tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/nick-xenophon-team-28869/articlesNick Xenophon Team – The Conversation2023-08-31T10:27:47Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2126062023-08-31T10:27:47Z2023-08-31T10:27:47ZGrattan on Friday: It can be a battle to get information from the Albanese government<p>Thank goodness for Senate committees. This week, they’ve proved, yet again, to be worth their weight in accountability gold.</p>
<p>On Monday, at an inquiry into the cost of living, senators from both sides gave Qantas boss Alan Joyce a salutary roughing-up, over everything from yet-to-be-returned flight credits to the government’s blocking of extra Qatar Airways flights and Joyce’s contacts with Anthony Albanese. (Subsequently, Qantas has announced it is removing the expiry date on the COVID travel credits.) </p>
<p>On Tuesday, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References
Committee, which is probing the operation of the federal Freedom of Information laws, heard disturbing evidence from former FOI commissioner Leo Hardiman, who months ago resigned only a year into his five-year term. </p>
<p>Hardiman detailed a litany of obstacles in resourcing and culture in the administration of FOI, which he could not overcome. </p>
<p>The regular Senate estimates hearings, which grill bureaucrats, are welcomed and feared, depending where people sit in the political process. </p>
<p>It was Senate inquiries, it might be remembered, that did the deep diving into the PwC scandal and the entrails of other consultancy firms that receive huge amounts of taxpayer money. Labor backbencher Deb O'Neill and the Greens’ Barbara Pocock were forensic in their questioning.</p>
<p>Like most governments, this one arrived in office promising more accountability and transparency. Also like others, in practice it has a penchant for control and secrecy. </p>
<p>It did set up the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and for that it has been rightly praised. </p>
<p>Even there, however, there’s arguably too much secrecy – and that’s leaving aside the minimalist approach to public hearings specified in the NACC legislation.</p>
<p>Surely it will be a problem if we are not told what inquiries the NACC is pursuing. </p>
<p>Serious allegations demand investigation, but if it’s not known whether the NACC has taken the matter up (or passed it to another agency), what can a government do? It can hardly set up another inquiry, given this information vacuum. </p>
<p>Once the NACC has decided on an investigation, there’s a solid case for it to say so – which it has the discretion to do. </p>
<p>Whatever one thinks of secrecy around the NACC, there are plenty of other areas where it is clearly excessive. </p>
<p>Rex Patrick is a former senator who started with the Nick Xenophon Team and later became an independent. He lost his seat in 2022. While in parliament, Patrick fought the Coalition government’s secrecy; out of parliament he is in full pursuit of its Labor successor. He’s able to devote himself to poking numerous bears thanks, in part, to financial backing from business figure Ian Melrose. </p>
<p>Patrick defeated, in a legal judgment, the Morrison government’s attempt to keep secret all the documents of the National Cabinet. After the election, he was still given the runaround, but finally he’s nailed that one. National Cabinet documents are now treated according to ordinary freedom-of-information provisions.</p>
<p>Currently, Patrick is after Anthony Albanese’s official diary, Treasury’s briefing to Treasurer Jim Chalmers on the Stage 3 tax cuts, material on AUKUS and much else besides. </p>
<p>The PM’s diary is particularly interesting. In opposition, then shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus sought then Attorney-General George Brandis’ diary and finally, after some trouble, extracted it. </p>
<p>But Patrick’s attempt to peek more deeply into Albanese’s schedule was blocked, as was another application from the Australian Financial Review. </p>
<p>In a submission to the Senate FOI inquiry, Patrick noted the reason given was that processing “would unreasonably divert” staff resources and also unreasonably interfere with the PM’s work. </p>
<p>Patrick said this “flew in the face” of the Federal Court decision in the Dreyfus case, in which more days of the relevant diary were sought (causing more work for fewer staff). The matter has gone to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. </p>
<p>The reluctance to publish the PM’s diary is at odds with the release of those of most ministers (including Chalmers and Foreign Minister Penny Wong). </p>
<p>Why should we have leaders’ diaries? Among other reasons, because they show who has access to a government’s top decision-maker. In Albanese’s case, it might even yield the odd clue about his relationship with Alan Joyce - who, incidentally, has been asked by those pesky senators to supply dates of any Qantas contact with the PM over the Qatar matter. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Greens Senator David Shoebridge is trying to get hold of a report on the national security threats global warming poses. Albanese before the election promised an inquiry into this, and later commissioned one from the Office of National Intelligence. Now, apparently even a redacted version is too sensitive to release – because of national security.</p>
<p>Other crossbench senators, including independent David Pocock, have been interested in this report too. But a move in the Senate to force the issue was stymied by a cosy alliance of government and Coalition. Interesting companionships can be formed in the name of confidentiality. </p>
<p>Separate efforts in the Senate by Shoebridge and One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts to obtain documents relating to the March ditching of a Taipan helicopter at Jervis Bay failed. The government said there was an inquiry, which we haven’t seen. Subsequently, another Taipan crashed off the Queensland coast, with multiple fatalities. </p>
<p>Then there’s the politically delicate issue of the passenger manifests of VIP flights. Once, destinations and passenger lists of these flights were routinely made available by governments. That stopped under the Morrison government, and the suppression remains. A review, chaired by the Australian Federal Police and launched in 2022, recommended continued secrecy.</p>
<p>Again, national security is the excuse. But it’s not convincing, review or not. Knowing, well after the event, that a PM took a couple of mates, relatives or political contacts on a flight can give insights into a leader’s use of their privileges, or reveal who’s in a PM’s ear.</p>
<p>To some extent, this secrecy has been stymied. Passenger lists might not be available but destinations of VIP flights are, through tracking apps. At present Deputy PM Richard Marles is under criticism for taking VIP flights to Avalon, near his Geelong base, rather than catching a commercial flight to Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport. </p>
<p>At Tuesday’s Senate Committee hearing, Hardiman said: “FOI may not be considered a sexy subject matter or as being of life-changing importance. […] however, the FOI system is an important adjunct to the doctrine of responsible government inherent in our Westminster system of government.”</p>
<p>At the moment, the problem is not just the serious flaws of the FOI regime, but that the government is not living up to its own commitments to the people’s right to know.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212606/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Like most governments, this one arrived in office promising more accountability and transparency. Also like others, in practice it has a penchant for control and secrecy.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/983362018-06-14T11:34:03Z2018-06-14T11:34:03ZGrattan on Friday: The loners who lead, and trash, ‘personality’ parties<p>Let the voter beware. We may be in a “celebrity” age but personality parties, based around a “name” implode, explode, or fizzle. In the last few years, we’ve seen them do all three.</p>
<p>On Thursday came the latest episode in the One Nation soapie, when senator Brian Burston announced he was leaving the party to sit as an independent. Pauline Hanson had effectively tossed him out anyway.</p>
<p>Only a couple of weeks ago, after their <a href="https://theconversation.com/pauline-unplugged-lets-rip-against-senate-colleague-97574">spectacular</a> falling out over company tax cuts, Burston was declaring Pauline had her moods and he hoped they’d make up. She responded by saying he should give up his seat.</p>
<p>So now Hanson is down from having four Senate numbers after the 2016 election to two, with multiple bizarre twists in the course of the shrinkage. The combination of a capricious leader and eccentric and accident prone followers has cost the party what was a pivotal power position in the Senate.</p>
<p>On the face of it, Pauline Hanson and Nick Xenophon have little in common. Hanson’s politics operate, in considerable part, around the extremes; she taps into some dark places and often generates outrage. Ex-senator Xenophon hoovered up those disillusioned with the major parties, but from a centrist position.</p>
<p>In terms of leadership style, however, we can see a certain commonality. As a leader, Xenophon was autocratic – albeit his was a much smoother, smiley face of autocracy than Hanson’s. As in any party based around a personality, it was all (or at least mostly) about him.</p>
<p>One paradox of leaders of personality parties is that while they attract voters and so can get others elected, this can be their downfall, because they are by nature loners not team people.</p>
<p>Like Hanson, Xenophon ended up harming his creation. In his case, the flaw was overreach. Consider what might have been if Xenophon had not left the Senate for his ill-fated bid to be, if not the king, at least the king-maker in South Australian politics (his SA-BEST <a href="https://theconversation.com/liberals-win-south-australian-election-as-xenophon-crushed-while-labor-stuns-the-greens-in-batman-93355">won only</a> two upper house seats in the March state election).</p>
<p>He would still be leader and chief negotiator for the group, which started this term with three votes in the Senate. He would have <a href="https://theconversation.com/citizenship-crisis-claims-nick-xenophon-teams-kakoschke-moore-87935">lost</a> one senator, Skye Kakoschke-Moore, to the citizenship crisis, but her replacement, Tim Storer would probably be part of the team, instead of sitting as an independent. Before the High Court elevated him, Storer had fallen out with the party when he wasn’t given the casual vacancy Xenophon’s departure created.</p>
<p>If the party presently had three senators – rather than two - it would still have a veto power over legislation that Labor and the Greens opposed.</p>
<p>Post Xenophon, the old “Nick Xenophon Team” has become the Centre Alliance – Xenophon himself had always said the name would be de-personalised – and the one-time leader has no role in it.</p>
<p>Contacted this week, Xenophon sent a text saying he was “not making comment on anything political – my former colleagues are more than capable”. It was a far cry from when he quit the Senate last year, promising to keep a hand and a voice in what was happening in federal politics.</p>
<p>He’s concentrating on building his legal practice. Some believe he might have another shot at the Senate; others say that is out of the question but he could end up in state parliament. He has not even appeared in the campaign in the Adelaide Hills seat of Mayo where the Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie, another citizenship casualty, is fighting for her political life.</p>
<p>The battle in Mayo, while important for Centre Alliance, is more interesting on other grounds. It is a test of the ability of a crossbencher who wins a seat from a major party to entrench themselves. Tony Windsor did it in New England (won from the Nationals). Cathy McGowan has done in Indi (seized from the Liberals), as has Andrew Wilkie in Denison (wrested from Labor).</p>
<p>Sharkie in 2016 defeated a Liberal who was on the nose; in the byelection, she is up against high-profile Liberal candidate Georgina Downer, daughter of former foreign minister Alexander Downer, who occupied the seat in 1984-2008.</p>
<p>Two recent polls have put Sharkie <a href="https://theconversation.com/liberals-georgina-downer-trailing-in-early-mayo-poll-97965">ahead</a> of Downer 58-42% in two-party terms. It’s a long time until election day (July 28), but if Sharkie does regain her seat, perceptions about her as a local member would likely have counted more than her party branding, despite what would be Centre Alliance’s celebrations.</p>
