The early release from jail of militant Indonesian Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir always sat oddly with Howard’s proposed amendments to The Migration Act. If the reason for changing the law was Indonesian affront at DIMIA’s decision to give refugee status to 41 out of 42 West Papuan refugees, what would Indonesia give to assuage Australian outrage at the lenient treatment of Bashir?
Of course Howard couldn’t play the “tit-for-tat” card easily, because he maintained that the changes in the law had nothing to do with Indonesia. But the actions of the Liberal dissidents in delaying the amendments, combined with a face-to-face meeting with Indonesian Prime Minister Yudhoyono, give Howard an opportunity to step back from the legislation, and ensure that Indonesia continues to uphold its end of the terrorism/boatpeople deal.
Will he take this opportunity? Will the Liberal moderates (and the rule of law) have a quiet win?
That’s one potential reading of this matter of fact article on the News site.

I’ve been a bit neglectful of this blog for a couple of weeks. It’s not atypical of the “blogosphere” – the infatuation is definitely wearing off for many of the bloggers we feature in The Domain, at least measured by volume of postings.
So, I think it’s about time that this blog became a bit more multi-author – which is where it started. Anyone wanting to volunteer can email me at editor@onlineopinion.com.au.
The prompt to muse on this was this offering from Liberal Party rebel, Jim Nicholls. I’m offering it up as a basis for starting debate. Jim’s not the first to suggest this to me, and while I don’t think it’s a goer at the moment, anything is possible when John Howard eventually falls off his pedestal and the Liberal Party loses a federal election.
So here’s Jim’s piece:

Graham,
Present day concern over state’s rights and the future of federalism is helping foster renewed calls for the formation of a new state based political party, one that is neither left nor right but for Queensland and for Queenslanders. These calls have taken on additional urgency following the recent convergence of non-Labor politics in Queensland in a strengthened Coalition.
To makes sense of these growing concerns with the current state of political affairs we need first to understand why the current political set up is perceived to be failing Queenslanders. In order to generate answers we need to approach the subject from different but complementary perspectives. These are firstly constitutional, secondly ideological and thirdly practical in nature.

Constitutional Limitations:

In the first instance we need to scope how effectively existing constitutional arrangements provide for the effective political representation of Queenslanders.
In 1901, the Founding Fathers of our nation devised a Federal Constitution that incorporated a theoretical system of checks and balances. These were intended to protect against the potential for the abuse of power by the Commonwealth. Firstly, federal power was to be subjected to the scrutiny and veto of a state orientated senate free of party ties. Secondly, the Commonwealth’s powers were to be limited in scope and balanced by the powers of state parliaments. Queensland, signed up to the new Federation in the belief that its interests would be protected through these constitutional safeguards.
In practice however, power has been systematically taken from the states and concentrated in the hands of the Federal Government and the two major federally based parties that dominate it. There is a growing sense in our state that the combination of a vaguely drafted Federal Constitution [which fails to take into account the existence of political parties] and the increasing concentration of power in the Federal Government are conspiring to deny Queenslanders of any real democratic control over their own destinies.

Ideological Limitations:

The flaws that beset the Constitution are reflected in Queensland politics. The concentration of power among a handful of globally orientated parties has all but ended the opportunity for homegrown Queensland-centric policies to emerge, especially when Queensland politics is at odds with federal or global interests.
Queensland politics has become increasingly bi-partisan since the end of the Joh era. More noticeably following the recent convergence of non-Labor politics in Queensland in the form of a strengthened Coalition. This transition has seen the National Party conceding their traditional ground, in their bid to achieve Coalition unity. Probably the most notable concession is in terms of the National’s tacit endorsement of the Liberal’s laissez-faire approach to economic management. The major parties, including Labor, all now offer a variation on a common global economic rationalist theme. In so doing, they are adopting a dominant global perspective that is seemingly accepted at a federal level but is increasingly at odds with populist sentiment here in Queensland.

Practical Limitations:

Both the constitutional and ideological limitations on effective state centric political representation are further reinforced by a set of more down to earth practical limitations. These have their origins in factionalism and its outward manifestations in terms of cronyism, rorting, corruption and sleaze that have tarnished some of the major political parties in recent times. Consequently, those most affected are losing members in droves. Meanwhile voters are feeling increasingly cynical as is evidenced in the increasing number of people who claim to have no party identification.

Conclusion:

When Queenslanders understand the full extent of these limitations, they will look to alternatives. In this regard they will be more likely to start looking when there livelihoods, incomes and homes are threatened. A situation that may not be far away as the economic cycle turns and the country confronts large debts coinciding with a period of oil price driven stagflation and its corollary of high interest rates.
The trigger for change could be a build up of resentment such that a critical mass is achieved, a failed policy such as health or a policy too far such as the privatisation of Telstra. Change may also be precipitated by the emergence of a charismatic authority figure in the style of Pauline Hanson agitating for state rights.
Overall, the situation appears to auger well for the emergence of a new Queensland centric party that is prepared to break with the past and appeal directly to hearts and minds of Queenslanders. One thing is for certain, Queensland politics looks set for a big shake up and possibly a shake out!
Jim Nicholls

Jim Nicholls is a former UK Political Advisor, Director of Development of the European Movement, Chief Executive of the English Hill Farming Initiative and Political Consultant to Richard Branson’s Virgin Group.

Has anyone else been struck by the way that Oppostion Foreign Affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd has lingered in Dili and always appears to be available for live media crosses? Reminds me of the appearances at Beaconsfield of Bill Shorten. Shorten made himself into the de facto spokesperson for the miners as well the employers, and it became the launching pad for his current campaign to be the next Labor leader. Could this be Kevin’s counter-offensive?
He’s certainly doing well. Comes across as articulate and impartial, and on the job with his sleeves rolled-up while “management” – in this case Alexander Downer – is off doing other things, like spruiking nuclear power.
But I don’t think Kevin needs to worry. Our “What the people want” research after the budget found the following support for the various leadership contenders:
“35% want Julia Gillard as leader, compared to 20% for Kevin Rudd, 15% for Paul Keating and 10% for Kim Beazley. None of the above is only 12%”
Bill Shorten didn’t figure in the analysis because he was on 5%. But then again, it would probably have been lower if not for Beaconsfield.
Which suggests that Rudd’s just adopted the tactic, rather than using it against Shorten, because despite the huff and puff from the right, the polling figures show Shorten has a long way to go before he’s a leadership contender.
Rudd’s real competition is Julia Gillard. Gillard is widely regarded as unelectable because she doesn’t have the support of many in caucus, but Rudd would be intensely aware that this can change if a contender’s profile is high enough. Afterall, in Rudd’s home state Peter Beattie didn’t have a lot of friends in caucus when he succeeded Wayne Goss, Rudd’s old boss, just the highest media profile. And now Beattie’s plan to promote Anna Bligh, another virtual political orphan with profile, into the premiership after him, also seems to be bearing fruit.
Rudd would appear to have friends, but he’s trailing Gillard badly in the popularity stakes. (In fact, amongst Labor voters he’s also trailing Paul Keating, who’s not even in the race.) So it could be a good idea for him to hang out in Dili a bit longer.