Joyce should exchange portfolios with Minchin

Tony Abbott needs to remove the maverick Nationals senator as finance spokesman

BEFORE we paint Barnaby Joyce as a political pariah for implying (and that is all it was) that Australia could default on its debt, consider the following outlandish statements by other politicians:

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said the then prime minister John Howard was a liar over the AWB scandal.

It is a pretty serious thing for a senior shadow minister to accuse a prime minister of lying.

All the more so when Rudd implied it was part of the government's modus operandi: "How can Australia have a prime minister and a foreign minister who regard lying as the way in which you conduct the business of government?" he said.

With all his experience, then opposition leader Kim Beazley knew Rudd's words weren't appropriate. When asked to repeat them, he cautiously described Howard as a "deliberate deceiver".

The Cole commission made no such slur, clearing Howard of any wrongdoing.

When Wayne Swan had been Treasurer for a little over two months, in early 2008, he said "the inflation genie is out of the bottle" and inflation is "on the march".

Again, it is pretty serious for a new Treasurer to talk down the economy in such terms. It gets even more serious when you consider the many thousands of Australians who at that time may have decided to lock in relatively high fixed interest rates on their mortgages, in case the Treasurer's words were true.

By the end of that year interest rates had plummeted to record lows as the government pumped tens of billions of dollars into the economy to stave off recession. Anyone with a fixed interest rate couldn't have been happy and anyone seen to be talking the economy down was suddenly un-Australian because we needed all the positivism we could get.

Halfway through 2007 Julia Gillard issued an unambiguous warning to business that if it publicly expressed criticisms about Labor's industrial relations policy it might get injured. She said politics was "a contact sport, if you like, with a lot of injury. I don't think it's a wise place for Australian business to be out on the field in the fray getting those injuries on the way through."

It is no small matter in a democracy to suggest any group that expresses opinions about potential government policy may face repercussions if it does. Gillard understood this, quickly shying away from the comments.

The business sector drives the national economy. Shortly after Gillard's comments the business community was brought into the tent and consulted about Labor's developing IR policy.

The point of these three examples isn't just to take a trip down memory lane. It is to highlight that while Joyce's slip-up during the week meant that he deserved to be slapped down by the government, we shouldn't be fooled into believing the government's charge that the comments make him a threat to the foundations of government were the Coalition to be elected.

After all, the three examples above refer to the three most powerful figures in the present Labor administration, all of whom play an important role in Rudd's cabinet decision making.

However, this article is not a defence of the opposition finance spokesman remaining in his present role. From the moment Joyce was appointed to finance I, like a number of other commentators, tagged it as Tony Abbott's first mistake.

Abbott now needs to weigh up the political realities of the negatives of moving Joyce v retaining him until the next election.

Let's be realistic. The opposition is not likely to win the next election and even if it does it is highly unlikely Abbott would retain Joyce in finance (although if he doesn't remove him he may be forced to commit to doing just that should the Coalition win, as Rudd was forced to do with Swan ahead of the 2007 election).

But being equally realistic, the government is not likely to let up on Joyce and Joyce isn't likely to avoid making further slip-ups. Abbott, therefore, has to remove him as opposition finance spokesman, but to do so in a way that doesn't derail the good start the Coalition has had since Abbott became Opposition Leader.

While politically Joyce must go, there is a double standard at play when it comes to over-analysing the remarks of the maverick Nationals frontbencher. Because he is a country senator he gets less slack from the media (and probably the public) when it comes to perceptions about his economic competence. The stereotype is that as a Nationals senator, especially one who is a bit of a maverick, Joyce should be given agriculture, regional development or, at most, trade.

By putting Joyce in the finance portfolio, Abbott was trying to break the stereotype (ironic coming from a conservative generally comfortable with stereotypes) as well as take advantage of Joyce's pre-parliamentary training as an accountant. Of course running the nation's finances is a little different from running the finances of a single bank branch.

Julie Bishop fell victim to the same double standards as a woman when she was uncertain about the cash rate in one of her first interviews as shadow treasurer. The media jumped on the mistake in a way it did not when Swan spent an entire minute in late 2008 flicking through sheets of paper to try to answer a simple question about the government's forecast for inflation.

Of course Bishop went on stumbling, which ultimately cost her her portfolio, while Swan grew in the role of Treasurer.

So how does Abbott remove Joyce without damaging himself? For a start, Joyce would have to tap himself on the shoulder. He needs to ask Abbott to move portfolios, and outside parliamentary sittings so question time doesn't become consumed by it.

Abbott also needs to ensure wherever he moves Joyce is the last change he makes before bunkering down for the election. If the new Opposition Leader would like to keep changes to a minimum, as is likely, especially so as not to upset the delicate unity in the Coalition ranks, he should simply swap the portfolios now held by Nick Minchin and Joyce.

Minchin is a former finance minister and would do a good job of costing opposition policies. Joyce would do an equally good job in energy and resources, pointing out the effect Labor's emissions trading scheme would have on the industries his new portfolio covers. As long as Joyce didn't get caught out on contentious policy areas such as nuclear power or Chinese investment he would quickly start adding value to the opposition again. After all, energy and resources are critical issues in regional Australia.

Both Joyce and Minchin are in the Senate so there would be no implications for the balance of front bench representation between the chambers. And because Minchin is a supporter of Abbott's leadership he would be willing to accommodate the move. Joyce wouldn't see moving into energy and resources as a demotion, certainly not as Minchin is Coalition leader in the Senate, and that would help Abbott sell the change.

There you go Tony, some free advice.