<p>In terms of its Senate future, the Centre Alliance has some breathing space – its two senators, Stirling Griff and Rex Patrick, are long-termers and so don’t face the people at the next election. But that election will be crucial for the party – to show it still has life, it needs to get a new senator elected (and it won’t have the 2016 advantage of the smaller quota that applies in a double dissolution).</p>
<p>What used to be the Xenophon party will eventually fade away federally: the question is how long that will take. Its cycle will be rather longer and less spectacular than the personality-based Palmer United Party, which came and went in a single parliamentary term.</p>
<p>Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, at least in its present form, will also disappear in the fullness of time. Hanson, like the Centre Alliance senators, isn’t up for re-election, so she will be around a while. But apart from in Queensland it will difficult (albeit not impossible) for her to get anyone else elected under the larger quota required in the coming half-Senate election.</p>
<p>Personality-centred parties are different from more broadly-based minor parties - the Greens and the now defunct Australian Democrats - although the latter parties may be heavily identified with particular leaders.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-clive-palmers-back-on-the-trail-with-brian-burston-in-tow-98501">View from The Hill: Clive Palmer's back on the trail, with Brian Burston in tow</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Strong leaders, to whom the public relate, attract supporters to such parties (the Greens’ Bob Brown; Don Chipp, Cheryl Kernot for the Australian Democrats). But these parties have firmer and deeper roots than the personality parties, so they survive well beyond an individual figure. Though the Democrats are gone, they lasted a generation, through several leaders.</p>
<p>Most small parties, whether personality-based or not, get their backing by tapping into the dissatisfaction felt by many voters with the major parties. The Senate proportional representational voting system means they can translate modest – in some cases minimal - support into maximum impact in the federal parliament.</p>
<p>Changes the government has made to the Senate electoral system will put a check on that ability, but not wipe it out. In the years to come, mega personalities potentially will still be able to create parties in their image that become bright flames. But as with others before them, such parties would seem destined to be flashes in the pan.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98336/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One paradox of leaders of personality parties is that while they attract voters and so can get others elected, this can be their downfall, because they are by nature loners not team people.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/941782018-03-29T11:11:27Z2018-03-29T11:11:27ZGrattan on Friday: Tim Storer, the $35 billion man<p>Put yourself in the shoes of Tim Storer. The accidental senator from South Australia has one hell of a decision to make shortly after the May budget, when the government plans to <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-defers-company-tax-cut-vote-for-want-of-numbers-94038">bring back</a> its legislation to give tax cuts to big business.</p>
<p>A week ago the Coalition’s fairly confident hopes rested on Storer voting in favour of its A$35.6 billion package. A deal with Victorian crossbencher Derryn Hinch, whose vote also had to be secured, was seen as doable. Then Storer baulked, and the legislation’s future has again become anybody’s guess.</p>
<p>Think of the situation from Storer’s perspective. He has literally just arrived in the Senate, elected to replace a Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) <a href="https://theconversation.com/citizenship-crisis-claims-nick-xenophon-teams-kakoschke-moore-87935">victim of the citizenship crisis</a> but sitting as an independent because of a stoush with his former party.</p>
<p>It’s amazing he’s there at all, and he’s not likely to be there long – one can’t see him re-elected next year. Now he has life-or-death sway over a key measure the government took to the 2016 poll. He has to ask himself whether he should use the extraordinary power that bizarre circumstances have given him to frustrate legislation on which the Coalition can argue it has a mandate.</p>
<p>On the other hand, as he said in his <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-newcomer-tim-storer-plays-hardball-on-company-tax-94121">Wednesday Senate statement</a> outlining his doubts about the bill, he is concerned about whether the budget can afford the cuts. And then, he noted, there’s the question of whether the money could be better spent on other things – infrastructure and the like.</p>
<p>When he was sworn in last week, Storer was escorted by the government and opposition Senate leaders, Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong. He chose his escorts. It was to signal his independence, and perhaps to flag that he saw himself as an active player.</p>
<p>He brings to the huge decision before him training in economics, and experience of business, especially in Asia. That presumably helps with evaluating the argument the government makes about the competitive importance of these cuts.</p>
<p>He also comes from a state with a history of federal politicians who focus locally when there are Commonwealth dollars to be had. Nick Xenophon <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/42b-stimulus-package-rudd-cuts-a-deal-with-xenophon-20090213-86jw.html">once held up</a> the Rudd government’s $42 billion economic stimulus package while he extracted water concessions that would benefit South Australia.</p>
<p>While Storer has been willing to engage with the government, and will continue to do so, if he eventually voted no, he’d be in line with his former party. The two NXT senators are opposed, despite the government trying to lure them. </p>
<p>Labor, fighting the tax cuts, also observes Storer’s <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-links-189vote-senator-tim-storer-blocking-tax-reform/news-story/6a6335b77118c448d888676e8b94ba1b">past ALP membership</a> as a sign of his general political orientation and thus perhaps a clue to his final decision.</p>
<p>But the government hopes more talking, more incentives, and perhaps the content of the budget might be enough to persuade him.</p>
<p>Parliament is off until the May 8 budget, when attention will turn from company tax to the government’s income tax plans – which are crucial as it tries to improve the community mood for the election due before mid-next year.</p>
<p>Politically, the budget will be preceded by a media feeding frenzy around the <a href="https://theconversation.com/coalition-trails-47-53-in-29th-consecutive-newspoll-loss-93940">next Newspoll</a> that – barring a miracle for Malcolm Turnbull – will be the 30th in which the Coalition trails Labor.</p>
<p>This will be a diversion, as attention harks back to Turnbull’s invoking 30 Newspolls against Tony Abbott. But with no challenger in sight, it won’t be a decisive moment – just another bout of bad publicity to be endured.</p>
<p>Abbott no doubt will make the most of it. But the more time that passes, the less relevance the former prime minister seems to have, despite a <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/tony-abbott-may-be-lining-up-a-new-job-opposition-leader-20180315-h0xipo">speculative story</a> this week that he might he positioning for a tilt at the opposition leadership if Turnbull loses the election.</p>
<p>Abbott’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-would-be-better-if-wed-heeded-pauline-hansons-message-more-tony-abbott-94030">decision to launch</a> Pauline Hanson’s book of speeches this week was eccentric and ill-judged. </p>
<p>Can anyone forget his toxic view of her two decades ago, when he established a fund to facilitate legal actions against One Nation and she ultimately ended up in jail? Now he is saying that “if over the last two decades we had been more ready to heed the message of people like Pauline Hanson and less quick to shoot the messenger, I think we would be a better country today”. The bitter enemies have turned into kissing cousins.</p>
<p>Hanson might have mellowed slightly second time around, and she is certainly helping the government in the Senate. But her politics should still be condemned by Liberals, certainly not given the sort of qualified endorsement Abbott extended.</p>
<p>Abbott said the only way the Coalition could win the election was if it could harvest One Nation’s preferences, and “if I can make that more likely, that is a very positive contribution that I can make to the prospects of the Turnbull government”.</p>
<p>His remarks at the book launch suggested a mix of conviction and expediency – regardless, they further fuel cynicism about our politicians.</p>
<p>Speaking of cynicism, one couldn’t miss how quickly some observers segued from the cricket scandal to political behaviour. But as they (rightly) criticise the errant Australian players, politicians would prefer to overlook awkward parallels with conduct in politics – for instance the endemic tampering with the ball of truth.</p>
<p>On Tuesday a fired-up Turnbull told a news conference: “I think there has to be the strongest action taken against this practice of sledging. It has got right out of control, it should have no place … on a cricket field.”</p>
<p>Absolutely. And also it has got out of control on the political field. But when a journalist interjected with “doesn’t it happen in parliament?”, Turnbull chose to let that pass without response.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94178/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Tim Storer has one hell of a decision to make shortly after the May budget, when the government plans to bring back its legislation to give tax cuts to big business.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/853382017-10-06T08:28:27Z2017-10-06T08:28:27ZNick Xenophon set to go back to where he came from<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189142/original/file-20171006-25745-or4t25.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nick Xenophon is a tough dealmaker who demands concessions in return for his crucial numbers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Mariuz</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nick Xenophon, the master of the stunt, is about to indulge in one more before he leaves the Senate for a run at ruling the South Australian roost from its crossbench.</p>
<p>After his shock announcement that he’s about to quit federal parliament, Xenophon is off to the US where, early on Monday morning Australian time, he’ll appear with Australian Ugg boot manufacturer Eddie Oygur to protest outside Deckers Outdoor Corporation headquarters in Santa Barbara.</p>
<p>The small business of “Aussie battler” Oygur is being sued for an alleged breach of trademark of the word “Ugg” and the boot’s patent design.</p>
<p>They’ll have with them, according to the pre-publicity screed from Xenophon’s office, “a flock of sheep”. It’s all about pulling wool over consumers’ eyes and fleecing Eddie, you see.</p>
<p>It’s typical Xenophon, an extraordinarily popular and populist politician who specialises in the corny as well as the canny.</p>
<p>Xenophon insists his resignation is not influenced by the cloud over his parliamentary eligibility – the High Court next week considers his, and other MPs’, dual citizenship. If that went badly for him, he’d be out of the Senate anyway.</p>
<p>We can accept his word. Not only do colleagues say he’s been chewing over the possible change for months – although the actual decision is recent – but a source within the government ruefully admits there were hints that weren’t picked up at the time.</p>
<p>Regardless of the court outcome, the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) numbers are safe. If he loses the case, Xenophon’s Senate spot would be filled by the next person on the 2016 election ticket – Tim Storer, who runs a trade consultancy. If his position is upheld his party will choose his replacement.</p>
<p>At last year’s election Xenophon went from a one-man band to having a team of three senators and one lower house member. NXT Senate support is needed to pass government legislation that is opposed by Labor and the Greens.</p>
<p>With a government that wants to get measures through, the NXT – like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, with four Senate votes – is in an enormously powerful position. The difference between Xenophon and Hanson is that he usually extracts a price.</p>
<p>He’s a tough dealmaker, who demands concessions in return for his crucial numbers.</p>
<p>Government negotiators sometimes can’t quite believe what they are having to give him. Most recently he received a package worth more than A$60 million for backing the media reform bill. </p>
<p>Earlier, as part of a deal to pass company tax cuts, he secured a one-off payment to help with high power prices for people on aged and disability pensions or the parenting payment, costing the budget some $260 million.</p>
<p>Leading his SA-BEST party for the March election, Xenophon wants to extend that power to state politics – where he started, elected in 1997 on an anti-pokies crusade.</p>
<p>“With SA-BEST and NXT holding the balance of power in both the state parliament and the federal Senate, we will work together as a united team under my leadership to drive real change to improve the lives of all South Australians,” he said in his statement announcing his resignation, which will wait until after the High Court decision.</p>
<p>All the signs are SA-BEST will do well, harvesting people’s discontent with the major parties. Xenophon himself will contest the marginal Liberal seat of Hartley, where he lives.</p>
<p>His personal entry into the SA contest will give much more heft to SA-BEST – already with a strong vote in private polls – and strike more alarm into both Liberals and Labor. He is keeping his counsel on which side he would support in a hung parliament, so maximising uncertainty. The party will not issue preferences.</p>
<p>ABC analyst Antony Green predicts Xenophon’s party “will poll well enough to finish first or second in enough seats to make it very unlikely either side can win a majority in its own right”.</p>
<p>There will be a dozen electorates in which SA-BEST will be very competitive, according to Green. He says Xenophon’s entry will be better for the Labor Party than the Liberal Party, because “he’ll be more of a challenge in Liberal seats”.</p>
<p>Xenophon’s departure leaves his Canberra team with considerable uncertainty. While its numbers are preserved, it has no experienced person to step into Xenophon’s shoes.</p>
<p>And from what Xenophon said on Friday, he wants to keep his own feet in those shoes a good deal. “I will still be heavily involved in federal decisions,” he said. “I won’t be micromanaging but I will have a good idea of what is going on and I will be part of key decisions, particularly insofar as they affect South Australia.”</p>
<p>That might sound all right in theory. In practice it would be complicated, especially when there is complex legislation and difficult negotiations.</p>
<p>Even over the last year, there have been a few suggestions of differences between Xenophon and members of his team. The more time passes, the greater the chance of Xenophon losing touch with the federal nitty-gritty and the federal team resenting input from afar.</p>
<p>The leadership within parliament would have to go to one of the two other current senators: Stirling Griff (most likely) or Skye Kakoschke-Moore.</p>
<p>There is some uncertainty about whether Xenophon would remain overall leader of the party, as well as the state leader. His comment, quoted above, referring to “under my leadership”, suggests he would. And Griff says “we still consider him the leader of the federal party” as well as of the state party.</p>
<p>Immediate future arrangements will be discussed when the NXT meets on parliament’s resumption the week after next.</p>
<p>The longer-term questions will remain. Among them will be the name of the party for the next federal election, and whether Xenophon – even if he stays overlord of the federal party – can retain as much of a national profile when his focus becomes South Australian politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85338/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Nick Xenophon, the master of the stunt, is about to indulge in one more before he leaves the Senate for a run at ruling the South Australian roost from its crossbench. After his shock announcement that…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/834522017-09-04T12:11:40Z2017-09-04T12:11:40ZPolitics podcast: Nick Xenophon on media reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184495/original/file-20170904-16064-1jwe7az.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the leader of a Senate crossbench party, Nick Xenophon’s position on contentious legislation – currently media reform – is crucial for the government. </p>
<p>He says it’s “not for lack of trying” that the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) has not yet reached an agreement with the government on media ownership rules. He is pushing for tax breaks for smaller organisations to promote media diversity. </p>
<p>He also opposes concessions that the government has made to Pauline Hanson that would <a href="https://theconversation.com/abc-targeted-in-government-deal-with-pauline-hanson-82535">clip the wings of the ABC</a>, saying the NXT would vote against them.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the discovery of his dual citizenship means he is among the MPs now before the High Court over their eligibility to be in parliament. He’s been advised he has “the best case of the High Court seven”. </p>
<p>He holds serious concerns about another sort of citizenship issue – the government’s proposed tightening of laws for people to become Australians. “I think parts of this legislation simply go too far.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nick Xenophon's position on contentious legislation – currently media reform – is crucial for the government.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/783652017-05-25T12:41:32Z2017-05-25T12:41:32ZGrattan on Friday: Pauline Hanson’s strategist James Ashby can be a risky guy to have around<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170965/original/file-20170525-23232-1eg6g1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The AFP is evaluating a recording in which Pauline Hanson's adviser James Ashby suggests a a scam on taxpayers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2015 journalist Margo Kingston asked Pauline Hanson why she had James Ashby – someone with a chequered political history – working for her.</p>
<p>Kingston was the author of a 1999 book about Hanson and had also closely followed the story of Ashby, a key player in the sordid political downfall of Peter Slipper, the Liberal defector who became Julia Gillard’s Speaker.</p>
<p>“I don’t want to hear anything against him,” Hanson said very defensively of the man who has now become her trusted confidant in a close and powerful partnership.</p>
<p>But this week things turned sour for Ashby – and thus for Hanson – when he was caught, via a leaked recording, suggesting a scam on taxpayers. He proposed One Nation make money out of the Queensland election by presenting inflated receipts to the authorities. The idea wasn’t taken up, but this was a serious “please explain” moment for Ashby and his leader.</p>
<p>In a double blow to the party a staffer of Malcolm Roberts, its second Queensland senator, on Wednesday was arrested on multiple assault charges going back years. But it’s the Ashby affair – now being considered by the Australian Federal Police after a referral by Labor – that has the big potential implications.</p>
<p>Mostly, political staffers are known only to those within the beltway. Occasionally, however, they become public figures in their own right, because of their influence with their boss – Peta Credlin’s role with Tony Abbott obviously springs to mind.</p>
<p>In her first political iteration, Hanson’s right-hand man David Oldfield was mired in controversy. This time it’s Ashby. He calls a lot of the shots in the party, and has generated resentment at the grassroots level. He is the gatekeeper to her office. One observer of the party’s Senate operation says: “Pauline is the boss, but James keeps things moving on.”</p>
<p>In the current Senate, two parties based on high-profile “names” – Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) – are in pivotal positions on legislation when it is opposed by Labor and the Greens. Both parties are populist, though the NXT is centrist while One Nation is on the right, and promotes anti-Muslim sentiment.</p>
<p>So far they have operated very differently. Xenophon is the ultimate horse-trader, exacting concessions of all sorts in return for support. The government often finds itself with little choice but to say yes to demands that in other circumstances it would not countenance.</p>
<p>One Nation for the most part doesn’t have a “trading” approach and frequently tells the government early on its attitude to a particular piece of legislation. Fortunately for the Coalition it is more often than not one of support. It’s not surprising the government prefers dealing with One Nation than the NXT.</p>
<p>But it’s another matter out in the electorate, where One Nation presents a threat when voters are looking for opportunities to kick the major parties. With the Queensland election approaching, what’s happening to the One Nation vote is being keenly watched by Liberals and Nationals, and Labor too.</p>
<p>The Western Australian election was a setback for One Nation. It won three seats in the state’s upper house and its vote, looked at in the context of seats contested, was reasonable. But expectations had been raised too high, Hanson made gaffes, the campaign was shambolic, and she mismanaged her post-election narrative.</p>
<p>Given that Hanson’s base is Queensland, where populism is very strong in the regions, the state poll is regarded as a seminal test. It’s due early next year but is likely to be held before that. Depending to whom one speaks, that election could see the return of the Labor government or a change, with the One Nation winning no seats or several. At present One Nation has one seat, held by a defector from the Liberal National Party.</p>
<p>There is general agreement that One Nation won’t get a swag of seats, as happened in the 1998 Queensland election when it won 11, with nearly 23% of the vote.</p>
<p>A Galaxy Queensland poll in April had One Nation on 17%, down from 23% three months before. Other political players believe One Nation has come off the boil, but how it will trend from here remains to be seen. Nationally, it is on 9% in Newspoll.</p>
<p>Paul Williams, senior lecturer in politics at Griffith University, says there is no doubt One Nation’s support is dwindling but he still expects it will poll in double digits in the state election and predicts it will get two or three state seats, although it could be as few as one. </p>
<p>There could be another hung parliament, Williams says, and One Nation could share the balance of power. As Queensland’s is a unicameral parliament, there is no upper house for One Nation to have a shot at.</p>
<p>A significant difference between this Queensland election and 1998 is that there will be compulsory preferential voting, rather than optional preferential, which will make it harder for One Nation. </p>
<p>Federal Labor is pushing hard on Ashby. A prime motive is embarrassing the Coalition over preferences, ahead of the Queensland election, and the later federal one. The question of preferencing One Nation is always a delicate one for the conservatives. A preference deal with One Nation caused the WA Liberals more grief than gain.</p>
<p>The Queensland LNP has said it will decide its position on preferences closer to the election; it will take a pragmatic, seat-by-seat approach.</p>
<p>The horror stories related by disgruntled former One Nation members, including about candidates being bullied and forced to buy expensive campaign material, and the issues about Ashby’s behaviour are damaging for Hanson and her party. The depth of the Ashby problem will depend on what the AFP says.</p>
<p>The extent to which supporters will be alienated by the divisions and the talk of rorting is hard to judge. </p>
<p>On the one hand, they may be repelled by the revelations. </p>
<p>On the other hand, voters attracted to One Nation are often people simply wanting to hit out at the major parties, and so may take little notice of the scandals. They might just be listening to the woman who articulates their anger and grievances.</p>
<p>But if things go badly, Hanson could find herself asking the question that Kingston put to her.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/jj7pe-6b2773?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/jj7pe-6b2773?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78365/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Federal Labor is pushing hard on James Ashby. A prime motive is embarrassing the Coalition over preferences, ahead of the Queensland election, and the later federal one.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/755642017-03-31T11:35:05Z2017-03-31T11:35:05ZCompany tax compromise is limited but works for both Turnbull and Xenophon<p>The government’s company tax deal with Nick Xenophon has given Malcolm Turnbull something to spin between now and the May budget. It’s much less than the government’s A$48 billion plan, but it’s more than had earlier seemed likely to pass.</p>
