very thing that will prevent it.

      The rational approach to Oakeshott would be to say “There are some pretty significant procedural and constitutional problems to this proposal.  If you can negotiate a way through those problems we will consider your request, but at the moment it seems unworkable”.  Then let him go away and fail for himself.

      Reply

    • Milke t says:

      01:01pm | 20/09/10

      Iansand. You make some good points. However I disagree with your thoughts around alienating the independents though. If the rainbow gov turns sour, as expected, then the best thing the coalition could have done is make it clear to the public they are against all sides that ran the show….that being the greens, the ALP and the independents. By doing so they become the logical alternative from a marketing perspective that is!!

      In regards to Oakshott i agree thats the best option for JG. Howeverr, i appears she may have promoised something she cant deliver (nothing new there) so she may be stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one

    • Richard says:

      10:48am | 20/09/10

      There is this line of argument from the left whereby Abbott is attacked for not honouring an agreement, which was banged out in the heat of the moment, and now after some sober hindsight the constitutional experts are finding it to be in breach of the constitution. It would be irresponsible of Abbott to not to oppose an unconstitutional amendment to parliamentary procedure, just as he would be derelict in his duties if he didn’t try to ‘bring down’ the bad Labor government.

      He is the opposition leader afterall, not some bed-in groupie for the for the Labor/Green/Indie group love Party (especially when that alliance was formed mainly out of personal spite against Abbott to prevent him from becoming PM).

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      11:03am | 20/09/10

      Abbott was Manager of Government Business in the House for several years.  He should have a bit of a handle on how the place works.  Heat of the moment or whatever it takes?

    • MH says:

      12:04pm | 20/09/10

      Some might think the others at the table - Gillard and a pair of experienced independents - also ought to have some handle on how the place works.  Oakeshott’s attempt to lay the whole blame at Abbott’s door for not ‘doing his due diligence’ is a bit rich.  All parties to the agreement are equally to blame for not working out that what they were agreeing to do was contrary to the constitution but as Richard said, it was an agreement thrashed out at the eleventh hour with insufficient pause for thought and proper analysis.  However, now that everyone has worked out that it would be illegal (and Labor does accept this but is sitting back and letting the Coalition cop the blame for spoiling the party), the simple fact is the agreement cannot stand.  Unless of course everyone decides the ‘reform’ is so fundamental that they need to go to the people with a constitutional referendum.  Good luck with that.

    • Northern Steve says:

      06:32pm | 20/09/10

      Yeah, I suspect that when Oakeshott was making his demands that there was no real thought that one of the independents would nominate for speaker.  THe agreement seems quite reasonable assuming that one of the Lab/Coalition MPs were speaker.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:57am | 20/09/10

      The Old Paradigm didn’t work, the New Paradigm doesn’t work, and yes we still don’t like Liberal and Labor…..

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      11:38am | 20/09/10

      Yeh only 81% of us voted for the Nats, Libs or Labor on a primary vote.

      Hardly any of us give them the time of day these days.

    • Mike T says:

      11:44am | 20/09/10

      This article highlights the difficulties with the current cobbled government, even expressing that many of the pre election promisies may not be able to be fullfilled and even possible breahes of the constitution may need to occur to appease Mr Oakshot as his “deal” with the ALP materialises.

      If this new “paradigm” fails and is ineffective then the current government must pay dearly…. we should not accept that things wont get done or promises need to be broken because thier is to many cooks in the kitchen…. why…. because the ALP brokered this deal!!  They made the choice to do the deals and install this governemnt as it looks now… no one forced them….

      I have no poblem with the ALP forming government. I dont prescribe to the view “they didnt win the election. They have formed governement, and good luck to them. But we should not for a second, accept infective gorernemnt and broken promises based on the “the landscape has changed” excuse….

      You are correct Miss Gillard “the landscape has changed” but you did the deal that changed it…... you had a choice….....so

      Reply

    • nosthow says:

      11:50am | 20/09/10

      Given the state of the parliament Chris it would be the same for the Coalition as for Labor no matter who was in power. One day in the future a fresh election will sort all this out and the most likely outcome is that Labor will be easily returned. All those poor suckers who thought they were riding to glory on Tony Abbotts brilliance will then see what a dud he was in reality. Glad to see he is going to change his Braodband policy upgrading it from a pidgeon on steroids to dial-up on steroids. Ya gotta luv old Tony and his motley crew - they never surprise in their ordinaryness do they Coalition supporters ?  hahahhah !

      Reply

    • Mike T says:

      03:13pm | 20/09/10

      It must be nice to live in your delusional world where all is rosy and Julia does no wrong!!!

