By political reporter James Bennett Sunday 1 February 2015

YouTube: Abbott: Lessons to be learned from Queensland election

Photo: Tony Abbott has told reporters he is determined to stay on as PM (ABC News)

Related Story: Abbott 'terminally wounded' after LNP's 'catastrophic' Qld rout: MPs

Related Story: Senior MPs rally behind PM amid leadership speculation

Tony Abbott says he remains determined to continue as Prime Minister, in spite of reports the Queensland election result has doomed his leadership.

Some federal Coalition MPs have described the LNP's loss in Queensland as "catastrophic" for the party and potentially terminal for Mr Abbott's leadership.

Queensland MPs Jane Prentice and Warren Entsch have both said there now need to be "discussions" about the issue, but Tony Abbott says he will not resign.

"The people of Australia elected me as Prime Minister and they elected my government to get on with the job of governing our country," he told reporters in Sydney today.

"The important thing is not to navel-gaze, it's not to look at ourselves, it's to get on with the job of being a better Government."

Mr Abbott attributed the LNP's Queensland defeat to state issues, but did acknowledge that his decision to knight Prince Philip had hurt Campbell Newman's campaign.

"It was a distraction for a couple of days, I accept that and I very much regret that," Mr Abbott said.

Earlier Federal Attorney-General and Queensland senator George Brandis moved to quash speculation of a challenge to Mr Abbott's leadership.

"The Cabinet is determinedly, unitedly and strongly behind the Prime Minister," Senator Brandis said on Sky News this morning.

"There is absolutely no appetite among the vast majority of my colleagues for this issue to arise or even to be visited."

Abbott's approval rating just 27 per cent: poll

A Galaxy poll published today in News Limited newspapers has Labor leading the Liberal-National Coalition 57 points to 43 on a two-party preferred basis.

Mr Abbott's personal approval rating is just 27 per cent.

While also backing the Prime Minister, another Queensland Liberal, Warren Entsch, this morning said the leadership needed to be addressed.

"I think there's some more discussions that need to be had," Mr Entsch said.

"I'll certainly be part of those discussions."

Mr Entsch also conceded that the Prime Minister's decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip had played a part in the LNP's loss in Queensland.

"People certainly suggest knighting the Duke of Edinburgh did not go over well in Queensland and it may have influenced some people's vote," he said.

Senator Brandis was more forthright, describing the knighthood issue as a "dangerous distraction" in the final week of campaigning.

"That one issue created a distraction that caused the Newman Government to lose momentum," he said.

Senator Brandis acknowledged that the result would have "federal implications", but firmly rejected suggestions it would bring the leadership issue to a head.

"The Prime Minister has the overwhelming support of the party room.

"There is no widespread appetite in the Liberal Party for a leadership change.

"We would be crazy to repeat the experience of the last Labor government, which failed because it tore down an elected leader."

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss this morning conceded the federal Coalition had to learn from the election result.

"That agenda has been frustrated in the Senate because many of the good things we wanted to do we haven't been able to," he said.

"On the other hand we need to do more to explain to people at the federal level that we have delivered."

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has told the ABC's Insiders program that there were "federal issues at stake" in Queensland.

Mr Shorten said the leadership was "up to the Liberal Party", but said the result should be seen as a rejection of the Federal Government's policies.

"If they think it's the salesman, not what they're selling, then they will have learnt nothing."

From other news sites:

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Tony Abbott becoming Liberal wrecking ball
• The Guardian: Tony Abbott is making exactly the same mistakes Campbell Newman did
• News.com.au: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
• Yahoo!7 News: Not looking good for Abbott
• Adelaide Now: Abbott on the brink: Disaster poll and shock Queensland result fuel leadership rumblings

Tony Abbott says he will not resign in wake of LNP's Queensland rout; result described as 'catastrophic' by federal MPs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Lenore Taylor, political editor Sunday 1 February 2015

The PM, like the defeated premier, has squandered the electorate’s trust, with broken promises and harsh policies not mentioned before the election. They thought slogans, rather than explanations, would convince voters

Campbell Newman and Tony Abbott in Canberra last May. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

When Campbell Newman called the Queensland election it was clearly a test run for the federal Coalition’s political strategy. That test run has been a smash-up.

Like Newman, Tony Abbott has been selling voters the message that “tough” decisions – even unpopular ones – are necessary in the national interest. And he’s been banking on those voters ultimately deciding that Labor, who they so recently rejected at the ballot box, is ill prepared and too much of a risk.

He’s also made exactly the same mistakes that meant, for Newman, that strategy didn’t work. He’s squandered the electorate’s trust, with broken promises and harsh policies not mentioned before the election. He’s falsely believed that slogans, rather than painstaking explanations, would convince people to accept his policies.

Live Queensland election: Palaszczuk says she will govern for all of Queensland – live

Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk says the final result will not be known for a few days but voters have sent a message. Follow the day’s developments here

Read more

Newman seemed to think Queenslanders would come around if he just said the word “strong” lots of times. The Abbott government seems to have the same expectations of the phrases “debt and deficit disaster” and “cleaning up Labor’s mess”. But those phrases do not substitute for clear explanations about why the federal government thinks its chosen spending cuts are the best and fairest ways to improve the budget bottom line.

And, like Newman, Abbott seems to be banking on reminding voters of Labor’s past failures, and asserting that Labor does not have a plan. Ominously for him, the Queensland result showed that, when they are sufficiently angry with the incumbent, voters are prepared to risk an alternative leader who seems solid, even if they aren’t visionary and don’t have inspiring alternative ideas.

Federal factors did play some role in the Queensland result – even though Newman called his election in the Christmas holidays to get away from them, and both major parties concentrated on state themes. The fact that the federal Coalition managed to talk about the goods and services tax, the Medicare co-payment, industrial relations changes, knighting the Queen’s hubby and its own leadership woes in just over three weeks when most of them were on leave really beggars belief.

But the biggest question now is whether Abbott can overcome the political factors thrown into stark relief by Newman’s failure. Has he still got the authority and the trust to make the case for the agenda he will outline to the National Press Club on Monday? Has he got the ability to explain, not in sound bites, but it in a way that respects the intelligence of the electorate?

The Queensland result will loom large in the way the federal Coalition party room answers those questions.

Tony Abbott is making exactly the same mistakes Campbell Newman did | Australia news | The Guardian

By political editor Chris Uhlmann 1February 2015

Photo: Coalition MPs say the talk now is about the "timing and method of Tony Abbott's execution" (AAP: David Crosling)

The rout of the Liberal National Party in the Queensland election is being described as "catastrophic" by federal Coalition MPs, with some claiming the Prime Minister is now terminally wounded.

"All we are talking about now is the timing and method of execution," one Queensland MP said.

"This is catastrophic, unimaginable," said another.

Labor looks set to pull off a stunning victory in a cliff-hanger election, after securing a double-digit swing that has ended the political career of Premier Campbell Newman.

Labor is on track to claim 45 or 46 of the 89 seats in the state's parliament, after going into the poll holding only nine seats.

"My political career is over," Mr Newman told LNP supporters as he conceded defeat in his seat.

A senior federal Coalition source said the next move was Tony Abbott's.

"So far the chatter has been among privates and corporals," he said.

"It's a time for generals now. And a time for the general: Tony Abbott. He has to decide what's in the best interest of the party."

The ABC spoke to Coalition MPs and senators across the country, as all watched the most remarkable turnaround in Australian electoral history with growing disbelief and horror.

YouTube: Abbott's leadership "a discussion": Liberal MP

Liberal MP Jane Prentice said the party "can't continue as we are" and that Tony Abbott was "not taking the people with us".

Ms Prentice, the federal member for Ryan in the south-western suburbs of Brisbane, made the comments while appearing on ABC TV's Queensland election panel.

