This Question Time session reiterated to me how childlike politicians are and how they use key messages (thank the press secretaries and public relations officers for this!) to avoid direct answers to tough questions.
Kevin Rudd asked the first question to the Prime Minister stating the major challenges to the nation being housing affordability, climate change particularly on Australia’s water resources, the effect of workchoices and the skills crisis and how after 11 years in office if the Prime Minister cannot run his own party how can he effectively run the country and respond to these challenges. The Prime Minister made the outlandish statement that I can’t believe the media did not focus on being “the possibility that in the next 3 years Australia could be a full employment society”. That is one huge claim to make! Should we hold the Prime Minister to this if he is re-elected? Just like when he said there would “never ever be GST”? Hmm… Well I am. In three years I expect that it is possible that in Australia no one will be unemployed. Howard stated that the challenges mentioned by Rudd had been met over the past 11 years and will continue to be met if the Government is re-elected. That appears to be a very controlled to a confronting question.
The Member for McMillan Russell Broadbent asked the Prime Minister to outline the plans the Government has to keep the economy “strong and growing”. This “strong and growing” slogan was frequently used by the government in this Question Time in response to Australia’s economic position. Howard replied to stating that only his government has the capacity to reach full employment in Australia, has the capacity to deal with long-term water shortages and has the capacity to continued reductions in tax. But he didn’t mention how. For the public watching at home, these kind of responses sound good but where is the weight in these answers? Labor’s “unfair dismissal laws” would create higher unemployment which Howard said would only threaten the “strong and growing” Australian nation. Howard finally used some facts to back this statement up by saying since March 2006 when the Industrial Relations changes had come into effect 417,000 new jobs had been created. Though he lost me when he said this was “partly” due to the removal of Labor’s unfair dismissal law. Partly.
Rudd’s next question to the Prime Minister is when Question Time started to get heated and reminded me of primary school debates where members of each side began to lose control of the rules and make comments any time they felt threatened! Rudd asked if the Prime Minister would be upfront and honest with the Australian people and tell them whether he intends to serve a full 3-year term if re-elected. This was an appropriate question to ask as the media had centred on Howard’s leadership and it was a hot topic and cause of conversation around many water coolers at the workplace. This caused a loud and raucous reaction from members of the government and the opposition, and David Hawker, the Speaker of the House, had to intervene and call “order, order” and remind members that they “are holding up their own question time”. Howard said the Australian people’s future is more important than his own and they would decide in the next election whether he would be re-elected. Again this does not answer the question. It is a nice key message though, telling the public their future is more worthy than his. The Government’s press secretaries probably had their fingers crossed for that key message to appear as a headline in a newspaper the next day. Howard then moved the question away from himself to Peter Beatie and Steve Bracks’ retirement and how that showed Labor were not showing responsibility to their electorate.
The Member for Kingston Kym Richardson’s question to the Treasurer reaffirmed my belief of Question Time as a childlike environment and brought the notion of “sucking up” to a new level. Richardson started his question by addressing the Treasurer as part of the “best team ever” which got a rousing response of cheers and jeers from the opposition. Please boys, leave it at home or at the next Liberal Party dinner party. I can’t believe this is part of the political process, it seems so immature and unprofessional. He then asked the Treasurer to inform the House of the state of the economy. Costello continued the nonsense by thanking the Member of Kingston “the best Member of Kingston Australia has ever had” for his question. Umm, I thought we were here to talk policies? Costello stated that the state of the economy was strong because of more jobs, the lowest rate of unemployment in a decade and that business profitability and investment were strong. Costello mentioned the Government’s “Investing for Australia’s future” plans which were praised by the Controller General of the USA who Costello quoted as saying Australia is one of two nations in the world who is doing the best job of saving for the future. This was effective as the answer had some substance and not just a repeated “strong and growing” nation message.
Wayne Swan, the Member for Lilley, asked if the Treasurer believed the Prime Minister is the best person to lead in the next election and if so why hasn’t he said so when the Prime Minister’s leadership has being publicly questioned in the last week. Again, this was a sufficient question to ask and Labor were riding on the wave of public curiosity and concern. The Speaker stated the Treasurer did not have to answer the question, as it was not his administration responsibility. But Costello jumped at the chance by stating he had just done a press conference, which the opposition loudly mocked, because it seemed as Swan was suggesting, a rather late response. Costello then asked Swan a question by asking does he believe Kevin Rudd is the best person to lead the Labor Party, and which “rooster” (yes, he used the term rooster) voted against him? “Methinks the rooster crowed the wrong way” Costello ended. Again I think this is childish. It seems like this is an adult version of a year six debate with name calling and slandering without much progress being made. Swan kept this leadership idea running with his next question where he asked the Prime Minister if he won the next election when would Costello take over. Howard used the repeated key message “the Australian people will decide” and again swung the attention back to Peter Beatie who he said mislead the people of Queensland. Just from watching this one Question Time I saw the technique Howard uses for answering tough questions, which is to not directly answer but to give a nice “for the Australian people” kind of response and then attack the Labor Party. This caused Swan to tell the House that his question was about “relevance” and he was asking about the “Prime Minister’s intention” which got more jeers and cheers from both sides. Now the next answer from the Prime Minister is one that made my ears prick up and laugh out loud. Howard said Beattie had dishonoured his people and that unlike him “I won’t mislead the Australian people”. Did everyone hear that? It’s not as if Howard has mislead us before is it? GST, children overboard. Well I am holding it to you Prime Minister. I hope the rest of the Australian public will as well. ‘Nuff said!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment