Senate rebellion: Coalition splits over Telstra cash
Posted
Updated
'Mickey Mouse vote': Nick Minchin (AAP: Alan Porritt, file photo)
The Coalition has split during an extraordinary vote on the Government's infrastructure bills in the Senate.
The bill to set up three nation-building funds passed the Upper House in dramatic scenes last night as Nationals and Liberal senators crossed the floor and many other Liberal senators simply refused to vote.
The Opposition wanted to amend the bill to exclude the $2 billion rural and regional telecommunications fund which had been set up by the Howard government in return for support for the Telstra sale.
The Government rejected that and the shadow cabinet decided to back down.
But the climbdown outraged four Nationals senators, including Ron Boswell.
"I'll walk across the floor before I walk away from that trust," he said.
Many members of the Liberal Party felt the same way. Two Liberals crossed the floor to vote with the Nationals, and many more abstained, including Senate leader Nick Minchin.
"There is no requirement for Coalition members to be present on a Mickey Mouse vote," he said.
"My position is I almost never vote on Mickey Mouse votes because my vote is not needed."
Just five Liberals voted for the shadow cabinet position.
Government Senate leader Chris Evans was astounded.
"It's the most extraordinary thing I've seen in my 15 years in the Senate. What you saw is a mass revolt inside the Liberal Party against their leader," he said.
"Effectively half the shadow cabinet refused to support their leader Malcolm Turnbull."
How it happened
Just before lunch yesterday the Coalition, combining with the minor parties and independents, began amending the infrastructure funds bills in a way it said made the process more accountable.
Then at 10:00pm AEDT the bill was returned to the House of Representatives where the Government knocked out the amendments in the face of opposition from the Coalition.
In between that vote and the bill returning to the Senate just before midnight, there was a last-minute decision by shadow cabinet to let the legislation pass.
Senator Minchin told the Senate the decision was taken because of the "scare campaign" the Opposition would have faced had it stuck to its original position.
"But I regret to say that on balance it is the Coalition's position that we will not insist on these amendments," he said.
"The Government will spend the next two months falsely asserting all over this country that we are responsible for denying infrastructure funding for every road bridge and port in the country."
The Nationals said a vote for the Government's actions would be a breach of faith with voters who had backed the Howard government's Telstra sale because of the communications fund.
Then it came time to vote to allow the Coalition's communications fund to be subsumed into the Labor funds - and that is when the situation became extraordinary.
Liberals melted away out of the chamber, some came in as the division bells rang, only to walk out again. One Liberal Senator did a lap of the chamber before running to get out as the doors closed.
Only five Liberals voted with the Government. All the Nationals and two Liberals, Alan Eggleston and Alan Ferguson, crossed the floor.
A small number of other Liberals remained in the chamber, but abstained.
The Greens Leader Bob Brown wondered where they all were.
"There's five Liberals there and there's two on the right, there's three up the back and there's some 30 outside ... I have never seen such disarray from one of the major parties ever in this chamber," he said.
Senator Minchin, who had been in the chamber moments before, also did not vote but he says that was just because he did not have to.
But another frontbencher, David Johnston, said he thought frontbenchers had to vote, as he did.
"My understanding was there'd be an agreement made that simply shadow cabinet members and frontbenchers were required to attend," he said.
There was a degree of confusion in Liberal ranks as one senator got a message that backbenchers could abstain although they never had, so they voted with the Government, and another said they did not know what was going on.
But other Senators said they abstained because they felt strongly about the issue and agreed with the Nationals senators and believed many of their colleagues felt the same way.
That is certainly how Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce was reading the decision.
"It is an extremely hard ask and a courageous move to say 'I know what you're asking, but I must do what is right'. Not turning up to the vote is an extremely powerful statement," he said.
Senator Eggleston says he voted with the Nationals because he had so prominently supported the original Howard government decision on the communications fund.
"I noticed that a large number of Liberals abstained tonight. I just decided that I should go a step further," he said.
The Lower House is due to meet this morning before Parliament rises for the Christmas break.
Search for news
ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.
Comments (74)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
DeepFritz:
05 Dec 2008 8:52:16am
I'd rather see politicians voting according to their own thoughts and or in the interest of their constituency rather than "along party lines."