"Tony has said he has listened and learned. He is making a keynote speech on Monday at the Press Club, but we can't continue as we are," she said.

"I think that's the lesson from today."

Mal Brough reportedly urged to challenge for leadership

A Coalition minister said all eyes would now be on federal and state LNP MPs, who he feared would unload on the weakened Prime Minister in the wake of the Queensland poll.

A number have suggested former Howard government minister Mal Brough is the one most likely to break ranks and take aim at Mr Abbott.

Fairfax Media reported Mr Brough was being urged to challenge Mr Abbott, to bring the leadership chatter to a head.

Other MPs said he would simply make a statement that laid part of the blame for the loss at the federal leader's feet, adding to the momentum building against him.

Mr Brough did not respond when contacted by the ABC.

Our leadership change addiction

Scott Bowman writes that ongoing calls for the axing of first-term leaders sabotage the integrity of the country's political system.

 

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said the Queensland election was a "terrible result" but cautioned restive federal Coalition MPs against repeating the mistakes of the past.

"If you behave like the Labor Party at the last election, you will be treated like the Labor Party at the last election, and you will be annihilated," Mr Joyce said.

"You don't usurp the right of the Australian people. They don't like it."

Another MP said that the party's only choice was to make a change or risk the same fate that befell the Coalition governments of Queensland and Victoria.

There would only be three credible candidates to replace Mr Abbott as leader: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull; and Social Services Minister Scott Morrison.

None of these contenders has been agitating for change, or courting numbers.

Although Ms Bishop has been touted as the most likely to take over, there is an emerging consensus Mr Turnbull has the best chance of recovering the Coalition's position; because he has the most fully formed public image.

It has been suggested the Prime Minister is safe because there are three contenders, because it is assumed they will fight among themselves for the top job.

However, the three are quite close and it is possible they could come to a consensus on who should lead.

Preferred option for Tony Abbott to stand down

The strong suggestion in the wake of the Queensland vote is that none of them would launch a challenge, as the preferred option is for Mr Abbott to stand down.

"I think the first response has to come from him," one senior Coalition MP said.

"He has to, in his mind, resolve what is in the best interest of the party and the country."

But if that decision was to stay on as leader, then the party would have to respond to it, he said, which suggests the Prime Minister's future is no longer his decision alone.

The National Party MPs and senators do not get a vote in a Liberal leadership ballot and one said the party would not countenance anything that smelled of chaos.

If there was a messy leadership spill it might threaten the Coalition, he said.

The Prime Minister is preparing for a major speech on Monday, which is supposed to set out the Government's agenda for the year.

Now it looms as another exercise in damage control.

News Limited papers reported Mr Abbott was preparing to dump his signature paid parental leave scheme as a sign he was willing to listen and make compromise.

Asked about the policy, Mr Abbott said: "Look, I said before Christmas, we'd be scaling it back ... I'll have a bit more to say on PPL in the next day or so".

One MP said if Mr Abbott did not dump the policy in his speech on Monday, he would be carried out of the Press Club "in a box".

LNP rout in Queensland 'catastrophic' and leaves Tony Abbott terminally wounded, federal Coalition MPs say - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political reporter Andrew Greene 31 January 2015

Photo: Tony Abbott has been defending his performance as Prime Minister as former rival Malcolm Turnbull gave a speech on what makes a strong leader. (AAP: Alan Porritt, Dan Himbrechts)

Related Story: Abbott declares himself a 'good captain' of the Government

Related Story: Abbott puts PPL redesign at top of Christmas list

Related Story: PM succumbs to pressure over paid parental leave

Senior government figures are rallying behind Tony Abbott as speculation about the Prime Minister's future intensifies.

Coalition MPs are continuing to express dismay at the Government's performance under Mr Abbott's leadership, particularly his recent decision to award a knighthood to Prince Philip.

Meanwhile, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has outlined the qualities of a good leader in a speech in the United States.

Speaking to reporters in Geelong, the Prime Minister said he was continuing to do the job Australian voters elected him to do.

"Look, the public elected the Government, the public elected a Prime Minister," he said.

"I will spend myself in the service of the Australian people."

Parliamentary Secretary Steve Ciobo said he had not received any calls from colleagues discussing the Prime Minister's future.

"I don't believe that Julie Bishop or Malcolm Turnbull are phoning anybody," he said.

"There's some speculation by some media commentators and no doubt there's some disaffected members and the Labor Party is doing everything it can do, as you'd expect an opposition to do to fan fuels and fan gossip."

In a speech to the US-Australia Dialogue conference in Los Angeles, Mr Turnbull underlined the importance of strong leaders

"Leaders must be decision makers, but they must also be, above all, explainers and advocates, unravelling complex issues in clear language that explains why things have to change and why the Government too cannot solve every problem," he said.

More to say on parental leave in coming days: PM

The Prime Minister's office has refused to say whether Mr Abbott's signature paid parental leave (PPL) policy could soon be dumped, insisting changes to the controversial scheme were still being finalised.

The contentious $20 billion scheme that Mr Abbott has taken to two elections is unpopular among many MPs in the Coalition party room.

Government sources said the PPL policy was continuing to be fine-tuned, with the Government looking to do more to improve childcare access and affordability in a new families package.

Photo: Tony Abbott's signature paid parental leave scheme is in doubt. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Treasurer Joe Hockey told reporters on Friday the cost of the policy was being taken into account.

"We've got to be able to fund whatever families package we have and I'm working with the new minister in that regard and obviously with the Prime Minister," Mr Hockey said.

Mr Abbott is putting the final touches on his much-anticipated address next week to the National Press Club in Canberra.

He will use Monday's speech to outline the Government's priorities for the year ahead, which will focus on jobs and families.

The Prime Minister side-stepped questions about the specifics of the PPL scheme, telling reporters he was continuing to fine-tune it.

"Look, I said before Christmas, we'd be scaling it back ... I'll have a bit more to say on PPL in the next day or so," he said.

Morrison 'continuing' discussions with PM

The ABC has been told a final decision was yet to be made on whether to delay the planned start date for the PPL scheme, which Mr Abbott had promised would begin in his first term.

On Thursday, Social Services Minister Scott Morrison said he was continuing discussions with the Prime Minister about the policy.

"Every measure I'm looking at has to pass one test: does it improve participation in the workforce, does it get people involved? I'm having a very close look at that," Mr Morrison told Macquarie Radio.

"The Prime Minister and I have obviously had a lot of discussions about how we take our families package forward and we'll continue to work on that."

Mr Ciobo said the Coalition was focused on being financially responsible.

"We said we wanted to restore the nation's finances, now that's the biggest challenge that we've got. That's what we're trying to undertake," he said.

"Ultimately whatever the Prime Minister decides and collectively the Coalition decides in relation to each specific policy, it will be on the basis of what we believe to be in the national interest and what's affordable."

Senior MPs rally behind Tony Abbott amid leadership speculation; future of paid parental leave in doubt - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Paul Sheehan January 28, 2015

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he will learn from the uproar that bestowing an Australia Day honour on Prince Phillip caused.

• Pressure mounts on Tony Abbott
• Comment: Liberals could turn to Turnbull
• 'Abbott factor' to hit state election campaign

"I'm determined to learn from all of this," the Prime Minister said of his self-immolating lapse in anointing the Duke of Edinburgh with an Australian knighthood, which compounded the adverse impact of the anachronistic, self-indulgent, zero-upside honours system he introduced in his first year.

Abbott is unlikely to learn from this, other than to become even more cautious and robotic. You cannot learn what you refuse to know. He is a bulldog who will not let go of a course of action which, without an end to his bunker insularity, and a change in his relationship with the electorate, will see him removed either before the next election or at the next election.

His party is already moving. The phones are running hot. They will not turn to the deputy leader, Julie Bishop. It will be Malcolm Turnbull.

The seeds of this unnecessary damage were sown a long time ago. Why did Senator Nick Minchin, the senate opposition leader who engineered Abbott's elevation to the party leadership, step down as senate leader within months of Abbott becoming leader? Minchin would leave politics altogether a year later, for a variety of reasons.

Without Minchin, Abbott would never have been leader. Without Minchin, or the gravitas of a Minchin equivalent, Abbott is not going to survive his present course.

Why has the likeable, knockabout Abbott turned into Gillard II? The public never bought Julia Gillard's robotic prime ministerial persona, or the manner by which she took power, which guaranteed her demise long before it happened.

We all thought the toxic leadership turmoil of Labor's six years in office protected Abbott from an early political death. It still does, but less so now. Australian politics has become conditioned to flux. And electoral survival trumps everything else.

The irony is that, in policy terms, Abbott has been a better leader than the man who Australians want to replace him with: Bill Shorten. The Prime Minister has achieved much despite the scorched-earth majority in the Senate, while Shorten has been rewarded for his empty opportunism. And for being Not Tony.

Abbott can beat Shorten, just as he beat Turnbull, Hockey, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, and the global warming lobby, all while being caricatured and underestimated.

But he cannot beat the combination of Robotic Tony and Bill Short-term.

A Coalition government with a clear, cut-through, waffle-free narrative can carry the day at the 2016 election, even if it cannot carry a blocking Senate where power is controlled by one-termers who fluked their way into Parliament on preferences despite tiny primary votes.

Which leads me to Australia Day, when a woman delivered the sort of speech that has been missing from Australia's political leaders: "The global economy is still sluggish, there is still enormous global economic volatility, and our geopolitical environment is very fragile on so many fronts. If all this doesn't constitute a burning platform, I'm not sure what does …

"The policy ambition we've become accustomed to won't be sufficient … We will need a decade of unprecedented policy action by government, and leadership and risk-taking by business … Our politicians across all parties have to prepare the community for the enormous, social and economic change that must take place in our society."

The speech was given by Jennifer Westacott, chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, who understands that Australia's commodity boom was one-in-a-century opportunity which is going to be replaced with either higher productivity or lower living standards. It's one or the other.

It looks like lower living standards. Even when the commodities cycle turns, and prices move upwards, producers won't be flocking to Australia to build multibillion-dollar projects. Australia will not see another mining boom, or any other boom, under current laws and practices.

Instead of galvanising to meet this challenge Australians have shown an opposite intent. They want Labor back in power in Canberra, with more government spending, given that Labor has taken a comfortable and consistent lead in the polls by opposing every attempt to cut spending. It even opposes cuts it proposed when in office.

In Victoria, voters have put Labor back into office despite the certainty that it meant a return to power of the corruption-riddled Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union. One of the first moves new Premier Daniel Andrews made was to dismantle the construction code set up to combat rampant intimidation in the building industry.

In Queensland, Labor has promised to repeal the anti-bikie laws, because the CFMEU, as in Victoria, hates laws that impinge on its ability to deploy bikies as enforcers on building sites.

In this broad context of national denial, Abbott's honours mistake is a mosquito bite. He has a problem but the fixation on his foibles is another sign that Australians prefer avoiding the real drama the country is facing. That narrative has yet to be properly framed by our politicians. It is too dangerous.

Tony Abbott has much bigger problems than a rogue knight

Shalailah Medhora Thursday 29 January

Prime minister’s move to award a knighthood to Prince Philip was ‘pathetically stupid’ and threatens his leadership, says conservative commentator

Tony Abbott has made a ‘friendless decision’, says Andrew Bolt. Photograph: Wayne King/AAP

Tony Abbott’s decision to grant a knighthood to Prince Philip “verges on fatal” for his leadership, the conservative commentator Andrew Bolt has said.

Bolt told Macquarie Radio on Wednesday night he was “flabbergasted” by the knighthood decision.

“This is just such a pathetically stupid – gosh, I didn’t mean to be that strong because I actually like Tony Abbott very much – but this is just such a very, very, very stupid decision, so damaging that it could be fatal,” Bolt said. “I thought it was verging on fatal already but this is too much.

“This is a friendless decision, where his friends would feel stupid defending it,” he said.

A Channel Seven ReachTel poll showed more than seven out of 10 Australians opposed the knighthood decision.

The survey of nearly 3,700 people found only 12.1% supported the move to honour the British monarch, which Abbott announced on Australia Day.

A total of 71.5% of those surveyed opposed the move. More than half of those who listed themselves as Coalition voters thought the knighthood was a bad idea.

Abbott polled behind both Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop as preferred Liberal leader. Only 18% backed Abbott, against nearly 45% for Turnbull and 30.5% for Bishop.

Nearly 62% of respondents said Abbott’s performance as prime minister was poor or very poor. Just under 22% said it was good or very good, and the remainder said they were satisfied with his performance.

The Liberal backbencher Dan Tehan welcomed Abbott’s promise to consult more, and said there was room for the Coalition as a whole to lift its game.

“The buck stops with all of us and we shouldn’t forget that. I mean, the performance of the government, we are a team. We are a party,” Tehan told the ABC.

Voters were not exactly sold on Bill Shorten, either. Just over 27% said Shorten’s performance as Labor leader was good or very good. More than 38% said his performance was poor or very poor, and nearly 36% were satisfied.

The knighthood decision has sparked a barrage of criticism levelled at both Abbott and his chief of staff, Peta Credlin.

Abbott’s mentor, the former prime minister John Howard, relayed concerns from the party room about Credlin’s influence in decision-making, Fairfax Media reported.

On Wednesday the News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch called for Credlin to “do her patriotic duty” and resign as chief of staff.

The parliamentary secretary Alan Tudge said criticisms of Credlin and Abbott were a distraction. “People aren’t concerned with the internal machinations of the prime minister’s office,” he said.

The finance minister, Mathias Cormann, told ABC radio on Thursday morning the prime minister had “learned his lesson” on not consulting the cabinet about the knighthood decision.

He downplayed growing calls for Abbott to be replaced as leader. “The prime minister enjoys the strong support of his party room. He enjoys my very strong and unequivocal support,” Cormann said. “He is the best person to lead the Liberal party, to lead our country.”

Tony Abbott's knighthood decision 'verges on fatal', says Andrew Bolt | Australia news | The Guardian

Gabrielle Chan Wednesday 28 January 2015

• Swing voters angry at Medicare co-payment and university fees
• ReachTEL survey will increase unease among backbenchers
• See full poll data

• Cormann denies tension over Abbott leadership

Prime minister Tony Abbott will try to reboot the government’s agenda with a speech in Canberra next week. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Coalition MPs are trailing in eight of 11 marginal seats held by the government, new polling shows, with swing voters turned off by the government’s two key budget policies of a Medicare co-payment and university fees.

The ReachTEL polling was conducted in January for the activist group Getup. It shows significant numbers of undecided voters in 11 marginal seats with strong resistance to two issues: the Medicare co-payment and university deregulation, both of which have yet to pass the Senate.

The polling was conducted on 21 January, after the government backed down on planned cuts to Medicare rebates for GP consultations shorter than 10 minutes but before the controversial decision by Tony Abbott to award Prince Philip a knighthood.

The Coalition still plans to go ahead with what has been widely known as a Medicare co-payment which effectively cuts the doctors’ rebate by $5 for adult non-concession patients. GPs are likely to pass on the cost.

The poll results will increase the pressure on nervous backbenchers in the government party room just as the prime minister is set to deliver an important address to the National Press Club next week to reboot the government’s agenda.

