Skip navigation

Tag Archives: peter costello


A good initiaive, but there will be tears before bedtime whatever happens. Both of the major parties have been bullied and manipulated through their pre-selection processes. The ALP, especially in NSW, has been shaped by the complex deals often focussed on the preselection process. Craig Thomson’s sorry story is just a small part of a much larger saga of elaborate, inter-generational factional deals and patronage arrangements, all focussed on preselections. The Libs also have struggled with preselections. Peter Slipper’s continued preselection in the Liberal National Party had much to do with his support for one faction in other Qld preselections…Kroger vs Costello last week was partly brought on by a failed preselection campaign…

Published 9:25 AM, 14 May 2012 Last update 9:25 AM, 14 May 2012


In a bid to reconnect with the community, NSW Labor will trial a US-style primary to determine its candidate for Lord Mayor of Sydney.

The party says all residents in the City of Sydney as well as ALP members will have a say in who represents Labor at the forthcoming council election.

NSW Labor General Secretary Sam Dastyari says the initiative is part of a long-term plan to reconnect the party with the community. 

“We know Labor has to change and to do so, we need to engage more directly with the community,” Mr Dastyari said.

“By allowing residents in the City of Sydney area to vote in who we select to run for Lord Mayor, we open ourselves up to a rigorous and merit-based process.

“Having a serious contest of ideas can only be a good thing for the Labor Party.”

City of Sydney residents will be able to vote online for their preferred candidate from Monday at

Residents can also vote at locations around the city or through a postal ballot.

Dennis Shanahan, Political editor | March 20, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THE essence of the continuing dispute in the Senate over the Rudd Government’s promise to rip up John Howard’s Work Choices legislation is politics pure and simple, and politics will solve the impasse one way or another.

Liberal divisions and delays of leadership have allowed the Rudd Government to build a completely misleading, and completely devastating, portrayal of the Coalition’s policy on industrial relations in an economic atmosphere that should have allowed a politically viable and credible Opposition position.

Instead, the industrial relations debate is now firmly stamped as Senate obstruction and Coalition negativity coupled with the Liberal resurrection of Work Choices.

Dithering and inconsistency on the Liberals’ behalf means the opportunity to galvanise growing industry dissension over the industrial relations laws, after notable silence, has been missed. So, too, has the opportunity to portray the Coalition as taking an unpopular decision to defend jobs, just as Howard did with the Tasmanian logging decision in the 2004 election.

Julia Gillard has won the politics and policy of the industrial relations laws and doesn’t require a double-dissolution trigger or the threat of an early election for that victory.

The Deputy Prime Minister wants to get the industrial relations laws in place and working according to schedule by piling up political pressure on the Coalition and on Family First senator Steve Fielding.

She’s playing it hard, will have an overwhelming policy victory even if she gives more ground and has exploited Malcolm Turnbull’s indecision and discomfort on industrial relations to the hilt.

After months of promises, consultation, draft legislation, public debate, shifting allegiances and positions and Coalition rifts, the final days of negotiation came down to one provision involving the unfair dismissal laws. This is not the resurrection of Work Choices, which Howard himself gutted and diluted when the realisation struck that the laws had gone further than necessary, and far beyond what the Australian people were prepared to accept. Howard genuinely believed his laws would continue to create jobs into the future, but only began to backtrack on contentious issues when it was so late it didn’t matter what he did, he couldn’t get the public to listen.

Nor is the argument tenable that the Government’s mandate on one provision in a raft of legislation is being undemocratically undermined by the Senate.

Labor fought and lost an election on the GST but opposed it tooth and nail in its entirety, and then ran another election promising to roll back the GST. What’s more, the Government has accepted amendments by the barrow load without screaming about its loss of mandate, as is the case with most lengthy, complex bills.

The sticking point in this mandate argument is a provision that at most will affect 46,000 small businesses and 735,00 employees of small business out of a sector where there are 2.4 million small businesses and more than six million employees.

But for Gillard and the Rudd Government the provision defining a small business as one with fewer than 15 employees, for the implementation of unfair dismissal rules, has become a totemic issue and a political vehicle to distort the politics in its favour.

Gillard, as the prosecutor of the Government’s industrial relations proposals, has been able to take advantage of Liberal divisions and the party leader’s vacillation on unfair dismissals to spook Coalition MPs and extend her mandate on union rights of entry. The spectre that has scared the Opposition is the thought of running another election on Work Choices after it was so discredited at the last election. Yet, talk of the Government straining at the leash for an early double-dissolution election to be fought on industrial relations doesn’t bear close scrutiny.

At every opportunity to create a double-dissolution trigger through Senate rejection twice of the same bill, separated by three months, the Rudd Government has baulked. The bills have either been dropped entirely – as was the case with the doomed Fuel Watch scheme – or amendments have been accepted.

