Update 2pm: Julia Gillard has named her new ministerial team. It includes Kevin Rudd as PM, Stephen Smith in Defence and Simon Crean heading a new regional affairs ministry. You can read full details here.
Buddy can you spare a paradigm? Jon Kudelka in The Australian.

Australians finally know when Parliament will sit, September 28, but few have any idea what will happen when it does.

Visually, it will be interesting having both sides so evenly matched on numbers in the House of Representatives. Where will the independents sit - on the cross benches yes, but where exactly? On the Government side or on the Opposition side? It is one of many questions.

Julia Gillard may have emerged victorious from our closest ever election, but beyond that stretches yet more uncertainty. A new Cabinet will be named as early as today, but Ms Gillard knows that is the easy bit. Well, kind of.

The truth is, she has very limited flexibility. She will continue with Kevin Rudd’s practice of choosing the ministry rather than allowing the factions to carve up the spoils via farcical Caucus elections.

But her authority is considerably less than generally appreciated. Normally a PM, especially after an election, can lean on one or two people to stand down and make way for new blood. Not now. Labor’s whole operation rests on a one seat majority. This means it would take just one MP to decide his or her career had peaked to end the Government. A by-election in just about any Labor seat you could name would be a circus because the government itself would potentially turn on it. Such conditions would be a walk-up start for an independent. This is just one of the many implications of the new reality.

It is all a mtter of perspective. Minority government is either a ``new paradigm’’ heralding consultative multi-interest governance, or it is a recipe for instability and reform gridlock. To its detractors, it’s a contradiction in terms, a democratic cul de saq from which the only way out is the way we came in. Advocates - most of whom incidentally are flush with newly acquired power - sunnily maintain that Julia Gillard will need to build consensus for legislation and that this process itself will lead to higher quality decision making.

We’ll see.

The starting point maths is simple enough. Labor finished with 72 seats out of the 150 member House of Representatives. To that it was able to lock in the votes of four more MPs: the new lower house Greens member, Adam Bandt, the new Hobart based independent, Andrew Wilkie, and two of three ex-Nationals country independents, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. All have guaranteed to support Ms Gillard as PM in any attempt by the Opposition to unseat her via motions of no-confidence (unless there is a genuine case such as major maladministration). They have also vowed to maintain Labor’s one seat majority to pass bills appropriating money for the normal functioning of government, known as supply bills. These are the bare minimum requirements of a government under our Westminster system.

So far, so good. But this is where the 76 vote guarantee ends. For all other legislation over and above these basics, including things like the mining tax which is not a supply bill, literally anything could happen.

This week, Bob Brown, cock-a-hoop at the doubling of his party room from five to ten (nine senators plus Mr Bandt) flagged supporting the Opposition in any of its legislative ideas if the Greens wish. Already, one issue, Mr Abbott’s more generous but super-expensive paid parental leave scheme, has been nominated. Labor’s more modest taxpayer funded version has been legislated but needs tweaking after being sweetened further in the election campaign. It is theoretically possible for the Opposition, the Greens and a couple of independents to club together in the Reps and pass Mr Abbott’s scheme. In that circumstance, the scheme would clear the Senate easily creating an humiliating debacle for what would then be a Government in name only.

There are numerous other election commitments which will require legislation - each must run the gauntlet of a multi-interest legislature where individual MPs will have crucial sway and where the lure of 15 minutes of fame will be hard to resist.

Tony Abbott magnanimously gave Ms Gillard his validation in his concession speech on Tuesday saying: ``even a government which has scraped home by the skin of its teeth ... is still in its own way a triumph of democracy’‘. But if this was the new paradigm, a kinder gentler polity as Mr Abbott himself had advocated, it was fleeting indeed.

Since then, his tone has changed markedly and a clear Opposition theme is now apparent. Labor, we are being constantly reminded, got fewer first preference votes, the smaller share of the second preference carve up, and won fewer seats. Its legitimacy is non-existent.

The strategy is plainly designed to pressure the independents - to split them away from the Government by daily shaking their confidence in being too closely associated with Labor. The campaign to cast Mr Oakeshott in recent days as a Labor stooge has been ferocious.

This is the real paradigm. And it is the one in which Julia Gillard will be pushing highly contested legislation for: a Minerals Resource Rent Tax, due to raise $10.5 billion in its first two years, and on which much of the new spending is based; a cut to company tax from 30 cents in the dollar to 29 cents; a new emissions trading scheme including a price on carbon; offshore processing of asylum seekers; health reforms worth more than $7 billion; the $43 billion National Broadband Network; $742 Redcliffe rail line in Brisbane; $800 million regional infrastructure funding; new welfare to work measures to force the jobless to attend Centrelink meetings; and controversial water buybacks to save the lower Murray Darling Basin.

The first order of business of course is the new frontbench. That will be unveiled shortly. Kevin Rudd has firmed as the choice for Foreign Affairs. That could see Stephen Smith moved to Defence. Greg Combet is tipped to take Climate Change, while Penny Wong would become Attorney General. Chris Bowen would get Mr Tanner’s old Finance port folio.