The poll surveyed 7,368 people, including 742 undecided voters, in the seats of Barton, Eden-Monaro, Dobell, Reid and Banks in NSW, Petrie and Capricornia in Queensland, Lyons in Tasmania, Solomon in the Northern Territory, Hindmarsh in South Australia and Deakin in Victoria.

In the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro in southern NSW held by Liberal MP Peter Hendy, the Coalition is trailing Labor on a two-party-preferred basis by 38.8% to 47.7%, with 13.5% undecided.

Among those undecided voters in Eden-Monaro, 66.7% strongly oppose or oppose the government’s plan to introduce a Medicare co-payment. Of those undecided voters, 53.8% said the co-payment would make them less likely to vote for the Coalition at the next election.

Eden Monaro has swung towards the elected government since the 1970s.

In the provincial Queensland coastal seat of Capricornia, held by LNP MP Michelle Landry, the Coalition is trailing Labor on a 2PP basis by 43.5% to 51.4% for the ALP. Already in the grip of a state election, the polling results show the fewest undecided voters in any of the 11 electorates, at 5.2% of those polled.

One in three undecided voters polled in Capricornia said they were less likely to vote Coalition as a result of the Medicare co-payment, while 38.9% said they were less likely to vote Coalition due to the deregulation of university fees.

Also in Queensland, in the outer metropolitan seat of Petrie held by Liberal MP Luke Howarth, the Coalition is trailing Labor by 43.7% to 50.4%, with 5.9% undecided.

In the Tasmanian electorate of Lyons, held by Liberal MP Eric Hutchinson, Labor leads on a 2PP basis by 47.9% to 43.6%, with 8.5% undecided.

While it is usual for there to be high numbers of undecided voters so far out from an election, the co-payment and university deregulation still loom large for undecided voters, eight months after the budget that revealed the changes.

And four months before the next budget, the measures have yet to pass the Parliament.

Getup campaigns director Mark Connelly said the polling bore out the distaste for the federal budget, which was widely seen as unfair by voters.

“Australians are angry about these policies across the board, but it’s especially strong among the swing voters who will decide the outcome of the next election,” said Connelly.

“These policies are an attack on the Australians who do most of the working and paying and living and lifting in our communities. It’s no wonder Liberal backbenchers have been getting an angry earful about the GP co-pay and university deregulation from their voters. Now these numbers back up those backbench concerns.”

Coalition MPs trail in eight out of 11 marginals as budget issues bite, poll says | Australia news | The Guardian

By Mungo MacCallum Tuesday 27 January 2015

Photo: The boss of the Productivity Commission, Peter Harris, knows the monster he has unleashed with the inquiry. (Alan Porritt: AAP)

The Productivity Commission inquiry into employment laws may not literally lead to WorkChoices, but it could look like a bloody good imitation of it. This could end in tears for Tony Abbott, writes Mungo MacCallum.

It's back! After more than seven years in exile, the malign spirit of WorkChoices is once again stalking the land.

Actually it never really went away: Tony Abbott said repeatedly that the policy was dead, buried and cremated but somehow its stubborn ghost has remained un-laid.

Abbott has himself mused, unwisely, that WorkChoices was not all bad. His right-wing warriors have been more direct; in the parliament, in the business community and in the media they have spruiked for at least some aspects for it to be resurrected. And for the unions and their allies, the mere mention of the words "labour market reform" is enough to raise the spectre in its fearsome entirety.

The boss of the Productivity Commission, Peter Harris, knows the monster he has unleashed. He insists that he is interested in busting the myths, and that WorkChoices was done in 2012 - although its demise really came straight after the 2007 election.

"We're not here to do it again," he insists somewhat plaintively. "We're here instead to examine the effectiveness of the system in terms of the whole of the system."

Well, perhaps, but the immediate reaction of the players was that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is unlikely to resemble a pet budgerigar. Indeed, it is far more probably a predatory vulture in camouflage.

And it must be said that the Commission's own items for consideration tend to confirm the view. At the top of the list are the minimum wage, penalty rates and unfair dismissal laws. Let's face it, would be remarkable indeed if the Commission's review recommended increases in the rates of the first two and the untrammelled retention of the third. And beyond them is the threat of tinkering with enterprise bargaining and the furthering of individual contracts. This program is potentially very radical indeed; if it is not literally WorkChoices, it is a bloody good imitation of it.

According to the employers, this is as it is meant to be.

And many, if not most, conservatives agree: it's a no brainer. Cutting wages and conditions leads to more jobs, end of story. Well, up to a point. Taken to its logical conclusion this chain of reasoning leads to universal slavery, thus providing work for all, whether they want it or not. But not even the free-market zealots of the Institute of Public Affairs are advocating that - at least not in public, not yet.

There has to be a recognition that the jobs do not entail abject poverty, and this has been the view in Australia since 1907. In that year Justice Henry Higgins in the newly formed Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and laid down what he termed the basic wage as "the normal needs of the average employee regarded as a human being in a civilised community." And, importantly, he emphasised that this was not to be determined on the profits of the employer.

In those days it was taken for granted that the average employee was a man with a non-working family. These days the minimum wage of $16.87 an hour is not generally considered sustainable, to use one of Abbott's favourite words, to support a whole family without a second income or supplementary assistance. Nonetheless, the pressure is on to reduce it further.

And as for penalty rates, in 2015 people eat and drink, shop and pay for entertainment all week and on holidays; why should the employers have to pay their workers extra to accommodate them? True, it works for the customers but that is just the point. The customers go out at weekends and holidays because they can - because those are their days off. The vast majority still work five days a week; they include most factory workers and office workers and just about all students.

Clocking in at weekends and holidays is not the norm, and is not likely to be for a very long time.

Those who are required - or choose - to work during those hours expect to suffer a disadvantage, and therefore expect compensation.

Abbott thinks this is unreasonable: "If you don't want to work on a weekend, fair enough; don't work on a weekend," he advises somewhat smugly. But it isn't as simple as that: in many businesses both big and small the staff are expected, demanded, to follow the rosters set by the boss. And if they don't, my way or the highway. This applies particularly to so-called "permanent casuals", who have no choice at all.

Abbott complains that the Melbourne hotel in which he stays has closed its dining room on Sundays because of penalty rates. Well, perhaps if the owners don't want to pay to open on Sundays, fair enough; don't open on Sundays. And it is worth remembering the that the profit share of the economy continues to rise with or without penalty rates. Abbott can choose from plenty of other establishments to indulge his culinary preferences.

Expect the debate to continue more or less acrimoniously from the moment Peter Harris prematurely released his press release (a week before the Queensland election - Campbell Newman was not amused) until the Commission's deadline in November. Then Abbott and his ministers will have to decide what to do with it, and on present indications it will not be pretty as they seek a new mandate in 2016.

If they squib on the recommendations, they will be excoriated as gutless by business and its factional warriors, but unless Abbott has regained a lot of political capital in the coming year, they will have no choice. The alternative would be a reprisal of Howard's suicide pact of 2007. And in any case, running dead would probably not help; when it comes to election promises Abbott has form, and Labor will constantly tell the voters that he has another hidden, savage agenda ready if he is re-elected.

Abbott has, belatedly, redeemed one pledge from 2013: he has set up the Productivity Commission inquiry. And this may well turn out to be yet another promise that will end in tears and recriminations.

Mungo Wentworth MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator.

The ghost of WorkChoices is summoned - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By ABC's Marius Benson Tuesday 27 January 2015

Photo: The year Tony Abbott needed to establish as a fresh start has seen the decline in the Government's fortunes. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

This Australia Day is likely to stand out as a key moment in the fortunes of Tony Abbott's leadership, and he can't afford another "captain's call" like making Prince Philip a knight, writes Marius Benson.

Richie Benaud, a great cricket captain, maintained that when you were deciding on tactics, a key consideration was to assess what your opponent did not want you to do.

