Some Thoughts on the Reshuffle (and our 5th Citizenship Minister in two and a half years)
I used this post to track the media speculation about the possible changes that would occur in Mr Howard’s ministerial reshuffle, and much of it proved to be quite accurate. The elevations of Malcolm Turnbull and Andrew Robb have occurred, as have the sackings of Amanda Vanstone and Gary Hardgrave and the demotion of Ian Campbell (although he stays in cabinet, so it’s more of a sideways shift than a demotion). I certainly don’t envy him having to now deal with the potentially very messy National ID Card/Access Card implementation in his new ministry of Human Services.
The predicted shift of Kevin Andrews’ out of Workplace Relations also occurred (although I don’t recall any prediction that Joe Hockey would be the one to shift in to that), along with a shift for John Cobb. Promotions for Senator George Brandis and Peter Lindsay were also flagged in a few articles, along with a minor upward shift for Chris Pyne.
The main political stunt from the reshuffle is the renaming of the Immigration Department, scrapping the title of multiculturalism and replacing it with citizenship. This will be used as a vehicle for some more cheap, shallow nationalism from Mr Howard. I’ve written before about how important I think citizenship is, which is why it’s very disappointing to have watched the shabby way Mr Howard has treated this issue. The management of citizenship issues has been treated like left over scraps by the Prime Minister, with this latest change meaning five different Ministers will have handled the area in the last two and a half years. Indeed, it was only twelve months ago in his last reshuffle that the dedicated title of Minister for Citizenship was scrapped by Mr Howard and downgraded into general tasks for a parliamentary Secretary. Meanwhile, major improvements to the Citizenship Act which were announced in late 2004 – four Ministers ago – have still not been passed through the Parliament, while decisions have been made to make it harder to obtain citizenship.
There are a few other rearrangements and additions. The dropping of Senators Sandy MacDonald and Rod Kemp was unavoidable given they won’t be contesting the next election. Bringing in Senators Nigel Scullion, along with George Brandis, as junior Ministers will mean the number of Senators in the Ministry will stay the same, although it appears there will be one fewer Senator in Cabinet, and one fewer as a Parliamentary Secretary too. I don’t recall anyone predicting a promotion for Nigel Scullion, who is a Country-Liberal Party Senator from the Northern Territory, although I’ve mentioned him myself once or twice in the past as someone who should be capable enough. He caucuses wit h National Party, so that party’s overall representation technically doesn’t change.
For reasons I can’t fathom, Greg Hunt and Teresa Gambaro both get shifted from one Parliamentary Secretary role to another – in Ms Gambaro’s case her third Parl Sec role since the last election. Greg Hunt in particular was doing some good things as Parl Sec for the Environment, promoting the successful Indigenous Protected Areas program. This position in effect appears to have been taken over by John Cobb, and I fear the immediate political imperatives of the water stoushes going on will overshadow the wider need to improve biodiversity protection.
One prediction which didn’t scrub up so well was this one from The Bulletin that the reshuffle wouldn’t happen at all until Parliament resumed in February. Still, it could be that this was the PM’s original plan in order to not give Kevin Rudd more oxygen, but he decided to change tack because Rudd was doing so well he felt he needed to do something now to halt his momentum. No one can ever tell for sure and the bottom line is it really doesn’t matter very much either way what week the announcement occurred in.
More details of the changes in this statement on the Prime Minister’s website.
There’s plenty of other views around the blogs of the general populace – most of which focus on the dropping of Amanda Vanstone or the dropping of multiculturalism. Here’s a sample: Pavlov’s Cat, Decomposing Trees, Larvatus Prodeo, Daily Flute, The Spin Starts Here (which manages to be nasty and complementary at the same time), Blogocracy, Modia Minotaur, The Dead Roo.
23 Comments, Comment or Ping
Kaye Bernard
Perhaps the PM misheard the Human Rights Commissioner’s call this week to dump a mandatory detention policy and Mr Howard dumped Amanda Vanstone by mistake?
Jan 23rd, 2007
Lynette2
Can’t wait for the funnies over DIMA being changed to DIC. Infantile I know, but given the choice between laugh or cry it’s always nicer to laugh.
Kevin Andrews in immigration is a joke, but not the funny kind.
Jan 23rd, 2007
Coalition Unity
Senator Bartlett, will there be any changes to be Democrat line up in the lead up to the election?
Jan 23rd, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
No CU, there won’t.
Jan 23rd, 2007
Les
Andrew, is there any implication for the Dems and the other party that says that it cares about the environment with the environment portfolio shifting from the Senate to the Reps?
Jan 23rd, 2007
Coalition Unity
Do the Democrats expect to regain balance of power in the Senate at the next election?
Jan 23rd, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Les: It’s always harder when the Minister directly responsible is in the other chamber, even though you can ask questions of their Senate representative. It’s preferable to have them there in the Senate, but it won’t make a massive difference – in as much as anyone pays attention to what is said in Parliament, the same points can still be made and the same information can still be obtained (or be refused to be provided, as the case may be)
CU: This isn’t a Democrat site, and there are six different Senate contests in six states (plus the 2 territories which are almost always foregone conclusions), so I won’t speak for anyone but myself and the Democrat campaign in my state. I won’t set specific odds, but I have no doubt I have a credible chance of regaining my seat. If there is the same Senate result in Qld as there was last election, and my seat is lost to the Coalition, then regardless of what happens in the other states, the Coalition will keep full control of the Senate and there will be no ‘balance of power’ to hold. If I manage to retain my seat (which is no certainty of course), then I expect I would share the balance of power with others from minor parties – whether it was with a Labor or a Coalition government would make a big difference to how that balance of power might function.
Jan 23rd, 2007
Paul Walter
Haven’t gone much into the reshuffle. At first glance, Hockey is in because he can shout down opposition in an election year. Andrews has been given immigration in the hope that he is so dull that things will go quiet there now, whereas Amanda Panda was a magnet for publicty: the shift also solves the problem of having a bookend in the IR portfolio when they now actually need a salesman- yabba-yabba- for IR.
Hopefully the polls indicate (finally) a change in public sentiment against the now-aging coalition. Interesting to see what happens with interest rates.
The return of the senate to independents is the thefirst and essential required outcome. The libs on a reduced majority also figures. Less likely an ALP win. Will the “its time” factor play a part at election-time? Could a fresh look from a new party hurt… Can’t be any worse (oh-oh).
A better reason for change would be that this would be the only way to break the public out of returning certain state ALP governments in the hope that these counterbalance Howard.
The notion that a federal ALP might have more of a motive for financing state governments maybe could occur to voters. Actually fixing problems, using better-employed funding, might help get these re-elected.
Teacher’s representatives, for example, have talked of $2-3Billion being needed to remedy serious education shortcomings, for example. This is less than the amount of “missing” ($3-4) Billions from Defence that a Fairfax newspaper mentioned a month ago (but never followed up).
Voters may thus realise that Labor is not necessarily the most irresponsible group to have control of the economy, if the claimed wastage; the opportunity wasted, of the last half dozen years is “real”.
Jan 24th, 2007
Max Baumann
Kevin Andrews in Immigration is like harking back to the days of Ruddock in that role.
I do not see any vision in Howard’s new cabinet. I have also noticed how the coalition is adopting some Bush-like language. Howard has referred to his new cabinet as a “War Cabinet”.
I can already see this coming election being just as divisive as the last two with that sort of language and Howard’s ability to win an election based on mistruths and a divide and conquer mentality.
Jan 24th, 2007
Donna
Max
I think the reasoning behind replacing Andrews with Hockey is that Howard is hoping Hockey’s popularity might magically transfer onto IR and Work Choices.
Hockey is popular with women, in the same way Beazley was. He just comes across as a bloke that cares about the welfare of women and will protect them.
Andrews image has been compromised because he was the Minister delivering those policies, so there will always be an association between him and policies that are perceived as unconcerned with the welfare of women, and therefore the assumption he doesn’t care about women’s welfare.
Hockey is fortunate not to have had to deliver those policies. His job is to just convince women that all is okay. He’s there to oversee it all. Poppa bear is here.
Howard is attempting to win the votes of voters like me who consider the Government ministers as misogynistic. But it still doesn’t change the policies.
Jan 24th, 2007
Max Baumann
I have no problems with Joe Hockey going to the IR portfolio. That is a masterstroke move by the Prime Minister. I think Hockey will do a much better job selling Workchoices than Andrews ever did.
But to replace Amanda Vanstone with Kevin Andrews. Kevin Andrews comes across as a very unsympathetic character as demonstrated in regards to his role as Workplace Relations minister. He has a similar air of ruthlessness as Philip Ruddock.
I am sure Vanstone is bitterly disappointed with her demotion. The Cabinet is now only 13% women. Even though I dislike the Coalition’s policies on Immigration, I would have preferred Vanstone to Andrews any day in that portfolio.
The main challenge for Andrews will be to change the culture of the Immigration department. Something that Vanstone failed to do.
Jan 24th, 2007
Tom
Andrew: Wasn’t it once Democrat policy to have no ministers in the senate? (Which is a good idea by the way)
What do you think of this whinging about less Ministers in the Senate?
Jan 24th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Tom
Yes it was Democrat policy for many years not to have Ministers in the Senate. It’s not something the party has pushed in recent times, but I think the idea still has a lot of merit.
However, such a change would mean major shift in the role of the Senate and the way it operates – ideally making it much more of a genuine legislature and less like a more staid version of the partisan shouting house that is the main role of the House of Reps. Until such a change is made, there needs to be a reasonable proportion of Ministers in the Senate. As I mentioned above in response to Les, it’s not the end of the world if the relevant Minister you are wanting to question is in the other house, but if there are only a few in the Senate, and they are of lesser quality, then it downgrades the Senate.
It is a bigger problem when the government doesn’t have control of the Senate, as having an idiot Minister carrying the debate in the Senate on important legislation doesn’t increase the government’s chances of getting legislation through, or of getting the best legislation for that matter.
Jan 24th, 2007
Coalition Unity
Would the above scenario therefore be a lesser problem when the government has control of the Senate?
Jan 24th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
CU:
An under-representation of Ministers in the Senate is less of a problem when the government has control of the Senate, in the sense that the Senate as a whole is already likely to be less effective as a house of review – so the net harm caused by the under-representation is lower.
The best way to overcome that of course is to have a Senate that is not controlled by the party/s in government. Having a range of capable Ministers in the Senate is more important when the Senate itself is a more effective, independent body.
Having said all that, while last year’s reshuffle diminished the number of Senate Ministers, this year’s has not been too bad from that perspective.
There will be the same number of Ministers in the Senate as before, although there will be one less Senator in Cabinet, which will mean one less person with the more detailed awareness of key government decisions that comes with such a position.
As I’d written a number of times before, Amanda Vanstone was one of their stronger performers, but losing Rod Kemp will not have much impact. George Brandis probably won’t have a great chance to shine in Arts & Sport but I expect he’ll perform well and I think Nigel Scullion will be of a higher standard than Kemp too, so it probably will balance out to be a roughly equal standard to before.
One of the ways to assess the wider ability of Ministers in the Senate is how well they manage handling those areas where the Minister responsible is in the House of Reps. Some Ministers are OK with their own portfolio area but are hopeless when they have to quickly get across or explain issues which Ministers in the House of Reps have responsibility for.
As I said above, this matters less when the government is in a position where they do what they like on everything anyway as currently happens, compared to when they have to actually build agreement or support for some issues, but it’s still not ideal when Ministers with not much of clue hold forth on something.
Jan 24th, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd
Ding dong the witch is dead. Won’t miss her one bit.
What people don’t seem to have grasped is that she is the laziest person in the parliament. When it comes to sending people out of the country she should at least read their files to make sure she is sending people to the right country instead of lying to everyone about it.
She was better at blaming the victims with her bullying and bluster and rot – good riddance to her.
What worries me about Andrews is that as the minister for slave labour laws we will see vastly more people exploited on 457 visas and it will be legal.
Jan 25th, 2007
red crab
well its good to see you againe marilyn.
did you ever think that amanda mite be glad to get out now.
andrews is howards bad news deliverer do you think that things mite just be gowing to get a lot harder for reffugees now .
Jan 25th, 2007
Graham Bell
Kaye Bernard [post 1]:
Aah, so that’s what happened …..
Lynette2 [post 2]:
The change in name to D.I.C. is an excellent example of how far removed this government really is from ordinary Australians. No amount of glib spin can ever hope to shut up the sniggerers and the joke-tellers over this one. Even Bob Hawke’s well-meaning statement “By 1990, no child will live in poverty” can’t match it.
No doubt some poor low-level functionary has been sacked or demoted over it ….. but responsibility for such an amazing blunder goes right to the top.
Jan 28th, 2007
Kaye Bernard
I was suprised to watch the PM make an under reported gaffe when talking with Australia’s own maths genius Professor Terence Tao, who was a finalist in the Australian of the year.
The PM’s spin team obviously had not briefed him in their usual tight manner and as a result the PM was left to his own assumptions while having a chat with the young genius.
I guess it was Terence’s asian appearance that led th PM to ask the young gifted nominee where he was born.
Terence looked pretty uncomfortable at having to educate the PM on his birthplace of Australia.
I felt uncomfortable with the head of my country being so out of touch with the diversity of this nation to think it necessary to ask where Terence was from because he assumed he was not of us.
Jan 29th, 2007
ken
The acronym will be DIAC, although that could also be equally amusing for some.
Jan 29th, 2007
CORAL
I have no problem with the Prime Minister asking anyone where they were born. It seems like an ordinary question to me. A question is not an assumption.
I’ve never liked Amanda Vanstone, but I guess a woman needs to be tough to survive in any male dominated arena.
Jan 30th, 2007
Graham Bell
Ken [on 20]:
I see, so does this mean that lesbians in the Commonwealth Public Service now have their own department? Or does it mean that multiculturalism is now distilled down to one/two Malaysian ethnic group/s? :D L-O-L.
The government is getting sillier and sillier ….. why don’t they just talk with the electors occasionally so as to stop making fools of themselves again and again.
Jan 30th, 2007