<p>Turnbull said after the late-Friday Senate vote – passage through the lower house is a formality in the budget session – that the agreement would give a tax cut to more than 3 million small and medium-sized businesses, employing 6.5 million workers. It fully delivered the part of the election commitment applying to this term.</p>
<p>Under the deal, companies with an annual turnover of up to $50 million will get a cut. Those with a turnover of less than $10 million will have their tax reduced to 27.5% this financial year. The cut for businesses with turnovers up to $25 million comes in 2017-18, and that for companies with up to $50 million turnover in 2018-19.</p>
<p>The cost is $5.2 billion over the next four years, and $24 billion over the medium term.</p>
<p>The original government package was for a phased-in reduction for all companies to 25% over a decade, with the cuts for large companies at the back end.</p>
<p>Turnbull on Friday recommitted to the rest of the plan, as a business chorus urged him to stick with it. The Business Council of Australia (BCA) said the plan should “remain in the budget as the only policy on the table to revive the economy”. “There is no Plan B to get the economy moving again,” the BCA said.</p>
<p>Despite some fiscal advantage in taking the unlegislated tax cuts out of the budget, Turnbull had already indicated a week ago they would remain. To remove them would undermine the government’s arguments about their importance for jobs and growth. What is not covered by the deal is the tax cut for big business, and that is seen as what yields the economic benefit – albeit a modest benefit years away.</p>
<p>The Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) had been dug in for a long time behind backing cuts for businesses with turnovers up to $10 million.</p>
<p>Xenophon flagged in early March that he’d be open to going beyond the $10 million, although he put it in the negative terms of a threat – saying he wanted action on energy before he talked on tax.</p>
<p>He’d been influenced by the strong message coming to him from businesses about the pain that high energy prices was causing them.</p>
<p>In pulling the NXT up to the $50 million threshold, the government was helped by the rivalry between it and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. Both small parties have to show voters they can get results – hence Hanson’s antics on the sugar issue this week.</p>
<p>Hanson announced on Monday that One Nation favoured the $50 million threshold. After Friday’s vote she immediately claimed credit, saying “we led the way on tax relief for small-to-medium businesses and we did it all without horse trading”.</p>
<p>But Hanson’s numbers were no good to the government without Xenophon’s. And while Hanson might spurn “horse-trading”, Xenophon wants value for his three Senate votes.</p>
<p>He was never going to be accommodated with an energy intensity scheme, which was his initial ambit claim on Monday. Turnbull ruled a scheme out last year.</p>
<p>The government searched for what it could give him on energy without opening up more problems for itself. What he received is big on reviews and on recommitting to and accelerating things. He’s bought some ownership of some plans the government had.</p>
<p>Naturally South Australia, the NXT’s home state, was singled out for some special consideration. There’s a $110 million concessional loan for a solar-thermal plant at Port Augusta, a project to which the government was already committed.</p>
<p>The government has promised to help speed up consideration of a gas pipeline from the Northern Territory to Moomba in SA, accompanied by a very heavily qualified suggestion it just might be prepared to invest in infrastructure for the project.</p>
<p>There’s also a one-off payment of $75 for single people and $125 for couples who are on the aged pension, disability pension or parenting payment, couched as helping them with high electricity prices. This will cost the budget some $260 million – a significant sum in straitened times. The government would give no detail on when the payment would be made or where the savings for it would be found.</p>
<p>Labor’s Sam Dastyari told Xenophon he had been “sold a pup”. There will almost certainly be slippage with the concessions, given the vagueness. Even so, there is enough in the deal to work for him.</p>
<p>Once again, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann can take a bow for this outcome. Cormann has become the government’s crossbench whisperer. He enjoys the trust of this mixed bunch even if, in the words of one (not from the NXT), “he’s a bit hairy-chested about legislation by exhaustion”.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/49h57-691b37?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/49h57-691b37?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75564/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The government’s company tax deal with Nick Xenophon has given Malcolm Turnbull something to spin between now and the May budget. It’s much less than the government’s A$48 billion plan, but it’s more than…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/755412017-03-31T02:12:36Z2017-03-31T02:12:36ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the company tax cut<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EWNbkxy8NKI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As the Senate returned on Friday, the fate of the government’s ten-year company tax package was still up in the air. Michelle Grattan tells University of Canberra vice-chancellor Deep Saini that the crossbenchers were not buying the plan.</p>
<p>“The Nick Xenophon Team has been for a long time talking about confining the tax cuts to firms that have a turnover of less than A$10 million annually. </p>
<p>"But then the One Nation team said it was willing to support cuts for firms with up to $50 million turnover a year, and so what the government has been trying to do is drag the Xenophon Team up to the $50 million threshold. And as we speak the outcome of that is still uncertain.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75541/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the Senate returned on Friday, the fate of the government’s ten-year company tax package was still up in the air.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraPaddy Nixon, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/754802017-03-30T19:12:58Z2017-03-30T19:12:58ZGrattan on Friday: Turnbull’s taxing battle as fractious session grinds towards end<p>Probably it was appropriate they did it. And it was best they did it together. But seeing Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten dash off early on Thursday to cyclone-ravaged north Queensland, then fly back for a slightly delayed Question Time, did invite a little cynicism about gesture politics.</p>
<p>Especially when the two leaders, in their brief respite from tearing shreds off each other, posed together with large brooms, just long enough for the cameras but too briefly to make any difference to the sweeping.</p>
<p>On the other hand, maybe there is some positive parable about the strength of our democratic system, a touch of reassuring tonic in face of the negativity and hostility that characterises this parliament.</p>
<p>The government started the session’s final week with another poll showing it would lose an election held now, and another snafu.</p>
<p>The latest embarrassment was the failed attempt to ratify an extradition treaty with China. The bungling over the treaty, which has been hanging around signed but not ratified since 2007, annoyed China and brought criticism within Coalition ranks of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who is usually well dressed in teflon.</p>
<p>Hard on the heels of the visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, the government had expected to smooth through the ratification. But a backbench revolt materialised, former prime minister Tony Abbott weighed in, and Labor flagged opposition.</p>
<p>Turnbull quickly cut his losses to minimise diplomatic and political damage. It was the only sensible course. The government stressed it had not dropped its support for ratification, just put it off, but don’t hold your breath.</p>
<p>The motives of those government MPs against ratification were mixed. There were understandable concerns about such an agreement, given how China’s institutions operate. But there was also an element of stirring, especially in the Abbott intervention, which follows his many other forays. One government source went so far as to claim that “the single biggest challenge the government has got is Tony Abbott”, adding grimly: “he is very good at what he does”.</p>
<p>The treaty row won’t have any significant impact on the domestic fray, unlike three other issues dominating this week: penalty rates, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, and company tax cuts.</p>
<p>Labor succeeded in getting through the Senate its private member’s bill on overturning the Fair Work Commission’s cut to Sunday penalty rates; it was supported by One Nation (after Pauline Hanson did a backflip), the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), Derryn Hinch, and Jacqui Lambie, as well as the Greens.</p>
<p>The bill will die, but the issue is burning the Coalition and a gift for Labor.</p>
<p>Labor received another break with the government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission on the minimum wage. It urges the commission “take a cautious approach, taking into account the uncertain economic outlook and the need to boost employment and job creation, particularly for young people and the low-skilled”.</p>
<p>It didn’t help when the normally sure-footed employment minister, Michaelia Cash, botched a radio interview, unable to answer a question about a line in the submission.</p>
<p>The fate of the government’s push on 18C was a mixed bag, without surprises. The rewording, the focus for the Liberal conservatives, was voted down by the Senate, but the government will emerge with changes to the complaint-handling process. The conservatives will continue their pressure to keep 18C on the agenda, giving Labor ammunition in Liberal marginal seats with large ethnic votes.</p>
<p>For the government the week’s most critical issue is the A$48 billion ten-year company tax cuts package, which was still in play when the Senate adjourned just after midnight Thursday.</p>
<p>It’s been clear the government has no hope of legislating the whole package, but could apparently secure cuts for businesses with turnovers up to $10 million. Ahead of the Senate vote, Treasurer Scott Morrison on Thursday declared that passing the $10 million turnover version would be “a significant achievement for this government”.</p>
<p>But economist Saul Eslake, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-small-business-tax-cuts-arent-likely-to-boost-jobs-and-growth-72658">writing for The Conversation</a>, has pointed out “there is no evidence at all to support the notion that preferentially taxing small businesses will do anything to boost ‘jobs and growth’”. It is cutting tax for the large businesses that has the main impact on growth and jobs.</p>
<p>This week a notable new feature entered the battle – competition between the two small crossbench blocs, the NXT and One Nation, for ownership of the outcome.</p>
<p>The NXT has long supported the $10 million threshold. Then at the start of the week Xenophon flagged he’d consider going beyond that if the government agreed to an energy intensity scheme – something it firmly ruled out last year. Meanwhile Hanson on Monday announced she supported cuts for companies with up to $50 million turnover.</p>
<p>Seizing the opportunity, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann in particular has thrown massive effort into trying to get the NXT up to $50 million, which would be a major win and morale booster for the government. Negotiations were complicated by Xenophon returning to Adelaide on Wednesday after a death in his family.</p>
<p>When he touched down again in Canberra on Thursday evening, a stressed Xenophon was under enormous pressure. Talks went on late into the night. If the NXT moved to $50 million, it would be following One Nation – not a good look without a big trade-off.</p>