What did they fear, what course of action would they prefer you to take, what would they rather you did not do.

Tony Abbott is now in the unhappy position that Labor would probably prefer that he stay where he is. That the Coalition cause will be hurt by him remaining as leader, rather than having a change at the top.

It is a dangerous point in the declining political fortunes of a politician who is widely regarded as close to the most successful opposition leader Australia has seen.

The leadership is now a position under active discussion. That discussion began through the long months of declining polling fortunes of 2014 and it has only been growing. First, occasional private mutterings of politicians and journalists, some public questions, publicly dismissed and matched by equally public declarations of loyalty.

For all those public expressions of support 2015 had to be a turning point, as Mr Abbott conceded as he tried to hit the reset button with a ministerial shuffle and some new policy gambits. The Medicare forays were wildly unsuccessful, by the time the second backflip had been reversed nobody could decide where the Government was standing and Mr Abbott wryly conceded the whole affair had been "a bit inelegant".

The low ground of late 2014 was beginning to look like the lofty heights from the trench that was being dug through mid-January. Then came Australia Day. A nation, a political nation, which had argued the merits of Government policy and the selling of it, was brought to a halt by the decision to make Prince Philip a knight of Australia. That announcement was met with genuine disbelief, demands echoed around newsrooms that the source be checked. A short silence followed, then countless Australians rocked with laughter. Mr Abbott became an object of ridicule and there is no more damaging commodity for a leader.

And the PM was the source, apparently the sole author of the knighthood. The move brought open dissent from within his own ranks, quite apart from the ridicule heaped on it in social media and traditional media as the topic was taken up at Australia Day gatherings across the country. The knighthood was a "captain's call" in Mr Abbott's phrase, the latest in a series that goes back years to the original Paid Parental Leave policy.

Mr Abbott has made the point in recent days that the one clear lesson of recent political times is that you do not change leader. But that is not quite the lesson of the Rudd-Gillard circus. The lesson is narrower, more specific than that. It is that you do not change the leader without bringing the public along with you. The change can be slow, in the Keating-stalks-Hawke mould or abrupt as in the resignation of Barry O'Farrell, who resigned immediately after it was found he had misled a state corruption hearing over a gift of a bottle of Grange.

Those leadership changes were a political plus because the public felt it was a legitimate transition. The knifing of Rudd in 2010 is clearly the gold standard for how not to get rid of a leader. That was an exercise in number crunching by faction leaders in rooms that were once smoke-filled. But that bad example has not, as Mr Abbott appears to be arguing, inoculated all future leaders against any challenge.

It is remarkable that while at the beginning of last year Mr Abbott's Government was still surfing the wave of electoral success, just 12 months later the question is whether his leadership is doomed.

Broadly the process of toppling the leader - apart from the sudden scandal exit of the O'Farrell type - can be seen as a staged process. There are maybe 15 stages, although the arithmetic is not precise. Through the Medicare inelegance up to mid-January Mr Abbott was probably at something like 3.5 along that continuum. That is a stage where there are stories of backbench discontent, well sourced, but anonymous, public declarations of loyalty mixed with some concessions about untidiness, a disquiet that extends beyond the leader's known, active enemies. The leader's role is, at this stage, to express impatience with unsourced stories, brushing them aside to concentrate on "things that matter to Australians".

But on Australia Day Mr Abbott vaulted along the road to non-leadership, approaching double figures on the progress to the exit door. Politics is not a science, it is played out at a level of uncertainty that makes the quantum world look like clockwork. But the evidence of discontent, growing discontent, is unarguable.

Government members are now publicly criticising Mr Abbott. Fairfax papers are reporting North Queensland Liberal National MP Warren Entsch saying: "I can't understand why" Mr Abbott decided to honour a British royal. "For the life of me I can't understand why Prince Philip. I've got a dozen people in my electorate, any one of them would be more worthy." Mr Entsch added that he was "not pushing for a change in leader, I'm looking for significant change in leadership."

It is remarkable that while at the beginning of last year Mr Abbott's Government was still surfing the wave of electoral success, just 12 months later the question is whether his leadership is doomed. One key consideration in answering that is another question: "If not Tony Abbott, who?"

Mark Kenny was reporting on the Fairfax site three days before Australia Day that right wing figures in the Liberal Party were overcoming their animosity to Malcolm Turnbull, but for some a Labor government is still preferable to a Turnbull return, for now. Julie Bishop is a shining star of the Government, although starring as Foreign Minister, where most policy is not in dispute or of marginal impact, is easier than selling the domestic policies that have stalled the Abbott administration.

Joe Hockey's stocks have fallen more steeply than the Prime Minister's in office. And Scott Morrison, while seen as a star performer, runs fourth out of four in public polling on alternative leaders.

Is there a way back for Mr Abbott? Of course, the future is never certain. But the year he needed to establish as a fresh start has seen the decline in the Government's fortunes deepen. And it is hard to turn that around if you are trying to sell policy initiatives while all the questions are about your latest perceived gaffe.

This Australia Day is one that is likely to stand out as a key moment in the fortunes of the leadership of Mr Abbott. His Prime Ministerial stocks have never been lower and he can't afford another misjudged "leader's call". And Labor seems content to see him stay just where he is.

Marius Benson can be heard covering federal politics on ABC NewsRadio Breakfast each weekday morning.

Australia Day a tipping point for Abbott - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Anna Henderson and Alexandra Kirk Tuesday 27 January 2015

Photo: Prince Philip's Australian knighthood has reignited internal criticism of the PM (Paul Edwards: Reuters)

Related Story: Cabinet ministers lambast PM over Prince Philip knighthood

Related Story: Angus Houston, Prince Philip named Australia's newest knights

Two Federal Government frontbenchers have defended Prince Philip's contribution to Australia, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott faces an internal party backlash over his decision to grant the British royal a knighthood.

Mr Abbott's move, revealed on Australia Day, has both puzzled and angered many of his colleagues keen for the Government to start the year on the front foot.

But frontbench Senator Michaelia Cash has described Prince Philip as "extremely deserving" in terms of the contribution he has made through schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh awards.

"The backlash will be the backlash. Some people don't agree with the decision," she said.

"I'm all about celebrating. I choose to celebrate achievements. And both Angus Houston [also knighted on Australia Day] and Prince Philip have significant records of community service when it comes to the Commonwealth and Australia."

She described the controversy over the decision as a "small distraction" from the bigger picture for the Government.

This morning senior minister Mathias Cormann dodged questions about whether the Prime Minister made the appropriate decision.

"I'm not a commentator. That was a decision that was made by the Prime Minister," he told the AM program.

"Prince Philip has made a significant contribution in Australia. He's made a significant contribution in particular to the Duke of Edinburgh award, to the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Australians."

Queensland MP says 'didn't believe' announcement

Yesterday, Cabinet ministers told the ABC they were bewildered, angered and dismayed by the award of a knighthood to the duke.

Two Queensland coalition MPs have broken ranks to publicly criticise the move, which other MPs have called "a stupid announcement", "beyond ridiculous" and "another error of political judgment".

Coalition MP Ewen Jones said he agreed governors-general could be eligible to be made knights or dames, but not British royals.

"I didn't believe it," he said.

"I thought of all the things we could do on Australia Day ... Townsville's citizen of the year was a 50-year volunteer of the Girl Guides. I think there's a lot more for Australia that she's done than Prince Philip."

But Mr Jones does not think the decision reflects on the Prime Minister's political judgment or on the Government.

"Everyone knows that Tony Abbott holds the monarchy very close to himself," he said.

"This is a captain's pick in which he's made it very clear that this is what he wants to do. This has nothing to do with Government policy; it has nothing to do with process.

