By Mungo MacCallum Tuesday 31 March 2015

Photo: Prime Minister Tony Abbott faces the prospect of delivering two dud budgets with a third soft option in the election year to come. (Torsten Blackwood, file photo: AFP)

Abbott's chronicle of broken promises and policy retreats have made it impossible to regain the electorate's trust in the foreseeable future; indeed, he seems not even interested in trying, writes Mungo MacCallum.

After all the build up, ballyhoo and bluster, it turned out to be a bit of a fizzer: small NSW election, not many hurt.

As widely predicted Mike Baird, Australia's most popular leader (let's face it, Australia's only popular leader) won a very comfortable majority. Even the celebrations seemed a little muted; there were desultory chants of "four more years" and a flashing smile from Julie Bishop, but Baird's neighbour and somewhat distant friend Tony Abbott was not in attendance, preferring to indulge in his Lycra fetish somewhere in the deep south.

But he must have been mightily relieved; after the tsunamis of Victoria and Melbourne, a swing of a mere nine per cent in his own state could be, and will be, shrugged off as a win. In practice the result was right in the middle of the expected range - it restored respectability to Labor, but that was about all.

The new opposition leader Luke Foley gave all the TV appearances of being a personable and plausible candidate, but he did not, as they say, cut through; according to all the polls the voters retained serious doubts about privatisation and about Abbott, but they were not ready to forgive Foley's predecessors and former colleagues for their previous atrocities.

As a corollary, the Greens ended up outpolling Labor in a number of electorates and may have gained as many as two extra seats, one of them from what was considered safe National heartland in the Northern Rivers where I reside. The extraordinary and unprecedented push to resist coal seam gas simply swept the incumbents away.

But there was no state-wide movement; indeed, individual seats went all over the place, with Liberals actually gaining ground in some seats. Baird and his supporters are, as always is the case, claiming that their majority constitutes a mandate to go ahead with selling off the poles and wires, but in fact the circumstances make it clear that their demand is even more tenuous than usual.

For starters, the punters have made it abundantly clear that they just don't want it: they like Baird, but they also like the public ownership of assets and they would like to have both. Foley has promised to maintain his anti-privatisation stance, on the basis that if Baird has a mandate to sell, he has mandate to resist; and he has a point. New South Wales does not have a winner-takes-all system; that is the reason that we have a second chamber of government, the Legislative Council.

If the Coalition doesn't squeak through with an upper house majority there will be prolonged, bargaining, dickering, bribery and cajolery - far from the honourable campaign both the leaders praised on Saturday night. Mike Baird has certainly won the election, but he has yet to win the argument.

He has, however, been honest and upfront about it, which is where Tony Abbott comes in. Comparisons, Dogberry famously pointed out, are odorous, and those related to our prime minister are particularly smelly. Abbott's chronicle of broken promises and policy retreats have made it impossible to regain the electorate's trust in the foreseeable future; indeed, he seems not even interested in trying.

In parliament last week he flatly denied that he had ever said that an outcome of some 50 to 60 per cent of debt over GDP would be a pretty good result. In fact there was not only a crowd of witnesses but the transcript from his own office to attest that he had, which means that our prime minister is, in the delicate words of Winston Churchill, either labouring under a misapprehension or perpetrating a terminological in exactitude: or to put it more plainly, he is either a fool or a liar, if not both.

Neither will inspire confidence as his government prepares for the string of hints, softening up, kite flying and leaks, both contrived and malicious, which will traditionally take place over the next five and half weeks before the hapless Joe Hockey reveals his second budget. And when he does, it seems hard to see how it too, can be anything but an anticlimax.

It is improbable that it will be an inspiration to excite the imagination of the millions; instead, we have been promised, it will be dull - no excuses, no surprises. And indeed it seems that the goodies - a bit of childcare for the punters, a small tax cut for small business - have already been unwrapped. The children have not exactly been overwhelmed with delight and gratitude, and but even if they get the odd stocking filler in May, they are not going to be satisfied.

They will want more, and if there is any vestige of economic responsibility remaining in the treasury coffers, they just won't get it. There are unlikely to be tough decisions; indeed, given Abbott's self-contradictory rhetoric since the return of good government there may not be any serious decisions at all. But there won't be any bonanza either, such is the imperative from the Coalition's bankers and brokers.

So, two dud budgets with the certainty of a third soft option in the election year to come. And they called Malcolm Fraser's time the wasted years; at least he left a legacy, albeit one the Libs have never really appreciated. So what is Abbott's own memorial likely to be? Abolishing a couple of necessary taxes, increasing debt and deficit with no real prospect of an end ("as soon as possible," in Hockey's latest never-never forecast) and, of course, stopping, or rather re-stopping, the boats.

Against that miserable record even Mike Baird's Clayton's privatisation of leasing 49 per cent of the state's poles and wires can be spun as reform and has been, while Abbott just goes on pedalling madly towards nowhere in particular. You would have to wonder why he bothers; or why his colleagues continue to put up with it. Or, for that matter, why we do.

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator.

Tony Abbott faces his own 'wasted years' - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Laura Beavis Tuesday 31 March 2015

Photo: Senator Lambie has applied to form her own political party, called the Jacqui Lambie Network. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Related Story: Lambie offers support to former PUP colleague from hospital bed

Related Story: Lambie outplayed Palmer and should not be underestimated: confidant

Related Story: Lambie denies Palmer claim she 'infiltrated' PUP to 'blow it up'

Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie has applied to register a political party called the Jacqui Lambie Network with notices of her application to register the party appearing in Tasmanian newspapers this morning.

Burnie-based Senator Lambie split from the Palmer United Party last November.

The AEC has run ads about the party registration in Tasmanian newspapers and people have until the end of next month to lodge objections.

The advertisement lists the "proposed registered officer" as Jacquiline Lambie and the abbreviated party name as JLN.

Senator Lambie said JLN would start by focusing on recruiting candidates to run for Senate spots, but would field candidates for both federal and state elections.

She said she wanted to establish her own political party to give "ordinary Australians" a chance to enter politics.

"First and foremost I want these people to be able to put their state first. I don't want people dictating to them on how they should vote ... and I want them to be able to make sure that their state always comes first and their country right next to that," she said.

"That's why it's called a network, it's not called a group or a party. I want people to keep their individuality. I want them to do the best possible job that they can.

It's a matter of marketing and selling and obviously I've become a brand name in itself.

Jacqui Lambie, Tasmanian Independent Senator

"Running around as an independent costs a lot of money. It doesn't matter how hard you try, when it comes to taking on the major parties, money-wise, you can't compete with them."

Senator Lambie said she wanted to make the most of her high profile.

"It's a matter of marketing and selling and obviously I've become a brand name in itself."

"Clive's (Palmer) very much into micromanaging and it spells disaster and (if you are) going to pick people up willy-nilly, you've got to have people who are interested and have their heart in it."

Jacqui Lambie Network:

• Will focus on Senate seats initially
• Claims many are interested in running
• Candidates will put local issues above party loyalty
• Veterans and serving members of ADF will be of "special interest"
• Will oppose formal or informal imposition of Sharia Law
• Will introduce financial transaction tax
• Will call for establishment of national apprenticeship scheme

Senator Lambie does not have to prove to the Australian Electoral Commission that her party has 500 members because she is already a member of Parliament.

Phil Diak from the AEC said the process for setting up a party is different for members of Parliament compared with a grassroots movement.

"By law members and senators who are sitting in the parliament do not need to have 500 electors on the electoral roll to accompany their initial application," he said.

ADF veterans and serving members of 'special interest'

Senator Lambie said the Jacqui Lambie Network's first and key platform would be that candidates who were elected put their electorates above party loyalty when voting and making decisions.

She said another key policy would be to oppose the formal or informal introduction of Sharia law in Australia and required undivided loyalty to the Australian Constitution.