<p>When the Senate adjourned, debate on the tax package hadn’t even started. As the sitting stretches into Friday, not even Xenophon knows where it will end.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/49h57-691b37?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/49h57-691b37?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75480/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The fate of the government’s push on Section 18C was a mixed bag, without surprises. The week’s most critical issue is the company tax cuts package, which is still in play.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731972017-02-17T01:44:14Z2017-02-17T01:44:14ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the omnibus bill<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X1jHoVv62Kg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The government was this week caught off-guard by a decision from the Nick Xenophon Team to reject the so-called omnibus bill. Michelle Grattan tells University of Canberra vice-chancellor Deep Saini that the core of the bill was a reform package to shake up child care to benefit lower- and middle-income families.</p>
<p>“But this has to be paid for and the government wants to shave family tax payments to raise some money to do that. There are also other savings in this bill – the so-called "zombie measures” – many coming from the 2014 budget,“ Grattan says.</p>
<p>"Now to pass this bill, the government has to get crossbench support. And this week, the Xenophon team said "no”. That’s a really bad blow for the government.</p>
<p>“Achieving savings is very, very difficult for the government because there are almost always losers and they’re very vocal and, of course, the government – being behind in the polls – doesn’t want to alienate any more people than it has already alienated.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73197/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government was this week caught off-guard by a decision from the Nick Xenophon Team to reject the omnibus bill.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraPaddy Nixon, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731462017-02-16T12:22:43Z2017-02-16T12:22:43ZGrattan on Friday: The ‘omnibus’ puts government in a tangle and Xenophon in a jam<p>The trenchant stand that Nick Xenophon – who is usually a compromiser – and his team took this week against the omnibus bill, which combines childcare reform and savings in family and other payments, saw a disconcerted government resort to a risky tactic.</p>
<p>It threatened taxes could have to rise if adequate savings couldn’t be found to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and other spending. This let loose hares that ran out of the government’s control.</p>
<p>While declaring the government didn’t want to go down this path, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said that without the required savings “there comes a day when the only way you can repair the budget is through tax increases”. </p>
<p>The threat, also coming from Treasurer Scott Morrison, cut across what has been a core message – that the government stands against tax increases.</p>
<p>There are two points to be made. The threat can be seen as a statement of the obvious if the budget is to be returned to balance. And anyway, the government hasn’t lived by its own stated position – indeed its first (2014) budget increased income tax on high earners.</p>
<p>But this week’s general threat sent confusing signals, raised the spectre of disunity among ministers, and publicly overshadowed the Coalition’s concentration on the energy security issue.</p>
<p>On Thursday the threat became specific when the Australian Financial Review <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/policy/plan-to-cut-capital-gains-tax-discount-for-property-investors-20170215-gudwdc">reported</a> that the government was “planning a crackdown on capital gains tax concessions for property investors” – a narrower version of a policy Labor proposed, and the government opposed, at the election.</p>
<p>Cormann and Malcolm Turnbull had to try to trap this particular hare – although Turnbull, under sustained questioning in parliament, took a long time to do it, finally saying the government had “no intention or plan to change capital gains tax”.</p>
<p>On Thursday evening Turnbull got to where the government should have been all along. Asked on Sky about tax rises he said: “I am not going to get into a hypothetical discussion about what might happen if something doesn’t occur”.</p>
<p>Rightly or wrongly, the finger was being pointed at Morrison or his office for putting the capital gains option into the public arena.</p>
<p>Some of the colleagues are once again looking askance at Morrison.</p>
<p>He was the originator of <a href="https://theconversation.com/morrison-pushed-ndis-hypothecation-announcement-despite-caution-about-timing-from-turnbulls-office-72994">the idea of “hypothecating”</a> several billion dollars in omnibus bill savings for the NDIS. Morrison thought that would be an incentive to help muster crossbench support for the bill – but it had the opposite effect, triggering a big backlash including from the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), which hadn’t yet announced its opposition to the bill although it was heading in that direction.</p>
<p>The Prime Minister’s Office had cautioned against announcing the hypothecation just now – the bill is a long way from a vote – but Morrison was gung ho.</p>
<p>Last week saw Morrison’s amazing coal stunt, when he took a lump of the stuff into the House of Representatives chamber. Turnbull was unimpressed. But Morrison has had no visible regrets about his gesture to put coal “back on the table”.</p>
<p>“Look … sometimes you’ve got to do something like that to get some attention onto the issue,” he told 2GB’s Ray Hadley. One media outlet this week had on social media a picture of the lump on display in Morrison’s office.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, after his “Bill-and-the-billionaires” speech of last week, Turnbull this week kept up the personal attack on Shorten, at one point accusing him of making a “snivelling personal explanation … almost bursting into tears that the mean people on the government side had said nasty things about him”.</p>
<p>This abuse has gone down a treat with government MPs; the next Newspoll will be an indication of the impact on the public.</p>
<p>For Xenophon, the past few days have brought home just how difficult things can become when you hold a great deal of crossbench power.</p>
<p>Xenophon has shown himself over many years to be an extremely canny politician, adroit at political positioning. He has the knack of tapping into the public pulse, and then getting maximum publicity for his response.</p>
<p>But with the NXT crucial to the passage of government bills that are contested by Labor and the Greens, there is also the obligation to take into account wider issues, at the moment most notably repair of a budget that is in very poor shape.</p>
<p>The omnibus bill had the NXT caught every which way. Parents (and the NXT) want the reformed childcare system, and the budget desperately needs savings. But hard-pressed families don’t want to be hit by the shaving of family tax benefits, cutbacks to paid parental leave, or various other tough measures in the bill.</p>
<p>Xenophon is seeking to counter criticism by suggesting alternative savings should be found, for example, in curbing waste in defence, and a small increase in the Medicare levy on high income earners to help with the NDIS.</p>
<p>His opposition to the bill unleashed a huge attack from News Corp media, with the Daily Telegraph labelling him, on its front page under the heading NICK OFF, “a self-absorbed politician from a backwater town called Adelaide” who “stands accused of seriously damaging the nation’s prosperity with a campaign against the federal government bordering on fiscal sabotage”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"831971405050703872"}"></div></p>
<p>Though a seasoned player, Xenophon seemed shocked and rather shaken by the ferocity of the coverage.</p>
<p>Unlike in the last parliament when Xenophon could decide alone, he now has three colleagues. There have been suggestions of differences of view within the NXT; he says their approach is one of reaching “consensus”.</p>
<p>Despite the NXT’s “no” to the omnibus bill, Xenophon still appears to hanker for a compromise – beyond the minor savings the NXT has flagged it can accept in the wide-ranging bill.</p>
<p>He seems uncomfortable with where things are at the moment. “The omnibus needs to be parked for a while,” he said. He didn’t say it should be sent to the wreckers.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/e2my3-67bf00?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/e2my3-67bf00?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/tm592-67b71d?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/tm592-67b71d?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73146/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The trenchant stand that Nick Xenophon – who is usually a compromiser – and his team took this week against the omnibus bill saw a disconcerted government resort to a risky tactic.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/729942017-02-14T10:24:43Z2017-02-14T10:24:43ZMorrison pushed NDIS ‘hypothecation’ announcement despite caution about timing from Turnbull’s office<p>Within the Turnbull government there is gnashing of teeth in the wake of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) giving the thumbs down to the omnibus bill.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/omnibus-welfare-bill-shows-the-always-tricky-politics-of-budget-savings-72657">This bill</a> includes the childcare reform package and trade-off savings in cuts to family tax benefits. It also has a raft of other measures that the government had previously been unable to pass, among them a four-week wait for unemployed young people seeking income support.</p>
<p>By this week, the NXT – whose support was crucial to pass the legislation – was heading to opposing the bill anyway. But Monday’s announcement that A$3 billion of savings from the bill would be hypothecated to help pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) gave it an added justification.</p>
<p>The announcement, at a joint news conference by Treasurer Scott Morrison, Social Services Minister Christian Porter and Education Minister Simon Birmingham, was designed to increase the pressure on the crossbench. But all it did was put pressure of a different kind on the government.</p>
<p>It was soon portrayed as a reprehensible use of the disabled as a bargaining chip. As the NXT said in its Tuesday statement, it was considered to be “‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ and viewed in the same way as holding childcare reforms hostage to family tax benefit cuts”.</p>
<p>“As a negotiating tactic, this is as subtle as a sledgehammer,” Nick Xenophon said.</p>
<p>Porter wore much of the public odium. But the hypothecation idea had come from Morrison.</p>
<p>Interestingly, there had been some resistance from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to the timing of announcing it.</p>
<p>The PMO urged caution. It was felt that the government’s selling of the childcare package was going well – so why introduce this new element now? But Morrison, for whatever reason, was insistent.</p>
<p>The message at the press conference was that Labor had not fully funded the NDIS and that if the omnibus bill’s savings were not tipped into the NDIS bucket, then the government would have to look elsewhere for the money, because it was committed to funding the disability scheme.</p>
<p>When the omnibus bill was announced last week, the government was “fingers-crossed” confident it would pass, albeit with horse-trading and more concessions than those it already contained.</p>
<p>As it turned out, the omnibus form – the move to have a mega bill came from Morrison – alienated the NXT. It didn’t like the measures being wrapped together, when it had been negotiating item by item.</p>
<p>There had been extensive discussions over a long period with the crossbenchers, including with both the NXT and Xenophon alone. So when Xenophon rang the government on Monday night to inform it of what he planned to say, his rebuff came as an unpleasant shock.</p>
<p>There is a belief in the government that Xenophon might have been more amenable to the core of the omnibus bill than others in his team. There are two NXT senators besides him and one lower house MP, in the all-South Australian four-member team.</p>
<p>Rebekha Sharkie, the NXT spokesperson on social services, represents the Adelaide Hills seat of Mayo and is tuned in to families who would lose out from the paring back of the family payments. On her calculation, more than 7,500 families in Mayo would be hit by the change to Family Tax Benefit Part A alone.</p>
<p>The “no” from the NXT is a serious blow for the government, which has been starting to build a narrative that it can get things through this new Senate.</p>
<p>It’s vital for Malcolm Turnbull to convince voters he can deliver on policy. Delivery, incidentally, can also be used as a justification for a double dissolution that let four One Nation senators into parliament.</p>