Even though this was done by a disorganised rabble...Agree (4) Alert moderator
-
P Q:
05 Dec 2008 9:03:11am
If politicians voted according to their own thoughts all the time, why would we need political parties. The reality is that without the parties most politicians would not be elected. That would not be a bad thing.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
DeepFritz:
05 Dec 2008 9:15:05am
You can still have the party structure and ideals. You would find that most people would vote in similar ways for most issues if they were to be a member of a common party.
However that said there has really only been one senator who has had the courage and conviction to vote his own way and against the other members of his party over the past 15-20 years - Barnaby Joyce.
It would be nice to see more of that style of dissent. I may not agree with his beliefs or politics, but I admire his will to cross the floor.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
05 Dec 2008 9:37:17am
I think I agree depfritz, bit I have a question: If we the people elect a certain person on the basis that they are a labor or liberal, should they not vote with labor or liberal on everything, because thats what they were elected for?
I guess it is only a few major policies that people vote on, maybe mp's should be compelled to vote a certain way on election promises, but everything else is a free decision...
It seems to work pretty well in the US system, plus you can get a better grasp of what a particular politician really thinks when you have their personal voting record to look at.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
chalkie:
05 Dec 2008 10:09:32am
Except it so often does not work: pork barrelling and the ability for the US reps to add riders to bills means that laws become elaborate acts of self-interst, rather than seving the common good. Add to this gerrymandered electoral boundaries so much so that very few electorates ever change parties means a corrupted, slow and substandard electoral process.
Oh, and the opportunities for lobbyists and special interst funding means that opten votes are for the highest bidder, not the highest principle.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
shayne:
05 Dec 2008 10:30:46am
Either approach is problematic because it incorrectly leads to the assumption (and excuse) that a politician has the support of the public on any (and all) particular issue purely because they looked like the better horse on voting day.
That simply isn't true in most cases. They should all vote as they see fit regardless of party lines in order to maintain integrity and show us their true colours.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
twobob:
05 Dec 2008 9:38:14am
Baaa-rnaby makes a lot of noise but in the end he votes along party lines WHEN IT COUNTS and only votes against the coalition when it doesnt matter.
A prime example was his decision to support the sale of Telstra. The government could not have sold it if baaa-rn did not vote for it.
I am amazed that country australians vote for the nationals at all. The telsra sale was the most obvious example of how the national party had sold them down the river. It has already created a two class nation and one that will only get worse over time.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
05 Dec 2008 10:10:01am
I recall Barnaby making a lot of attention-seeking noise about whether he would vote in support of WorkChoices.
Look at me! Will I or wont' I?
Well, of course he did. He voted for SerfChoices, he voted for pay and condition losses for our kids, women and the industrially weak.
Good one, Barn.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gilligan:
05 Dec 2008 10:48:30am
And the relevance to this story is?
Nothing, as usual.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Rosie:
05 Dec 2008 10:36:56am
country people are treated like 2nd class citizens by whatever parties in govenment. at least the nationals help us a bit.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
P E:
05 Dec 2008 10:19:43am
Political parties were at one time illegal.In the Uk I think it was around 1911 that legislation passed to allow them.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
DeepBlue:
05 Dec 2008 9:03:32am
Kevin Rudd has done a great job this year, but could we please have a more effective opposition? The current bunch are an awful mess.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
sleeping:
05 Dec 2008 9:17:50am
Er, please explain. If doing nothing but talking a lot of platitudes is your definition of 'doing a great job', then you are right. If notching up $600 000 in six months on air travel is 'doing a great job', you are on the mark.
In my humble opinion, in an era where face to face contact globally is available for free on 'Skype', the only reason to board an airplane is for physical contact. Just who is Kevin707's bedmate?
Spin and jet-lag do not make a great PM any more than make-work industry.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
05 Dec 2008 9:31:46am
So much for diplomatic relations with key trading partners right sleeping?
I think you will find PM Howard spent equally as much when he was in office... all part of the job (in other words I didn't object to Howard doing it so I also don't object to Rudd doing it).Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Michael:
05 Dec 2008 9:45:04am
I'm glad to see our new PM doesn't plan his overseas trips based on the itinerary of the Australia Cricket Team.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
jws:
05 Dec 2008 9:36:55am
Gee... Former PM (only the second to ever lose his own seat) John Howard has racked up $400,000 in the last year at taxpayers' expense. I guess you could justify that, sleeping?