The party would also call for the establishment of a national apprentice, trade and traineeship system, with the aim of increasing recruitment for the defence force.

It would also favour the introduction of a financial transactions tax.

Senator Lambie's chief of staff, Rob Messenger, said she had already been approached by several people who were interested in running as candidates for the party in other states, and many people had indicated their desire to join a political party formed by her.

Bad news for major parties, Wilkie says

Denison independent MP Andrew Wilkie said the establishment of JLN could be bad news for the major parties.

"Although the majority of Tasmanians would not share Jacqui Lambie's views, the minority that do is more than enough to win a senate seat in Tasmania at the next election," he said.

"Jacqui Lambie is a big figure with a big following in her own right but it's a complete unknown about whether or not that brand is transferable to anyone else.

"The challenge for Jacqui Lambie is to make this a democratic and inclusive party that represents its members. She will fail if it just becomes an extension of her through other candidates parroting her views."

ABC election analyst Antony Green said the possibility of her getting another Senate candidate elected in Tasmania at the next federal election could not be discounted.

"Jacqui Lambie was elected not because she was Jacqui Lambie but because she was the Palmer United candidate and I presume it is possible that someone could get elected because they've got Jacqui Lambie's name attached to them," he said.

"She's probably got as much chance as candidates did for Palmer United Party.

"The name of the party will attract votes but whether they get elected or not - I suspect not. They've actually got to have a bit of a profile for themselves as candidates who are known."

The party's constitution lists Senator Lambie and Mr Messenger's spouse Fern Messenger as the only members of its initial management committee.

"It was just easier to use those two names because someone's name has got to be there," Senator Lambie said.

From other news sites:

• The Age: Jacqui Lambie Network: former Palmer United Party senator registers new political party
• The Guardian: Jacqui Lambie applies to register her own political party
• Mercury: Xero claims Australian customer milestone
• Adelaide Now: RUSH HOUR: The stories you need to know today

Jacqui Lambie Network: Tasmanian senator registers new political party - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

by Rowan Dean

The world of politics was rocked to its core this week following another wild outbreak of leadership speculation and unrest that has shaken the corridors of Canberra to their foundations.

"This has been simmering away in the background for months now," said one unnamed insider from within the highest echelons of the parliamentary party, "but now the lid's blown right off it! The dam has burst! Kapow! Everybody's had it up to here with the endless stupidity, the ridiculously clumsy speech patterns and the hopeless, woeful leadership. But above all, it's the opinion polls. Last week's was a disaster. That was the final straw. He'll be gone by next week."

The insider was of course referring to the doomed leadership of Bill Shorten, with whispers rife throughout the Labor Party that even members of his own frontbench no longer believe he can win the next election. "It should have been a shoo-in," one disgruntled frontbencher, who agreed to speak on strict condition of anonymity, said. "We had the next election in the bag. But then Bill goes and completely stuffs it up! Three little words! That's all it took!"

The frontbencher was referring to what is now widely accepted as Bill Shorten's most spectacular gaffe – his Australia Day "captain's call" that 2015 was to be his "year of ideas".

"How can it be his year of ideas when he doesn't have any?" said another exasperated senior member of the party, speaking through a close friend of an anonymous source. "And on the very day that all anybody wants to do is get blotto in front of the barbie. The last thing anyone wants is an idea. Talk about hopeless timing."

Others were blunter in their assessment. "The problem with ideas is that people think about them," a rebel backbencher said. "And if people start thinking about the return to Labor then obviously we're doomed."

Well-placed sources within the commentarial were quick to agree. "If you say you've got an idea, then there's always the risk that people might take you at your word and ask you what it is. Imagine if Annastacia Palawotsit had tried to pretend she knew what she was doing! We'd have been toast."

Woeful interview

Critics point to Mr Shorten's woeful Jon Faine interview as the moment that galvanised the backbench to act, although others point to an earlier interview on 7.30 with Leigh Sales as when the mood in the party room turned savagely against Mr Shorten.

"He got all the way through the Sales interview without saying a single thing, which was fantastic, and that is of course his job," another disgruntled backbencher said, "but then with two stupid words he went and blew the whole thing completely! 'Inclusive growth'. What a disaster. Now people will start to think we know how to manage the economy!"

Others mentioned the profound unease within the party over Mr Shorten's continued use of the word "values". "He keeps on banging on about 'Labor values' but of course as everyone knows, the only thing we value is getting back into power as fast as we can so we can get our hands on the loot and start dishing it out to dead people, public servants and paying off those union credit cards."

Rumours have it that there are at least three leadership contenders ready to declare their hand, although who will make the first move is unknown as yet.

"Tanya's gagging for it," one senior source known to be close to the charismatic deputy leader said. "She is so articulate and she knows how get our message across, which is of course that we won't be bringing in a carbon tax on day one, and we won't be immediately hiking the price of it straight up to $150 a tonne because the planet deserves nothing less."

But others believe that the former leader Chris Bowen is the obvious choice to challenge. "Chris's talents are completely wasted in the Treasury portfolio swatting up on tax thresholds. What a joke. Everybody knows Treasury is where you stick hopeless losers like that Springsteen dude."

However, most experts believe that the successful challenge will come from Shorten's former leadership rival Anthony Albanese. One source, who is said to be extremely close to the firebrand from Grayndler, said Albanese was the leader the public craves.

"Anthony is completely wasted just sitting around waiting for Bill to mispronounce the word 'with', which he does with alarming alacrity," the anonymous source said. "It's high time the entire party got behind the one individual smart, talented and popular enough to win the next election. And that is me, er, I mean, him."

Bill Shorten's leadership tottering after 'let's have ideas' gaffe | afr.com

By ABC's Barrie Cassidy 27 March 2015

Photo: No one will thank Tony Abbott if the NSW Coalition has a comfortable win this weekend, but all will blame him if they don't. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

The Coalition has closed gap on Labor in the latest Newspoll, but only once the NSW election and the May budget have passed will Tony Abbott's future be clear, writes Barrie Cassidy.

Labor frontbencher Mark Butler told journalists this week that opinion polls "are put in there solely for your amusement".

So with that in mind:

Imagine, in some hypothetical world driven by the polls, that a federal election had been held last weekend. What would the result have been?

Insiders' analyst, Andrew Catsaras, averaged out all the major polling and found the Coalition would have lost 6.2 per cent of its primary vote and suffered a 6.5 per cent two party swing

That would have cost the Abbott Government 29 seats, meaning in the new parliament the ALP would have 84 seats, the Coalition 62, independents three and the Greens one.

In this hypothetical situation, the Coalition simply ran out of time. Not once since the election had they gone ahead of their 2013 election vote, and in fact they trailed the ALP for 15 consecutive months by an average of six points (53 per cent to 47 per cent.)

That broader trend does put in perspective the most recent Newspoll that has the Coalition making significant gains to just trail the ALP by 49 per cent to 51 per cent. That was one in a series that increasingly turns up volatility between various polling organisations and indeed within the same organisations.

Catsaras told me the improvement from 45 per cent two party preferred to 49 per cent was unrealistic given the absence of a single identifiable and significant event. In those circumstances, he argues, further evidence of a shift is needed, and that was not there in either the Essential or Morgan polls which both had the Coalition at 46 per cent.

However, even a straw in the wind was welcome news to the Coalition in need of a confidence boost. And it does show that the electorate is still open to persuasion and comebacks are possible.

And that's what makes the Government's shift on fiscal and budget strategy so intriguing. Tony Abbott's declaration that the heavy lifting had been done and the May budget would be dull and routine alarmed economists and business groups. But it was welcomed by many on the backbench skittish about political alienation after the 2014 budget and fearful of more cuts to come.

Was the last Newspoll evidence that the public too welcomed the shift? As much as they recognised the inconsistency in the rhetoric - in fact the sheer brazen nature of it - they nevertheless like where the Prime Minister has finally landed?

Only the budget itself, the reaction to it from all stakeholders, and a new set of polls throwing up new trend lines, will properly answer those questions.

And only then will Abbott's future be clearer.

And in the meantime, the only poll that counts - this week anyway - will be the NSW state election poll.

Abbott is on a hiding to nothing. Already, and overwhelmingly, commentators are saying that if the Government limits the seat losses to 15 or less, that will be a tribute to the premier Mike Baird's personal popularity. On the other hand, if the losses are 20 seats or more, then Abbott will be pilloried.

In other words - no thanks to Abbott if the Coalition has a reasonably comfortable win; all blame to him if they don't.

Still given recent results in South Australia, Victoria, and most spectacularly, Queensland, that's to be expected. There has been a steady deterioration in the Coalition vote around the country and Abbott's unpopularity is the common thread.

The best then that he can hope for on Saturday is some relative easing of the pressure in the run up to the critical May budget.

That, and perhaps more words of encouragement like these from Malcolm Turnbull this week:

"Tony Abbott is safe, he's the Prime Minister. He is safe in the bosom of the party that supports him with 100 per cent loyalty."

Until they don't.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. He writes a weekly column for The Drum.

What the polls do (and don't) say about Abbott - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political reporter Eliza Borrello Tuesday 24 Mach 2015

Photo: Joe Hockey's presentation to colleagues said the Government would get the budget back to surplus as soon as possible. (File photo) (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)

Related Story: Julie Bishop's eye roll at Joe Hockey 'blown out of proportion'

Related Story: Bishop assured foreign aid budget will not be cut

Related Story: Bishop rolls eyes as Hockey praises budget razor gang

Treasurer Joe Hockey has told his party room that the savings he will propose in the May budget will be "responsible and fair", as Labor ramps up its attack on the Government's pension plans.

Last year's budget, which included since-dumped plans to charge patients a co-payment to see a GP, was slammed as "unfair" by Labor.

Mr Hockey today used a series of slides to explain the factors underpinning the budget to his colleagues.

They included graphs showing the plummeting iron ore price and falling global growth forecasts.

The slideshow also featured a slide saying the Government "will get the budget back to surplus as soon as possible".

Mr Hockey pressed the point in Question Time.

"The focus of the 2015 budget will be to build a stronger Australian economy, the budget will be responsible, it will be measured and it will be fair," he said.

Queensland LNP backbencher Andrew Laming told his colleagues they needed a different narrative this year, saying what was said last year "didn't work".

Prime Minister Tony Abbott told the meeting that Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was a "litany of screeching complaints".

In a media conference Mr Shorten hit back at the Government's claims Labor was making the budget position worse by blocking legislation.

"We've supported nearly $20 billion, or about $20 billion worth of their cuts — but there are some proposals which they just simply don't deserve support on them do they?

"Imagine if Labor had been the rubber stamp that some in the Liberals want us to be?

"We'd have a GP tax now."

Mr Shorten also challenged the Government to rule out cuts to the pension in the budget.

"If the Government can rule out cutting the foreign aid budget, then they can rule out cutting pensions," he said.

"We've made it clear that we think the indexation rate that the Government's using is simply too low."

The Government wants to link pensions with inflation rather than wages from 2017, which critics argue would leave pensioners worse off.

In Labor's Caucus meeting Mr Shorten declared "the failure of the last budget was not because we said 'no', it was because we won the argument in the community".

"All the Government wants to do is talk about us, they have nothing to say about the rest of Australia," he said.

Eye roll 'blown out of proportion'

The ABC has been told Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's phone rang during Mr Hockey's party room presentation.

It was understood she "quietly" excused herself to take the call.

Ms Bishop was yesterday seen rolling her eyes when Mr Hockey mentioned the Expenditure Revenue Committee, Cabinet's razor gang, in a speech paying tribute to the late Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser.

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he thought the eye roll had been "blown out of proportion" and did not believe it indicated any deep tensions between the ministers.

"Joe was attempting to be sort of humorous, in a black humour sort of way by talking about the Expenditure Review Committee, which of course everybody hates, and he knows that, and he was essentially inviting his colleagues to roll their eyes and sort of grimace with pain," Mr Turnbull said.

"So I think Julie was in effect responding in exactly the way Joe wanted her to."

Late yesterday Ms Bishop gave a brief explanation of her reaction.

"The mention of the Expenditure Review Committee can have a different impact on different people," she said.

From other news sites:

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Back down on foreign aid cuts flagged as tensions rise between Julie Bishop and Joe Hockey
• News.com.au: Julie Bishop makes real-life eye-roll emoji face as Hockey jokes about Budget
• Daily Mail: An eye roll, shake of the head and then a face palm: Watch Julie Bishop's hilarious reaction to Treasurer Joe Hockey's speech praising Malcolm Fraser for introducing a Budget ...
• Crikey: What Joe should tell his colleagues about his budget
• Yahoo!7 News: Libs seek pre-budget talking points

Treasurer Joe Hockey tells Coalition party room his upcoming budget will be 'responsible and fair' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Lenore Taylor Friday 20 March 2015

John Howard praised Fraser’s ability to restore order to the nation’s affairs, a standard that would see protégé Abbott judged very harshly

Malcolm Fraser is greeted by Tony Abbott following the memorial service for former prime minister Gough Whitlam in November 2014. Photograph: Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Successors, on both sides of politics, often criticised Malcolm Fraser for not doing enough to modernise the Australian economy. Judging him solely by this yardstick, they argued the “wasted” Fraser years were something every leader had to strive to avoid. But John Howard, Fraser’s treasurer, who criticised his timidity on economic change, did concede that Fraser had “restored a sense of order” after the Whitlam years.

Which begs the question as to what Howard must make of his protégé Tony Abbott, who appears on track to achieve little for the economy, and create a maximum sense of chaos in the process.

This week, for example, Abbott has apparently decided that if he smiles winningly and displays a sunny disposition the electorate won’t notice that much of his first-term agenda is lying in a smoking ruin somewhere outside the Senate chamber.

The intergenerational report, until recently billed as a document that would shock voters into accepting deeper spending cuts, is now being used to justify not cutting any more, backed by a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign so meaningless it is fit for either purpose.

For the third time in recent years, Australia finds itself with a prime minister motivated almost entirely by survival, rather than leading – paralysed by their tenuous hold on the job and their diminishing authority – with their party looking on in horror but divided as to how to respond. The most common response from Coalition MPs this week when asked to explain their budget and political strategy is: “If you find out, can you tell me?”

Some columnists seem to have decided that complacent voters are to blame (and perhaps to some extent Tony’s poor “salesmanship”) for selfishly refusing to see looming economic problems and to accept the specific policy solutions that the government has sought to thrust upon them.

But perhaps, rather than dazzling them with sudden-onset economic optimism or berating them for being short-sighted and selfish it might be smarter to consider why the electorate is so resistant to Tony Abbott’s politics, just as it was resistant to the agenda of the Labor government he replaced.

Some of it comes down to the now well-traversed difficulties of a 24-hour media cycle that amplifies every trivial misstep and has no patience for complex argument, a Senate voting system that means the government almost never controls the upper house and the negativity of recent oppositions.

Political malaise

But as I have argued before I think much more than this, it comes down to trust – or lack of it.

Our political malaise is rooted in a deep mistrust, fed not just by broken promises (from both sides) but also by the whole political mindset that voters can’t cope with a contest of ideas or be trusted with information, which is seen as an asset best held tight.

It is a mistrust exacerbated by the calculation that slogans and slick advertising can gloss over contradictions or the absence of policy facts. It is a top-down political mindset ever more out of step with an open-sourced world of shared information and this mismatch keeps making the problem worse.

And we see it everywhere.

It’s there in the big things, like the government taking the useful and supposedly independent forward planning exercise of the intergenerational report and politicising it with comparative graphs based on spurious assumptions. The report does show that Australia has budget challenges in the longer term. It does not show – as Abbott asserts – that the Coalition has “already halved Labor’s debt and deficit”. That claim is based on projected deficits in 2055 (when Abbott is 98) obtained through heroic assumptions that make the “Labor” line look dramatically worse and the “existing Coalition policy” line dramatically better. Why debase the report with transparent political tricks. Why “spin” useful information rather than just discuss it honestly. We really aren’t that stupid.

It’s there in the smaller things, like the government’s announcement this week that it would try to exempt private companies from new tax transparency laws because of concerns about safety and kidnappings. What this really boils down to is a belief that the public has no right to this information, or the somewhat more reasonable concern that it might be misinterpreted when provided. From the highest levels down, the Coalition really thinks the tax office should be allowed to do its job and that this kind of transparency serves serves little useful purpose – despite evidence from around the world that public transparency provides potent arguments for tightening tax laws and cracking down on avoidance.

It’s there in the background behind the stoush between Barnaby Joyce and his now-sacked departmental secretary Paul Grimes, because Grimes was transferred to the agriculture department after the incoming Coalition government sacked three departmental heads, two of whom had been in charge of policies of the former Labor government that the Coalition really didn’t like. And when the Grimes/Joyce relationship didn’t work out, they sacked him, too. Of course this must have a chilling effect on the willingness of the public service to provide frank advice, even now, when it would seem to be sorely needed.

It’s there in the mindset that would push metadata laws through the House of Representatives without giving MPs a chance to read them, that would negotiate laws pertaining to journalists without consulting media companies or the union until a deal was done, and that would think the public would happily accept such surveillance without bothering to make much of an effort to explain it.

It’s there in education minister Christopher Pyne’s ridiculous threats to research funding and comical assertions that he is a “fixer” even as his university policy lies in tatters, or the thinking that would even contemplate a double dissolution election to roll the dice again to get a more compliant Senate, having utterly failed to properly negotiate with this one. It’s there in the strategy of announcing a surprise Medicare co-payment in last year’s budget and presenting it to the medical profession with what was essentially an ultimatum.

A matter of trust

And of course it all began because the Coalition didn’t trust the electorate enough to tell us about many of their policies before the election, which to date is exactly what Labor is also doing. Like Abbott in opposition, Bill Shorten promises policies well before the next poll. Like the Coalition in opposition, senior Labor figures laugh at the suggestion that they might provide any kind of a political target when criticism is trained so squarely on the government.

But perhaps the key to breaking this cycle of the electorate voting in the small-target least-worst option of the opposition (and then deciding they’re just as bad) is to take that leap of faith, to take the electorate on trust.

Perhaps Shorten will surprise us. Perhaps Abbott will use the tax and federation white papers to have a genuine debate. But surely it’s too early to decide the political system is broken or that the selfish voters don’t understand economic reality before someone actually tries.

Who knows, perhaps crediting the electorate with the intelligence to cope with a policy discussion might both “restore a sense of order” and the legitimacy that would allow a government to actually get something done.

Malcolm Fraser's steady hand is in stark contrast to Tony Abbott's chaotic manoeuvres | Australia news | The Guardian

By Peter Lloyd, staff Friday 20 March 2015

Malcolm Fraser laughs during the launch of his first political memoirs at the University of Melbourne's Law School in March, 2010. (AFP: William West)

Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser relaxes at The Lodge in Canberra in 1978. (National Archives)

Related Story: Live: Australia reacts to death of former prime minister Malcolm Fraser

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser has been remembered as "a giant of Australian politics" and a "great moral compass" following his death early this morning at the age of 84.

"It is with deep sadness that we inform you that after a brief illness, John Malcolm Fraser died peacefully in the early hours of the morning of 20 March, 2015," a statement released by his office said.

Analysis from The Drum

• Fraser's top achievements as PM
• Fraser brought order to chaos
• The myth of two Malcolm Frasers

"We appreciate that this will be a shock to all who knew and loved him, but ask that the family be left in peace at this difficult time."

Mr Fraser — Australia's 22nd prime minister — was born into a wealthy pastoral family in 1930 and first entered Parliament in 1955 as its youngest MP.

He spent nearly 20 years as a backbencher and in the ministry.

From his first days in politics, Mr Fraser was an advocate of immigration as a means of boosting the population.

As a minister in the Gorton government, he became the first federal politician to use the word "multiculturalism" — an historic break from the Anglocentric past of his own party.

He became opposition leader in 1975, facing off against Gough Whitlam and becoming prime minister in the wake of Mr Whitlam's dismissal.

Mr Fraser's multicultural conviction found shape in immigration policy in the post-Vietnam war push to bring refugees from mainland South East Asia to Australia.

Video: Former PM Malcolm Fraser, dead at 84 (ABC News)

"I believe we had a moral and ethical obligation," Mr Fraser later said.

"If we had taken polls ... I think people would have voted 80, 90 per cent against us but we explained the reasons for it.

"We were also working to get people to understand that the idea and the reality of a multicultural Australia could be an enormous strength to this country, not a weakness.

"There is strength in this kind of diversity so long as we understand what it's about."

After the Whitlam years, there was persistent debate about the new government's legitimacy and Mr Fraser's role.

But he went on to win the next three elections.

In addition to multiculturalism, he embraced Aboriginal land rights, led the Commonwealth push to end Apartheid in South Africa and argued for an independent Zimbabwe.

The nation's finances were managed with traditional conservatism and cutbacks at first but later, the political pressure grew and the purse strings loosened.

However, in 1982 the country was facing recession, drought and social unrest.

After suffering a back problem and being treated in hospital, Mr Fraser called a snap election on the same day Bob Hawke became opposition leader.

But the strategy backfired and Mr Fraser was defeated.

Fraser becomes staunch critic of Liberal Party

Life after the Lodge remained busy for Mr Fraser; he became a key figure in humanitarian and diplomatic circles, and he became a staunch critic of the Liberals under the next Coalition PM, John Howard, speaking out particularly on Indigenous issues, refugees and anti-terrorism laws.

Malcolm Fraser: In his own words

A collection of memorable quotes from Australia's 22nd prime minister.

 

In 1987, he formed CARE Australia as part of the international CARE network of humanitarian aid organisations. He remained chairman until 2002.

For two decades there was largely bipartisan consensus on immigration policy, until that was repudiated by the Howard Government.

The 2001 election completed Mr Fraser's estrangement from the Liberal Party.

It was the year the government sent troops to board the Tampa, a cargo vessel carrying asylum seekers who wanted to come to Australia.

It was the era of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, a time when Mr Fraser found fault with politics and politicians from his own side.

"I suppose Pauline Hanson is one answer but she's an excuse really," he said.

"I guess we've got some people in Canberra who believe that what they're doing is right. I believe it is profoundly wrong.

"I think putting the SAS onto the Tampa did more to damage Australia worldwide than any other single act of government."

In November 2006, Mr Fraser established Australians All to promote a more inclusive society through discussion and reform of inequalities and discrimination in law and policy.

By then he had become a staunch critic of asylum seeker policy in the Howard years.

"The party has become a party of fear and of reaction, its conservative and not liberal, it is unrecognisable as liberal," he said.

Mr Fraser seemed to have more in common with his former political rivals than with his own party, joining Labor PMs past and present for the apology to the Stolen Generations.

Video: Fraser felt Whitlam never bore him "personal animosity" (ABC News)

It had been his ambition that Australia's population reach 25 million people in his lifetime.

But as the shadows lengthened, Mr Fraser found himself at odds, again, with the Coalition he had once led.

After the election of Tony Abbott as leader in 2009 he resigned from the Liberal Party — after more than six decades — and when Mr Abbott began turning back the boat people Mr Fraser did nothing to hide his contempt.

"You know it's ironic that Pauline Hanson was saying boat people should be sent back. Not too long afterwards that's just what the Government does," he said.