<p>The government will now try to salvage what it can of the savings in the bill. But Porter has acknowledged they will be minor. Apart from rejecting the family tax benefit cuts, the NXT opposes imposing the wait on young people for income support and the revamping of the paid parental leave scheme.</p>
<p>The omnibus bill will go to a Senate inquiry as it wends its path to an eventual vote, so there is some way left in the process.</p>
<p>But, as things stand, this is a dead bill walking – and the government’s budget has become that much harder to put together.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/zf38q-677342?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/zf38q-677342?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8vd69-67798f?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8vd69-67798f?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72994/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Within the Turnbull government there is gnashing of teeth in the wake of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) giving the thumbs down to the omnibus bill. This bill includes the childcare reform package and trade-off…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/697842016-12-02T06:21:02Z2016-12-02T06:21:02ZABCC amended local content rules will help Australian steelmakers compete against low-quality imports<p>Senator Xenophon deserves a Christmas card from the nation’s steelmakers, after his negotiation with the government to deliver their Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) legislation. The deal saw significant changes made to government procurement rules.</p>
<p>The changes require that companies bidding for government projects worth more than A$4 million <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5129">will need to outline</a> in their bid:</p>
<ul>
<li>how much locally-produced material is included</li>
<li>how their proposal would contribute to local employment</li>
<li>how their proposal would grow local skills</li>
<li>the whole-of-life cost of the project</li>
<li>that the materials used comply with Australian product standards.</li>
</ul>
<p>These new requirements should work in favour of local steel producers not only because of the emphasis on local content but because of the clauses around standards and whole of life costs.</p>
<p>Creating high quality steel isn’t easy and high quality isn’t uniform through the international industry. For many grades of steel, ensuring the steel is “clean”- which for a steelmaker means keeping non-metallic impurities (called “inclusions”) to a minimum and preventing excessive dissolution of gases into the metallic structure – is important for ensuring high quality performance and minimising unexpected cracks and failures.</p>
<p>There have been significant advances internationally over the last two or three decades in getting steel “clean”. In particular, around engineering the chemistry of steel to ensure the inclusions that are too small to remove from the steel when molten, don’t weaken the structure of the steel excessively once the steel is solid. </p>
<p>Low technology steelmakers with lowly trained workforces don’t generally aim to make high-value steels, instead aiming at lower grades of steel where such levels of control are not required. Reinforcing bar (used in concrete structures) is an example of such a product, where price and availability are the prime issues in the marketplace. The steels required for the new submarine fleet are at the opposite end of this quality control/cost continuum.</p>
<p>Local steelmakers have complained about the quality of imported Chinese steel that has <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-17/safety-warning-over-fabricated-chinese-steel/6949506">recently flooded the local market</a> and there is lots anecdotal evidence to support these claims, though it must be acknowledged that it’s difficult to find an objective study of the problem. Not all Chinese steel is low quality, as there are clearly many advanced and high tech steel producers in that country.</p>
<p>This new requirement around quality means the onus will be on the company bidding to demonstrate that steel being used meets appropriate standards. In simple terms, if Australian companies like Arrium and Bluescope can make good quality steel locally, this clause should place their product ahead in the bidding process. This is compared to any company (Australian or otherwise) that costs their projects based on using cheap steel that is being dumped. </p>
<p>This clause also puts pressure on Australian steel companies to maintain high standards of quality, as a means of distinguishing themselves in the market. Which sends the right message to an industry that will need to focus on quality if it wants to have a successful future.</p>
<p>The whole of life clause could also work in favour of steel producers, depending on how this requirement is interpreted. In general, steel has much lower environmental impact in its production compared to other materials. For example, the production of one tonne of steel results in about <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652606002320">one tenth of the impact on global warming compared to the same quantity of aluminium</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/steel-and-aluminium-factsheet.pdf">Aluminium and steel also share a good record in recycling</a> compared to plastics and composites, as these materials can be recycled many times, where as plastics and composites are often degraded in the recycling process. Several classes of these materials do not have a recognised recycling route <a href="https://www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/cua_plastic_recycling_fact_sheet.pdf">and end up as land fill</a>.</p>
<p>These materials look attractive compared to steel, in terms of environmental impact when their lightweight properties are used to save fuel, such as the case of transport. But for large structural projects (as associated with government tenders), the whole of life analysis is likely to favour steel over other materials because of the lower environmental impact and high recyclability, combined with strength and durability.</p>
<p>These more recent changes to the procurement rules are good for the long-term future of steel production in this country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69784/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoffrey Brooks has previously received funding from OneSteel for research into fundamental aspects of steelmaking and supervises students projects associated with OneSteel. He is actively involved in the Association of Iron and Steel Technology. </span></em></p>Changes to construction material requirements from negotiations on the ABCC will give Australian steelmakers a chance to step-up.Geoffrey Brooks, Professor of Engineering, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/672322016-10-18T05:42:47Z2016-10-18T05:42:47ZPolitics podcast: Stirling Griff and Skye Kakoschke-Moore on life in the Senate<p>Nick Xenophon’s two new Senate colleagues, Stirling Griff and Skye Kakoschke-Moore, are no strangers to the political process, having both worked with Xenophon behind the scenes.</p>
<p>In a joint interview, they tell Michelle Grattan about their contrasting experiences in becoming politicians. Kakoschke-Moore says she has had the benefit of being around Xenophon for nearly six years. “So I understand the way he operates,” she says. </p>
<p>Working as a Xenophon adviser, she learnt the ropes of the Senate. “It is so rule-driven and so procedure-driven that I have a great deal of sympathy for people coming into this who have had no exposure at all to the inner workings of Senate procedure.”</p>
<p>Stirling Griff, on the other hand, has had a “huge learning curve”. </p>
<p>“I’m following behind Skye like she’s the mother hen and I imagine I’ll be doing that really for another few more weeks,” he says. </p>
<p>With the government’s industrial relations legislation before the parliament, the Nick Xenophon Team is looking for some amendments. </p>
<p>“Particularly in relation to the building code and requiring building projects, to the greatest extent possible, to use Australian goods and services. So we’ll be looking at the bills closely but we’ll also be keeping an open mind to amendments,” Kakoschke-Moore says. </p>
<p>The pair are dismissive of any move by senator David Leyonhjelm to push for concessions on gun laws in exchange for passage of the industrial relations bills.</p>
<p>“They’re not related and we don’t want to play those games,” Griff says.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67232/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Nick Xenophon's two new Senate colleagues, Stirling Griff and Skye Kakoschke-Moore, are no strangers to the political process.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635522016-08-04T12:17:55Z2016-08-04T12:17:55ZGrattan on Friday: Twenty years on, the Perils of Pauline haunt another Liberal leader<p>The election for the Senate hasn’t ended well. To have four senators from One Nation in the upper house is worse than unfortunate.</p>
<p>If Malcolm Turnbull had not called a double dissolution, but settled for a normal half-Senate election, Pauline Hanson would probably have been elected but not with three other One Nation candidates.</p>
<p>The potential sway of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) received much attention before the election but it has secured one less Senate place than Hanson’s group, which emerged as the big winners when the final Senate results were announced on Thursday.</p>
<p>The Senate outcome is Coalition 30, Labor 26, Greens nine, One Nation four, NXT three, Liberal Democrat one, Family First one, Jacqui Lambie, and Derryn Hinch. The number of non-Green crossbenchers is 11, compared with the eight previously, with the government requiring nine to pass bills opposed by Labor and the Greens.</p>
<p>Turnbull has absorbed the lesson that the Abbott government did not master – the need to try to strike meaningful relationships with the crossbenchers from the start.</p>
<p>When he became leader Turnbull reached out to the then crossbench but there was not adequate follow-through – that was the senators’ story, anyway.</p>
<p>Now a good deal of preparation is being done. Turnbull has been in touch with a number of the crossbench senators, including meeting Hanson. David Bold, until recently in change of Turnbull’s media team, has a fresh assignment. He’ll head a new group of three or four within the Prime Minister’s Office that will liaise with the crossbench and the government backbench. </p>
<p>Bold’s own focus will be on the crossbench senators who will determine how much of the contested parts of the Coalition’s program gets through.</p>
<p>Government Senate leader George Brandis predicts the new crossbench could be “somewhat easier to deal with” than its predecessor. Certainly it will not receive quite the provocation that one did – we won’t be seeing another budget like 2014’s.</p>
<p>Immediately after the election, it was thought the government would have no hope of getting passed the industrial relations bills used to trigger the double dissolution – these would resurrect the Australian Building and Construction Commission and toughen union governance.</p>
<p>Now it is expected the numbers are there for them to get through a joint sitting. But they may even pass the Senate, with some amendments, making the joint sitting unnecessary.</p>
<p>The government judges the new non-Green crossbenchers as being, overall, more conservative-leaning than the last lot; it also thinks things will be simpler when there are two blocs.</p>
<p>There’s precedent for the very occasional deal with the Greens. But when Labor and the Greens team up to oppose legislation, the Coalition will need support from NXT and One Nation senators. </p>
<p>If each bloc stays together and both blocs back a measure, the Coalition requires two more votes. Family First’s Bob Day is sympathetic, and Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm – though presently angry at Liberal attacks on his party – should often be winnable.</p>
<p>Then there’s Hinch. In one of those exquisite twists of politics, Hinch’s adviser is Glenn Druery, famous as the “preference whisperer”. It was Druery’s “whispering” that wrangled the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party’s Ricky Muir a seat at the 2013 election. </p>
<p>The government and Greens combined to bring in a new voting system to thwart the “whisperer”, although its effect of squeezing minor players was offset by having a double dissolution. Druery says his advice to Hinch is: “work with the government where possible, but don’t do anything for free”.</p>
<p>The Senate situation clearly delivers a great deal of power to Xenophon and Hanson, both of them populist and protectionist, though in other ways hugely different.</p>