"This is something that Tony believes we as a nation need to do. I disagree, but I don't think this shows that he is disconnected from the Australian people at all.

"Would I have done it? No. But do I object to him doing it? No, I don't object to him doing it."

MP says decision adds to 'downward spiral'

Another MP was more forthright, saying the announcement took the edge off what could have been a good message for Australia Day and showed the Prime Minister's misunderstanding of where Australia is at.

The MP said it was "a stupid announcement" and "manifestly amazing in the worst possible way".

He said "it just adds to the downward spiral" because, while MPs are giving their "unswerving support" to Mr Abbott, "he comes up with Prince Philip".

Abbott royally stuffs up knighthoods

Tony Abbott runs Australia with a backdrop of kitsch 1950s nostalgia, and with the appointment of Prince Philip as Australia's newest knight it is obvious the PM has missed the mark, writes Darrin Barnett.

 

A second Queensland MP, Warren Entsch, said "for the life of me, I can't understand why" Mr Abbott decided to honour a British royal.

Another MP said "everyone's scratching their heads" at "another error of judgment", adding tongue in cheek that it was appropriate in the centenary of Gallipoli for the Prime Minister to keep blowing the whistle, ordering troops to keep going over the top "only to face certain annihilation".

"Beyond ridiculous" was yet another Coalition response.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon said Prince Philip already had "every title under the sun".

"This is a bit like giving Bill Gates an abacus," he said. "I don't know what he's going to do with it."

Senator Xenophon said he did not see any upside to the Prime Minister's decision to reinstate Australian knighthoods.

"When the Prime Minister made this announcement about a year ago, I thought it was wackily quaint and anachronistic," he said.

"But now it's just become an acute embarrassment, just plainly ridiculous

Prince Philip 'extremely deserving' of Australian knighthood says minister; PM facing continuing backlash from party colleagues - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political editor Chris Uhlmann, staff Monday 26 January 2015

Photo: Prime Minister Tony Abbott says social media criticism of the move to knight Prince Philip is akin to "electronic graffiti". (AFP: Leon Neal)

Related Story: Angus Houston, Prince Philip named Australia's newest knights

Related Story: NT Chief Minister says knighthood for Prince Philip 'makes us a bit of a joke'

Some of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's most senior colleagues are bewildered, angered and dismayed by his decision to award an Australian knighthood to Prince Philip.

Prince Philip and former Defence Force chief Angus Houston were named Australia's newest knights today, under an honours system reinstated by Mr Abbott last year.

Cabinet ministers have told the ABC the Prime Minister did not consult any of the leadership group before announcing the move.

Mr Abbott agreed it was a "captain's call", saying he consulted only with Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove and Order of Australia chairman Sir Angus.

Ministers said they would have opposed the knighthood, if asked.

One described it as a "stupid" decision that would make the Government an object of ridicule.

YouTube: Abbott defends 'captain's call' of knighthood for Prince Philip

Another said the Prime Minister's colleagues were willing him to succeed, but he had started the year badly and had made the job of trying to lift Coalition's electoral credibility just that much harder.

"There is an old saying that when you are in a hole you should stop digging," one minister said.

"Well, we've just punched through the Earth's crust."

Another Coalition MP said the move reinforced the left-wing caricature of the Prime Minister: the appointment harked to Australia's past and the opportunity of making a positive statement about the future on the national day had been squandered.

The private anger of Coalition MP's and ministers was given public voice by the conservative chief minister of the northern territory, Adam Giles.

He said that when he read reports of the Prince's knighthood this morning he wondered if he had woken on April Fools' Day.

"It's Australia Day," he said. "We're not a bunch of tossers, let's get it right."

The move to award an Australian knighthood to the Queen's husband has also been criticised by republicans, with former Western Australia premier Geoff Gallop calling it a "sad reflection" on Australia.

Abbott royally stuffs up knighthoods

Tony Abbott runs Australia with a backdrop of kitsch 1950s nostalgia, and with the appointment of Prince Philip as Australia's newest knight it is obvious the PM has missed the mark, writes Darrin Barnett.

 

And it drew fire on social media from commentators including Canberra press gallery veteran Laurie Oakes, who tweeted: "Libs must wonder who can help a PM apparently determined to be seen as a joke. #jokeknighthood".

Answering questions about the decision at an Australia Day event in Canberra today, Mr Abbott said he was "really pleased" the Queen had accepted his recommendations on the knighthoods and added that whilst the Duke had not called to say thank you for the honour, he did not "expect gratitude".

And he said social media criticism of the move was akin to "electronic graffiti"

"I think that in the media, you make a big mistake to pay too much attention to social media. You wouldn't report what's sprayed up up on the walls of buildings and look, as I said, social media has its place, but it's anonymous," he told reporters.

"It's often very abusive and in a sense, it has about as much authority and credibility as graffiti that happens to be put forward by means of IT."

Mr Abbott said he stood by the decision to award the knighthood to 93-year-old Prince Philip because "the monarchy has been an important part of Australia's life since 1788".

"Prince Philip has been a great servant of Australia, he's been a great servant of all the countries of the Commonwealth.

"Here in this country he's the patron of hundreds of organisations. He's the inspiration and wellspring of the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards which have provided leadership training for tens if not hundreds of thousands of Australians over the years.

"I'm just really pleased that in his 90s, towards the end of a life of service and duty, we in this country are able to properly acknowledge what he's done for us."

Asked how widely he had consulted before making the decision, Mr Abbott said: "As you would expect, I consulted with the Chairman of the Order of Australia, and I consulted with the Governor-General. That's what you would expect."

Asked if Prince Philip was a "captain's pick" for the award, Mr Abbott said "I'm not going to dispute your characterisation" before calling for questions on other topics.

Shorten says award for British royal 'a time warp'

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, who yesterday called for a renewed debate on Australia becoming a republic, said giving a knighthood to an English royal on Australia Day was outside the mainstream of Australian thinking.

"It's a time warp where we're giving knighthoods to English royalty," Mr Shorten told Fairfax Radio.

"On Australia Day, we're talking about Australia, Australian identity, the Government's managed to find a British royal to give a medal to, a knighthood to."

He said that if Labor won office it would not continue the tradition of knights or dames.

"When we look at Australia in the 21st century, it's about who we're going to be as a people and I just think giving out a top award to a British royal is anachronistic."

Prince has 'long relationship with Australia'

Earlier the head of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Professor David Flint, said the knighthood was an appropriate recognition for Prince Philip's "long relationship with Australia".

"He was a sailor in the convoys that protected Australian troops being taken to the Middle East in the Second World War," Professor Flint said.

"He was also in the Pacific Fleet and he was actually in Tokyo Bay at the time the Japanese surrendered.

"He opened the '56 Olympics, he's got a very long relationship through the Duke of Edinburgh Awards scheme."

But Mr Gallop said Mr Abbott's decision to start awarding Australian knighthoods had "heavily polluted" the Australian honours system.

"As we try to reflect upon our nation ... one of Australia's highest honours goes to someone who's not part of our community," he said.

"In effect this is the eccentricity of Tony Abbott's views on our constitution coming through.

"It certainly doesn't reflect the view of the Australian people through a meritocratic process."

Famed for his off-the-cuff quips and gaffes, Prince Philip, who married Queen Elizabeth in 1947, is the longest serving royal consort in British history.

The Queen once described him as "my strength and stay all these years".

But the duke, a constant presence by his wife's side throughout her six decades on the throne, has suffered a series of health scares in recent years.

Tony Abbott under fire from Cabinet colleagues over decision to grant knighthood to Prince Philip - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Paula Matthewson Monday 26 January 2015

Photo: Tony Abbott will attempt to wrangle the complex issues of taxation, workplace relations and federation. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Tony Abbott would be crazy-brave and bordering on foolish to takes proposals to expand the GST and change workplace relations laws to the next election, writes Paula Matthewson.

