Coal: the 2007 wedge issue?

Bob Brown and Tim Flannery may just be making Howard's job of retaining office a little easier. The battleground is becoming clear - mounting a credible campaign on global warming, while reassuring the nation that the cost will not be too great is essential for victory. Brown and the green extremists have played their cards - revealing that they wish to destroy the coal industry in the name of climate change. Rudd has been quick to distance himself, but will he really be able to play the environmentally friendly, do deals with the Greens for preferences and still be able to convince coal miners and their dependant communities that Howard wouldn't be a safer bet?

I've always thought that a major commitment to cleaner coal in the short term, and clean coal (sequestration ) in the long term would be a critical component of a realistic response to climate change. Australia's comparative advantage in coal, with plentiful reserves, and our major coal export market means abandoning coal would be a massive cost to bear.

Rudd now needs to straddle the divide - show that he is business and mining friendly enough to protect coal, but at the same time green enough to win critical Greens preferences (and convince the punters that he won't do deals with the Greens if he wins office in the senate). It will be a hard ask - Rudd already has the difficult issue of keeping Peter Garrett's moral convictions in check, and a nuclear debate at the next Labor convention.

It will be interesting to see this wedge unfold... Howard is a master politician and will be likely to employ coal along side nuclear in his arsenal of wedge politics in the lead up to the 2007 federal election.

Malcolm needs to sharpen his message...

Just watched a rather average 'debate' format unfold on the 7.30 report. Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Garrett faced off in a interview style 'debate' that saw Turnbull normally lead with Garrett following. This led to Turnbull being on the defensive for the majority of the interview, while Garrett was able to stick to his message and mount an offensive interview. Kerry O'Brien's line of questioning did assist Turnbull's poor performance, but there was no excuse for a lacklustre performance from Turnbull.

Malcolm allowed himself to waffle, often using several quotes in a ineffective manner and being unable to stick to his message. This is the second interview I've seen him botch - its time he and his inner circle do a little work to sharpen his interviewing skills.

Peter Garrett was underwhelming - it wasn't a case of Turnbull being outperformed and forced into a poor showing by a superior debater. Turnbull will have no problem head to head with Garrett once the necessary improvements are made. Parliamentary performance is a different matter - Turnbull has been capturing significant media attention in Question Time, and is clearly out performing Garrett. His television performance is the key area that is letting him down...

Republican dilemmas...

I am watching the US Presidential nomination campaigns with interest. Whilst the Democrats will struggle to choose between Obama, Clinton and Edwards, there would be few members of the party that would complain about a lack of talent in the field. A quick glance over at the Republican side of the house, and there is a far different scenario. Senator John McCain leads a field of nobodies, with his only real challenger at this time deemed to be former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani. Both McCain and Guiliani have little to no support within the traditional Republican voter base - Guiliani is a 'liberal' Republican and McCain's disregard of key Christian leaders is well known.

One big name is yet to enter the field - Newt Gingrich. The once polarising speaker is likely to gain significant support from the Republican base keen to have 'anyone but McCain' but unwilling to put a RINO like Guiliani up for President. Gingrich now has the ability to allow the field to fight each other, before declaring closer to the primaries and gaining the initiative and momentum over 'tired' candidates. Gingrich was always able to capture the nations headlines and attention with his 'contract with America' and other initiatives.

It will be interesting to see if the run eventuates - the biggest issue will be money. Gingrich needs to be able to hold off on declaring for as long as possible, yet still have the money available to run against McCain and Guiliania, who have been fundraising for significantly longer.

The real dream candidate for Republicans won't be throwing his hat in the ring for the 2008 election. Jeb Bush, an immensely popular former Florida Governor with true Republican pedigree and appeal to the base, will need to wait a little while until memories of George W Bush fade a little. Still, nobody should rule out seeing another Bush in the White House - especially with the current crop of potentials...

Parliament resumes ...