Just last month Mr Fraser launched a scathing attack on Mr Abbott over the Government's treatment of the Human Rights Commission and, in particular, president Gillian Triggs following The Forgotten Children report.

"If the Government had wanted to handle the matter sensibly, they would have said they recognise there have been abuses," Mr Fraser said.

Abbott remembers Fraser as 'fierce Australian patriot'

Mr Abbott paid his respects to Mr Fraser, saying he was a "fierce Australian patriot".

"The friendship he built in later life with Gough Whitlam spoke volumes about the character of both men at the centre of the crisis: in their own different ways, they were both fierce Australian patriots," he said.

"Under Malcolm Fraser's leadership, self-government was conferred on the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth Ombudsman was established and our first Freedom of Information laws were enacted.

"Under Malcolm Fraser's leadership, Australia was an unwavering opponent of apartheid and after he left office, Malcolm Fraser continued to work for the end of apartheid.

"His subsequent appointment to roles with the United Nations and the Commonwealth of Nations reflected his high international standing."

Mr Abbott said flags at Parliament House would be flown at half mast today and he extended his sympathies to Mr Fraser's wife Tamie and their children.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said she was saddened to hear of the passing of a "giant of Australian politics".

"With the passing of Gough Whitlam, it really is the end of a political era," she said.

"He made a significant contribution to public life in this country, so he will be missed and I certainly pass on my deepest sympathies to his family."

Mr Howard said Mr Fraser applied himself to the position of prime minister with a "very great dedication and very great professionalism and skill".

"In recording my sorrow and sympathy to his family, I thank him for his service to the Liberal Party of Australia," Mr Howard said.

"He brought the party from opposition back into government in less than three years.

"He delivered three election victories, which by any measure is a very significant achievement."

Former prime minister Bob Hawke, who defeated Mr Fraser in a landslide election in 1983, paid tribute to his former political rival.

"Of course, Malcolm Fraser and I were on opposing sides of the political fence," he said.

"I had an absolute unqualified respect and admiration for one particular aspect of the political career of Malcolm Fraser and that was he was impeccable on the questions of race and colour.

"During his time as prime minister he was also extraordinarily generous in welcoming refugees from Indochina. So those things will always be remembered. They were an enduring monument to Malcolm Fraser."

Mr Hawke said despite being political opponents, he always got along well with Mr Fraser on a personal level.

Photo: Malcolm Fraser (L) with former prime ministers Julia Gillard, Bob Hawke, John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Paul Keating and Prime Minister Tony Abbott in December. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)

"He also, in his post-prime ministerial life, became an outstanding figure in the advancement of human rights issues in all respects," he said.

"In fact, a lot of people said that after he'd finished as Liberal prime minister, he moved that far to the left that he was almost out of sight. Well, I take that as a compliment to him."

ABC's Insiders host Barrie Cassidy said Mr Fraser was active up until his death.

"I don't know whether anybody saw this coming," he said.

"He tweeted as recently as Wednesday, just two days ago, when he was talking about time for a new China vision.

"I remember seeing another tweet just six weeks ago where he showed his catch after some ocean fishing.

"So he was still in reasonably good health right to the end and still thinking about big global issues."

Former deputy Liberal leader and indigenous affairs minister Fred Chaney said he was devastated by the loss.

"His support for Indigenous people has been consistent over the whole time I've known him, his opposition to racism has been consistent and I feel desperately sad," he said.

Former National Party leader and parliamentary speaker Ian Sinclair also paid tribute to his one-time colleague.

Mr Sinclair said although he was an effective prime minister, Mr Fraser was constantly plagued by the controversial circumstances in which he came to power.

"He was a very good prime minister in that he was very on top of his brief," he said.

"I thought during his term his big difficulty was the real rancour there was in the Australian community in 1975."

Former Governor-General Bill Hayden said Mr Fraser always had his high personal respect, especially for his work on Aboriginal affairs and race issues.

"He had many pluses on the scoreboard. He had his Aboriginal Affairs Minister work very hard on the welfare of Aboriginal people," he said.

"He made many important breakthroughs in Africa on the issues of self-determination and democratic rights for people in Southern African countries."

Mr Fraser will be remembered for infamous quotes such as, "Life wasn't meant to be easy" and being called "Kerr's cur" by Mr Whitlam, when Mr Whitlam was sacked by governor-general Sir John Kerr on November 11, 1975.

Mr Fraser took the quote "Life wasn't meant to be easy" from the George Bernard Shaw play Back to Methuselah: "Life wasn't meant to be easy, my child; but take courage: it can be delightful."

Mr Fraser is survived by his wife and four children.

From other news sites:

• Bloomberg: Malcolm Fraser, Three-Term Australian Prime Minister, Dies at 84
• The Age: Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser dead at 84
• The Guardian: Malcolm Fraser, former Australian prime minister, has died aged 84 - rolling coverage
• Sky News: Former PM Malcolm Fraser dies
• Fraser Coast Chronicle: Former Australian PM Malcolm Fraser dies at 84

Malcolm Fraser: Australia's 22nd prime minister dies aged 84 - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Matthew Taylor Thursday 19 March 2015

Photo: There is a strong argument to be made for tightening eligibility for the age pension. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

If Scott Morrison is willing to grasp the nettle of pension reform, he would be better off looking at ways to move those with greater means off the payment altogether - that's where the real savings are, writes Matthew Taylor.

The Prime Minister's assurance that the May budget will be "pretty dull and pretty routine" is meant to assuage the fears of a restless electorate and an increasingly nervous back bench. However, with the government locked into a battle with cross bench senators to freeze pensions from 2017, it could be anything but dull for pensioners.

The early signs don't look good for Social Services Minister Scott Morrison's pension reforms. Senators Zhenya Wang, Glenn Lazarus and Jacqui Lambie say they are opposed, while Senator Nick Xenophon says the plan is "problematic".

As Judith Ireland wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald this morning:

While fellow crossbenchers John Madigan and Ricky Muir are yet to state their positions and senators Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm have been more receptive to the Social Services Minister's proposal, even if all four agreed this would not provide the six votes the Coalition needs to pass legislation.

There are only two ways to reduce the structural burden of the age pension on the federal budget. The Government can lower the rate, by permanently changing the level of indexation, or it can reduce the number of people eligible for the pension by tightening the means test and pushing higher income pensioners off altogether.

For all the political deftness of Scott Morrison's proposal to freeze the pension in return for regular reviews of pension adequacy, the Government risks significant political pain for little fiscal gain. Without shifting community expectations, such a change is unlikely to deliver a permanent reduction in the level of pension payments.

If the Government is willing to grasp the nettle of pension reform, it would be better off looking at ways to move those with greater means off the pension altogether. Not only will this deliver greater - and longer term - budget savings, it is also the fairer of the two options.

Pensioners, whatever their level of private income, have become accustomed to their pensions increasing in line with 27.7 per cent of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings (MTAWE) when the Consumer Price Index increases fail to deliver this amount.

This benchmarking to MTAWE is responsible for an increase in the single rate of the pension of over $9,000 since 2002. This amounts to 5.4 per cent annual growth in the single rate, outpacing prices by 2.7 per cent over the period.

This MTAWE benchmarking has been in place since the Whitlam years. It will be extremely difficult to convince pensioners that current policy is unsustainable and that they should accept lower payments.

Even if the government were able to do this, it will only benefit the budget bottom line if the Minister's proposal does in fact reduce pension expenditure - which is far from certain.

Much rests on the recommendations of the independent panel tasked to undertake the triennial adequacy reviews. There is a strong possibility this panel will be captured by those who would recommend even higher pension levels, regardless of whether they were affordable or what tax burden that would impose on Australia's wage earners.

For example, if the panel were to recommend that the pension should be set above a relative poverty line - half of median disposable household income adjusted for family size - it is probable that age pension expenditure will increase.