<p>Xenophon is the experienced negotiator and networker, used to the subtleties of the Senate game. In policy terms he is especially concerned about the embattled manufacturing sector. </p>
<p>He is also focused on his home state of South Australia – this will be reinforced by his team (there is a fourth in the lower house) all being elected from that state. Unlike Hanson with senators from three states, Xenophon – despite his earlier aspirations – wasn’t able to plant a national footprint at the election.</p>
<p>Hanson in this new setting is an unknown quantity. Parliament gives her a platform but also, for the first time, the opportunity for a seat at the table.</p>
<p>Her comments suggest she has been chuffed by the government going out of its way to show a pleasant face to her. “He was very gracious,” she said after a meeting with Turnbull, especially, no doubt, as “I did most of the talking”.</p>
<p>When she entered parliament as member for Oxley in 1996, recently disendorsed by the Liberal Party, Hanson became an extraordinarily powerful disruptive force in Australian politics, with severe fallout for John Howard.</p>
<p>This time, will she remain the outsider, using parliament as a soap box, or will she seek to be more of the insider in that place of complex dynamics, the Senate?</p>
<p>And how will Labor handle her? The ALP finds the Hansonites extremely distasteful politically, but it can hardly ignore a bloc of four. Someone in Labor will eventually have to put the kettle on, literally or figuratively. If they don’t, the ALP will be handing the government a useful break.</p>
<p>Hanson has got the jackpot at the election but she faces her own nightmare. This party is slack on unity and discipline and big on individuals with strongly held opinions, including some divisive, offensive and downright wacky ones.</p>
<p>While ultimately Hanson’s power depends on her being able to deliver a bloc, in fact the Hansonites are likely to split on particular votes. The One Nation team could end up the same way as the Palmer United Party, which saw two of its three senators become independents.</p>
<p>Thanks to Turnbull, the Hansonites, together and individually, are set to be a signature story of this parliament.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-211" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/211/e986084e62ac97aa73fbb1a44f93029ce782668a/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/ce8vs-6175ee?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/ce8vs-6175ee?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The election for the Senate hasn’t ended well. To have four senators from One Nation in the upper house is worse than unfortunate.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/621102016-07-06T11:56:40Z2016-07-06T11:56:40ZBarnaby Joyce gives some protection on Turnbull’s vulnerable right flank<p>Within the Coalition the only cheer is among the Nationals who, if some late counting goes their way, could actually gain one in their numbers at an election where the government has lost a swag of seats. At worst the junior partner, with 21 seats in total in the last parliament, would probably be only one down.</p>
<p>The Nationals haven’t wasted any time pointing to their success, which they attribute to running a very grassroots campaign.</p>
<p>For the future, both leader Barnaby Joyce and party president Larry Anthony declare the Nationals will be more assertive in a new Coalition government, assuming that’s the election outcome.</p>
<p>The Coalition has strengthened its position in the latest counting, with the ABC computer on Wednesday giving it 72 seats, Labor 66, with five independents and seven seats still in doubt. ABC election analyst Antony Green allocates an extra seat to the Coalition. It needs 76 to reach majority government.</p>
<p>Joyce was at Malcolm Turnbull’s side at Tuesday’s news conference. You can view them as the odd couple, or as yin and yang – the urban sophisticate, epitome of the high-tech world, and the stump politician who, while Sydney-educated and an accountant, comes across as an authentic voice from regional Australia.</p>
<p>When Turnbull was opposition leader, the two didn’t get on. These days they are comfortable in each other’s company and, especially now, a good fit despite – or because of – their policy and political divergence.</p>
<p>Joyce is a populist, Turnbull anything but. Turnbull is socially progressive, Joyce conservative, for example an opponent of same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>For Turnbull, Joyce provides some protection on his vulnerable right flank, as the Liberal conservatives try to cut him down to size.</p>
<p>Since he took over as Nationals leader earlier this year Joyce has played a tight team game. In the election, he held off a challenge for his own seat from former independent MP Tony Windsor, while campaigning elsewhere. There was the odd glitch, but not amounting to much.</p>
<p>The Nationals have regenerated in recent years, with retirements and new people arriving, and Joyce is set on growing the party and its leverage. The election result provides a big opportunity.</p>
<p>Depending on the final numbers split within the Coalition, the Nationals under the set formula almost certainly would be entitled to another junior minister. According to some sources, a best-case scenario could see them entitled to a fifth cabinet spot as well, depending on the size of Turnbull’s cabinet.</p>
<p>It is understood Joyce, who has flirted with taking the infrastructure portfolio, would be more likely to stick with his present job of agriculture.</p>
<p>There are a couple of reasons.</p>
<p>In the campaign the government announced a Regional Investment Corporation to oversee some A$4.5 billion of drought and water infrastructure loans provided to state governments and farmers. This is not new money, but funds presently borrowed by the Commonwealth and sent to the states, which administer them. Under the plan, this administration would be done by the federal government.</p>
<p>The fund, dubbed “Barnaby’s bank”, would come within the agriculture portfolio and Joyce is anxious to be the one to bed it down.</p>
<p>Another reason for not taking on a new ministry is that Joyce would expect to have a considerable role negotiating with crossbenchers. This would be particularly so if the Coalition were a minority government. Who else would be well-placed to deal on an ongoing basis with the vociferous ex-National, Bob Katter?</p>
<p>In case he needs him, Turnbull will meet Katter in Brisbane on Thursday. On Wednesday he met Nick Xenophon in Sydney – the Nick Xenophon Team will have one lower house seat.</p>
<p>Even in a majority Coalition government, a lot of work would have to be done with the Senate crossbenchers. Joyce has a long history with Xenophon, who’ll have an upper house mini-bloc – the two were close when Joyce was a Queensland senator.</p>
<p>When Turnbull became prime minister, then-Nationals leader Warren Truss included in the Coalition agreement a number of policy items – among them, maintenance of existing policies on climate change and the reference of same-sex marriage to a plebiscite. The desire for formal policy commitments reflected the Nationals’ distrust of Turnbull – eyes would be on whether Joyce sought to formalise a policy deal this time.</p>
<p>Given a new shine from the election, the Nationals would be well placed to boost their influence in Turnbull’s government. But the party’s clout within the Coalition, going back into its Country Party days, has waxed and waned largely according to the personal strength and savviness of its leading figures. That will be the real test of Joyce.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/26bqd-60b409?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/26bqd-60b409?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Within the Coalition the only cheer is among the Nationals who could actually gain one in their numbers at an election where the government has lost a swag of seats.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/620162016-07-04T12:56:51Z2016-07-04T12:56:51ZThis parliament – hung or unhung – will bring us another continuous election campaign<p>The irony of stridently warning people against voting for minor players and then, all charm, ringing those players when you personally might need their votes may be lost on Malcolm Turnbull. After all, a politician’s skillset includes being able to stand on your head without going red in the face.</p>
<p>As he waits impatiently for the results in the ten outstanding seats, Turnbull doesn’t know whether, if he survives in government, he’d have the slimmest majority (76 of 150 seats) in the House of Representatives, or be coping with a hung parliament. His calls indicate he is planning for the latter while desperately hoping for the former.</p>
<p>Turnbull bunkered down on Monday but Bill Shorten returned to the still-warm campaign trail in western Sydney to flaunt his unexpectedly extensive gains.</p>
<p>There remains a chance he could form a minority Labor government, though it is considered an outside one. Shorten’s call for Turnbull to quit the leadership signalled that a precarious Coalition government would face an energised, aggressive opposition.</p>
<p>Labor’s Anthony Albanese, who confirmed on Monday night he wouldn’t make a leadership run in the automatic spill that comes if Labor remains in opposition, predicted Australians would likely be back at the polls “well before” the end of the three-year term.</p>
<p>What has become in recent years Australia’s continuous election campaign will just intensify after Saturday’s vote.</p>
<p>If Turnbull is to go into minority government he would either have to strike crossbench deals or at least obtain enough backing on the central matters of supply and confidence to allow him to govern.</p>
<p>The lower house crossbenchers will be independents Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie, Bob Katter of Katter’s Australian Party, the Greens’ Adam Bandt, and the Nick Xenophon Team’s (NXT) Rebekha Sharkie. By Monday Turnbull had called all but Bandt. Possibly the crossbench number could be larger – the NXT candidate is in a close race for the South Australia seat of Grey, held by the Liberals.</p>
<p>Wilkie and McGowan shy away from the idea of formal deals with either side. Xenophon is more pragmatic, while the Greens would be eager to power-share with Labor (but the ALP says never ever).</p>
<p>In considering his position, Xenophon would evaluate what he could extract for his policy agenda, as well as considering the question of stability.</p>
<p>Would a minority government be the horror Turnbull painted before the election? Those who argue it wouldn’t point out such governments operate satisfactorily abroad and at state level, and note the Gillard government passed much significant legislation. They observe that having to negotiate on legislation can make for improvements.</p>
<p>But remember a minority Turnbull government would face double jeopardy. Its problems would not be just in the lower house. The Coalition would have an obstacle course in the Senate whether in minority or majority government. Albanese argues the Senate would be easier for a Labor government.</p>
<p>In retrospect, calling a double dissolution, with its small quota for getting elected, was a disastrous decision by Turnbull. The old Senate crossbench was difficult enough – the new one is potentially more so. Among the crossbenchers will be three from NXT and, on ABC election analyst Antony Green’s reckoning, three from Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.</p>
<p>Turnbull, who preaches the values of an inclusive society, has inadvertently not only facilitated the re-entry to parliament of a woman who stands for the very opposite, but likely enabled her to get a significant Senate bloc.</p>
<p>While the Hansonites and NXT are vastly dissimilar in many ways, they are both populist on economic issues, tapping into and articulating community fears about the fallout from market economics and globalisation. This works against the prospect of getting significant economic reforms through the parliament.</p>
<p>A minority government would be especially hostage to having to provide costly benefits. Xenophon is already making more help for Arrium Steel a core demand. </p>
<p>The Western Australian government is complaining it won’t have any chance of a greater slice of the GST revenue because the federal government will have to do a deal with Xenophon, “a South Australian protectionist”, whose state is a beneficiary under the existing distribution.</p>
<p>A well-functioning political system requires checks and balances. In the years when the Howard government controlled the Senate, the mechanisms for scrutiny of administration were lessened, and legislation could be just rammed through. This came back to bite the government when WorkChoices was passed without its harsh edges rubbed off. But if the roadblocks make things unworkable, a government can do little. </p>