Kevin Rudd: "My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now formally repudiate the industry minister's statement in which he said: I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change?"
John Howard: "No, I will not formally repudiate it. People make different statements about different things over a period of time. I seem to remember the Leader of the Opposition a little under two years ago saying that he was not experienced enough to be the leader of the Labor Party. He now thinks that he is experienced enough to be prime minister."

It is going to be an interesting year...

Beattie acts the leader, rather than the populist - for a change!

It is a rare occasion that I see fit to agree with a decision undertaken by the QLD Labor government. Previous posts on this blog have clearly shown my contempt for one of the worst governments in Australian history - appalling governance and countless failures abound.

But this weekend Beattie has done a rare thing in his political history - taking the choice to lead, as oppossed to just pandering to the popular. In deciding to just make water recycling happen, rather than putting QLD through another referendum that could be hijacked by fear (ala Toowoomba's referendum), Beattie has made the right choice. Recycled drinking water is a reality in international cities such as Singapore - so rural Queensland can most certainly put up with the 'ich' factor. When voters are unwilling to pay more for water, but also unwilling to accept recycled drinking water, a politician needs to step up and make the hard call.

I'll be able to count on one hand the amount of times this will happen, but still, good call by Beattie.

Howard delivers a powerful blow...

If Howard and Rudd were boxers, yesterday's $10 billion Murray-Darling policy announcement would have been a powerful body blow that left Rudd reeling and on the defensive. After several years of allowing the states to attempt to deal with this issue, Howard has stepped in and made a decisive and popular move that allows him to spend on a issue that will win votes but won't threaten to raise inflation (as a middle-class tax cut / benefit might).

It swept aside Rudd's calls for a water summit - Howard assumes responsibility for the Murray-Darling, simultaneously putting pressure on the states to now manage their residential water supplies. The federal government has pledged $10 billion and assumed responsibility for a major water issue - the burden of supplying water to the cities and suburbs is now squarely on the state's back, as is the blame for failure.

Turnbull appeared on the 7.30 report after the announcement during the day at the National Press Club. On a side issue, Turnbull's interview technique needs a lot of work - he waffled his way through several very 'kind' Kerry O'Brien questions and was given a lot of leeway not normally afforded to politicians by ABC interviewers.

This policy allows Turnbull to start making serious noise nationally about the Governments 'realist' green credentials. The next step is to announce policy that funds the research and development of clean coal technology and guarantees the Australian coal industry's future. Value adding our uranium exports by enriching in country, as well as developing stringent procedures designed to prevent proliferation are another area for the Government to focus upon.

Looking forward to the next blow to the Labor agenda - looks like that honeymoon is starting to waiver. Bet Labor are spitting that their $1 million early advertising campaign just got overshadowed by Howard's policy announcement...

How can Costello best sieze the agenda Post-Howard...

Costello's op-ed piece in the Australian today gave a glimpse of the Coalition under its next leader. Highlighting the importance of intergrating migrants into the workforce and wider society, Costello alluded to some of his major differences to Howard. Costello, I believe, will quickly move towards the centre once Howard finally bows out of Federal politics. One of the most important things Costello must achieve is to significantly rejuvinate the Coalition's cabinet and frontbench. He must also establish a new agenda that siezes the initative and provides a clear direction that differs to the Howard years.

The 'new' liberal agenda could include a significant focus on climate change, improvement in education on all levels, continued taxation reform (simplifying the tax system by removing all deductions and lowering rates across the board is a reform worth working towards), improving efficiency in the National economy, education, water and energy.

Costello and his inner circle must focus on building a major agenda to agressively pursue upon Howard's retirement - a rejuvinated Coalition with a Costello driven 'new agenda' is critical for election success post Howard.

Game on...

The reshuffle we all knew was coming delivered the key players to the frontline today. Howard has delivered his 'war' cabinet and front bench for the long run to the polls in 2007. The biggest winner was, unsuprisingly, Malcolm Turnbull. Since his arrival in Canberra Turnbull has been positioning himself as a voice for water conservation issues, and increasingly the enivronment. He has rapidly repaired his relationship with the Prime Minister's office and has mounted an impressive 'charm offensive' to combat any bad blood remaining from his Republican days and Wenworth pre-selection battle. His match up with high profile Labor MP Peter Garrett will prove to be the match up of the 2007 campaign.

Amanda Vanstone was dumped - her performance in the media has been particularly poor lately, and definitely sends the message that Howard is clearing dead wood for the election battle ahead. Greyer than grey Kevin Andrews takes her portfolio, which clears way for a stronger performer in Workplace relations - the Sunrise connection continues to deliver, with Joe Hockey getting a high profile portfolio and match up against Julia Gillard. Kevin Andrews suits Immigration - his softer, controlled, 'machine like' manner will play much better that Vanstone's recent performances on the 7:30 report.

The uncertainty is put to rest with this move - Howard and his team are ready to face off and Kevin Rudd's honeymoon is quickly coming to an end. Let's see how rudely the media returns Rudd to earth...

Religion rising on the national agenda...

An interesting op-ed piece in SMH by Tim Costello and more religious / political commentary from the Australian's Christoper Pearson have highlighted how religion will again play a significant role in the next election. In fact, with Kevin Rudd keen to sieze the relgious vote back from the Coalition, religion could be artificially high on the agenda....

If you needed any further proof, how about Hillsong blesses Rudd's Labor or Rudd's religion strikes a cord in the Daily Telegraph and the Australian respectively.

The 2004 Election had a religious side - Family First gaining plenty of press and attention from the Coalition to secure preference deals. Labor at the time made little attempt to woo the Christian vote, something that Rudd thought was a mistake and sought to correct prior to winning the leadership. But the issue of religion is set to play a much larger role in the 2007 election - Howard is being challenged by Rudd for the Christian vote. The mainstream Christian vote in particular has slid away from Labor, particularly the Catholic vote - it is this little 'l' liberal Catholic / Anglican / Uniting voter that Rudd is particulalry trying hard to woo.

Rudd seems to be buttering up Family First for a more Labor friendly preferencing deal - after all, these preferences traditionaly flow to the Coalition, and would be a painful loss to Howard. Family First has polled at about 5% in recent elections, and will be hoping to improve on its first Federal showing. Steve Fielding will again become an important figure in the lead up to the next election, with both sides keen to woo Family First preferences with family friendly / christian friendly policies and deals.

This is a postive development for Chrisitans - Christian and family issues will once again be high on the agenda for both major parties in the next election. Several high profile Christian politicians are working hard and performing well in all major parties and Family First.

Brian Houston, Head Pastor of Hillsong Church and head of the Assemblies of God denomination, explained well what I believe about Christian involvement in politics;

"I am of the opinion that it is not the role of the church to be involved in party politics but if individual Christians have a desire to contribute to the community through politics, I would encourage them to do so. I see absolutely no reason why Christians should be the only sector of society excluded from having a voice into the direction of our nation."

A new year begins...

2007 is barely begun and already Howard has returned nuclear energy to the national agenda. This strategy was planned and executed in a different era - an era where Howard faced the lacklustre Beazley, battling to show the voters that he had the 'ticker' to be Prime Minister. What is interesting is that Howard and his advisers have decided to lead into the new year, in the middle of Rudd's political honeymoon, with the nuclear 'wedge' aimed squarely at Labor. Howard and his team still see value and political gain from pushing the point - it would be interesting to see what they are planning now they have set the scene for the nuclear debate.

Rudd is steadily working on a 'war chest' through favours from Labor's Premiers and Chief Ministers. Federal Labor seeks to make significant savings by making deals with State Labor that Howard has been unable to achieve. While this all sounds good in theory, I can't help wondering if there are a few reservations from poor performing State governments behind closed doors. Who will Beattie blame if Federal Labor is in government? How will the supposed voter desire for a 'check' ( one party for the state, the other for the nation ) work when a Federal Labor Government returns to power? QLD and NSW Labor must be carefully wieghing up their options, attempting not to burn too many bridges with Howard and hedge their bets for next year's election.

I was interested to see the commentary this week on Fraser's decisions in regards to humanitarian immigration for Lebanese during the 1970's. It shows how careful planning and consideration must always be applied to immigration. Poor choices made three decades ago have delivered a community that to this day faces difficulty integrating into the Australian mainstream where others have not. Fraser blames Governments after his for failing to ensure integration support was adequate - and indeed some of the actions taken by Labor were short term focused, designed to curry favour in Western Sydney. What Fraser fails to own up to is the fact that he went against Department advice, and failed to respond to repeated warnings - this is an issue that will haunt Australia and the Lebanese Australian community for some time to come.

So predictions for the new year - NSW Labor returned to office, Howard returned to office, more of the same in Iraq and Israel. I'll be watching senior Liberal figures for clues to how Howard's retirement in 2008 will change the face of the Coalition Government.

Rudd as local member...

I Spent Christmas jumping between the in laws and home, catching up with friends and family on both the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. My father - in - law was telling me of his experiences with Kevin Rudd. Rudd used to drop in regularly to my father-in-law's service station on a Saturday and spend up to two hours talking, with his 'mobile office' parked across the road. It made me reflect on what a successful local member Rudd has proven to be.

In the 2004 election, Rudd secured 58.63% of the vote - representing roughly a 3% swing to Labor at each election since 1998. He has managed to do this despite being Shadow Foreign Minister since November 2001 - a job which had taken him overseas significantly more than the average Labor politician. His 'mobile office' has been a regular feature around South Brisbane, and Rudd gained favour and profile in his lobbying against increased aircraft traffic over his electorate.

There is no doubt that Rudd has a tenacity and capacity for work that is similar to John Howard. His perceived energy levels are much higher than any of his predecessors - Latham seemed drained, run down - and eventually self-defeating, Beazley was overweight and therefore 'lazy'. No one has been able to match 'little' Johnny and his daily power walks - but Rudd and incessant media tarting and 'listen tours' definitely matches Howard for drive and desire.

What will be most interesting is to see how Rudd deals with adversity - when the media that has for so long been Rudd's personal 'champion' turns against him, when the political fist fight starts to leave him worse for wear. We all know how Howard has risen up against adversity, beating the odds and all political commentators courtesy of a Lazarus triple bypass - but does Rudd have that same ability? Time will tell....

A painful way to learn the wrongs of drink driving...

A relative of Carla Zampatti's wraps his $300,000 month old Ferrari around a pole (in a rather public location on a Sunday afternoon) and then blows three times over the legal limit... priceless! Photo and full details from the SMH here...

You wouldn't read about it would you?!?

News today that another NSW Labor MP is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons - Iemma must be taking years off his life at the moment with these stress levels. The MP has had assault charges level against him, after what he claims was a domestic split going very wrong;

"Steven Chaytor, the member for Macquarie Fields, says he is innocent of the charge, and that he was only trying to stop his partner from killing herself after he had tried to end their relationship." SMH 20/12/06

But what about the location - Macquarie Fields - if you ever wanted to build on a stereotype, Chaytor has managed to do it. Let's just hope the neighbours didn't try to lynch the police when they arrived to sort this domestic dispute on steroids.

Still, you have to feel sorry for NSW Labor - and shake your head at the calibre of candidates and MPs that state governments turn up. Mind you my favourite Labor family still has to be the Molloys - you know, Ivan 'milat' Molloy of 2004 infamy, and his lovely wife Cate. If you know Queensland politics, you would recognise Cate Molloy as the former Labor MP for Noosa who couldn't quite make a decision on whether to stick to her convictions about the Traverston Dam (which is not in her electorate of Noosa). In the end, after appearing to have a split personality disorder, she listened to the voices in her head and stormed out of the QLD Labor Conference in 2006, and was shortly after dumped as Labor candidate.

Dr Ivan Molloy was national news during the 2004 election campaign for his colourful past - a photo op with a machine gun while learning about 'political groups' in the early 80's quickly saw him dubbed Ivan 'Milat' by Mark Latham - including in a press conference.

The couple was also suspended from the Noosa SLSC and QLD SLSC after a heated battle with Noosa 'Clubbies' about a nude painting being hung in a Noosa surf club. The dispute saw Molloy face allegations of intimidation of Noosa suf club members, as well as some blatant media 'slutting' that Peter Beattie would be proud of. At least these two never struggled to keep the media interested; with bikini photo ops, nude sunbathing habits. Like watching a train wreck I guess....

It's called a conflict of interest, Combet!

News today that three union bosses, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten and Doug Cameron have run into an ethical situation. As trustees of the board of Australian Super, these three men are legally required make decisions that deliver the best return to their members. Guess which current Australian icon Australian Super has around $80 million worth of shares in .... Qantas. Guess which union bosses have been making loud protests against the sale of Qantas due to fears of job losses and contracting out services to overseas operators?

Cameron is already on the record saying that he believes it is his duty as a trustee to consider job losses and debt that Qantas may incur - well maybe if his super fund was going to hold onto the shares. It's definitely his duty as national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, who represent the Qantas maintenace engineers that could possibly lose their jobs in the future (not that this wasn't the case with an ASX listed Qantas either). Can anyone say conflict of interest!

If I was a member of Australian Super, I'd be asking why the board of trustees had three members who will so obviously have major conflicts of interest when it comes to making decisions that will affect Australian union members, and I'd be asking if the Australian super members would take priority.

The full details are reported in the Australian here....

Rudd's strategic considerations...

Kevin Rudd is an energetic, ambitious and cunning political operative - his short time in the spotlight has confirmed this. What interests me now is what are his long term strategic moves - what decisions he is undertaking with only his inner circle to solidify his leadership position and cut down his rivals.

As many commentators have mentioned, Rudd mounted a successful leadership challenge as part of a team, the 'dream team' pairing of himself and Julia Gillard. Gillard provided valuable support, particularly when rumours abound that Rudd is not well liked by his colleagues and has few close friends on the opposition benches. Gillard herself was in contention when leadership challenges were discussed by the media, but probably realised that she did not have the numbers to match Beazley, or convince Rudd to be the junior partner in the marriage of convenience. However this now leaves Rudd in a difficult place - his strongest rival is now in a high profile shadow ministry of her choosing, facing off against a much less talented member of the Government that in her previous job of health. Rudd must realise that if Labor fails to win the next election, he could face the very real possibility of fending of a leadership challenge from Gillard - something that many of her supporters who voted for Rudd (only because he wasn't Beazley) would welcome.

So how does Rudd subtly undermine Gillard's position in a way that doesn't damage his own leadership position and election chances? Paul Kelly puts forward the idea of backing down from Beazley's IR promises with less drastic changes like re-introducing the no disadvantage test rather than ripping up hundreds of thousands of AWA's (including Rudd's new staff who are all to be employed on AWA's - that's another story). This would sieze the iniative on I.R. from the coalition, who are currently sitting back watching jobs growth and wage increases, preparing to mount one giant counter offensive against Labor and their Union bedfellows. It would also put Gillard in the embarassing position of having to sell the backdown to both the media, Unions and Australian public - after going on record this week stating that no such backdown will occur.

I'm not sure that Rudd possesses the necessary political capital to achieve such a brave and potentially rewarding manouevre. The Unions are dead set on returning their power to levels not seen since the 70's and 80's, not just maintaining their current weak grasp on influence - this election represents perhaps their last chance to do so. Rudd would have to win the next election to have any hope of his leadership lasting - his enemies would be baying for blood even if Labor greatly improved their position but lost the election. Instead I beleive he will rely on Gillard being unable to perform under the pressure of the election - Abbott had her measure easily during her time in the shadow health portfolio, and I suspect many on the opposition benches think her opportunities have fallen into her lap simply because of profile and sex, rather than merit.

Julia Gillard faces a challenging scenario - win the election and she will be hailed a success... and then will face a long wait as PM Rudd seeks to become the longest serving Labor PM in history. Lose the election and the Unions will seek to blame her for being unable to shield them from the vicious blow of Work Choices. I'm sure Rudd realises this - he is most likely growing in comfort as his own proflie rises at a higher rate than Gillards. This makes specualtion of Rudd building a shadow cabinet without space that can be vacated for little Billy Shorten interesting. It points to Rudd already considering the longer term - planning to keep another potential messiah on the backbench for a little longer, buying his own leadership further time.

Now we have the opportunity to sit back and watch a very interesting stage in ALP history unfold....

Counting the cost of conservation...

The bushfire season is upon us. This years fires are shaping up as some of the most devestating in recent history, particularly in Tasmania and Victoria. It is undeniable that the extended drought has left bushland parched, but one of the major contributors to the severity of the fires is the massive amount of fuel for the fires to burn. State governments have failed to adequetly reduce fuel in national parks and state forests, leaving them fuel ladened and increasing the inensity of fires that engulf these areas. Despite state government inquiries clearly pointing to the need to reduce fuel, little has been done. Once again Australia faces devestating bushfires, and CFA members are forced to fight fires in conservation areas as well as trying to save homes and towns in regional areas.

Another factor to consider is the massive release of carbon and other pollution into the atmosphere. The environmental cost is particularly high - I want to see an comparison to Australia's annual carbon levels once the fire season has ended. It is particularly important given we seem to be on a path to a carbon tax - what good is reducing carbon emissions on one hand, while persuing a conservation policy that guaruntees huge carbon emissions every bushfire season on the other?

Asa Wahlquist has written on the topic in today's Australian, but overall this is an issue that the media seem to be missing. If we are so worried about carbon emissions, we should be addressing man made and natural carbon emissions, particularly bushfires.

The state and federal governments need to lead on this issue, ignoring the bleats of conservation groups and listening to the fire management experts.

Compassionate conservatism...

I've settled on a politicial 'label' that most aptly describes my beliefs - compassionate conservatism. Myron Magnet gives an excellent outline of the basic beliefs of a com-con, an ideology that fits my beliefs almost perfectly. Magnet sums up compassion for the poor in a brilliant fashion:

"Compassionate conservatives ... offer a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, whether of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try —as they must —they will make it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing."

This passage could so easily be applied to my own beliefs on what should be the driving thought behind welfare programs in Australia. Aboriginal Australians would benefit greatly from a com-con driven agenda to revolutionise the way we do welfare and service programs.

"The problem with welfare, they believe, is that instead of helping needy mothers raise sturdy children who go on to succeed in life, it perpetuates weak families, stuck in dependency for generations. As a way of life —which is what it has become —welfare degrades rather than uplifts too many of its supposed beneficiaries.
Work, by contrast, makes an individual responsible for herself and her family and thereby provides a road to self-respect and equal citizenship. So far, former welfare recipients forced out into the work force, even those who work very low-level jobs, tell reporters that they are finding it (does) just that."

I'll attempt to outline how compassionate conservatism applies to foreign affairs and security issues in future posts... I'm just thrilled to find an idealogy that I can champion so easily.

Rudd steals a march on.... Costello !?!?!?

I was reading the Australian article today on Rudd stealing from Howard's education agenda. It suddenly struck me that the Liberal politician who should be most worried at the moment is not Howard, but Costello. Rudd's 'Howard lite' approach would have Costello wondering who handed his playbook over to the Labor party! Rudd is definelty coming to the centre - take away I.R. and industrial policy, and you have an almost carbon copy of ideas that Costello has been trying to establish as his own agenda. Particularly in the earlier stages of the year when Costello was seen to trying to emerge from under Howard's shadow, he has shown a keen interest in fixing federalism. 'A bridge to far' could almost sum up Costello's approach to correcting the Liberal party path when he finally does take over from Howard. He will steer the ship back toward a slightly more little 'l' liberal direction, softening some of those hard right edges of the Howard years.
Costello has got to be worried - how on earth does he differentiate between himself and Rudd apart from I.R. and some other labor movement specials? Could be an interesting election sometime in 2010!!

What not to do - lessons from Labor

What will the coaliton do when the inevitable occurs and they return to the dreaded opposition benches? I hope for their sake they do not choose to follow in the footsteps of the Australian Labor Party, that is for sure!

The biggest single mistake that Labor has made in opposition is not to take advantage of the opportunities it allows. The opportunity to correct the corruption that will inevitably creep into any party that is Government for a lengthy period. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - so with the loss of power the coalition must quickly eliminate moral and ethical weaknesses and corruption.

Secondly is learning from defeat - studying what went wrong for the Coalition, and what Labor did right to defeat the incumbent Government. Appreciating their 'enemies' strengths will allow the Coalition to learn from their enemy, and plan more effecitvely for the next election. Underestimating the victors is inviting a long stint in opposition - take Labor's lack of appreciation of their own failings and inability to appreciate Howard's strengths and successes, particularly in the 1998 and 2001 elections.

Finally that disunity is death - limiting the necessary blood letting and purging that must take place after the inevitable loss is paramount. Then the coalition must quickly settle on new leadership and shadow cabinet / frontbench team - and stick by them! Internal fighting that can so easily flare up after the comforts of the Government benches are left behind must be avoided at all costs - just look at Labor's last five years!

If economic / environment / security disaster does not cut short the Government's reign, I'd expect that the inevitable defeat would occur after Costello's first election victory. Howard will hand over in about 2008, Costello will win in 2010 before losing in 2013....

7.30 Report gets a little fiesty...

Kerry O'Brien and Amanda Vanstone squared off tonight on the 7.30 report. The interview didn't even start on a civil note when Kerry led into the interview with a very damning spin on reports released by the Commonwealth Ombudsman today.

Vanstone started by posing an alternative lead in - to which Kerry snappily replied that she should answer the question because they didn't have much time. I haven't seen Vanstone on the 7.30 report before, but there has to be a history of fiery encounters for Kerry to respond so angrily - he was like an attack dog that wouldn't let go. Essentialy Kerry wanted an admission from Vanstone that she or Phillip Ruddock was responsible for the frequent mistakes that have plagued the department over recent times. Vanstone was particularly poor in her rebuttal to Kerry's ongoing demands that she state her responsibility for the errors. Probably a reason why so many are calling for her head in the name of fresh talent moving to the frontbench.

It made me stop and think - where do we draw the line of demanding 'responsibility' from our Ministers for errors / mistakes within their department? How on earth is Vanstone actually responsible for each of these mishandlings and mistakes in her department which occured at the coal face of the department, often in distant geographical locations to Canberra or her electorate.

How is Brendon Nelson actually 'responsible' for the many stuff ups in the handling of the Kovko saga? Too often in recent times have the media scrum bayed for blood of a minister when mistakes are made from a very junior level within their departments. I see the responsibility of a Minister once a mistake or error has been brought to their attention is to investigate, take advice and then act to ensure the problem is fixed. I do not see it as their responsibility to put their head on the chopping block when a platoon seargent fails to see the body of his soldier home, or when military police badly handle an investigation.

We want our leaders to be responsible, but that doesn't mean being the target for all criticism and abuse. Micromanagement is not something that encourages efficiency and good results within a Government department. A minister cannot be everywhere at once, and so the media has no right to expect them to be omnipresent, all knowing, responsible for every action or inaction of their department. Maybe we need to re-draft the expectations of our Ministers and the way they run their departments to accurately reflect realistic expectations....