Both parties hung up on internal manoeuvring

THE pressure of the hung parliament is showing on all sides. Around the government, the unions are flexing their muscles and Julia Gillard is attempting to hold the line.

The opposition, despite its strong showing in the polls, has its own internal divisions, even though it appears to be much ado about nothing.

The independents are under pressure within their electorates and via daily lobbying for their votes. One or more of them gives the impression they just may crack.

All of this in the first six months of the new parliament.

For political junkies it's fascinating viewing. But from a policy perspective the divisions on all sides are in no one's interests. A government divided won't be focused on running the country. An opposition seemingly obsessed with navel gazing won't adequately hold the government to account. And independents loaded with power but feeling the pressure may not make the right calls as to when to support the Labor government and when to challenge it.

The week just past was dominated by unguided missiles on both sides of the major party divide.

Labor faced up to the all-powerful Australian Workers Union declaring its authority by cutting into a cabinet minister whose views its leadership team didn't like: they were prepared to call Trade Minister Craig Emerson a "rat". AWU national secretary Paul Howes declared that his union would go to war with one of Australia's largest investors, mining heavyweight Rio Tinto, describing its executives as "monkeys".

On the Coalition side, immigration spokesman Scott Morrison was widely criticised for insensitive remarks about the cost of flying corpses and family to a funeral for those asylum-seekers killed on the shores of Christmas Island earlier this year. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey didn't agree with Morrison, before playing the team game the next day and ensuring his remarks didn't feed into wider divisions. Morrison did the same, admitting his timing was off.

But it was too late: an anonymous article from a senior Liberal adviser, tearing into Hockey, was posted on a conservative website. Morrison was leaked against with claims that in December last year, in shadow cabinet, he advocated exploiting public angst about Islamic immigration. (Morrison denies the substance of the accusations.)

Whether it's the government or the opposition, a mixture of scuttlebutt, personal tensions and ideological positioning are the causes of the conflicts.

But what makes the outbreak of hostilities so interesting is that the leadership teams on both sides don't want any of it and can do without it.

Labor needs to hold together its delicate alliance, which will be made only more difficult if the union that helped install Gillard goes too far in attacking her frontbench colleagues.

Late last year Howes also tore into Kevin Rudd in his book Confessions of a Faceless Man, accusing him time and time again of being the leaker during the election campaign. While most of Howes's fellow travellers probably agree with his conclusions, like it or not Gillard has to work with Rudd for the entirety of this term of government.

If Rudd chooses to walk away from politics, forcing a by-election in his Brisbane electorate of Griffith, there is no guarantee Labor will retain the seat. In a parliament as delicately balanced as this one, that would be enough to change the government.

There are other scenarios Gillard needs to worry about. If the unions look like they are getting too bullish, that might be enough to realign the rural independents; folk such as Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are no union sympathisers, nor are large chunks of their electorates.

If Emerson determines that the AWU will use its preselection muscle in the union heartland of Queensland to knock him off at the next election, he may walk early, forcing a by-election at an inconvenient time for Gillard.

Conversely, if Gillard declares that Emerson is not to be touched, suddenly Bill Shorten enters the lexicon of leadership talk. That little prospect is something Labor's detractors are keen to promote as something likely anyway, which independently of the above scenario is also pure scuttlebutt.

But if Gillard doesn't recognise her place as a servant of the labour movement, that movement could turn to someone who does.

Things aren't much more stable on the conservative side. Tony Abbott is dominant and deserves another shot at an election. It should be that simple, no need for divisions. But he will want his subordinates to stop manoeuvring for advantage. Backbenchers are agitating against their more senior colleagues, fearing that if they don't climb the greasy pole the Coalition will be back in government but they will still be on the back bench.

A similar dynamic is in train among the rung of senior shadows a tier below the leadership team. Targets are variously deputy leader Julie Bishop and Hockey, with claims one or both of them should be replaced.

Just this week, however, one of the rising stars of the parliamentary Liberal Party - Morrison - has been dealt a series of blows designed to damage his future, perhaps a strike back by more senior colleagues.

Morrison's fellow Liberals are openly starting to question whether his strong showing as a shadow minister would be possible were he not in a portfolio area the government perennially struggles with. "Shooting ducks in a barrel," as one frontbench colleague described it to me.

Last weekend I wrote that Bishop should not be touched. Removing her as deputy would start a chain reaction, exposing state, factional and personality differences in the opposition, right when Abbott's colleagues should shut up and let him prosecute the case of government incompetence.

However, while the leadership team agrees with that assessment, and most of the back bench isn't interested in moving on Bishop, some of her senior colleagues continue to agitate against her.

This week, in response to last weekend's piece, one contacted me saying: "Sometimes if there's shit in the pipes you just have to break them open and clean them out. It's a messy business but there is no alternative."

That from a shadow cabinet minister. No wonder discussions in shadow cabinet don't stay as confidential as Abbott would like.

Gillard continues to play a long-term game, hoping that by the time the next election is due she will have given the public reason to re-elect her.

Abbott continues to play a short-term game, hoping to be ready at any moment to assume government, whether it's on the back of a by-election or a change of heart by the independents.

Gillard wants to appear constructive, Abbott is being deliberately destructive. Both are within their rights to employ such strategies. However, if Labor fights among itself, the attempt at a constructive policy message by Gillard will be overshadowed.

And if Liberals turn their own disagreements into the story they won't be able to keep the pressure and focus on the government.

Whichever side manages to sort out its own problems first will have a better 2011.