Can we add to that the $7500 we paid each time Little Johnny had to fly from Sydney to Canberra (and another $7500 to go back again) - all because Lady Jeanette didn't want to live in Canberra? Now, multiply that by roughly 11.5 years - I reckon Little Johnny has chalked up a fair few dollars in flying time.
Er... please explain?Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
05 Dec 2008 9:38:10am
And at the same time, travelling a lot does not make him a bad PM either.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gilligan:
05 Dec 2008 10:50:08am
He travels so much he doesn't know if he is AM or PM.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jamie Bloomfield:
05 Dec 2008 9:43:29am
Sleeping, you must have been sleeping when Howard was PM - he certainly suckled obscenely well, and continues to do so, at the public's teat. I seem to recall $40,000/night in Rome, and that infamous trip to the US which just happened to coincide with Mother's Day - their son was working there at the time. As for Rudd, compared to Howard he certainly is a great PM.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gadget:
05 Dec 2008 9:50:32am
"notching up $600 000 in six months on air travel "
What a lovely paraphased mis-quote.
It was $600k of travel in total. That means all the costs associated with travel, including airfares, accomodation, meals, allowances, support staff travel and accomodation, etc.
And by the way, which travel would you have had him NOT take. It is easy to cast aspertions, and harder to justify them.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
acker:
05 Dec 2008 10:59:44am
That only works out to be about $9500 per day out of the country by Kev.
Not bad considering Airforce One (jet costs and upkeep)
Gifts for overseas dignatories
Bringing your own Security guard and Personal Assistant
Hotel expenses
Car hire
Didn't John Howard get heavilly scrutinised for his spending in an Italian hotel and taking a few days break with Jeanette in Broome while having Airforce One wait for him on his way home from somewhere ?
If Kev is 'Kevin747' was John ..'John727' ?
If Mal is our next leader will he become 'Mal the Airbus' ?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
kathleen hammond:
05 Dec 2008 9:08:49am
I agree that it's good to see someone voting in accordance with their constituencey, but it's not party politics, is it. Maybe they should have been independants(sp)?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
05 Dec 2008 9:08:55am
" ... in the interest of their constituency .."
This should be the ONLY consideration for a politician !Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
david:
05 Dec 2008 9:21:24am
"...in the interest of their constituency..."
a typical view in today's "me, me, me" world.
Yes, elected politicians are to represent their constituency, but this should always be framed in the context of the national good.
This "my back yard" attitude is the cause of many of the problems our country faces today...e.g. the parlous state of the Murray/Darling.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
05 Dec 2008 9:43:41am
I think you are right but I also think dragon raises a valid point.
I would suggest the balance between local and national is missing. Far to many times the local issue is ignored for the national.
The other point I would make is often a candidate will campaign on the local issues. If the election campaign is on the local issues then the voter is reasonable to expect some local consideration.
If the election campaign is we have local issues but I will always vote in parliament for the National good then the voter can vote for that.
Like much with politicians, it gets to spin and dishonesty.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
PassTheButter:
05 Dec 2008 9:24:46am
I disagree, actually - it should be about the interests of their constituency AND the nation, or balancing the two where they're at odds.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Annika:
05 Dec 2008 9:12:45am
This is how democracy is supposed to work. I loathe the Liberals but totally support those who felt strongly about something, rolled the leader & crossed the floor. A good lesson for some in the ALP who should be standing up to Rudd & Gillard over Workchoices. The ALP promised they would tear up the Workchoices legislation and they have not done so.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
05 Dec 2008 9:42:51am
I disagree with your comments about Labors stance on IR.
The current government clearly showed during the election they were not going to be a government who gave into unions demands, they are far more to the right than previous Labor govenrments. I feel the government has tried to balance their IR regulation between employee and employers rights, neither are 100% happy with the outcome but it does strike some sort of compromise (which is often the best solution).
Another reason I feel the Democrats lost their relevance, if Labor moves further to the right it doesn't leave much 'central' space to occupy.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gadget:
05 Dec 2008 9:51:56am
The legislation to do so was submitted to Parliament last Tuesday.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
swamprat:
05 Dec 2008 9:15:12am
the trouble is that her maj's opposition still have yet to realise that they ARE in opposition instead of sitting on the government benches
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jon:
05 Dec 2008 9:24:07am
Absolutely agree. This is one aspect of the North American system of government that I would like to replicate here!
