Timing, they say, is everything in politics and Tony Abbott's just lately has not been good.
Waiting several days to weigh into the Adam Goodes racism sinkhole came at some expense to a country suddenly faced with a threshold challenge to its social cohesion.
Worse still was the likelihood that this studied prime ministerial indifference served no other purpose than to minimise Abbott's embarrassment at the excesses of his hand-picked Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop.
As many have observed recently, the Bishop appointment had been wrong-headed in 2013. Performing to type, her aggressive approach became a net political negative for the government lending the 44th parliament a rancorous, dysfunctional edge.At least now, the Prime Minister has taken charge. But his tawdry, wilful mismanagement of this issue raises serious questions over his political judgment.
Three weeks into a crisis which has noticeably crippled his government, Abbott has at last acknowledged what almost everyone else had known from the start. That it is not tenable to have the parliament's most senior officer, its chief guardian of standards, outed as its most egregious abuser of privileges.
Bishop's refusal to apologise for her helicopter indulgence, and others, on the public purse, should have immediately brought her undone. Indeed, the abuse was enough in itself, quite apart from her cavalier response.
That MPs think taxpayers should be subsidising their fund-raising efforts through generous travel allowances is astounding.
Now that Bishop has been de-throned, two questions demand answers.
According to which index of ethical governance did Team Abbott ever conclude her behaviour would be tolerated by voters who are otherwise being asked to tighten their belts, do more with less, etc? And secondly, what will Abbott do now to facilitate a recovery of public confidence?
The first issue goes to Abbott's political antennae. He, of course, was among the most frequent critics of Julia Gillard's mercurial "judgment". Gillard hated the gibe because she knew it went to her suitability for leadership.
Yet Abbott now faces the same entry-level question. If instantly breaking election promises, elevating just one woman to a 19-member cabinet, and knighting a Buck Palace royal did not raise doubts, then effectively condoning the abuse of trust represented by his shamelessly partisan speaker, justifies the query.
Read more:
 |
| Abbott and Bishop |
Worse still was the likelihood that this studied prime ministerial indifference served no other purpose than to minimise Abbott's embarrassment at the excesses of his hand-picked Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop.
As many have observed recently, the Bishop appointment had been wrong-headed in 2013. Performing to type, her aggressive approach became a net political negative for the government lending the 44th parliament a rancorous, dysfunctional edge.At least now, the Prime Minister has taken charge. But his tawdry, wilful mismanagement of this issue raises serious questions over his political judgment.
Three weeks into a crisis which has noticeably crippled his government, Abbott has at last acknowledged what almost everyone else had known from the start. That it is not tenable to have the parliament's most senior officer, its chief guardian of standards, outed as its most egregious abuser of privileges.
Bishop's refusal to apologise for her helicopter indulgence, and others, on the public purse, should have immediately brought her undone. Indeed, the abuse was enough in itself, quite apart from her cavalier response.
That MPs think taxpayers should be subsidising their fund-raising efforts through generous travel allowances is astounding.
Now that Bishop has been de-throned, two questions demand answers.
According to which index of ethical governance did Team Abbott ever conclude her behaviour would be tolerated by voters who are otherwise being asked to tighten their belts, do more with less, etc? And secondly, what will Abbott do now to facilitate a recovery of public confidence?
The first issue goes to Abbott's political antennae. He, of course, was among the most frequent critics of Julia Gillard's mercurial "judgment". Gillard hated the gibe because she knew it went to her suitability for leadership.
Yet Abbott now faces the same entry-level question. If instantly breaking election promises, elevating just one woman to a 19-member cabinet, and knighting a Buck Palace royal did not raise doubts, then effectively condoning the abuse of trust represented by his shamelessly partisan speaker, justifies the query.
Read more:
No comments:
Post a Comment