Despite the risk of being seen to reward a key anti-Rudd plotter, Bill Shorten is a likely promotion. So too SA’s Mark Butler who has impressed as a Parliamentary Secretary for Health. But plenty of others are knocking on the door.

It’s just one of the many new headaches for Ms Gillard. But then, she wouldn’t want the alternative, would she?

Most commented

74 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Kelvin says:

      07:12am | 11/09/10

      “Failure is not an option” for Jooolia.

      She has already shown that when all else fails - like it already has and will continue to do so, she will simply spend her personal way out of it (and put the country into an ever increasingly deep black financial hole.)

      Those with flowers in their hair like Oakeshot and the gaggle of Greens with their hidden policies have sold Australia into real trouble by putting the most illegitimate government that Australia has ever seen into a position of undeserved power.

      With it’s track record of maladministration of programs like the BER, pink batts etc, it shouldn’t be long before there are more legitimate grounds for the inevitable no confidence vote. Let’s see the quality of the ‘independents’ then.

    • BF says:

      11:20am | 13/09/10

      The election instilled a legitamate government even if you can’t handle the result. Tissue?

    • Pat McConville says:

      07:16am | 11/09/10

      I can’t agree with the statement that the House passing legislation opposed by the Government translates into “Government in name only,” nor is it especially embarrassing.

      The statement is only true if your definition of Government conflates the entirety of the legislature and the executive, which has been the case only in exceptional circumstances in Australian political history. That is why we have had a history of negotiation and conflict between the two houses in our Parliament. It’s why WorkChoices was so extraordinary; a style of legislating that is, according to the Liberals, “dead”.

      Australia’s system of governance is based on Westminster. While in that system it generally follows that the Government of the day has the numbers in the lower house to legislate, it certainly doesn’t require that. As the article recognises, it just requires most MPs to have confidence in the people advising the Governor-General and telling departments what to do, within the existing legislative framework.

      But Australia’s system of governance also takes a leaf out of the Constitution of the United States, giving the Senate extraordinary powers to halt a Government’s legislative agenda. The article implies that there is a distinct between a “bare minimum” required under Westminster for Government and that which is typically delivered in an Australian legislature. That only works if you ignore the Senate or misrepresent our system. Because not only is the model of a strong, dominant Government with a clear mandate assumed as the premise for this article unusual by international standards, it also relies on an imagined Australian political tradition.

      There are plenty of important things that a Government can do without necessarily having to change legislation, and there is plenty of enabling legislation on Government policy that should pass through both houses with little issue.

      Most importantly, this Parliament will neither be a monster, nor the pinnacle of liberal representative democracy. Democracy changes. It’s supposed to, because we’re supposed to change; sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. This Parliament won’t be the best and it won’t be the worst, because there are no absolute peaks or troughs in this stuff. It’ll just be what we’ve got.

    • Eric says:

      11:02am | 11/09/10

      @Pat - I am grateful for your reasoned and constructive commet. All too rare on these threads.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      07:42pm | 11/09/10

      Pat McConville :  Your post is well thought out and takes a constructive , and distinctly optimistic approach to the difficulties involved with a functioning Gillard/Greens/Independent government .
      My personal concern is the fragile majority made up of a mixed background of philosophy and policy direction.
      Gillard will have to steer a way around resentments arising from the leadership coup ,and soothe anger over the rewards handed to Shorten & Arbib for engineering Rudd’s demise. The P.M. will have a tough time convincing M.P.‘s who were by- passed , that they were rewarded ” for their talents ” as she has since stated.  She must be mindful of the danger inherent in handing Stephen Smith’s Foreign Affairs portfolio to the former Prime Minister. Stephen Smith is ambitious , intelligent and capable of leading Labor should the baton be handed his way. To his credit , Smith has maintained a poker face after being moved aside from a portfolio which he has handled exceptionally well.
      One of the worst possible outcomes of the government being propped up by the Greens and Independents , would be the threat of support withdrawal as a tool to force the government to accept private or Green legislation in the House of Representatives.  Certainly the Senate exists to review legislation passed in the Lower House but next July , the Greens will control the Senate, clearing the way for such a move.
      Lets hope your optimistic view of the election outcome prevails . Somehow i think it may need lots and lots of luck.

    • Against the Man says:

      08:00am | 11/09/10

      ALP supporters know that this isn’t victory. This government won’t last the 3 years and the ALP will do what it has always done what it has always done - waste taxpayers money. Abbott and co must be laughing themselves silly in anticipation of the chaos our first fake PM will have to manage.

    • nosthow says:

      09:11pm | 11/09/10

      @Against the Man - there you go again old fella - Abbott lost the election - hes in Oppostion so dont worry yourself silly over Labor - they won - they are in government. Its easy to remember - Abbott is a loser !