<p>Of course the right balance is in the beholder’s eye. The Liberals condemned the Senate’s refusal to pass controversial 2014 budget measures; many voters were relieved.</p>
<p>Whether he has to work in minority government or with the finest of margins, Turnbull – if confirmed in power – will face the toughest period of his political life.</p>
<p>In a hung parliament he would need to have regular “face time” with lower house crossbenchers (Julia Gillard was very good at this). The kettle should always be on. Whether the parliament was hung or not, crossbench senators would require attention by the leader. But Malcolm and Pauline, over tea?</p>
<p>The personal touch is vital – crossbenchers who have power want a prime minister to acknowledge it, including in small ways. They are sensitive to slights and react badly to neglect. Tony Abbott failed to give crossbench senators enough attention, to his cost. Not all this work can be delegated.</p>
<p>At the same time, it would be vital for Turnbull to set limits. If a leader is willing to negotiate virtually everything away, it’s almost as bad as refusing to give anything.</p>
<p>A prime minister has the ultimate whiphand – calling an election. In a hung parliament the crossbench can withdraw support and force the government to the polls. The stakes are extraordinarily high all round.</p>
<p>Turnbull gave the Senate crossbenchers an ultimatum: pass the industrial relations legislation or face the people. They called his bluff and it didn’t end well, for him or those of them who lost their seats. The legislation is no nearer being passed after the double dissolution – the government doesn’t have the numbers to get it through a joint sitting.</p>
<p>Facing a hung parliament Turnbull would be juggling a bunch of crossbenchers while trying to cope with the critics in his own party, who will become more emboldened and strident. Members of the right, seeing him wounded, will want to get their way at every opportunity. They too would have to be stared down on occasion. Turnbull already has had to trade away much of his political persona – go much further and he becomes a hollow man.</p>
<p>Is Turnbull up to what he will face if his government survives? One senior colleague believes so. “I think it will be the making of him. He’ll become more conciliatory.” Other people doubt his temperament for it.</p>
<p>But Turnbull would have one big reason to try to make it work. His political reputation, at this moment, is trashed. He wouldn’t want that to be the way he goes down in Australian prime ministerial history.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62016/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The irony of stridently warning people against voting for minor players and then, all charm, ringing those players when you personally might need their votes may be lost on Malcolm Turnbull.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619682016-07-03T06:44:51Z2016-07-03T06:44:51ZTurnbull stands solid against returning Abbott to frontbench<p>Malcolm Turnbull has slapped down the prospect of Tony Abbott returning to the ministry, as both he and Bill Shorten talk to crossbenchers who could determine their fate in a hung parliament.</p>
<p>“I am not proposing to bring back any particular individuals,” Turnbull told a news conference when asked about the pressure to put Abbott on the frontbench.</p>
<p>His hard line will further anger conservatives in his party, who are already starting to flex their muscles after the election debacle. The push for Abbott’s post-election return began during the campaign. But the belief in Turnbull quarters is that Abbott is toxic in the electorate.</p>
<p>Abbott kept his comments on Sunday careful, though they were pointed. Asked whether he would have won if he had been leader, he said: “I just won’t speculate on that. That is for people to reflect upon.”</p>
<p>He said there were “a lot of people who have got much to reflect upon as a result of what has happened”.</p>
<p>“It is not for me to start trying to sum up a long and difficult campaign,” he said. </p>
<p>“All we can do today is take stock, think, reflect, rather than just come out with a whole lot of snap judgements. I certainly won’t come out with snap judgements.”</p>
<p>Conservative senator Cory Bernardi said the election had been “a disaster for the Liberal Party. It shows that treating our base with contempt or dismissing their concerns in favour of Labor-lite policy has very real consequences.</p>
<p>"The conservative revolution will either begin within the Liberal Party in an attempt to save it, or will manifest itself outside the Liberal Party,” Bernardi said. There had been a small taste of the latter on Saturday, he said. </p>
<p>Turnbull continued to say he was “quietly confident” the Coalition would reach a majority in its own right. Turnbull said the postal and other votes still to be counted were likely to favour the Coalition.</p>
<p>Despite Turnbull’s prediction, a hung parliament is equally likely, with about a dozen seats in doubt.</p>
<p>Turnbull and Shorten confirmed they had spoken to some of the lower house crossbenchers, as each leader is anxious to open lines of communication in the event of a hung parliament.</p>
<p>Turnbull spoke to independents Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan and to Nick Xenophon, leader of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT). The NXT has won three Senate seats in South Australia and one lower house seat.</p>
<p>Xenophon said a hung parliament was “increasingly likely”, but would not say which side his team would favour. “We will support the side that can form a stable government and that can listen to us in respect of key concerns which we think reflect the wishes of middle Australia.”</p>
<p>The NXT is also in the hunt for the SA Liberal seat of Grey which Xenophon described as being on a “knife-edge”.</p>
<p>Shorten dismissed speculation in Labor circles that he could face a leadership challenge from Anthony Albanese. The leadership is automatically open after a defeat. “For myself, I have never been more certain of my leadership,” he said.</p>
<p>Both leaders played down the possibility of another election. </p>
<p>Saying he had spoken to some crossbenchers, Shorten said: “They want to be constructive, they don’t want Australia rushing back to the polls, I certainly don’t. I think we owe it to the Australian people to make the decision of the Australian people work.”</p>
<p>Turnbull said: “We are committed to ensuring that the parliament, as elected, will work effectively and constructively for the Australian people.”</p>
<p>Turnbull sought to reassure people ahead of the hiatus before a definite result is known.</p>
<p>“While the count will take a number of days, probably until the end of next week, I can promise all Australians that we will dedicate our efforts to ensuring that the state of the new parliament is resolved without division or rancour. The expectation is on all of us, especially me as prime minister, to get on with the job.”</p>
<p>When the count was completed the Coalition would work constructively “to ensure that we have a strong majority government and we will work across the crossbenchers as well, if we need to do so”, Turnbull said.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61968/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull has slapped down the prospect of Tony Abbott returning to the ministry, as both he and Bill Shorten talk to crossbenchers who could determine their fate in a hung parliament.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/618262016-06-29T12:21:05Z2016-06-29T12:21:05ZThere’ll be a lot more besides Turnbull versus Shorten to watch on Saturday<p>Apart from the main game, watch for the drawcard contests on Saturday night.</p>
<p>Among them will be the performance of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), the battles in the Nationals’ seats of New England and Cowper, where high-profile players from the Gillard hung parliament are trying to come back, and the fate of Labor frontbencher David Feeney, being pressed by the Greens in Batman.</p>
<p>Nick Xenophon is looking at getting three South Australian senators and possibly one from some other state.</p>
<p>The big question is whether NXT will be able to break into the House of Representatives. Newspoll has NXT in South Australia at 27%, just behind Labor’s 28%, with the Coalition on 32%, while a poll done for the party has it at 24%, Labor on 26% and the Liberals at 36%.</p>
<p>NXT has been breathing down the neck of former minister Jamie Briggs, who had to quit the frontbench over an incident in a Hong Kong bar involving a public servant, and it is also doing well in the sprawling Liberal seat of Grey. With such high state-wide numbers, NXT is a potential threat in other seats.</p>
<p>If NXT did take Mayo or Grey it would be eroding the Coalition’s numbers, giving the government less of a buffer against Labor. A lower house win would mean NXT would become a player in negotiations in the event of a hung parliament.</p>
<p>In New England, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce is the favourite against former independent member Tony Windsor.</p>
<p>The stakes for the Nationals in this seat are extraordinarily high. The strength of the minor partner in the Coalition depends substantially on the personal clout of the leader. So, if disaster struck Joyce, the party would be in serious disarray. Joyce only recently took over the leadership; there is no trained-up understudy waiting in the wings.</p>
<p>The New England contest has become willing and dirty. Windsor declared his wife was “deeply upset” by a Nationals ad that, he claimed, suggested he was having an affair (it didn’t, unless you had a pretty strange mind). The Australian reported someone he went to school with accusing Windsor of whipping him with a riding crop. </p>
<p>Earlier, Windsor sought to explain comments from a one-time supporter, who is now backing Joyce, by alluding to the man’s Vietnam war-related breakdown (subsequently Windsor apologised to the man).</p>
<p>The fight has become a honeypot for activists – from GetUp!, the maritime, teachers and nurses unions as well as the CFMEU, Animals Australia, and opponents of coal seam gas.</p>
<p>Joyce, who as leader has had to split his campaigning inside and outside the electorate, is spending most of the final week there.</p>
<p>Windsor announced his New England challenge early. His close ally in the hung parliament, Rob Oakeshott, left his declaration that he would run in Cowper until the very last minute. </p>
<p>Oakeshott, also an independent, was formerly the member for Lyne; like Windsor, he did not stand in 2013. He has followed the transfer of his home town of Port Macquarie to Cowper. The Nationals sitting member Luke Hartsuyker hasn’t been helped by being dumped from the ministry earlier this year.</p>
<p>At first Oakeshott’s candidacy was brushed aside, with some suggesting he was just lured by the public funding. But on recent polling the Nationals, given Oakeshott will get a good flow of preferences, are taking it seriously.</p>
<p>The Victorian regional electorate of Murray, vacated by the Liberals’ Sharman Stone, is a contest between the Liberals and Nationals. The Nationals are running former footballer Damian Drum, who left the Victorian parliament to contest the seat; the Liberal candidate, Duncan McGauchie, is a former adviser to the Baillieu government.</p>
<p>The neighbouring Indi, which former Liberal member Sophie Mirabella is attempting to reclaim, is generally regarded as safe for the incumbent, independent Cathy McGowan.</p>
<p>In the early part of this campaign a lot of attention centred on the Greens threat to a handful of Labor seats. Now that the Liberals are directing their preferences to Labor, the ALP seats are shored up. But Feeney’s Batman is considered still in play. The Greens already hold Melbourne.</p>
<p>Also worth watching out for on Saturday is the NSW seat of Eden-Monaro, which borders the ACT. Liberal Peter Hendy, one of those at the centre of the Turnbull coup – last-minute number-counting was done at a meeting in his Queanbeyan home – is trying to fend off Labor former member Mike Kelly. Eden-Monaro has been in the hands of the government of the day at every election since 1972, but there is speculation this could be the election when it loses that prized “bellwether” status.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61826/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Apart from the main game, watch for the drawcard contests on Saturday night. Among them will be the performance of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT), the battles in the Nationals’ seats of New England and Cowper…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.