Had the single rate of the age pension been benchmarked to such a measure in March 2002, it would be 14.1 per cent higher by March 2012 compared to current policy. This increase would be even greater if one assumes that pensioners would have received the September 2009 one-off pension increase of $1,560 on top.

The newly minted independent Senator Lazarus is worried that "pensioners will be at the mercy of a review every three years". However, in the absence of a change in community expectations on pension benchmarking, it is more likely the budget will be at the mercy of a large - and growing - constituency that will demand the return of any income lost over the preceding three years.

Of course, the government could choose to ignore the advice of the independent panel and keep the pension tied to prices increases, but this would defeat the purpose of creating the panel in the first place and merely add another new bureaucracy.

Even if this approach was successful in constraining growth in pension payments, it will do so at the expense of all pensioners - some of whom are completely reliant upon it.

There is a case to be made for pensioners to shoulder some of the burden of budget repair, but the government's focus on pension indexation is, at best, a distraction from the more substantial reform required.

If the government is serious about returning sustainability to the age pension it should look at some of the inequities in the pension means tests, especially those created by excluding the family home from the assets test. This ignores the higher living standards pensioners could achieve by converting this asset into income, and provides the same pension payment to those with small amounts of home equity as to those with million dollar homes. It directs taxpayer's dollars - including those with lower lifetime earnings - towards those who have over-capitalised in their homes, allowing them to draw a larger pension and preserve this asset for their children.

Beyond this, there is a strong argument to be made for tightening eligibility for the age pension. A single pensioner with $40,000 in private income, and nearly a million dollars in assets, can still receive a part pension.

There are better uses for taxpayer's dollars than providing support to those who do not need it. Fixing the pension requires action, not review.

Matthew Taylor is a research fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.

Pension plan: political pain for little fiscal gain - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By ABC's Barrie Cassidy Friday 20 March 2015

Photo: The Prime Minister's news conference Wednesday was the most important he has held all year. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

The Prime Minister signalled a new approach to economic management this week that will have an enormous impact on how the Government is regarded by business and economists, writes Barrie Cassidy.

After 18 months of rejection by the public, and more importantly the Senate, the Abbott Government has decided to declare victory and move on - or more accurately, stand still.

The Prime Minister's news conference on Wednesday was the most important he has held all year, signalling not only a change to the spin but a fundamental switch in economic management.

First the spin. The Government will now claim they have essentially addressed the budget emergency, taking the situation "from out of control to manageable".

The Prime Minister offered up the Intergenerational Report as evidence of that saying: "The document shows that we have halved Labor's debt and deficit going forward. Debt as a percentage of GDP which would have been 120 per cent under the policies of the former government is about 60 per cent under the policies of this government."

So the Government plans to ignore the raw figures that will in the near term at least show bigger deficits than they inherited; and they'll argue instead that they have done better than Labor would have done had they got re-elected and did nothing further to address the deficit.

That's a somewhat hypothetical argument but nevertheless the glass half full analysis that he prefers.

More to the point though is the declaration - and that's what it was - that the heavy lifting is over, at least until after the next election. That will have an enormous impact on how the Government is regarded by business and economists.

The direct question was put to the Prime Minister: "What's your response to people who may fear that that means you're easing up and resting on your laurels rather than doing more on structural reform?"

Good question.

The answer: "Well this budget certainly will be much less exciting than last year's budget because the task this year is at least 50 per cent reduced from the task last year. So inevitably it will be a much less exhilarating budget for those who are budget devotees and structural reform enthusiasts."

That was his response to the "structural reform enthusiasts"; a breathtaking abandonment of both previous rhetoric and economic strategy; a virtual acceptance that they are "easing up" and "resting on their laurels", such as they are.

And then the coup de grace. To the question, what happened to the promised surplus? or, as the journalist put it, "that graph that you showed us ... isn't it true that when you look at it, at no stage do you reach a surplus in the next 40 years?"

Abbott: "We get very close to balance."

Very close - in 2019-20 - and then, according to the document and the enclosed graph that he referred to, it all goes south again, in a big hurry.

And even that outcome is based on the assumptions that growth will average out at about 2.8 per cent; that Australia will have favourable terms of trade; and that the Government will keep bracket creep for at least another five years.

It has come to this partly because most Government ministers are incapable of dealing effectively with the eight crossbenchers.

Rather than build relationships and reach out and find compromises, the government instead whinges and complains about the "feral" Senate.

The Australian in its editorial Thursday raised a classic example.

The newspaper pointed out that Abbott, faced with hostility from Senator Jacqui Lambie, increased military pay.

But Abbott "saw the issue ... as merely another barnacle to be removed. He simply changed his position."

"A more productive play would have been to extract a quid pro quo, tying the policy change to support for stalled budget measures. That's politics."

Indeed.

Rather than build relationships and reach out and find compromises, the Government instead whinges and complains about the "feral" Senate.

The failed reforms to higher education is the latest example. That a problem exists is beyond debate. Governments are no longer prepared to adequately fund universities, and yet the Senate now denies the universities the means to make up the shortfall. The Government failed to meet the crossbenches even half way, and so the breakdown in the political system continues unabated.

Against that background, the crucial pre-budget debate begins in earnest, and as Chris Uhlmann reported this week, there are already ominous signs.

The ABC has spoken to senior officials across several portfolios who say they are confused by what the Abbott Government wants to achieve with its second financial blueprint, as it struggles to settle key elements from its first.

Time is fast running out for ministers to set a clear direction.

"It's five minutes to midnight," one said.

Further exacerbating the problem, the Government plans to cloud the pre-budget period with the release of a landmark report on taxation that deserves its own timeframe free of the budget. That discussion - like the faux debate on accessing superannuation - will now go on without any real prospect of short or medium term outcomes, and will only serve to confuse the message between now and May.

Likewise, the Government is also close to releasing the Grants Commission report into GST distribution. That will have a separate and just as unhelpful impact at a critical time, especially in Western Australia.

The direction has changed but the new pathway is no easier to negotiate.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. He writes a weekly column for The Drum.

Abbott's breathtaking shift in economic management - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political correspondent Emma Griffiths Friday 20 March 2015

Video: Tony Abbott says Bill Shorten is 'the Goebbels of economic policy'

Photo: Tony Abbott immediately withdrew the remark objected to by the Opposition. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Related Story: PM apologises for 'holocaust of jobs' remark

Related Story: Abbott's tax strategy likened to Nazi propaganda

Jewish Labor MP Michael Danby walked out of Question Time, and another three were ejected, after the Prime Minister compared the Opposition Leader to Nazi propagandist and Hitler offsider Joseph Goebbels.

Tony Abbott was referring to the Opposition's budget policies and called Bill Shorten "the Dr Goebbels of economic policy".

There was immediate protest from Opposition benches as Mr Abbott repeatedly told Parliament "I withdraw, I withdraw".

"I do withdraw and I do apologise for using that phrase," Mr Abbott said.

In the uproar Labor frontbencher Mark Dreyfus - who is also Jewish - was kicked out by Speaker Bronwyn Bishop.

That prompted Labor backbencher Mr Danby, who is a prominent member of Melbourne's Jewish community, to rise to his feet and declare that "if he's out, I'm out over this".

He walked out of the chamber in disgust.

He told the ABC that the Prime Minister "can slag us as much as he likes but it is silly to use an example of the ultimate evil in politics".

"He's the Prime Minister - he is supposed to have standards," Mr Danby said.

Another two Labor MPs were expelled in the subsequent melee.

Photo: Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus during Question Time. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi propaganda minister and one of Adolf Hitler's most loyal associates.

Christopher Pyne told Parliament that Mr Dreyfus had once used "exactly the same description" in reference to Mr Abbott when he was leader of the opposition.

In 2011, Mr Dreyfus wrote that Mr Abbott displayed "Goebbellian cynicism" when he described the Coalition's fight against the carbon tax as a "truth campaign".