A system that allows members to cross the floor freely (without getting kicked from the party) would require parties to think long and hard about the legislation they put forward.
I think the deeply partisan nature of our governments is a matter of concern - there is no room for non-cabinet members to make a difference.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
ruserious:
05 Dec 2008 9:00:27am
I think parliament would be a better place if all politicians could vote for what they believe in and not have to follow the party line or worry about media spin.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Oscar:
05 Dec 2008 9:23:27am
"I think parliament would be a better place if all politicians could vote for what they believe in and not have to follow the party line"
I agree! But can you imagine anybody in the coalition having dared to cross the floor when Howard was the man in charge?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
05 Dec 2008 9:28:56am
I disagree.
My opposition to this comes from the US congressional system, where it is almost impossible to do anything with speed or rigour. Everything is a negotiation. Everything involves quid pro quo. You scratch my back ...
It also exposes the system to huge influence from lobbyists, special interest groups and somtimes corrupt individuals.
The party system has its problems, but on balance, it works best for us at this time.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter O:
05 Dec 2008 9:45:43am
Gary, our Senate is based on the American Senate.......
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gary:
05 Dec 2008 10:07:48am
It may be ... but it does not have the same party discipline and that is my point.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
bitrich:
05 Dec 2008 9:01:37am
Memo Coalition: Its about establishing trust.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Craig:
05 Dec 2008 9:22:40am
the liberals should just let the labour government do whatever it wants and let the country go to pear shaped.
labour has the peoples support. it's clear that if the opposition doesn't agree to any decision the labour government makes, the labour spin machine places the blame on the opposition for opposing 'neccessary policy' accusing them of being economically, socially, environmentally irressponsible. labour has the numbers and the public support to force their adgenda. . . so let them.
but let them also be accountable for their actions. 60% of the population voted for a labour government and 40% have now been forgotten.
for any of those considering an attack with howard reteric, reconsider. kevin rudd promised change and a new australia. . . he has delivered a 'democratic' nightmare. all hail chairman ruddAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
Celsius100:
05 Dec 2008 9:41:14am
Craig, if you understood the electoral process you would understand that what you have just written is a crock...
Get yourself a book on the Senate & one on the electoral process and then you will have a chance at making an accurate comment.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Craig:
05 Dec 2008 9:54:19am
i don't need to read a book. I understand the reality.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Odge:
05 Dec 2008 10:45:55am
So you buck the changes Rudd is making and criticise for lack of change virtually in the sme breath. Hypocritical or what.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Craig:
05 Dec 2008 10:55:35am
I'm referring to the change in approach. . . not policy change.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
swamprat:
05 Dec 2008 9:46:41am
Craig, theres an awful lot of suppositions there--or do you have a crystal ball to see so far into the future? you are correct that we've given Rudd a mandate to govern, but to send the country pear shaped? most of what he's done so far is policies he put to us BEFORE the election which is more than Howard did with work choices and moves to protect us as much as possible from the economic meltdown.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Craig:
05 Dec 2008 10:13:16am
haha. I feel like a student being reprimanded by their teacher.
the point i was making is that the labour approach is to not allow any opposition . . . they qwash it with spin from media, the consistent, repetative approach the ministers take in interviews etc. worst of all they will not allow themselves to be wrong. this is not the ideal policy making environment . . .Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
swamprat:
05 Dec 2008 11:05:01am
Craig, have you taken notice of Turnbull's penchant for always being right? it's being constantly mentioned in the newspaper reports, he sets himself up as knowing better than the RBA, Henry and the treasury and a plethora of experts, i believe we need a good opposition to keep the government on it's toes--but Turnbull's stance isnt it, we need genuine oppositions not populist or opposition for the sake of taking a stand to differentuate himself, i can respect anyone if they genuinely believe what they stand for, unfortunately Turnbull doesnt, he offers bi partisan support and then white ants from the sidelines just to be mischeivious, perhaps you'd be better aiming your critisizims to the opposition first.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Truebelieveritus:
05 Dec 2008 9:31:28am
Really?
I think its refreshing to see politicians voting as individuals as opposed to the 'robots' in the Labor party.
But I guess you ABC robots only see things through your left eye and wouldn't notice these things huh?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Pen Pal:
05 Dec 2008 9:04:38am
As a Coalition supporter, I am disappointed about the lack of cohesion within the Party about the management of this Bill.