As Labor in Queensland faces a huge backlash, as unemployment races towards an annual forecast in just months and as business begins to stir on the job-limiting nature of some of the industrial relations laws, it stretches credulity that the highly political Prime Minister would willingly put his Government at risk.

Yet there are Coalition MPs who still quail at the thought of running on long-held Liberal principles and policy, and facing an election as a result.

Certainly, Brendan Nelson did his best to bury Work Choices during his ill-fated and short-lived leadership after the 2007 election defeat. It was something Nelson had to do, to kill off unpalatable policies and reshape Liberal strategy.

Unfortunately for Nelson, the killing and burying of Work Choices was not followed by the creation of a job-supporting Liberal policy that tapped into the Howard-Costello tradition of looking after blue-collar workers and their families as never before.

Turnbull, as the new leader, was determined to fight the Rudd Government on the issue of economic management and avoid what he saw as the dead weight of Work Choices and the climate-change scepticism of the Howard years.

Last December he publicly ceded the ground on unfair dismissal laws to the Government and handed Gillard her mandate argument on a platter, saying the Opposition would respect the Government’s election promise of restricting the unfair dismissal breaks to small businesses of 15 or fewer employees. Before Work Choices it had been 20 employees and after Work Choices it was 100 employees. Turnbull simply backed Gillard’s plan.

It is that explicit commitment on the 15 employees and unfair dismissals that Gillard has been able to turn into a pressure point for the Senate and a question of character for Turnbull.

The number of employees for a small business has also become totemic within the Liberal Party because of Peter Costello’s advocacy for a return to 20 and the shadow cabinet’s counter-bid of 25.

In the end Labor will get a substantial victory on policy and politics by virtue of business’s silence and the Liberals’ inconsistency.,25197,25212483-17301,00.html

Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent | March 20, 2009
Article from: The Australian

THE Coalition last night adopted Peter Costello’s position on unfair dismissal, shifting closer to Labor – but the Rudd Government’s bill to destroy Work Choices was still destined to fail unless Julia Gillard agreed to a last-minute compromise today.

The federal Liberal and National parties decided at an emergency meeting last night to join independent senators Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon to fight for an amendment to the bill to increase the definition of a small business from Labor’s position of 15 full-time employees to 20 workers.

While the Coalition’s own amendment was for small business to be classed as 25 workers, the special partyroom meeting decided to ultimately support Senator Xenophon’s changes.

The Coalition backdown on the last sticking point of the proposed laws comes after Mr Costello suggested the definition of 20 at last week’s heated partyroom meeting. The former treasurer argued that the figure should be 20 in line with the definition used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Last night, after its amendment was voted down in the Senate, the Coalition voted for Senator Xenophon’s amendment.

The Coalition’s compromise is a victory for Mr Costello, who had put the definition forward but was told shadow cabinet had decided on the more ambitious target of 25.

Ms Gillard, the Workplace Relations Minister, is now under pressure to compromise on her definition of a small business or risk seeing her entire bill fail.

The Government will today test the resolve of Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull to stand firm on his new position on the bill.

The Government will change the definition back to 15 when the Fair Work bill returns to the lower house.

Opposition workplace relations spokesman Michael Keenan said last night the Coalition would fight for its amendment and would not accept Labor’s push to change it back to 15.

“The Coalition parties will not change our minds,” Mr Keenan told The Australian.

If the Coalition votes against the bill after the Government uses its numbers to change it to 15, Ms Gillard will paint Mr Turnbull as being pro-Work Choices and failing to keep his word to kill the workplace laws championed by John Howard.

Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding, of Family First, were also expected to vote to increase the small business employee threshold definition to 20, making it impossible for the Government to get its laws passed intact.

The last-minute turnaround from the Coalition meant the bill was on track to pass the Senate with the new definition of a small business. But the Government vowed to change the definition back to what it proposed in the federal election, 15 employees, in the lower house, where it has the numbers. The bill will then be returned to the Senate for a second vote.

The Government has extended the parliamentary session to allow it to reintroduce the bill today, and is vowing to have it in place by July 1. The decision not to wait three months to reintroduce the bill means it will not form a trigger for a double dissolution.

Mr Keenan confirmed the Coalition would “insist” on the Senate amendment when the bill returns to the upper house for a second time.

He accused the Government of putting their pride ahead of the successful passage of the bill.

“The idea that the Government will throw away its whole new system over the definition of a small business would be putting the minister’s pride over any sensible outcome,” he said.

The Coalition has essentially also decided not to insist on its other amendments on union right of entry, conceding the proposals did not have a chance at success without the support of the independent senators. The Rudd Government has repeatedly ruled out changes to the provision.

Ms Gillard revealed figures that showed that if the definition of small business was changed from 15 to 20, an extra 485,720 workers would not be offered unfair dismissal protection.

If the Coalition was successful in getting its figure of 25 up, 735,000 workers would lose the protection.,25197,25213651-601,00.html