Mr Abbott was responding to a question from Mr Shorten about the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that "a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result looking around the world".

"Isn't it the case that Tony Abbott's pretty good result would see Australia lose it's AAA rating?" Mr Shorten asked.

Mr Abbott began by saying it was "like the arsonist complaining about the fire" pointing out that the policies of the former Labor government would have pushed the debt to GDP ratio to around 120 per cent.

Last month, the Prime Minister was forced to apologise after accusing the Opposition of presiding over a "Holocaust" of job losses in the defence sector.

From other news sites:

• Daily Mail: Tony Abbott infuriates Jewish MPs by calling Bill Shorten 'the Dr Goebbels of economic policy'... just weeks after he sparked an angry backlash over 'holocaust of jobs' remarks

Jewish Labor MP Michael Danby walks out of Question Time after Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Goebbels comments - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By ABC's Jonathan Green Thursday 19 March 2015

Photo: There are awkward questions for governments still defining themselves as the reform successors of Hawke and Keating. (William West: AFP)

Australia's next great reforms will be of this stagnant polity itself, hopefully delivering politics that frees ideas from the camouflage of endless deflecting rhetoric. But who do we have to lead this change? Jonathan Green writes.

History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second as television.

Which is handy enough. Sometimes you need to see your moment represented for it to become recognisable and clear.

The TV adaptation of George Megalogenis's excellent book The Australian Moment began screening this week on ABC TV. The first episode of Making Australia Great traces our slow path from the well-clipped bliss of the long Menzian torpor, to that celebrated era of Hawke-Keating reform, the moment in which the "closed" post-colonial Australian economy was rebuilt with iconoclastic violence.

Subsequent Australian politics has struggled to match the generational drama of that transformation. The governments of Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd and Abbott have played a strange and almost purposeless coda to what was, from 1983, an urgent process of formative, fundamental and comprehensive change. But it's a coda with popular appeal, one still ringing with hints of that fondly recalled Hawke-Keating melody.

Trained by that example, we now assume that our Governments will "reform" as almost their first order of business, even if we - and they - seem at a loss for what might be done. We are stuck with the theme so elegantly essayed in the '80s and '90s, of open economies and liberated markets. And next?

Times have changed. Where then the task of remaking our economy was serious, urgent and substantial, we now have an economy working in fundamental accord with accepted best practice. The liberation of an open market economy is pretty much a one-time reform: that job is done, unless some future fashion or orthodoxy should decide that renewed central intervention makes more sense.

Failing that we basically need to let our free and open system fend for itself, which raises awkward questions for governments still defining themselves - 30 years on - as the reform successors of Hawke and Keating. The best they can do is fuss around the detail of an economy now making its way in the world.

One of the most interesting thoughts from this week's Making Australia Great came from former Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane, who wondered, despite welcoming the reform agenda of Hawk-Keating, whether it was a job that really ought to have been done a decade earlier. The pity was that our politics was caught somewhere between inertia and timidity.

We had just watched what oil shocks and an almost entrepreneurial incompetence did for Gough Whitlam, and as the strange menace of stagflation confounded Malcolm Fraser and treasurer John Howard. Both were signs of a changing world, and a world no longer held at bay by Australia's closed economy.

That sequence, the disorder of Whitlam ... the hesitation of Fraser ... then the tempest of Hawke and Keating ... it had a familiar ring.

Are we in that moment now, waiting on the next sweep of reform? Enduring governments in the meantime that are welded down by the trusted orthodoxies of a worn politics that might deliver a sense of comfort and stability but fail the most important test of meeting the needs of our shared future?

For Whitlam read Rudd and Gillard, for Fraser read Abbott.

The challenges that confront us now, in this late twilight of the Hawkian torpor, are deep and perplexing. They are challenges not met by endless rhetorical skirmishes that place a budget surplus as some hallowed cornerstone of policy and politics. It's a debate that seems to be a thing of purely political convenience, something almost phantasmagorical, with no impact in the real world.

A real world, it needs to be said, that confronts galloping change: a reordering of social connection, a tumultuous demographic transformation, the collapse of ageing and increasingly ineffective infrastructure, the slow but disturbing growth of urban and regional underclasses, of escalating family violence and murder, cities growing like topsy, the decline in educational standards, the strangulation of health care through a perplexing combination of over-service and unavailability, of appalling and endemic indigenous disadvantage and never mind the subtleties of, you know, climate change.

To base our political conversation around someone else's "debt and deficit disasters" and the faint, almost intergenerational, promise of a surplus, rather sells the moment short.

And so here we are in the depths of this new Fraser Government, a Government having apparently exhausted its political imagination in the brute act of seizing power, a Government deflecting the constant press of evidence on what needs desperately to be done in the hope that various political sleights of hand will be enough to see it through.

We could do with change. Sadly Hawke seems a little too time worn to be drafted at the last moment to substitute for Bill Shorten, another Bill Hayden of the soul.

Which leaves us waiting in distracted anticipation of the next moment of reform, one that will be as substantial as the task seen through by Hawke and Keating ... and might even fall to some political presence outside the seemingly exhausted and hollowly unrepresentative calculus of Liberal versus Labor.

The next reform will be of this stagnant polity itself. It will be reform that recognises that the current practice of politics is as relevant to the challenges of our moment as the Menzian conservative orthodoxy was in 1983.

It will deliver a new politics that will have the audacity to argue for deficit in times like these, of need and low interest.

A politics that might at last free ideas from the camouflage of endless deflecting rhetoric. One that might concede that the Australian public will give points for broad, meaningful and sometimes uncomfortable objectives that lie outside the narrow realm of political self interest ... apparently the exclusive concern of our new Frasers.

We need some kind of Hawke. Or even a Menzies. Some new set of ideas.

Maybe in episode two.

Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum.

The next great reform will be of politics itself - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political editor Chris Uhlmann and political reporter Melissa Clarke

Thursday 19 March 2015

Photo: A spokesman for Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister has said the Government intends to run its full term. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Related Story: Senior bureaucrats express concern for looming budget

The Federal Government's battles with the Senate has seen the prospect of a double dissolution election discussed among senior ministers.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister has told the ABC "the Government intends to run its full term", but the idea has been brought up at two separate meetings this week - at a leadership group meeting on Monday morning and at a Cabinet dinner that night.

Some ministers present said the idea was quickly dismissed, while others refused to comment or denied the conversation took place.

One senior minister said of Mr Abbott: "He would lead us all to a narcissistic annihilation."

The Coalition has been frustrated with its inability to get some key policies through the Senate, such as the Medicare co-payment and deregulation of higher education.

But a double dissolution election is an unlikely solution to the Government's problems.

ABC's election analyst Antony Green said the Coalition would struggle to remain in office if an election were called now.

"People don't call double dissolutions when they're behind in the polls," he said.

"A double dissolution is an option you have, it's not an option you invoke if you're behind, if you think you're going to lose.

"So I think some people would view it as being a false threat."

Mr Green also warned the Coalition a double dissolution election risks seeing more minor party and independent candidates elected to the Senate.

"Holding a double dissolution under current electoral laws where you halve the quota would probably double the size of the crossbench," he said.

"So, I don't think it solves any of the Government's problems, it would just weaken them in the Senate."

A Government can only ask the Governor-General for a double dissolution if legislation is rejected by the Senate twice, with at least three months between the two votes.

The Coalition has a trigger, with the Senate having twice rejected a bill to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

But it is not an issue on the same scale as the policy battles that have triggered previous double dissolutions.

There have only been six double dissolution elections since Federation, the last one in 1987.