However, my disappointment will be well and truly trounced when a comment from Remark hits these notes.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
05 Dec 2008 9:21:58am
Although not a Liberal supporter I take no joy out of seeing an ineffectual opposition, especially in a global downturn when what is needed is a strong government and opposition (and I feel both have a way to go at this stage).
I disagree with Senator Minchin's and other Liberal senators position of not voting which is a disgrace, they are voted into the senate for that exact reason. If you do not show your position then you are just letting down your constituency.
I feel Turnbull could be a good opposition leader (and possibly future PM) if he stands up for what he originally believed in (not justing sticking to the unpopular party line). I think Rudd is doing a good job, although he has made some decisions I do not support.
If I was you Pen Pal I would be more worried about Jamie's comments ;)Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Jamie Bloomfield:
05 Dec 2008 10:00:48am
I agree with you Ben. I would like to see an effectual Opposition, not one that just opposes for opposition's sake. I want to see an alternative government WITH POLICIES; an opposition which can rightly criticise the government and back up their argument with alternatives rather than silence. I want an opposition that can convince me to vote for them instead of one that just relies on the same old fear, smear and scare tactics about what will or will not do. I want an opposition that, when it offers bipartisan support, it does so rather than just pay lip service to it and using it to play games, particularly such challenging economic times where what our leaders say and do influences the markets. Turnbull was above-average when it came to leading the Republican movement, but when it comes to leading his party, he is just as bad a Nelson. He flip-flops so much that one just doesn't know where he stands on ANY issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Min:
05 Dec 2008 9:04:43am
And these people get PAID to do this? What an absolute disgrace they are! This is the group who has supposedly dedicated itself to watching over all things - keeping everyone honest and above board, etc. If some within the Senate "did not know what was going on", how are we - the mere Australian voters - to be expected to understand it?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
insider:
05 Dec 2008 9:20:16am
And it has also been suggested that they actually get more pay!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Taipan:
05 Dec 2008 9:09:17am
As an opposition, the libs and nats have been well and truly divided and conquered!
Best example of poor leadership and party disorganisation I've ever seen.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Oscar:
05 Dec 2008 9:35:01am
The same thing happened to the Tories in the UK post Thatcher. Like her, Howard set about forcing out any talent that may have threatened his leadership and control, and dividing and separating the factions within the coalition so that there would never be the numbers for a spill. Thus once he was gone, there was no potential leader or merit and no agreement between the remainder on any issues of importance.
It will take them some years to rebuild, mainly because they are dependent on the electoral cycle to rotate out the dead wood that howard left behind.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
BJ:
05 Dec 2008 9:16:25am
The Liberal Opposition are truly hapless.
This is proof that only Labor has the answers.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ben:
05 Dec 2008 9:26:27am
Although I currently prefer that the Labor party are in government, I would argue a strong opposition is required to form a strong government (greater scruitiny of policy).
And I don't agree with every policy of the current government so I disagree that Labor have all the answers in my view.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
dragon:
05 Dec 2008 9:27:32am
That's the nature of a 2 party preferred political system !
How long did it take Labor to recover from the Beazley and Latham fiasco ? .................................. 12 odd years ?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
sleeping:
05 Dec 2008 10:30:31am
That'd be fine if Labour had the smarts to ask the questions, rather than just jumping in on populist issues.
Climate change? Wot climate change? Oh that one, Penny.
Global financial meltdown? Follow the leader as we all lose our savings to Middle Eastern oil magnates and Wall Street con-men.
Oh, I forgot, SORRY!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Smithy:
05 Dec 2008 10:32:50am
This is proof that only Labor has the answers... or that neither of them do!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gary:
05 Dec 2008 9:25:06am
Extraordinary goings on.
A word of advice to the government ... just because the opposition is a shambles now, don't get cocky.
There are huge challenges ahead and cockiness will not help.
Plus, the coalition will eventually get its act into gear.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stan Dalone:
05 Dec 2008 9:33:27am
The only real job of our elected members of Parliament it to represent their constituents. To do this they need to keep themselves informed of the proceedures, the stand of their party and then which way they will vote. It is obvious from this story that the Liberal National members have absolutely no idea who they stand for. Its not for the party, and its not for their constituents. Oh of course. They are standing for self interest. Well what do you expect from lawyers and barristers who control most of the Lib Nats in Parliament.