    • Against the Man says:

      10:56am | 12/09/10

      Gillard didn’t win. She lost the election. She is a fake PM. Denial is an addictive drug. Watch as she crashes and burns baby.

    • n_dude says:

      01:24pm | 13/09/10

      If Abbott is laughing, then why has he unleashed the attack dogs in a sour grapes type attack on the government (using his hand [icked attack dogs)? Use of emotive words like “Illegitimate” are clearly incorrect as the government was legally formed with the support of the independents and approved by the GG. In fact the two party preferred and primary votes seem to be swinging either way. The clear message from this election was that people were not happy with Labor, but also did not feel Abbott was ready or capable of being PM. I think everyone needs to get over this and allow the new government to get on with it (or al least try). If they fail, then it will be back to the polls again and we will all be none the wiser for it.

    • Queen Julia and King Wilkie. says:

      08:40am | 11/09/10

      Well you talk about uncertainty. 

      Gillard is going to wish she had never set eyes on Andrew Wilkie, never done any deal with him, and the public will wish they had never put themselves on the Green/Independant chopping block. 

      Wilkie’s latest self-important announcement that he will refuse to support the mining tax until it is expanded, and the business uncertainty and consequential job-depleting mess that will begin from now, is cause for public concern.

      Was Wilkie’s obvious interest (and more than likely the Greens) in an increased GST mentioned to his Denison voters before he fell over the line on August 21st?

      I wonder how his (temporary) electorate will react to those apples.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      10:15am | 11/09/10

      There are state elections coming up and the states have to agree to the GST change.  One of Costello’s legacies to the taxpayer is that any rash-spending Labor Government cannot unilaterally screw us even harder to fund their badly-managed, poorly thought out pork barreling to their under achieving sycophantic supporters.

      This one won’t fly.

    • Rosie says:

      08:47am | 11/09/10

      I think God played a big part in getting Julia Gillard installed as our PM. He must have deliberately left Tony Abbott out as to save him from the headaches, severe migraines more like it. Mark’s heading; “Headache Of A Govt” is Labor’s Paradigm ( the new buzz word ) “Beats Not Governing At All” is the Libs paradigm for celebrations apart from them winning more seats.

      Worse of starts with its legitimacy in question is never going to achieve any goodness. eg Mining tax, We have Swann/Gillard wanting to go ahead with legislation, Windsor wants it reviewed, Wilkie and the Greens wants more out of the tax. Oakeshott we learn was a Labor man all along posing as an Independent.

      I would say Tony Abbott would be saying; “Thanks be to God”

    • Roja says:

      12:15pm | 11/09/10

      Wow, this is one of those occasions I agree with you Rosie.  I too thank god that Abbott is not PM.

      However considering how much of taxpayer money Tone the Bone was willing to part with to get into power, clearly god was simply leading him away from temptation.

    • Sven Gali says:

      12:53pm | 11/09/10

      Woah ! That might be your best ever, Rosie !

      That Kubler-Ross denial grin is getting maniacal. Time to move on to anger.

      Have a nice weekend.

    • Mattb says:

      12:54pm | 11/09/10

      Another silly statement from a ‘God botherer’. Which ‘God’ are you referring to here Rosie, is it your god?, Tony abbots god?’, the Hindu god?, Buddha maybe?. What about Osama bin laden’s god?, was it he that played the big part in the election decision?. I wish you religious idiots would let us all know which God you are referring to when you make all these outrageous statements.
      Oh, sorry, I forgot, you really don’t know do you, your just hoping that the religious beliefs that you’ve chosen to blindly follow are the beliefs that the big bloke in the sky agrees with.
      Rosie, have you stopped to think that maybe ‘god’ is looking down from above thinking “gee, this planet I have created for them is being slowly raped, pillaged and polluted and this Tony Abbott fellow is in total denial about it, I’m not gonna let him become a prime minister”.
      And, If this is not the case Rosie, then could you please provide evidence that proves this theory about why ‘god’ didn’t let tony abbott become PM incorrect. Until then, please leave religion out of a political discussion

    • Nicole says:

      03:51pm | 11/09/10

      Mattb, a sharp tongue is no indication of a sharp mind. You don’t believe in God, fine. Do not berate and insult those that do. And please refrain from calling Rosie an idiot. She is far from that Mr !

    • Rosie says:

      05:53pm | 11/09/10

      Mattb

      I wasn’t going to waste my time and say; “what do you care, like Julia Gillard you are not a believer anyway and if God existed would you want to know him??? Your answer would be an absolute “No” so why should I bother explaining anything to you. However, something tells me that I should make an effort and respond kindly to your comments. I do hope you will respect them.

      It sounds like God is a pressing issue for you and therefore in search of answers, making it possible that you are being pursued by God. All in God’s good timing, you will see him regardless of whether you believe in him for without faith all we have is people’s convictions and no absolute moral compass.

      I feel the joy of a being which I strongly believe to be a God!