From other news sites:

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Prime Minister Tony Abbott canvasses prospect of double dissolution election
• The Australian: Prospect of early double dissolution election dismissed
• Mercury: Tony Abbott says he won't give up on university deregulation, setting the scene for double dissolution
• The Guardian: Tony Abbott canvassed possibility of a double dissolution election
• Yahoo!7 News: Pyne's legislation fails in Senate

Double dissolution election prospect discussed by Government ministers twice, but dismissed - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By ABC's Norman Hermant Wednesday 18 March 2015

Photo: Thinking moving your internet service a few kilometres down the road is easy? Wrong. (Reuters)

I thought I had moved to West Footscray, not West Africa, but judging by my internet speeds I am not so sure. Who knew it was an internet wasteland just 9.5km from the Melbourne CBD, writes Norman Hermant.

I moved last month. From Kensington in Melbourne's inner-west to West Footscray, six kilometres further out in Melbourne's western suburbs. One might figure 6km, in a city of 4.4 million people, is not that big a deal. Wrong.

In internet terms, that 6km wound up being a move from Australia to Burkina Faso, in West Africa.

That's right. In my new house in West Footscray I am regularly recording a download internet speed of 1.5 megabits per second. That's the average download speed in Burkina Faso. The average Australian download speed according to net index.com is 16.93 Mbps - good for 59th in the world.

Here are two things to note about my new 195th world ranked internet speed. One - it didn't come easy. It took more than three weeks and numerous calls to my internet service provider to get online. And two - there is apparently nothing I can do about it. Possibly for years.

It unfolded like this. When we moved we also decided to change internet service providers - from BigPond to iiNet. After all, hadn't iiNet had those clever ads talking about how fast their internet was? So in the third week of February I called them up. Internet plus Fetch TV? No problem. Wrong.

Our new home is a small townhouse, one of those developments one sees all over in gentrifying neighbourhoods. Basically, one old house has been bulldozed and four townhouses have been squeezed onto the lot. It's a new house, so to get internet, we need a phone line. Now, iiNet can't put that line in itself. It sub-contracts to Telstra.

You want a new phone line? That can take up to 15 business days. Not 15 regular days. Business days. Once you've got your new phone line, it can take iiNet five days to turn on internet ADSL service. Are you doing the math? That 20 business days doesn't include weekends, of which there could be four. So you can wait 28 days - nearly a month - to get internet access in a new house. So there's that.

Then there are the issues with your location in the city. We're talking 9.5km from the CBD of Melbourne here, folks. Guess what. Our Telstra sub-contractor, Rosco, didn't like what he was seeing in the "pillar" near our house. Pillars are the last jump-off point for phone infrastructure. Pillars serve clusters of houses, and are connected to an exchange.

Rosco reported there were 100 "nodes", or places to connect a phone line, in our local pillar. 50 were free - and all of those were coming back as defective or unacceptable. "I'll connect you," he said. "I don't like your chances of getting good internet." Rosco was right.

The next challenge was getting my modem going. iiNet boasts they have 24/7 customer support. They do. But you often leave your name for a call back. On Saturday night, that call back was 2.5 hours in coming. When you do get your automated call back, you wait again for a real person. But at least they were able to get me online.

Then came the really bad news. After the first night of internet access, I had a sinking feeling all was not right. I ran a speed test. The results were bad. Burkina Faso bad. I screen saved a relatively speedy 1.68Mbps download result and tweeted iiNet.

"It's very likely a fault will need to be registered for this," they tweeted back ominously.

The next day I followed up.

"Uh oh," said the very patient iiNet support person. "It appears your distance to the exchange exceeds our theoretical operational distance."

That's right. In my street, the Telstra pillar is more than 4km from the closest exchange. "Anything more than 3km and we usually don't offer internet service," said iiNet.

But of course they don't really know this until they hook you up. In our case, our "top theoretical speed" is about 3Mbps. I was told I should be able to achieve more than 2Mbps if I connected a PC directly into the modem with a cable. But wireless? 1.5Mbps download was about it.

Now, just how slow is that? It's so slow that the iiNet person kindly explained that she would cancel my order for Fetch TV. The recording and internet TV device needs a download speed of at least 4Mbps to work properly, so it would be useless. She also agreed to waive my contract breakage fee for the internet service. "We probably shouldn't have connected you anyway," she said.

What about the future? Well, we can wait for NBN, but no one knows when that will be rolled out in our suburb. Maybe two years? I am also psyching myself up to perhaps change internet service providers again. A neighbour has Optus. Maybe that's a possibility.

In the meantime, I'll make do with my Burkina Faso internet. After a more than three week saga, I'm online like I'm in Ouagadougou. Oh to be back in Melbourne.

Norman Hermant is the ABC's social affairs correspondent.

My slow motion journey to truly awful internet - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Peter Martin March 17, 2015

Hockey cut down on Q&A

Treasurer Joe Hockey copped flak from all sides of the Q&A panel Monday night and was even teased for sounding like Kevin Rudd.

• 'You sound like Kevin Rudd'

Treasurer Joe Hockey was upstaged and shirt fronted on Q&A Monday night, but not by a member of the audience or a political opponent.

The man who cut him down to size on questions including negative gearing, tax and infrastructure spending was John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute.

Joe Hockey presses another point as Q&A host Tony Jones looks on. Photo: ABC

Asked why he hadn't abolished the tax concession known as negative gearing that rewards property investors for recording tax losses Hockey said it might up rents.

When Bob Hawke did it in the 1980s "you saw a surge in rents and those people who were paying rents are usually - not always, but usually - people that can't afford in many cases to buy their own homes".

Daley set him straight.

John Daley, the Melbourne-based research economist who runs the Grattan Institute, confronted Treasurer Joe Hockey on negative gearing, infrastructure spending and increasing taxes to pay for health spending. Photo: ABC

It was absolutely true that rents went up fast in Sydney, "which might have been there wasn't a lot of housing being built in Sydney in the couple of years previously".

"But look beyond Sydney and rents were dead - barely moved in Brisbane, didn't go up very far in Melbourne, didn't go up very far in Adelaide. They did go up very fast in Perth which makes you suspect very strongly that the race memory we have of abolish negative gearing, that rents will go up, is a race memory built on Sydney."

Daley said rents shouldn't go up because "by definition what happens at the auction is that the investor doesn't win the auction but someone who wants to live in the house does. Net impact, there is one less renter and there is one less rental property. Net impact on the rental market, zero."

Joe Hockey goes on the defensive on ABC's Q&A. Photo: ABC

Hockey never returned to the question, and neither did his opposite number Chris Bowen who dodged the question on negative gearing by saying Labor wanted a proper discussion about housing affordability.

Then Daley took on Hockey's claim that he was delivering the biggest infrastructure program in Australian history.

"It certainly hasn't gone up," he said. "It's probably tailed off, at least in as a percentage of GDP."

Hockey said Daley was wrong. "For a start we put $1.5 billion into WestConnex in Sydney," he said.

Daley reminded him that the project predated the Abbott government. He said not a single new project approved in Hockey's first budget had received a green light from Infrastructure Australia.

Hockey deflected the accusation by saying Melbourne's East West Link had at least been subject to a cost benefit analysis by the Victorian government. He was reminded that the former Victorian government refused to release it in part because the numbers didn't stack up.

When Hockey said the tax discussion paper wouldn't consider tax increases, Daley said that was exactly what was needed.

"We as a society have essentially decided to spend quite a lot more money on health. It's good news, it's keeping people alive for a lot longer. The bad news is someone's got to pay for it. We've agreed as a society to have an national disability insurance scheme scheme, that's terrific but somebody's got to pay for it."

"So far we've had relatively little discussion about the fact that taxes will probably have to go up, and of course no politician wants to talk about that."

Hockey was outclassed in a way he rarely is in parliament.

Joe Hockey: Qualifications and occupation before entering Federal Parliament

• BA, LLB (Syd).
• Director of Policy to the Premier of New South Wales.
• Banking and finance lawyer, Corrs Chambers Westgarth
• Joe Hockey has both a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Law degree. No economic/finance qualifications!!!

Joe Hockey outclassed on Q&A, by an economist