While it's true that a week is a long time in politics, and politicians' careers can be made or unmade in the course of a day, there are still some things in the political domain that tend to follow the same pattern over the years.

One such thing is the cyclical approach taken by governments, particularly those that are new, to what should be done over the course of an electoral term.

Traditionally the first year is when exclamations are made about budget black holes, the other side's profligacy and the need for "tough decisions" to be made. This is the best window for implementing such decisions, thereby giving time for voters' memories to fade before the next election.

The mid-term period is for developing and implementing the government's new policy initiatives. Any contentious matters should be dealt with well before the final 12 months of the electoral term, leaving that year for the government to hand out goodies at the pre-election budget and focus on the re-election campaign.

The Abbott Government has adopted this approach, as did the Howard and Rudd-Gillard governments before it. In fact, the first Howard government budget is considered to have been tougher than the one handed down by Treasurer Joe Hockey last year, although certainly not as unfair.

This strategy becomes difficult when governments have only three-year terms, leaving only 12 months or so to undertake policy reform. That's not a lot of time to research, consult, negotiate and formulate draft legislation, let alone get it through the parliament.

We saw this with key policies implemented by the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Gonski education reforms. Both were initiated during Labor's first term under Rudd but not implemented until the second term under Gillard.

Perhaps the need to have more than one term to put policies in place is why voters have traditionally been disinclined to toss out first-term governments. That of course assumes voters support an incumbent government's policy agenda.

The Abbott Government is now well into its mid-term, and is receiving considerable pressure from corporate and other business sectors to reform taxation and workplace relations laws. However, these are not reforms the broader Australian community necessarily supports, and it doesn't seem likely the Government will be able to convincingly explain them to a public already made cautious and sceptical by last year's budget.

Until now, Abbott's reform plans have assumed his government would be given at least two electoral terms. The PM has consistently stated that following inquiries into taxation and workplace relations laws, and public discussion of the issues, he would take any proposals about changing the GST or labour laws to the 2016 election.

In fact, Abbott may even be depending on this plan to revive his flagging leadership. It has become folklore in Liberal circles that PM Howard revitalised his electoral standing in 1997 with his "bold" tax reform strategy, which delivered victory at the 1998 election. Others argue the GST almost lost Howard the election.

Granted, business and welfare groups were both calling for taxation to be reformed then, as they are now, but it was a huge risk for Howard to take a new tax (albeit one that replaced 10 others) to an election. Abbott may think he can emulate this feat but he should keep in mind that taxation reform (and a possibly expanded GST) is not the only policy minefield he is trying to navigate during this mid-term period.

Abbott is also trying to meet demands for workplace relations reform from a business community grown impatient and frustrated by the previous Labor government's dismantling of Howard's WorkChoices: a policy reform, it should be remembered, that Rudd and the union movement used to bring Howard down in 2007.

Taxation, workplace relations, and also the nature of our federation - these are the complex and fraught policy reform agendas PM Abbott is attempting to wrangle - within the confines of this mid-term period, which for all intents concludes at the end of 2015. Meantime, Abbott is also trying to draw a line under the previous, tainted budget while positioning the upcoming budget as being about jobs and families.

Aside from its evident lack of humanity, the biggest flaw in last year's budget was that it tried to do too much, too fast. Abbott's policy reform agenda is similarly defective. The PM has only this year to get his policy reforms under way, but he mustn't lose sight of the need to get re-elected in order to implement them.

In pursuing what are likely to be major reforms on both the taxation and workplace relations fronts, Abbott is inviting his opponents to run a double-barrelled scare campaign against him. The 2007 federal election as well as recent state elections in Victoria and Queensland show how formidable Labor can be when it campaigns closely in association with the labour movement. The next federal election will be no different.

Howard almost lost, or only just managed to win, his second term of government by taking a new tax to the election. He lost his final election thanks to a masterful campaign by Labor against his workplace relations reforms.

If Abbott takes proposals to expand the GST and change workplace relations laws to the next election, he will be combining the electoral risks that Howard chose to face individually at two separate elections. Abbott would be crazy-brave, bordering on foolish, to think he could win an election proposing both.

Paula Matthewson is a freelance communications adviser and corporate writer. She was media advisor to John Howard in the early 1990s.

Abbott navigates his crucial 'year of reform' - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Lenore Taylor, political editor Friday 23 January 2015

Governments must be open-minded and listening to win public support for reform, but the Abbott government has been neither

Abbott has squandered the most important commodity necessary to achieve change. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Are we really back there again? Ministers putting on their best serious face and declaring their leader is not electoral poison. Colleagues “backgrounding” the obvious fact that he is. A government paralysed by policies it cannot legislate and a backlog of big ideas but no political capital to push them through.

Yep, we are back there. But let’s forget this horribly familiar scenario for a second and imagine that a new prime minister dropped in from outer space and delivered the agenda-setting press club speech Tony Abbott has scheduled for 2 February.

In my view, he or she would probably raise at least some of the same things Abbott intends to. Australia does need to reduce spending over time. We do need to overhaul the tax system, since much of our budget dilemma is due to declining revenue. Our population is ageing and that fact does raise big policy questions. Our federal system is dysfunctional.

But Abbott has a major disadvantage compared with the imaginary alien leader. He has already squandered the most important commodity to achieve any change at all – trust. Voters have to believe a government is open-minded and listening before a major policy can be debated. The government has to actually BE open-minded and listening to win public support for reform. The Abbott government has been neither.

The consequences are clear in the response to the Productivity Commission review into workplace relations. The employment minister, Eric Abetz, is now reassuring everyone it will be fair and factual and listen to the views of “all parties”. But his government responded to allegations of corruption in some unions not by referring them to the police, but by launching a sweeping royal commission into all unions. It has happily ignored recommendations it doesn’t like from other evidence-based Productivity Commission inquiries (like the need to conduct proper cost benefit analyses before promising huge amounts of money to infrastructure projects). It has made its views on industrial laws abundantly clear. Of course the unions don’t trust the process. And it’s not clear the government will have the authority to convince the public to trust it either.

Abbott will use his speech to lay out his plan for the year. He’ll talk about the “families package” in the budget, taking money from his paid parental leave scheme and using it to pay for more flexible childcare subsidies. He’ll talk about the soon-to-be-released tax paper, which will open every can of worms – superannuation tax breaks, broadening or raising the GST and the prospect of personal income tax cuts. He’ll probably talk about the intergenerational report, also out soon, and all the challenges as the population ages.

But his government already ambushed Australian voters with previously-unmentioned health, education and welfare changes in last year’s budget which were decisively judged to be unfair.

And he and his ministers have spent the past year ignoring, defunding and sidelining groups that advocate for the poor, the sick, the disabled and disadvantaged.

The Australian Council of Social Service wrote to Abbott early last year proposing that he set up a welfare advisory body, similar to the business advisory group headed by Maurice Newman that was up and running within three months of the election. It still hasn’t received a response.

The government abolished the Social Inclusion Board, the National Housing Supply Council, the Prime Minister’s Council on Homelessness, the National Policy Commission on Indigenous Housing, the National Children and Family Roundtable, the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing and the Immigration Health Advisory Group, citing “red tape”. It has cut $270m in funding to other community organisations over four years, including from groups that advocate for the homeless, refugees, youth and the disabled.

It has abolished the Climate Commission and rewritten funding agreements with community legal services to prevent them from advocating for changes to laws that affect their clients.

To political warriors, refusing to hear or offer assistance to those who might challenge your ideas and arguments probably seems an obvious course. But for a leader who really wants to have a debate, rather than just impose an outcome, it’s dumb. It leads to bad policies and an erosion of the confidence and trust that are necessary for lasting political success.