      “I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” That Mattb is the way I live my life.

      Perhaps like yourself Julia Gillard is being pursued by God! I am not convinced she did the right thing by allowing herself to knife Kevin Rudd for the top job. She will always be hoping that the past will become superfluous, irrelevant and oblivious to our moral uprightness because of the way she arrived at the top job. Since become PM she hasn’t yet had a moment of glory and already has had headaches to deal with, with more to come.

      God Bless Australia

    • Northern Steve says:

      07:20pm | 11/09/10

      Yes Roja, because $1B is excessive and unethical, and $10B is not.
      I just can’t get my head around this new Maths.

    • Sven Gali says:

      09:54pm | 11/09/10

      If you think you’re being pursued by God, Rosie, then that finally explains so much of what you’ve written.

    • PJC says:

      07:20am | 12/09/10

      @ Sven Gali how could Rosie be pursued by God when she has already chosen to have God in her life. I don’t understand what you are talking about.

    • Sven Gali says:

      10:16am | 12/09/10

      p.s. For the record, Rosie, I too strongly believe in a God, even though he sometimes works in mysterious ways.

      For example, if you’re correct, then you’d think that Tarvu, or at least the Priestmunty of Tony Abbott’s local Chabernackle, could have had the decency to give him a head’s up, thus saving him the trouble of all that arduous campaigning.
      Come to think of it, why did we even need the election ? He could have just come down and told us he wanted Julia Gillard to be Prime Minister, and that would have been it.

      Mysterious, all right. Praise Tarvu !

    • Sven Gali says:

      06:38pm | 12/09/10

      He’s omnipresent, PJC. Praise Tarvu !

    • Super D says:

      09:12am | 11/09/10

      Firstly I don’t buy the new paradigm at all.  I think this parliament will be the high water mark in terms of numbers of independents.  At the next election any independent candidate will be required to nominate which party they actually support in general and in all likelihood will need to nominate which individual policies they will support as well.

      The notion that the Greens would support Coalition proposed legislation is an interesting one.  It would be easy to get spending bills through the parliament - like bumping up pensions for example though these would need to be funded lest the Opposition be accused of irresponsibility.  A clever opposition should be able to get self funding legislation through - by say reducing “Industry adjustment funding” to car manufacturers so beloved by the trade unions.  The key here will be to introduce spending that targets constituencies valued by the Greens and Independents funded by cuts to constituencies valued only by Labor.  Done well this could really make the government squirm.

    • Richard says:

      02:09pm | 11/09/10

      The Prime Minister can still choose not to present the passed legislation to the GG for signing. There is a precedent for this when Keating’s L A W tax cuts were passed in parliament but after the election John Howard just left them in the drawer and forgot all about them.

    • Northern Steve says:

      07:27pm | 11/09/10

      Firstly Richard that would be an exceedingly brave move by a PM and Julia has not shown the guts to really stare anyone down yet.
      Secondly I’m pretty sure it was Keating himself who reneged on his own Tax cuts wasn’t it?

    • Amused says:

      09:31pm | 12/09/10

      On this planet, it was Keating who did nothing with his LAW tax cuts. Who knows on which planet Richard was residing when Howard had anything to do with them!

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:32am | 11/09/10

      A fragile government indeed .  As pressure mounts on Labor , the independents will be forced further away from a teetering government . Though they may claim otherwise , the independents main concern will be their political hides.
      The Mining tax , essential to Labor’s expenditure program , looks under threat from Wilke , who wants a full reappraisal of the fairness of the resourse tax application.
      G.S.T. is another area the independents will turn their attention to , not necessarily to raise the level but to check that the settings are correct in the current economic climate. Labor , of course , lacks the courage to address the issue of G.S.T. and will resist the independents . There lies the fragility of this cobbled together unlikely bunch of mixed backgrounds backing a Labor minority govt.
      The mining tax , which was forecast by Treasury to net $10.5 billion in it’s first two years , is yet to be re-assessed after Gillard’s re-negotiated deal with the three major miming companies. Treasury may yet eat crow.
      The naming of Gillard’s Ministry presents another problem for the shaky govt. Many M.P.‘s will be highly resentful of Bill Shorten being boosted to a portfolio after his part in Rudd’s downfall.
      As i have stated in other posts , Stephen Smith , current Foreign Affairs Minister , and possible future leader , looks likely to be pushed aside in favour of Rudd who covets his Ministry. Just one more addition to the seething resentments in what remains of theRudd/Gillard experiment.
      Three years of sunshine ?  I don’t think so.

    • Steve Putnam says:

      05:23pm | 11/09/10

      Still creating your house of cards syllogisms eh Wayne? I believe you predicted an easy conservative win at the election….. what happened?How long do you think Abbott can keep the lid on the divides within the Tories when a majority of the Liberals believe climate change is real and happening and the pangs of conscience outweigh narrow political gain?Do you think Malcolm Turnbull is really going to fall into line behind Abbott’s reactionary agenda or remain stum when Barnaby Joyce or Joe Hockey make their typically cringe-worthy mistakes.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:04am | 12/09/10

      Steve Putnam : It’s not necessary to construct a house of cards Steve ,
      it already exists , created by Windsor & Oakshott .
      I have never , at any stage , claimed an easy win for the conservatives.
      However , the result , is one for the history books.  A Government brought to it’s knees at the end of it’s first term . Tony Abbott can take credit for having brought down Rudd as Prime Minister and almost destroying the Rudd/Gillard government.
      Tony Abbott has more than consolidated his position as leader of the Liberal party and the inclusion of Malcolm Turnbull into the Shadow Cabinet highlights a team ready to work at the restoration of a conservative government in Australia’s best interests.
      Your reference to ” divides within the Tories” look rather silly in the face of the seething anger and resentment simmering within Labor’s ranks
      after the Rudd political coup and subsequent rewards to the plotters who engineered the P.M.‘s demise.
      Don’t be fooled by Stephen Smith’s poker face , he has every reason to
      work quietly on the side , his eyes firmly on the grand prize . Smith is intelligent , ambitious , and Gillard will be casting an eye over her shoulder from here on. Make no mistake Steve , Labor’s second term at governing is being carried out within the very precariously balanced ” house of cards ” to which you refer.

    • Christian Real says:

      08:56am | 13/09/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber
      Abbott needs to look over his shoulder, because Malcolm Turnbull is back and is just awaiting his chance to reclaim the Leadership position that Tony Abbott took from him in the party room spill.
      It seems only a matter of time, whether it be days or months, before Malcolm Turnbull will challenge Abbott for Leadership, once he has locked in the numbers he needs to topple Abbott.

    • Godamighty says:

      09:43am | 11/09/10

      “Labor, we are being constantly reminded, got fewer first preference votes, the smaller share of the second preference carve up, and won fewer seats. Its legitimacy is non-existent.”

      Liberal members and supporters are likely to find this “no legitimacy” nonsense comes back to bite them, hard.

      Take Crook, WA Nationals for a start. Whatever they say, he’s did not stand as and is not now a formal member of the Lib/Nat coalition. He himself still insists he’s a cross-bencher.
      Which leaves us where the national vote put us.
      ALP 72, Lib/Nats 72 seats.
      Even Steven then.

      The final 2 Party Preferred vote will keep changing as the count goes on. Only when the count is final *and* the last scrutiny check is done will the actual 2 PP number be known.  Right now, Labor is ahead. Likely to stay that way, from what Mumble in The Australian reckons, though the final margin’ll be slim. 
      Pretty well Even Steven then.

      Sure, the Lib Nat coalition got more of the primary vote, together, but we’ve a preferential voting system, which we chose democratically.
      Interesting non-issue then.

      As to seats in the House, both Abbott and Gillard as leaders of our two main Parties fought and negotiated hard for what they stood for and what we voted for - election to government. So enough about greed for power, thanks.  Either could have won legitimate minority Government.

      Gillard Labor won this argument, convincing the Greens and enough independents to carry the day. All legitimate.

      The final result is pretty even. What we voted for. Legitimate.  To claim otherwise is simply not honest, and sets a very bad precedent indeed.

      There’s probably no better way to poison the Lib/Nat relationship with WA Nationals, with independents, or with the Greens. As “accidental” damage, it splatters the standing of the Office of GG as well.

      Lastly of course, it is an insult to voters of all persuasions. That’s where it ought to be most felt. It’s just one more poisonously devious “sound bite” which many voters will see for what it is.

      We gave you a fair result. We’ve got a minority Goverment which fairly matches. Now get on with it.

    • MarK says:

      10:50am | 11/09/10

      Nice comment.

      Shame the kingmaker in his 17 minute ramble also said no one had a mandate.

      Sort of makes your finely thought out argument moot if the guys that giveth the power doesn’t think the ranga has a mandate.

    • TimB says:

      11:19am | 11/09/10

      As far as I’m concerned the issues with the result boil down to one fact, and one fact only. The fundemental goal of the Westminster system is for the people to have their views represented by their chosen representatives, NOT for those representitives to force their views on those who elected them.

      The people of Lyne and New England wanted their members to support the Coalition. They didn’t.
      You will hear counter-arguments of “if they wanted the coalition they would have voted for the coalitiion”, but thats not what the people want. What they wanted was an independent who would support the Coalition, a fine distinction yes, but a distinction nontheless. And again, that’s not what they got.

      What we got may technically be a legitimate government but it sure as hell isn’t right.

      And before I get jumped on by the usual suspects, this isn’t simply sour grapes because the Coalition lost, this is simply telling it like it is.
      If the final seat score had been 74-74 and it was only Wilkie and Bandt to make up their mind, we know they’d go Labor. And they’d have every right to, as that would be the will of their eletorate.There’d be no cause for complaints from the Liberal side of politics (disappointment yes, complaints no.)

    • Roja says:

      12:26pm | 11/09/10

      Well said - the election result was even all the way, neither side could properly claim victory on any measure.  Hence it became a matter of negotiation and on that level was the only difference, clearly Julia was more persuasive than Tony - politics is about more than running a tight campaign, so it is that the ALP have taken power.

      As for it’s legitimacy, Howard in his second term got less than 50% of the 2PP but still took power.  Nobody truly questions now that he didn’t legitimately win - barring major incompetence by this government I doubt history will treat this result any differently.

    • Sven Gali says:

      03:27pm | 11/09/10

      Thanks for your personal definition of the “fundemental (sic) goal of the Westminster system”, TimB, although once again, I suspect it actually has more to do with serving electorates.

      Your claim that the people of Lyne and New England wanted “an Independent who would support the Coalition” is patently nonsense. If that were so then why didn’t they just vote for the Coalition ?

      And “it sure as hell isn’t right” to have “legitimate” Governments, (whatever they’re supposed to be) ?

      And finally, you’re claiming that if Oakeshott and Windsor had decided before Bandt and Wilkie, you wouldn’t be complaining ?

    • Nicole says:

      05:22pm | 11/09/10

      MarK, are you going to Oakeshott’s public meeting? If so, can you save me a seat? I just need to work out if I should bring my pillow or match sticks.

    • jeffb says:

      05:42pm | 11/09/10

      MarK, ofcourse noone has a mandate from the electorate to form government unilaterally. Thats obvious to everyone isn’t it? But now that a minority government has been formed that doesn’t really mean alot outside the government of the day will have to negotiate a significant amount of its legislation rather than the way it normally works.

      TimB, those who voted for independents got exactly what they voted for, someone who will stand up for their seat ahead of party interests.

      Out of curiotsity, lets see how the numbers at the AEC add up right now,

      Labor/Greens: 6,170,165   versus   LNP: 5,408,153

      Looks like everyone can pull out some dodgy numbers to support their position.

    • Gerard says:

      07:40pm | 11/09/10

      A valid point TimB, but the same objection applies: if the people of Lyne and New England wanted an independent who supported the coalition, they would have voted for an independent who supported the coalition.

      As far as I’m aware, neither Oakeshott or Windsor declared support for the coalition prior to the election, therefore any assumption that they would support a coalition government was only speculation. As voters didn’t demand a statement of support for a party before electing Oakeshott and Windsor, it would seem that they were elected for their experience and political wisdom (or lack thereof), and that the electorate was broadly apathetic about the candidates’ preference for either party.

      I think the real issue here is the point at which an electorate needs to accept the judgement of their representative. Should Oakeshott and Windsor apply their mandate to use their discretion, or do what the electorate is telling them at this point in time, egged on by the media?

      I’m not saying they made the right decision or the wrong one (both parties are so terrible they might as well flip a coin), but I think they have been subjected to far too much criticism over this- especially in comparison with members of the major parties for whom the interests of the electorate always come a distant last behind those of faction, party, donors and rich mates.

    • MarK says:

      10:16pm | 11/09/10

      @Nicole - wouldn’t miss ot for the world.

      Will be very scripted though.

      You have to send in questions to the paper who will pass them on for him to answer so I really don’t know what we will get. I just hope we get to ask some questions from the floor but am not holding my breathe.

      We will see.

    • Peter Coom says:

      11:14am | 11/09/10

      Obviously Godalmighty hasn’t checked the AEC allocation of preferences to reveal that the 2PP vote again favours the Labor Party

    • Godamighty says:

      03:50pm | 11/09/10

      Apparently PC found something unsatisfactory in my 2PP summary - “Right now, Labor is ahead. Likely to stay that way…though the final margin’ll be slim.  Pretty well Even Steven then.”

      Well, fine, I guess, his opinion differs - somehow. Mine stands. The final margin, to the ALP, will likely be slim. For the Lib/Nats to claim 2PP victory is just nonsense.

      Next, TB. His grand claim is to speak for the minds of all the electors of two seats. Hardly realistic. Besides, elected members have a duty to their electorate - not just their “supporters” - and to our country as a whole. The Independents have taken that responsibility seriously.

      So we do indeed have a totally legitimate (and practical) government, and it is not only “right”, but pretty well exactly right.

      Lastly, “mandate”. Meh. The electors cast an even result. Our system provides for just such circumstances. Result, after negotation: just enough “mandate” to form a legitmate workable minority government.

      We’ll just have to get on with what we’ve got. A working democracy.

    • nosthow says:

      12:46pm | 11/09/10

      Ms Gillard is more than up to the task aided hansomely by Abbott and his “time warp” team who might even look out of place in the 1950’s. No policies and no vision for Australias future hence Abbott failed to win the unloseable election against a weakened Labor. When the afterglow fades Coalition supporters will realise they have a party thats not relevant to Australia led by a sad little man who will fade from our minds and dissapear down the political sewer. Gee I am being nice to the Coalition today - wont happen again ! And fancy the Coalition taking tobacco company money - shame Abbott shame !