      Even Mr Oakshot conceded that the ALP would loose another election, in fact it was one of the drivers that made him side with the ALP if i recall.

      PS. No one gave a rats about broadband till JG and brainwashed ALP backers (like yourself) starting banging the drum of a possible NBN 6 months ago. It’s it wonderful that this issue has taken over as a core dirver of how peopl vote, as opposed to anoying and pointless issues such as the economy, health, infrastrucure.

      In terms of where we need to invest our money, an NBN isnt in the top 10 and im sure you would agree if the suggestion had come from anyone bar Julia.

    • nosthow says:

      04:40pm | 20/09/10

      @Mike t - ahhhhh Mikey but we are getting the NBN old son ! Now Abbott is trying to make his featherweight model seem good . hahahhhhhh

    • Northern Steve says:

      06:37pm | 20/09/10

      nosthow, I wouldn’t bet on a complete, functioning NBN appearing across the country anytime soon.  30% takeup in Tassie of a cut-down subsidised service is not promising.
      And personally, I won’t get the NBN, and can’t currently get ADSL.  And with the competition sucked out of the industry, I can’t see Telstra spending any money on the network to upgrade it.  So for me the NBN is actively reducing my chances of getting broadband.
      BTW, do you get paid by the word or by the post?

    • Mike T says:

      08:13pm | 20/09/10

      excellent response nosthow…..

      i didnt think the NBN was a good idea. But you witty and well constructed retort has convinced me that it is the best think the country has ever seen. Thankyou for making me see the light.

    • Super D says:

      11:57am | 20/09/10

      The sooner we get past this new paradigm nonsense the better.  It’s the same paradigm just with even numbers.

      Furthermore its time that Julia Gillard grew a pair and stood up to Rob Oakeshott.  The ALP line seems to be that Oakeshott has all the skills and is a worthy candidate for speaker.  This is absolute nonsense.  Oakeshott has been in the parliament for 2 years, he’s an absolute novice.  He has no experience of the cut and thrust of question time.  I’d be surprised if he even turned up in the past - certainly his voting record suggests he didn’t consider parliament attendance as mandatory.

      The will to power angle is spot on.  It is likely that Gillard and almost certain Oakeshott would lose power if there was an election before christmas.  Failing to hold a minority government together will not aid the ALP at all.  This time next year however the ALP may be in a winning position, Oakeshott still likely not.

      Reply

    • Vince says:

      12:38pm | 20/09/10

      Oh no it’s a “new paradigm” alright, we have a Prime Minister who looks more like a Deputy and a Foreign Minister who looks more like he’s the PM. We now have more news about Kevin than Julia, this is hilarious! And an Independent who also makes more news than the Prime Minister and wants to run the Government. The important news coming out of the Prime Ministers Office is about her being a “cheer leader” for her footy team. I love the “new Paradigm”.

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      01:01pm | 20/09/10

      Rob stay home, forget about the speaker, Lyne needs you and could end the relationship if not shown enough love and attention.

      Reply

    • jb says:

      01:38pm | 20/09/10

      Tell me, and what exactly has Oakeshott done to deserve the coveted roll of speaker, seriously just 1 thing, anything???

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      02:09pm | 20/09/10

      Ummmm

      Errrrrrrr

      Alright…you got me. I guess he wasn’t or isn’t Rob Drew. That probably counts.

    • Scarneck says:

      03:48pm | 20/09/10

      ...and Harry Jenkins did what?

    • Gerard says:

      08:53pm | 20/09/10

      Resigned from the National Party?

    • MarK says:

      02:06am | 21/09/10

      Hmmm Harry….let me see.

      Ah yes. Be a part of the party that was elected to government by the people.

      You know - be loyal and stuff. get a reward.

      Or if there is a great tradition in the Labor party of giving plum jobs and critical roles on the floor of the house to “qualified and deserving” or was it “suitable”....no no that was it “skilled” please name them.

      So far I am coming up with sfa…....any names you can think of Scarneck that preceded this near anointment of my local member to a cool quarter of a mill a year job?

    • Nicole says:

      02:47pm | 20/09/10

      jb, hmmm….....................I’ll get back to you on this. But please, please, please don’t hold your breath.