It also lets political opponents off the hook. Just as Abbott used former prime minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax “lie” to delegitimise all she undertook and stood for, Bill Shorten is using the electorate’s disillusionment and suspicion of Tony Abbott and this government’s broken promises to undermine the prime minister’s standing on whatever new subject he touches.

Debating big, necessary questions – like tax, or workplace laws or federalism – and taking the result to the next election is the right thing for a government to do, if it is willing to listen to all sides of the argument.

But Coalition MPs are worried that their government will be fighting rather than debating, and on too many fronts, and in front of an electorate that has already stopped listening.

They can see that last year’s “reboot” was just spin. The prime minister has made it clear he thinks the problem is not the policy but the sales job – he just needs to “skite” more.

Some are despairing, and are increasingly willing to say so to any journalist who calls (anonymously of course). But they don’t know what comes next. If pressed they mutter something about how things have to get better soon, or after the budget, or by later this year.

This is not dissent fuelled by rival leadership contenders, and the two most likely alternatives – Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull – are politically close. There is no plotting, although there are “what if it came to that?” conversations, and some careful bridge-building between former factional rivals in case the time does come.

Overwhelmingly, Liberal MPs are trying to send the prime minister a message because they are still willing him to restore the government’s fortunes, and his own.

They want him to know they are dismayed by the policy flip-flops, for example over the Medicare co-payment. They remain resentful of the influence and control exercised by Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin, and the narrow sources of advice reaching the prime minister’s ears directly. They want him to outline a 2015 agenda he can actually deliver.

But to achieve any of it, he can’t “crash through”, he has to rebuild trust. And that requires an approach this government may really find alien.

Tony Abbott's trust deficit disaster is paralysing his government | Australia news | The Guardian

Hundreds of people have gathered in western Sydney to protest against French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which published an image of the Islamic prophet Mohammed after jihadists murdered 12 staff members.

Police said about 800 people attended the rally, organised by controversial Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir outside the Lakemba railway station at sunset.

Four people were arrested and 10 were removed from the area for breaching the peace, Campsie Local Area Commander Superintendent Michael McLean said.

Many of the protesters held placards pledging their love for the Prophet Mohammed, who was depicted on the magazine cover holding a sign displaying the words "Je suis Charlie".

Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi said Muslims had a duty to respond to the magazine.

"It is unacceptable for a Muslim to remain silent in the face of the attacks on our beloved prophet," he said.

One speaker at the rally, Sufyan Badar, took aim at what he called the arrogant West.

Photo: Police said about 800 people attended the rally. (ABC News: Angela Lavoipierre)

"They force their world view onto us: 'We are the arrogant West and you Muslims have to accept our world view, you have to accept our freedoms ... to insult your prophet'," he told the crowd.

He dismissed the defence of freedom of speech.

"We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow," he said.

Superintendent McLean said most people at the rally were well behaved, but a small number were handing out offensive material.

"I won't comment on whether they were for or against the cause," he said.

"I took a view that those people who were removed or moved on were being somewhat antagonistic and I took a view that perhaps their safety was at risk."

"Je suis Charlie" became a popular message of solidarity, widely shared on social media and quoted at demonstrations around the world after terrorists attacked the magazine's Paris offices in early January.

The "survivors' issue" of the magazine, which had a print run of five million, sold out within minutes at newsagencies across France and was the subject of strong demand in Australia.

It caused outrage in some parts of the world, including in the west African country of Niger, where at least 10 people were killed and dozens of churches were burned in response.

Anti-Charlie Hebdo protesters in Lakemba take aim at free speech, 'arrogant West' at Hizb ut-Tahrir rally - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Dale Hughes  23 January 2015

Photo: When Tony Abbott won the Liberal Party leadership from Malcolm Turnbull, he didn't have the faith of the party; he had the timing. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Tony Abbott's problems don't centre around what he has or hasn't achieved in government, but with how he achieved the leadership in the first place, writes Liberal party member Dale Hughes.

The rumblings have started. Talk about Tony Abbott's leadership is growing louder, and disgruntled Liberal members are venting their frustration with the government's seeming inability to navigate a clear path.

I for one am underwhelmed with the government's performance thus far. As one Liberal voter reminded the Prime Minister on talkback radio this week, it's not so much the policies (although some have been ill-considered) but the botched sell and the backflips. Voters will generally accept that a government will experience difficulties from time to time, as long as there is a clear narrative and the ability to present it to the electorate in a logical manner.

As for members of the party, they are left with the job of defending the party brand in the face of criticism on the streets and in the community. It is reasonable to argue that the debt needs to be paid and that we need to live within our means, but the job is made much more difficult when the government doesn't stay the course, or when the Treasurer proves out of touch by saying that the poor "don't drive cars".

The people who hurt the most from a backflip or a gaffe aren't the general voters, but the members of the party that have pledged their allegiance to the government cause. They have the most to lose, for it's not only a matter of parochial interest, but pride that's at stake. It's not surprising that after a frustrating 2014, Liberal members are starting to voice their concern.

Did Liberal members dislike Malcolm Turnbull? Some did, but for the majority of the party base, no. Turnbull's problem was that he wasn't gaining traction.

That Abbott is currently experiencing dissent in the ranks is hardly surprising. Yet the root of his problems doesn't sit at what he has or hasn't achieved in government, but with how he achieved the leadership in the first place. Abbott's election as leader of the party in December 2009 was not the product of design, but circumstance.

The truth is, the Liberal Party has never handled being in Opposition well. There is a born-to-rule mentality ingrained in the party's culture; this is not necessarily a bad thing. The party is always looking for the leader to deliver it from the wilderness. The leader who will deliver power. Without power, the cause is worthless.

When Malcolm Turnbull was at the helm, the party was languishing in the polls and morale was low, as it appeared a foregone conclusion that Rudd would coast to victory at the 2010 election.

Turnbull's support for the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme was not popular within the party, as it was a massive concession to the government with little electoral gain. Hence Abbott's election as leader by one vote. It was never intended that Abbott would end up the face of the party, but that's how it played out.

David Marr, in his essay about Abbott, "Political Animal", recalled the day:

The party was almost as stunned as the nation. "God Almighty," one of the Liberals cried in the party room that day. "What have we done?"

Abbott didn't have the faith of the party, but he had the timing.

His performance in Opposition caused members to bite their tongue. Here he was, the man we all underestimated, getting under Rudd's skin and applying pressure on Labor for the first time. For Liberal pundits, concerns were brushed aside as Abbott came within a whisker of power in 2010. It's amazing what a sniff of victory can do.

That victory came in 2013. However the celebration was for the Liberals returning to power, not for the man at the helm.

Why? Because we also know an uncomfortable truth: Abbott is Prime Minister not because the voters wanted him, but because they didn't want Labor. As long as power was the end result, it didn't matter.

What we are seeing now is the inevitable playing out of a narrative where reservations previously left silent are now presenting themselves, as the reality sets in that the government's grip on power is slipping as it edges painfully to the 2016 election.

Leadership talk is occurring for one reason only: power, and the want to retain it. Did Liberal members dislike Malcolm Turnbull? Some did, but for the majority of the party base, no. Turnbull's problem was that he wasn't gaining traction. He would not be the leader to bring government, and that more than anything else brought about his demise.

Abbott delivered government. Yet now as the clouds set in and the weather changes, the question lies with whether or not he can retain it. Circumstance is what elevated him, and circumstance will bring about his demise. That's politics.

His leadership of the party hinges not on faith in the man, but delivery of power. For a party without power is a party without purpose, no matter who is at the top.

Dale Hughes is a member of the Victorian Liberal Party and a blogger at thoughthub.com.au.

The power politics of Tony Abbott's leadership woes - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)