Harry Jenkins resignation: analysis
Chief political correspondent Phillip Coorey analyses what it will mean to the balance of power in Parliament after Harry Jenkins resigns as Speaker.
- Autoplay OnOff
- Video feedback
- Video settings
Prime Minister Julia Gillard wouldn't agree, but Harry Jenkins has been a good Speaker. Well, it depends what you mean by "good". The parties talk about wanting an independent Speaker but governments of either hue actually don't really desire that. Jenkins was as independent as you'll get in our system; the government believes he gave the opposition more than a leg up — he frustrated the hell out of ministers.
Jenkins has said he wants to play a role in policy, which the Speaker cannot; he is particularly interested in gambling reform. Some Labor sources say he was pushed; perhaps it could have been a gentle shove that exploited his isolation, the pressures he has been under and his loyalty to Labor.
One core reason that Gillard would have been anxious to have Jenkins out is the gambling legislation. The effect of Labor installing the Coalition's Peter Slipper as Speaker is that the opposition loses a number on the floor of the House and the government gains one.
Independent Andrew Wilkie has made all sorts of threats about what he might do if the government doesn't deliver to him on gambling reform. Now the government has — all else being equal — nullified his threats. Suddenly, his crossbench "number" is much less important than it was. It's a case of "up you, Andrew", but said nicely, of course, because the Parliament is still "hung".
The last time a government pulled off a neat trick of this nature was when Labor's Mal Colston deserted to become an independent and deputy president of the Senate, which made a crucial difference for the Howard government in the Senate.
So there is no high moral ground for either side here — both deals had a bad smell.
But how will the public react? There are two ways of looking at Labor's move — as a clever step to improve Labor's position and make the Parliament more stable, or as a manoeuvre that reinforces that Gillard is a whatever-it-takes kind of girl, who knocked off Kevin Rudd, broke her "no carbon tax" promise, and now has happily done a deal with one of the enemy — moreover, one who has been under attack over his entitlements (as Colston was).
Who is Speaker probably doesn't concern the average person in the street all that much. But the deal that's been done does tarnish Gillard, even while shoring her up. It feeds into the narrative that she is not all that trustworthy. It might sound old-fashioned to talk about political morality, but the fact is the government has not shown much of that in embracing Slipper. This is a difficult point for the opposition to dwell on directly, however, what with the Colston history and the disadvantages of bagging Slipper when he was so recently its own.
They call the end of the parliamentary year the "killing season", and a few weeks ago there was speculation that Gillard would be needing to watch her back. Things certainly didn't work out that way, but knives have indeed been put into various backs and the full effects of the bleeding is yet to be seen.
Michelle Grattan is Age political editor.
Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU
.gif)
204 comments
More comments
Comments are now closed