A house of ill repute

THE government gains in strength as Liberals cry foul over the speakership.

Peter Slipper

"WHAT has happened today in this parliament is extraordinary and it is unprecedented."

With those words yesterday, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott summed up the decision of his (now former) Liberal Party colleague Peter Slipper to accept the government's nomination as Speaker of the House of Representatives, on the final sitting day of the parliamentary year.

Political scientists have long argued in favour of a more independent Speaker to improve parliamentary processes, as occurs in Britain. In September last year Abbott himself was prepared to advocate for an independent Speaker. However, there must be real question marks over how effectively the 43rd parliament will operate now that the newly independent Slipper has taken over the speakership.

Slipper's career has been punctuated by scandal, allegations of parliamentary allowance misuses and simple stupidity. From high-spending travel entitlements to party defections between the Nationals and the Liberals to finding himself locked in a disabled toilet calling for assistance because he thought the sliding door only had push and pull functionality, Slipper is hardly a model MP.

He is open to ridicule, to be sure, and the outing of potentially damaging revelations by former conservative colleagues, now that he is no longer part of their team, is a risk Labor has linked itself to by supporting Slipper's elevation. On the back of Julia Gillard's willingness to so closely defend Craig Thomson as someone of sound character following accusations that he misused a union credit card for prostitution services, the Prime Minister risks looking desperate.

"Lady Macbeth benefited for a short time from the fruits of ruthless political actions," manager of opposition business in the house Christopher Pyne says. "It came unstuck, like it does for all people who put short-term political survival ahead of political principles. There is no political principle she is not prepared to trash to cling to power." But from the Labor Party's perspective the speakership adjustment will give the government greater stability; an ability to withstand a by-election or a defection by one of the independents. This guards against, for example, a Kevin Rudd blow-up or an Andrew Wilkie withdrawal of support if poker machine legislative reforms fail.

It means that the party goes into the summer recess hopeful that next year will be a better one for the government, and a more difficult one for the opposition as it faces up to the prospect of a full term on the wrong side of the treasury benches.

This is a key element of Labor's strategy to risk supporting someone such as Slipper in the speakership. Labor powerbrokers believe this sudden change of political circumstances will put considerable pressure on Abbott, even on his leadership. But at what cost? And is it just another example of this Labor government underestimating Abbott?

If the new parliamentary paradigm, much talked about in the aftermath of the formation of the minority Gillard government, is supposed to deliver greater faith in the democratic processes for voters who are disengaged and disillusioned about the state of politics in this country, Labor supporting someone of Slipper's credentials into the chair probably won't help.

It speaks to the importance of political advantage over respect for democratic institutions: something Labor has tried to attack Abbott for, courtesy of his relentless negativity and constant (mis)use of suspensions of standing orders.

"This is a problem for the 'noalition' of their own making," manager of government business in the house Anthony Albanese says.

"When they reneged on the parliamentary reform agreement to pair the Speaker and the deputy Speaker they thought it would cost us a vote, but it's ended up costing them a vote."

Labor taking full advantage of the political opportunism of the Slipper defection, while not risk-free, is certainly understandable. But how do the independents justify supporting the move? Rob Oakeshott on the floor of the parliament tried to claim Slipper's new-found independence conformed with the crossbenchers' view of how the chamber should operate, but the rhetoric was hardly convincing.

Abbott must have watched with considerable bitterness as Slipper accepted Labor's nomination as Speaker. He was unable to control his LNP colleagues in Queensland as they pressed ahead with an early preselection for Slipper's seat of Fisher, contributing to his acceptance of the speakership. The pressure in Slipper's electoral back yard was mounting because former Howard minister Mal Brough covets a return to parliament, after which he would quickly become a leadership rival for Abbott. Indeed, John Howard had ample opportunities to support a move on Slipper during the lifetime of his government, but always chose to avoid such confrontation, despite a low regard for Slipper's abilities.

Slipper is, therefore, a problem of the conservatives' own making.

The Opposition Leader struggled to refer to Slipper by name in his press conference before the parliamentary vote. It was a far cry from November 25, 2009, when Slipper was wheeled out as one of Abbott's supporters to condemn Malcolm Turnbull's interpretation that the partyroom the previous evening had accepted amendments to Labor's emissions trading scheme. "The announcement by the leader last night was about as dodgy as a Zimbabwean election organised by Robert Mugabe," Slipper thundered, at the urging of conservatives opposed to Turnbull's leadership.

Yesterday, Liberal MPs were accusing government MPs of similar dodginess as Labor tried to insist Harry Jenkins resigned independent of internal pressure to do so.

"If this is what they do to their own family -- cut their political throat -- imagine what they would be prepared to do to the Australian public," opposition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said.

The Australian understands Jenkins had been approached in the days before he resigned to consider such a move for the good of the government. One wonders what Jenkins, whose father before him also served as Speaker (1983-86), thought of Slipper becoming his replacement. When Jenkins took over his father's seat of Scullin in 1986, he directed comments in his maiden speech towards new Speaker Joan Child: "It is my hope that, in future, the house displays to her the high degree of respect which her office so richly deserves."

Does Jenkins believe the "high degree of respect" he wishes for the Speaker's office was shown by the Labor Party yesterday? Or, indeed, will it be lived up to by the likes of Slipper now that he occupies the chair?

The central feature of yesterday's change of Speaker will be the effect it has on the framing of the political contest in the coming months and possibly years. Certainly this parliament lasting years instead of months has become much likelier.

Labor will go into the summer recess buoyed that it can last a full term with the additional buffer it has on the floor of the parliament. Trailing as badly as it is in the polls, time is what the government needs if political redemption is to become a possibility. Conversely, judging by the expression on his face at his press conference, Abbott has been dealt a psychological blow by Slipper's defection. His short-term strategy for a return to government now looks doomed.

With Labor better placed to serve out its term, Abbott will be required to thrive as well as survive for almost four years as an Opposition Leader, a feat rarely achieved in the toughest job in politics. Kim Beazley served two full terms, but never won an election. Bill Hayden almost got there but was overthrown as leader for Bob Hawke just before the 1983 election, which Hawke went on to win. On the Liberal side, John Hewson is the last Liberal opposition leader to survive four years in the role. But he did so only because he was left to twist in the wind for a little more than a year after the unloseable 1993 election, while potential challengers sorted themselves out.

This is history that will give heart to the likes of Turnbull and it may mean Abbott spends more time watching his back than focusing, as he has been, on attacking the government.

Abbott needs to change gears: to become more policy-focused to build a case for a change of government instead of simply relying on the fragility of the minority government leading to its early collapse. And his style of bypassing the partyroom and cloistering policy development away, even from shadow ministers, will be harder to sustain without the stick of a possible early election.

If Slipper's defection forces such a change in Abbott's approach, it may turn out to be an unexpected upside of the Liberals losing his vote in the house. Ructions among backbenchers concerned that Abbott is too short term in his focus and not realistic in his planning for a run at the prime ministership had already been on the rise before yesterday. Such feelings will certainly intensify now.

If Abbott changes his approach he may well be better-placed politically than he otherwise would have been in the longer term.

The Labor Party also has the chance to recalibrate its settings: to be a bolder government, not constantly afraid of losing the support of independents and therefore pandering to their every need. The Prime Minister promised to govern that way from the start, but so far has failed to do so.

If Gillard sees a strategic advantage in formally severing her party's ties to the Greens, for example, she can do so without the risk (if there ever really were one) that the lost Green vote in the house would bring down her government. If Gillard wants to reshuffle her front bench, she is better placed to do so even if a disgruntled, demoted MP were to force a by-election.

In short, Labor now has a contingency for a crisis, and that should see the government operate with greater confidence

in 2012.

The next Newspoll will be an important indicator as to how the public reacts to the Slipper deal. In less than two weeks' time The Australian will publish the final Newspoll of the year, delivering the public's verdict on brand Labor and the Prime Minister's standing.

Recently Gillard has started to appear more prime ministerial, with her leadership credentials increasingly on display: striking international agreements, attending overseas forums and hosting the US President at home.

The colour and movement saw her personal ratings improve, drawing level with Abbott on

the leaders' net satisfaction rat-

ings (-21 apiece), and pulling

ahead of him in the preferred prime minister stakes (40 per cent to 35 per cent).

But will her involvement (direct or indirect) in the deal to install a tainted Liberal in the prestigious office of Speaker of the House of Representatives see her standing decline? Will it play into the opposition's characterisation of her as someone who will do or say whatever she needs to achieve political outcomes?

"Time will prove this to be a grubby play by Labor," Hockey says. "They think it is clever but Australians will see through it."

Labor MPs were surprised when Tuesday's Newspoll saw a decline in their party's primary vote (down two points to 30 per cent) and two-party preferred vote (down four points to 43 per cent) despite Gillard's personal numbers improving. It spoke to the low standing of "brand Labor" in the electorate.

The risk for Gillard is that because of the slippery way Slipper was installed as Speaker, her brand will once again be closely linked with the "whatever it takes" philosophy of her party, something recent displays of leadership had started to save her from.