The Prime Minister’s upcoming reshuffle
As everybody starts getting back into full gear in the next week or two, speculation about a Ministerial reshuffle will no doubt also rev up again. This is bread and butter stuff for political commentators, with lots of opportunity for speculation and gossip, all of which gets forgotten once the real details get announced.
Even though there has been speculation about a possible reshuffle for at least a couple of months, last year’s reshuffle was actually announced on 24 January, and I imagine whatever changes are made this year will also be announced around a similar time. Some of the names and speculation floating around this time seem recycled from last year, which makes me tempted to do the same and recycle my own piece from last January.
I noted last year that most of the ministerial casualties appeared to be coming from the Senate and there would need to be some Senators to replace them to maintain a decent number of Ministers in the Upper House. As it turned out, 3 went out and only one (Santo Santoro) came in. The same thing seems to be happening this time.
The main names being mentioned regularly in the media as potential casualties are Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone and Environment Minister Ian Campbell, both Senators. Rod Kemp, another Senator, will also go as he is retiring at the next election, as could National’s Senator, Sandy MacDonald, a Parliamentary Secretary who lost his pre-selection.
Yet virtually all the names being mentioned as possible replacements are in the House of Representatives. To me this is an indication of the excessive lower house focus of most journalists (and not surprisingly the majority of politicians), which has got worse since the government got control of the Senate and set about slowly suffocating its influence. Labor followed this trend in their recent reshuffle, reducing the proportion of their frontbenchers in the Senate to less than 30 per cent.
Dennis Shanahan from The Australian has laid out more potential names than most other media commentators, listing 8 in this piece (and repeating 6 of the names here a couple of weeks later) – Liberals Andrew Robb, Christopher Pyne, Malcolm Turnbull, Greg Hunt, Tony Smith and Chris Pearce, and Nationals Luke Hartsuyker and Fiona Nash. Of these, only Fiona Nash is in the Senate, and she at best would take Sandy MacDonald’s spot as a Parliamentary Secretary.
I have absolutely no idea what changes will be made or whether any of the speculation is accurate. It has happened before that people get sacked or promoted who were not mentioned at all in public speculation, and it’s just as likely to happen again. Indeed, I’ve heard it mentioned by more than one person from the government side that the Prime Minister likes to do this just to show that he’s the one calling the shots, and to take those people down a notch who like to portray themselves to journalists that they’re ‘in the know’ about what’s going on.
However, regardless of what happens, it does seem strange to me that Senators Vanstone and Campbell get mentioned so regularly. I have plenty of criticism of the government’s approach in the areas of both immigration and environment, but assuming people are meant to be in the Ministry broadly on the basis of merit (although obviously there are factional and geographical considerations), I find it hard to see how anyone could see those two Senators as not being in the top 4 of the 8 government Senators currently in the Ministry. There are some talented government Senators on the backbench (none of whose names I have seen mentioned in any media speculation), but while it makes sense to move Rod Kemp out, I really can’t see why you’d take either Campbell or Vanstone out with him. They aren’t perfect by any means, but they’re far from the worst, and there are certainly some far weaker Ministerial performers in the House of Reps too.
I should say it doesn’t overly concern me what happens, apart from a general concern that Senate representation in the Ministry might decline even more. I expect the government’s key policy direction and decisions will be the same regardless, and my efforts to get re-elected in Queensland and the issues I campaign on will be the same no matter who the Ministers are. However, a competent Minister is usually better for the community than one who is clearly just not up to the job, so I take a professional interest in these sorts of things, even though I have no influence over the outcome.