    • MarK says:

      10:17pm | 11/09/10

      Duse you posted this in the other thread. I mean come on a copy paste of a pointless article is just silly.

    • Richard says:

      03:40am | 12/09/10

      Tony Abbott emerges with extra credibility from these recent negotiations. Mr. Oakeshott praised Abbott publicly and he was subsequently reelected opposition leader unopposed. He commands the confidence of almost half the house and even Bob Brown is willing to collaborate with him on some issues. History has prepared his stage, a new great icon of of our era has arrived.

    • Eric says:

      09:01am | 12/09/10

      Who, exactly, said the election was “unloseable”?

      I think you just made that up, nosthow.

    • nosthow says:

      09:15am | 12/09/10

      @MarK - come on have a big sook Marky - if I had written a glowing piece on Abbott you would be full of praise.

    • MH says:

      02:48pm | 12/09/10

      Allow nosthow his moment, MarK.  For the next 3 years he gets to gloat; for the remainder of his natural life he must suffer the sad limits of his tiny brain. 

      Nosthow, I await your scything response.  Don’t forget plenty of exclamation marks, superfluous quotation marks and quirky spelling errors.  For the coup de grace, you might want to try some masterful CAPS.

    • nosthow says:

      04:06pm | 12/09/10

      @MH - thank you MH for those choice comments - but small correction - not 3 years - most likely SIX TO NINE years old fella !

    • Against the Man says:

      12:56pm | 11/09/10

      Lets keep it simple:
      1) Back stabbed Ruddy - Strike 1
      2) Failed to win a majority government and loss many, many seats - Strike 2
      3) Failure to keep this minority government functioning for 3 years (and we know this will happen) - Strike 3
      Gillard’s place in history next to Rudd’s as failure is sealed.

    • Against the Woman says:

      03:33pm | 11/09/10

      Let’s keep it simpler:
      1) Back stabbed Turny - Strike 1
      2) Failed to win a majority government - Strike 2
      3) See point 2 - Strike 3

    • jeffb says:

      05:29pm | 11/09/10

      I wonder where that leaves Abbott? Failed to win against, as he says, “the most incompetent government in living history”. That says alot about Australias opinion of him…

    • nosthow says:

      06:54pm | 11/09/10

      @Against the Man - lets keep it even simpler my friend :
      1/. Abbott failed to win the election - he lost.
      2/.  oh there is no 2

    • Against the Man says:

      09:00pm | 11/09/10

      Gillard didn’t win the election either, she is a fake PM after all…...........

    • darryl says:

      01:01pm | 11/09/10

      Gee , how quickly did the libs turn on the independents that didn’t back them ? “If your’e not with us your’e against us ” . Those words were spoken by George W and seem to be the mantra of ultra right parties around the world . This born to rule mentality and genuine astonishment that everybody doesn’t agree with them all the time on all matters is the absolute reason why they didn’t get a majority . Even after all of Labors stuff ups (and there is quite a long list of them) the coalition still could not inspire a win but showed that their failure to capitalise was worse. So what we have now is an incompetent government , a negative opposition and a country in real trouble . And while the coalition believe they are a government in exile stabilty is an issue as they seek to put party before country .

    • D.B. Cooper says:

      02:17pm | 11/09/10

      The parental leave scheme could be a winner for the ALP rather than a debacle.Big business hated Abbott’s scheme as they had to pay, so if it went through Gillard says we’ll pass it and we’re happy with it. Big business squeal, she says it’s what the LNP would have done. the punters are happy with the extra cash.once it’s in place it’ll be hard to remove and Abbotts stuck with it. A great socialist idea from the conservatives.

    • Ryan says:

      05:05pm | 11/09/10

      Lets hope this “new paradigm” don’t kill another four or even more innocent kids.

    • Frank says:

      05:21pm | 11/09/10

      You lost again, get used to it.

    • steve says:

      06:55pm | 11/09/10

      Wilkie and Oakeshitt will be the spoilers - mark my words!

    • Northern Steve says:

      07:38pm | 11/09/10

      Nothing says ‘Education is important’ like making Garrett minister, hey?
      Do you think he’ll put as much effort and rigour into it as he did his previous portfolio?
      Would have liked to see Crean stay in the role.

    • Mayday says:

      09:46am | 12/09/10

      Garret will be in line for the brickbats that come out of the wash up of the BER.
      He didn’t squeal when the Insulation Program was blamed on him even though Rudd was made aware of the problems.
      History could be set to repeat itself as he takes the heat for the Prime MInister’s stuff up!

    • Scarneck says:

      02:20pm | 12/09/10

      I find it more interesting that extremely high on the PM’s agenda is education reform, Julia obviously has far more respect for Mr Garrett than others might believe.