      Reply

    • Laura says:

      03:09pm | 20/09/10

      Any reasonable person and certainly a reasonable Prime Minister would see in a flash why Mr Oakeshott should not be Speaker. Julia Gillard is not a reasonable person and she is most certainly not a reasonable Prime Minister. She is a vain and greedily ambitious woman who will stop at nothing to get what she wants. Robbie Oakeshott is just one more man in Miss Gillard’s mash of men. Like the others before him, he will be misused by Miss Gillard in her grubby grab for power. Never has a woman so divided Australia. The only joy for those who oppose her is the knowledge that it is clear to most Australians that Gillard has risen to her level of incompetency. This is called the Peter Principle. Julia Gillard is a below average and inept politician. She has no dignity and is now a figure of fun and ridicule, the whole world over. (Apparently this is something that gives Mr Rudd some comfort.) None of this matters to a woman as vain as Gillard because she sees only her reflection everywhere she looks. And by the way she won’t move into the Lodge until after she visits our troops in Afghanistan. She wants happy snaps with our brave soldiers to coincide with her moving van.

      BER, East Timor, Citizens’ Assemblies, missing ministers in the Ministries, and the great almighty white NBN elephant are just a few of Gillard’s claim to infamy. God help Australia! When will it stop. What price do we have to pay for this woman’s insatiable lust for power.

      Reply

    • PG says:

      04:02pm | 20/09/10

      Hmm using the word reasonable then going down into the gutter with stuff that is clearly unreasonable rabid and bias——ok lets see:
      Vain hmm dont see Julia appearing in her speedos showin’ off the bod at every opportunity.
      Its gratefying to know that Juliia “Peter Principle” level is leader of the country whilst Tones clearly isn’t even close.

    • Nicole says:

      04:24pm | 20/09/10

      And thank God for that PG. That’s one sight I never, ever want to be scared with! BTW, you only see Abbott ‘showin’ off the bod’, because he competes in marathons. JG on the other hand is always caught with a cupa toooye, sitting on her proverbial.

    • Laura says:

      05:44pm | 20/09/10

      Tony Abbott is a life saver. Bit hard to save people in the surf dressed in board shorts. He’s also a volunteer fireman and does lots of other community work but has refused photos in any of his volunteer work.

      BTW,  I am an ex Labor voter. I voted for Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. I also to my shame voted for Kevin Rudd because I belived all the b..s..t. I also voted for John Howard once. In the past I was proud to vote Labor but on 21 August I couldn’t get to the polling booth fast enough to vote for the Coalition. I wanted to be rid of Labor and the deceit, lies and grubby politics of Rudd Gillard, Arbib and their band of power-hungry pollies. They trashed Labor and they trashed Australia. I will never vote Labor again. So if I’m going down into the gutter, it’s possibly because that’s the only place I can get a good look at Gillard.

      Next time, maybe I’ll tell you what I really think.

    • Chris L says:

      06:56pm | 20/09/10

      “is now a figure of fun and ridicule, the whole world over.”
      You made that up! Most of the world don’t realise we exist!

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      07:32pm | 20/09/10

      He doesn’t want to be Speaker any more.  I wonder what bright shiny thing will catch his eye next?

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      07:47pm | 20/09/10

      I still believe we should change the constitution to appoint a speaker from outside the house.  They should not be an elected member of parliament.  The appointment should have the confidence of the house and be for a set term.  The speaker does not need to have a political role to play.  Maybe we could go as far as voting for people nominated the same time as the election.

      Reply

    • Gerard says:

      09:00pm | 20/09/10

      Popular election of the speaker is not a good idea because the parties will stack the list of nominees with their own members and the speaker is unlikely to be impartial. A speaker from outside the house could work though- maybe appointed by a two-thirds majority to encourage neutrality.

    • Laura says:

      07:55pm | 20/09/10

      Oakeshott may be a dill but he’s not as stupid as Julia thinks. He’s now saying, ‘Thanks but no thanks.’

      Reply

    • Hang on says:

      11:00pm | 20/09/10

      Well Oakeshott certainly nailed Abbott and Pyne today. If the agreement - including pairs - wasn’t kosher, why did they agree to it?

      Watching Pyne trying to wriggle and twist his way out of it on Q & A tonight was very illuminating. The man’s all spin, and poor at it.

    • Democrat says:

      11:29pm | 20/09/10

      Incredible!  Abbott and Pyne - presumably in the ‘gentler, caring polity’ mode - happily signed up to an agreement which they now say is unconstitutional.  If the proposal in the agreement they signed - for pairing the Speaker - is unconstitutional now why was it not unconstitutional when they signed the deal. If they knew - or even suspected that it might be unconstitutional - then they stand condemned as opportunists prepared to subvert the constitution for political gain. One of the two wants to be PM and the other Education Minister.  God help us.

      Reply

    • Mike T says:

      07:59am | 21/09/10

      If it came to light that it was unconstitutional after the result then ALL parties are at fault. Just becasue the Libs are the only ones recognising that there may be a problem and are having the appropriate parties review it dosent make them anymore accountable for the error then the ALP or Oakshot.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed