Since the Palmer United Party came into being there has been much kerfuffle about what its role is in the parliament and how to interpret its actions. It was viewed by some as this mystery of a thing. It was an illogical, impossible to predict mass of confusion and hilarity that would upturn politics as we know it.
But we now know it’s nothing new at all. In fact, what we’re seeing is much like what occurred during the Howard government years.
From 2004 to 2007 when the Howard government had a majority in both houses, then National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce liked to play the role of maverick. He would blather about certain issues and go through the motions of suggesting he would cross the floor and vote against the government. Sometimes he would and very occasionally his vote would matter as it did with trade practices legislation, but on the truly big items such as the sale of Telstra he talked big, but ended up voting with the government.
“... there is no relationship between internet piracy issue and data retention.”
While there was the view that he was an annoyance for the Howard government, his actions also made it seem the government was being held to account by one of their own. It also generated masses of attention for Barnaby Joyce.
We see much the same with Clive Palmer. He loves the big talk. He loves to get the press gathering around so he can feed the chooks. He loves the big announcement made just in time to make it headline news at 6pm. He loves to say he is going to block the government - and then he loves to fold over and side with them, once the issue has become all about him.
In June Palmer thought the government’s direct action policy was a “waste of money”; on Thursday he was supporting it.
“Absolutely, illegal downloads, piracy, cyber crimes, cyber security, all these matters – our ability to investigate them is absolutely pinned to our ability to retrieve and use metadata.”
Of course he talked the big game – suggesting he had forced huge concessions out of the government.
I doubt even he believes that, but he must hope some of his voters do.
The concession was that the government will keep the Climate Change Authority. Which would be great if it had something worthwhile to do, instead it has been given the pointless task of spending 18 months investigating emissions trading schemes around the world.
Everyone knows this is a farce. Take this exchange between the Minister for Environment Greg Hunt and the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann on Thursday morning:
GREG HUNT: The carbon tax is absolutely finished and will not come back under us in any way, shape or form.
CHRIS UHLMANN: Although you are investigating it again.
GREG HUNT: Look, we have agreed to a review but our policy is crystal clear, we abolished the tax and we’re not bringing it back.
CHRIS UHLMANN: You've agreed to review something you’re never going to do?
GREG HUNT: We are not bringing back the carbon tax.
Gee, well done Clive, you really played hard ball there.
At this point anyone believing Palmer will hold his line on the Renewable Enrgy Target, the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, the GP visits and everything else he has said he was absolutely firm on must be indulging in a fair bit of suspension of disbelief.
But at least there is a fig leaf of opposition. The ALP this week showed itself as falling at the first hurdle of an effective opposition party when Bill Shorten wrote to the Prime Minister expressing his concerns over terrorism laws which may mean that journalists could be jailed for reporting on special intelligence operations.
He called for a review.
I guess any amendment to it could be called the National Security Legislation (Horse has Bolted) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014.
On Thursday Malcolm Turnbull introduced legislation that would see metadata retained by ISP’s for 2 years. What will constitute metadata is not specifically in the act but rather conveniently will be contained in regulations.
Rather bizarrely, the Attorney General George Brandis told ABC radio that “there is no relationship between internet piracy issue and data retention”. This might be a shock to the head of the AFP, Andrew Colvin who when asked if the new powers could “be used, for example, to target illegal downloads” he replied, “Absolutely, illegal downloads, piracy, cyber crimes, cyber security, all these matters – our ability to investigate them is absolutely pinned to our ability to retrieve and use metadata.”
Given the confusion and rushed nature of the legislation it is well that the ALP has negotiated with the government to allow the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to examine the legislation and report back only next year.
One hopes that this time the ALP doesn’t wait till after the legislation has been passed before realising there might be some problems.
Share