    • Northern Steve says:

      10:31pm | 12/09/10

      Mayday - could be right there
      Scarneck - Education might be high on her agenda, but she’ll have to do better than the effort last term.  Wanting to attract high-quality people into teaching while spending most of her time denigrating teachers publicly seems to me to be a little counter-productive.  A lot of her policies will actually result in broadening disadvantage, not reducing it. A chat to people at the chalkface would be a start.

    • MarK says:

      10:13pm | 11/09/10

      Err just read the update

      “Update 2pm: Julia Gillard has named her new ministerial team. It includes Kevin Rudd as PM, Stephen Smith in Defence and Simon Crean heading a new regional affairs ministry. “

      I know Kevvie probably still has ambitions but Gillard giving up so easy was a surprise raspberry

    • Sven Gali says:

      01:23am | 12/09/10

      They’ve put Machiavelli to shame this time ! Oh well, at least all of the Coalition supporters who’ve been shedding crocodile tears for him will be thrilled to have him back.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      10:27am | 12/09/10

      I found myself wondering what Crean had done to deserve his particular purgatory. He will be hammered by the independents when Gillard does not deliver.

      I can just see him trying to explain why NBN does not mean fibre for some electorates .

    • Scarneck says:

      02:23pm | 12/09/10

      I wonder how Simon Crean feels getting the ministry that Oakeshott rejected, like that John West Fella!

    • Rick says:

      11:49pm | 11/09/10

      The power for a Labor Prime Minister to select the cabinet without a vote by caucus is now established and yet some journalists still seem to regard it as a election by election proposition.  In fact after the 2007 election the caucus voted to enshrine this practice in the caucus rules.  While in theory it is possible for caucus to rescind this practice it is highly unlikely that it will ever do so. Taking the power back from a person endorsed as Leader, after a successful election, and who therefore becomes Prime Minister will just not happen.

    • Gerry says:

      01:43am | 12/09/10

      Momentum, even from the narrowest of wins, is a powerful force and can obscure reality, so when the voters reward an incompetent Government with another term of power, instead of being put in a position of being in opposition and having to take stock and make hard decisions to reorganise to try and get power back, they are then given carte blanche to do just the opposite, so that nothing really changes.

      Hence people who would normally be under the microsope for being part of a bad Government are not only let off the inspection but are even rewarded.

      Rudd, Garrett, Wong are the 3 biggest examples, but there are others.
      They all failed last time around, what makes anyone think they wont fail again?
      Gillard missed a huge opportunity to actually act and convince us that there has been a change, when quite obviously there has been none at all.
      That is far more likely to cause problems for Labor than the independents, eventually even the faithful will see through the spin.

      You never see football or sporting teams run this way (apart from North Sydney Rugby League team, and no surprise thay are no extinct), but then their is not preferential voting involved in winning sporting contests.

      Regardless of who you support we have encouraged bad performance and the odds are we will simply get more of the same.

    • Amy says:

      09:10am | 12/09/10

      “Update 2pm: Julia Gillard has named her new ministerial team. It includes Kevin Rudd as PM…”

      I think you left out the part where it was 2pm, sometime in 2007…

    • Bob H says:

      11:15am | 12/09/10

      It is scarey that Australia is run on random MBA w@nkwords.  Join the dots leadership will not serve Australia well in a competitive global economy.

    • Ben in Canberra says:

      09:15am | 13/09/10

      Whatever diplomatic and good governance kudos this country had with our Asian neighbours has been destroyed by two things. Firstly, the knifing of Rudd by the ALP factions to secure another term in power completely negates the moralistic high ground we have rightly used to point the finger at Fiji, Thailand and Malaysia when they have had political strife.

      Secondly, appointing Rudd as the foreign minister smacks of crony capitalism in the eyes of our nearest neighbours, particularly Indonesia.

      Whatever middle power status we had accumulated in our region has been dissolved in the course of two months at the hands of the incompetent ALP.

      They have never understood foreign policy, and Gillards replacement of the most competent Labor foreign minister in a generation, is testament to that.

    • Denny says:

      11:49am | 13/09/10

      did anyone see the papers today about Sutherland hospital’s extra ‘beds’. They were recliner chairs man. Staff were quoted as saying they were let down by the ALP. Wow ALP lets down health care I never saw that coming. Gillard has already failed.

    • n_dude says:

      03:25pm | 13/09/10

      Sorry, but that is funded by the state and not federal government. Funny how you use something as trivial and stupiud as this to blame on the federal government. I mean there are plenty of other areas to criticise and blame.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JoshuaWithers: Have you seen the Australian version of Breaking bad? He get's cancer and Medicare covers his costs and the series ends.

Paul Colgan

How the totally awesome weather in Australia recently is hurting retailers http://t.co/4dvDwDlNZG

Paul Colgan

Hell, your name is Excel and Powerpoint.

Anthony Sharwood

Great fun yarn by @the_mattyoung and @DebKillalea. What the hell annoys you about the evening commute? http://t.co/Eyi82lHiBQ

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter