The week was, at least according to the government, given over to the clash of high-minded policy and strategic vision versus muckraking, mendacity and malice. The government wanted to talk about its “Asian Century” white paper and all the opposition wanted to do was continue its fear campaign over the carbon price, talk down the economy and throw mud at the PM.
Luckily the government, which complained about the lack of opposition questions about Asian engagement (it being, Labor now seems to think, the opposition’s job to play along with the government’s political agenda), was able to fill in the blanks and ask itself plenty of questions about the Asian Century. In fact, they never seemed to shut up about it. The count on “Asian Century” was down to single figures yesterday, but that was by far the lowest of the week.
We’re again reminded that, even if it apes the content of Keating Labor’s time in government, this mob can’t get within cooee of the delivery. Exhibit 1 in the death of conviction politics.
Visibly puzzling over whether to stick with Tony Abbott’s obsession with the carbon price or move on from a tactic that seems decreasingly relevant, the opposition settled for using Julie Bishop — being a woman and all — to lead the attack … indeed, be the entire attack against the Prime Minister over claims she did something somewhere somehow illegal or unethical or ill-considered before she entered Parliament. Despite a new round of efforts from the media to pin something on Gillard c.1995 via The Age, no one has yet come up with a specific accusation of wrongdoing, funny business or inappropriate behaviour.
The automatic assumption behind this now-extended campaign of smears, vague claims and general hysteria from media new and old over Gillard’s legal career is that it is in the public interest. Are politicians accountable after they enter politics for everything they’ve done before they entered politics, even when no specific allegation of criminality or unethical behaviour can be produced?
When Abbott was attacked over what remain unsubstantiated claims about intimidating behaviour toward a woman back in the 1970s, I suggested dredging up stuff from before his time in politics, particularly when it was in the distant past, was inappropriate and in fact downright damaging to the quality of public life. But clearly many in the media disagree, and think claims about non-criminal behaviour in relating to non-political events from the past are relevant to current political debate.
In which case, one wishes they would at least be consistent. We never hear anything of Bishop’s activities as a lawyer representing CSR in its efforts to prevent asbestos victims from obtaining compensation. In the one mainstream media article on this, from The Australian in 2007, she maintained she acted honestly and ethically. Quite how one acts ethically in trying to deny the dying victims of a company fair compensation is of course a matter between Bishop and her conscience. But if we’re raking over what female lawyers did before they entered politics, then there you go.
There’s other forms of consistency as well. I’ve always wondered why no one in the mainstream media showed the slightest interest in one of the biggest scandals of the Howard government, when its advertising committee directed millions of dollars in advertising contracts to Liberal Party mates. That wasn’t the subject of newspaper tattle and online smears, but a devastating ANAO report, including about some MPs at that point still in Parliament. Barely a whisper outside of Crikey.
Still, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, etc.
In what was another dire week for the quality of our political and policy debate, the highlight — or highest lowlight, perhaps — was Greg Combet’s Coalition leadership form guide. Having handed off his favoured “mendacious” to the PM, Combet ran through the Coalition contenders from Turnbull through Hockey, Bishops both Julie and Bronwyn, Scott Morrison (“spooked by foreign horses”) and Kevin Andrews.
Carefully prepared and probably rehearsed, it was nonetheless a reminder of what seem now-fabled earlier times when wit occasionally intruded into Parliament, rather than meaningless repetition.
This week to me reinforced the thinking that the ALP is slowly but surely getting back in the game because Tony Abbott and the libs can’t get past the carbon tax and smear.
While BK is right that the oppostion doesn’t have to follow the govt’s agenda some questions on policy would be nice, after all the govt has the NDIS and Gonski in train, tabled legislation regarding poker machine reform, asylum seekers and their lost super amendments (amongst other things) and has a raft of savings measures resulting from MYEFO to get through but all we have had in QT for some time is power bill (which show if you use more power you pay more)and veiled accusations from 17 years ago.
On top of that we had Hockey challenging the govt to “debte the economy” when all he really wanted to talk about is the surplus and Tony and Ms Bishop still telling us they will have policies later on.
Another performance like this in the last sitting week and there will be planty of questions being asked by the liberal party big wigs over christmas.
All to often politicians who want to remain silent. Will remark that they can not discuss something because it is before the courts or under investigation. Politicians use the legal process as a shield to protect themselves from the slashing sword of political process. We have access to the admissions of retired lawyer and one tome partner of Slater and Gordon Juilar Gillard. That she helped with what she knew was a union “slush fund” even though it was represented as something else. Her refusal to answer the questions asked by Julie Bishop on the floor of our Federal Parliament. We understand all our elected representatives accept the higher standards expected of them when they accept they have been elected. Refusing to answer these questions relating to her personal values, and the way she conducts herself when in a position of trust. Our prime minister continuing to refuse to answer important questions for us on the floor of Federal Parliament demonstrates a certain contempt for our Federal Parliamentary process. Edward James
“..Are politicians accountable after they enter politics for everything they’ve done before they entered politics, even when no specific allegation of criminality or unethical behaviour can be produced?
When Abbott was attacked over what remain unsubstantiated claims about intimidating behaviour toward a woman back in the 1970s, I suggested dredging up stuff from before his time in politics, particularly when it was in the distant past, was inappropriate and in fact downright damaging to the quality of public life. But clearly many in the media disagree, and think claims about non-criminal behaviour in relating to non-political events from the past are relevant to current political debate…”
GOLD
[In which case, one wishes they would at least be consistent. We never hear anything of Bishop’s activities as a lawyer representing CSR in its efforts to prevent asbestos victims from obtaining compensation]
Well now, had absolutely no knowledge of this what so ever. In any language this is so unspeakable and totally bereft of any semblance of conscience. Is it any wonder people just get so sick and tired of politics when the main players set such an atrocious example right before our eyes.
@ Edward
What a load of old bollocks!
Gillard stood in front of reporters for 90 minutes and said “here I am, come and get me” and answered every single question without equivocation. In the end there was a big shrug of the shoulders and a ho hum.
Leave it to the faeces flingers of the LNP to continue their sordid little campaign… I’m not surprised really, it’s all they really seem to know.