11 Comments, Comment or Ping
philip travers
I am getting my bucks worth for the bang here.Dont like your chances of any influence at all Senator,on any outcome.Howard wants Papalcy,and we all know Bishops who are the others to the also ran.Hartsuyker, upon mentioning here,probably will get his frock,,,but I dont know wether he is up to it..seems a pleasant enough chap, I suppose..but chap seeking a bishops frock.Still he is a local to here and well enough said.Ruddock ought to go on a extensive tour of India,where they scuttle boats ,and suck in some asbestos..His perfect master will guide him in the use of self scuttling mantra.Please consult Milton Black the atrologer who somebody I know reckons the Perfect Master and Papalcy candidate will be still with us in 2007 meaning I suppose this then rolls into 2012 as a defence,against the expected ending of the world as we know it…without the present yearly calendar as a predetermining process of our lives.If Geo.W.Bush was going to pull a invasion from outer space scenario on us…Who amongst the Folk of the Liberal Party are up to resisting the Lizards? Home and hosed they have made the millenia that has past the sanctum of every failed concept of at least two centuries ago,plus, the unfortunate problem of the G.S.T.for the Democrats. Frankly none of them appeal to me,and well shit, I have suffered this phoney humanity stuff since I cannot remember..and they do wonders for improving the rate of catching senile decay.I will follow your thoughts on the matter as addendum.
Jan 6th, 2007
Coalition Unity
Shhh, Philip… don’t mention the GST around Senator Bartlett — that small episode was definately not a prime example of Democrat Unity (especially with the Senator Stott Despoja v Senator Murray follow-on that was brought to head by the now former Senator Cherry).
It’ll be interesting to see the Prime Minister’s decision as to the formation of the government’s ministry. Especially as the government gears up to maintain control of both houses of parliament in the election later this year.
Jan 6th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Oh, what a ruthlessly clever and cutting comment, CU. Let me finish bleeding for a while before I reply.
Why on earth shouldn’t people mention the GST (apart from it being off-topic to this post)? I have often enough, so I can’t see why commenters can’t (when it’s on the topic). You really don’t get it do you?
Unlike other parties, a core Democrat principle is not to insist on artificial ‘unity’ by making people vote for things they are fundamentally opposed to (or punishing them if they don’t). It wasn’t people’s different views on the GST decision itself that generated the other fights you allude to, it was the way people dealt with some of the processes surrounding it. Democrat Senators voted on opposite sides on a vote to do with the Medibank Private sale Bill late last year without it in anyway being ‘disunity’ – although perhaps if the media had noticed they might have labelled it that just out of habit.
To pull it back on topic, one of the purposes of regular reshuffles and even of feeding journalists speculation about it, is to help ‘keep the troops in line’. Even though the Liberals are technically more tolerant than the ALP of individual conscience votes on important issues, anyone who engages in them has no hope of promotion to a Ministry. This is particularly so in the Howard era and is one of the reasons why Coalition discipline (or surface unity) has been so strong – to the deteriment of good laws and democratic processes of course, but obviously some people think ‘unity’ is more important than the good of the community.
One of the benefits of being in a minor party is that people don’t have the parallel agenda of aiming for (or holding on to) a Ministry influencing their decisions and actions.
Jan 6th, 2007
Deborah
Yes, and they also have a reshuffle to allow someone else to take the blame for embarrassing ministerial performances, which may become public. I’m not sure, but I think that questions cannot be asked of a minister in parliament if they are not directly related to their current portfolio.
Prime example being Philip Ruddock.
Jan 6th, 2007
philip travers
Couldnt get back here to apologise again for the interloper..in like Flynn at every oppurtunity.I dont know why the opponents of this Senators blog, just dont ask to share it with him..so policies and attitudes can be hammered out besides differences and people do not have to hide behind strange titles.It is evident the opponents of Senator Bartlett think..stop hiding..he isnt out to shoot anyone!
Jan 6th, 2007
Coalition Unity
Is this why Cheryl Kernot ditched the Democrats and joined Labor?
Jan 7th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
On topic as ever, CU.
I believe the fact that she was not able to perform the type of role that a Minister can was one of her reasons for changing parties, yes. She certainly said as much.
Jan 7th, 2007
dodgyville
I feel as though Howard needs to do the reshuffle before a poll with bad figures for him comes out – such a bad poll would weaken his ability to do the reshuffle “his way”.
Jan 10th, 2007
Paul Walter
It’s probably like shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.
If only.
Jan 17th, 2007