Who really speaks out for the bush???? Not the Lib Nats thats for sure.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Pravda:
05 Dec 2008 9:35:11am
Some are writing here that this vote represented the highest ideals of politicians voting for something they believe is right, rather than along party lines.
Rubbish.
With a couple of notable exceptions, what we saw was an Opposition in shambles, basically not knowing what to do and taking the cowards way out of abstaining from the vote.
Nick Minchin, as Opposition Leader in the Senate appears to have lost his authority. I hink its time he headed off and joined Alexander Downer's consultancy business.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Stan Dalone:
05 Dec 2008 9:40:30am
Sure, keep party politics, but when it comes to the vote in Parliament it should be a secret vote. Then it should be compulsory that the elected member posts in his local media exactly what he voted and why. After all he is answerable to the people who voted him in. And it should be illegal for political parties to sway or attempt to control the vote of their members, no matter what party they belong to.
And why don't we have a change in the system????? Ratbags still think our system ain't broke and don't need fixin'.
Idiot system for idiot voters I say.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Smithy:
05 Dec 2008 10:35:45am
What is the point of a secret vote when the party will just find out afterwards, and they will face the same consequences? The fact is, as a party can choose who it preselects, this system will only put more pressure on them to find even more brainless puppets than we see in the chamber today!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
acker:
05 Dec 2008 9:43:43am
I was dissapointed that Nick Minchin called this Telstra money "our money" when being interviewed on SKY news this morning.
Sorry Nick it is not "your liberal party money" it is "our Australian taxpayer money" and most of us voted that your liberal party no longer manages it.
Possibly the Australian public voted that your liberal party does not manage it because your liberal party keeps thinking that it is their money.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
roger b.:
05 Dec 2008 9:44:08am
Come on truffles, get your team together. Didnt know what was going on????. Are we going to see another spill in the leadership ?? Is this going to be Costello's return to the front lines, instead of hiding out the back??? Book sales have been very slow, change of mine Pete??
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Di:
05 Dec 2008 9:44:44am
It is good to see that there are politicians out there that do have a conscience and are prepared to take a stand.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
cyril:
05 Dec 2008 9:49:41am
A strong opposition will form when Pete takes the helm. To date he's been happy to let Turnbull have his head and hang himself, which he is doing very effectively. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when the Lib machine has had enough of Mal they will replace him with Costello. Then and only then will the government have a strong and sound opposition.
Won't be much longer Pete.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gadget:
05 Dec 2008 10:30:29am
Peter, the same Peter, that comes with all the Workchoices baggage, the same Peter that is a founding member of the HR Nicholls Society, the same Peter that introduced the "Never Ever" GST, the same Peter that knew nothing of the AWB scandal.
Yeah, lets resurrect him. That wil help the Liberals a lot. Some how I don't think so.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
TeddyC:
05 Dec 2008 10:04:40am
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country! And that means all good men .. regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.
I think Malcolm Turnbull has probably done what many would do when taking over a job and that is to show that he has teeth and a number of management skills. Okay he's shown it.
Their policy of opposition and obfuscation, point scoring and nit picking is sickening and I think your average punter would like to see some maturity shown on the opposition benches. Well done senators .Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Diver:
05 Dec 2008 10:14:57am
Seems to me Labor is just mopping up an old Nationals slush fund. I can understand why Joyce is not happy and why the Libs don't care. What did they think when they flogged off Telstra; they were going to be in power for ever? This should be a warning for the present or any government that all actions of self interest have a sunset clause.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ontheball:
05 Dec 2008 10:32:49am
Quote: "another said they did not know what was going on"
Regardless of party this pretty well sums up our current batch of politicians.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
oracle:
05 Dec 2008 10:33:54am
Is there anyone out there that still doesn't see the shambolic'' "opposition for what it is?
Costello take the reigns? You jest, He hasn't got the ticker, and Australia deserves better.
Rudd is doing a very good job under very difficult international conditions that Howard/Costello never had to face. Thank goodness they didn't.
Costello's time as treasurer was a walk in the park with international finances. No problems to face.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Odge:
05 Dec 2008 10:37:46am
Perhaps its time to dissolve the coalition and liberal party. Form a new conservative right party with the nationals and then all the rest can join the centre labor party and a few to the Greens.
What do you think?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Danielsydney:
05 Dec 2008 10:40:25am
This just goes to show how much contempt politicans have for tparliament and the Australian people.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
