Certainly the role of an opposition is to oppose, but to oppose simply for the sake of opposition as this article seems to countenance is counterproductive and clearly not in the interests of the general population. Nay-saying a la Abbott et al simply for its own sake is an abuse and degradation of the parliamentary process. Anyone can oppose anything - the significance and indeed the necessity for informed opposition tacitly assumes the presentation of viable and superior alternatives to that being opposed - an assumption totally ignored by the present coalition. The constant carping re the carbon tax without any concern as to the planned use of the added revenue (and totally forgetting the 'never ever' GST of the former government) is a case in point. A victory by the present coalition in the forthcoming federal election will leave us with a prime minister whose only talents seems to be those of destructive invective and personal attack.

As Gillard leads the shambles that is left of her party to the next election, one can only wonder what goes on in her head, if anything.

Given the events of last week, Gillard should've put Australia first and resigned. At least then her party could've elected Rudd who is approved of by many Australians while only a shrinking handful endorse her.

But arrogance and conceit addled her brain and she clung on to power as if that is the only thing she thinks of. That her party is badly split worries her not at all. She talks nonstop about how her party is now united as if her words could fool the voters who are waiting to pass judgement upon her and the craven fools who continue to support her.

Bring on the election, I say. Let her come crashing back to Earth like a spent meteor. Let history judge her as harshly as she deserves.

She will have a long time to reflect upon her massive failure!

'Turnbull broke the basic rule of opposition – never agree with the government unless it is clear that their policy is demonstrably right in all respects and that there is no acceptable alternative. '

Really Scott. Blind Freddy knows that the gw myth and distortion was becoming more and more obvious to people who were not on the gravy train. Even Gillard advised Rudd to drop the policy before lying to the electorate.
To be fair to Turnbull I think he was a 'true believer' as wrong as he and other believers have been shown to be. Even Labour are now dismantling (sorry merging) the idiotic Climate Change gravy train department.

Scott, there is no question that as the electorate moves towards exercising its democratic rights its choices should (ideally) be informed by an understanding of the alternatives.

What is disappointing in an article from an academic is the inclusion of assumptions and perceptions that, while frequently repeated by politicians and the media, lack an objective foundation.

With the use of terms such as "lurched" and "doomed" you perpetuate the psychosis of impending catastrophe and cynicism that now dominates the discourse on public affairs. Other than in the shrill crescendo of sensational and negative "noise" that spews out of the print and electronic media, where is the crisis? A huge amount of legislation has been passed by this Government, including a number of vital new public policy initiatives. Relative to other countries the Australian economy is remarkably healthy. Of course there are a number of major policy failures, some of which relate to diabolical challenges such as responding effectively to the flow of those seeking asylum here. Globalization poses many complex challenges.

Ultimately the election is likely to be decided by a jaded electorate comparing the real record of the existing Government against the alternative (as you have suggested, hopefully with sufficient detail provided). The perception of crisis that now permeates the public discourse will be difficult to sustain when an objective comparison of alternatives commences in earnest.

David G got it right.

"As Gillard leads the shambles that is left of her party to the next election, one can only wonder what goes on in her head, if anything."

What ever on earth goes on in her head !

Thank you. This is a good, well balanced comment. I agree with all of it. I'd like to make a comment on this sentence:

"We need to know how an Abbott Government will handle the challenges facing Australia and indeed what it sees those challenges as being."

I think the priority is to get the largest possible majority and most important of all is to wrest control of the Senate out of the hands of Labor and Greens. If Labor and Greens retain control of the Senate, which is very likely, it will be very difficult for the LNP to fix the mess Labor has left Australia in.

Once LNP wins the election, then it will be time to start explaining to the people the situation we face and to progressively bring them along to, mostly, support what has to be done. As you rightly pointed out, that cannot be done from Opposition.

It is difficult to see what those neocon contributors to this discussion and others are on about -certainly not the welfare of their fellow citizens.
It is however easy to see why they speak as they do when the opposition 'leader' Abbott promised the independents 'anything you want but my arse' and that same 'leader' whilst talking of a 'kinder and gentlier parliament' openly said his main objective was to'destroy' the government.
I suppose the only thing going for Abbott who has never had a real job in the real world is that this is a democracy; because if he (as a politician or citizen) was to set out to 'destroy' the government of any one of the majority of governments in this world he would be in jail/or shot for treason. That is precisely what his 'destroy doctrine' actually is-treasonous.
Oppositions can actually contribute to better government by constructively providing alternatives to leglisation rather than the current option of say 'no' to any and everything. A principle with which the author of this piece seems to agree.
The only actual truth of this article is mention of the shrillness of the opposition in their negative/destructive tactics.
And what for -nothing more than power.

Yes Peter Lang

Little do we realise who and what "the Labor and the Greens" really are.

If they are allowed to run amok under the likes of Gillard and Milne, Australia is headed for a socialistic nightmare !

But ! do we need a change !

GYM-FISH

Politics is two fold much like any sporting event.

If your losing you need to do something different unless you want to loose. The ALP just does not get this, they are losing and they think doing more of the same will save them.

Abbott has done very little either offensively and defensively, he has dropped the odd hand grenade here and there but if your winning you just need to keep on doing what he has. If anything the ALP in government has been acting like a typical opposition with panic politics. I personally don't like Abbott but he has out smarted the ALP by a country mile.

Quote
Nay-saying a la Abbott et al simply for its own sake is an abuse and degradation of the parliamentary process.

Who says ?
Also for most he has made the liberal party a small target, yes he might say no to the ALP but they pedal a lot of junk the electorate does not want. Given Gillard's lack of credibility the electorate still does not want to listen even when she says what they want.

Back to Abbott, yes it is the job of the opposition to both disrupt the government and hold them to account, Abbott has done a brilliant job with very little effort. I think where Abbott has gotten off very lightly is proving he can be a PM, in a tight competition he might have to do this..... with the ALP in self destruction mode, he should change his middle name to Bradbury, except the ALP starting to fall to bits after 2010. For Bradbury his opposition did it on the last lap (maybe that is what Gillard is hoping for).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAADWfJO2qM

Like sport, in politics you only have to be slightly better than you opposition ...... to do more risks failure and wastes effort, with the ALP setting a low bar ..... if you don't like the term Pri-minister Abbott ..... blame the ALP

FredBrown

What goes on in Gillards mind ?

She puts very little thought into what she says and the implications it could have like her boats comments ...... if you want to critique a government on a certain point you need to make sure your superior at that.

The other bad example ..... ALP lacks economic credentials so lets predict a surplus that never happened. Rudd went to the election in 2007 painting himself as a fiscal conservative .... failed that test then Gillard and Swan run around predicting a surplus was going to happen when in fact the deficit could be as high as 15 billion, more if you include the NBN. On many measures, and major key ones, the ALP is all talk. After the 2010 Gillard yet again got on her high horse again.

Scott, you seem to be an intelligent sought of a guy, so tell me, in response to this comment....We need to know how an Abbott Government will handle the challenges facing Australia and indeed what it sees those challenges as being.

How on earth can anyone even attempt to provide a clear way forward, when even the sitting government themselves don't know where we are financially, as we must remember, Mr Swan, the worlds smartest treasurer still can't say for certain whether we will have a surplus.

Of cause many of us, the ones in the 'real world' knew this was yet another pipe dream.

I say this because in just five years we have gone from having money in the bank, no thanks to Keating and Co, to a record debt that is still increasing as we speak.

About the only certainty moving forward is that we are in for a rough ride, if we wish to attempt to repay this massive debt, unless of cause we just take the line that we can leave it to future generations to worry about.

What opposition?
Is the 'opposition' the one always complaining but never proposing new viable productive industry to supply local and export markets?

There was no effective opposition to the non-productive NBN or the 'carbon' tax either.

The role of an opposition is not to just "oppose".

In the Westminster System it is to debate, review, refine and ultimately vote on policies as put forward by the government and to offer alternatives of their own.

It's not to sabotage the everyday workings of parliament for the sake of partisan political gain.

The last decade has seen the rules change to personal attacks in lieu of serious policy debate and question time turn into a sideshow of opportunism for the sake of media coverage and leadership turned into some sort of personality-based reality TV show where weekly scores are analysed.

Despite all the posturing about creating a "kinder and gentler polity", these have become the new standards and we are all the poorer for it.

There's no clearer evidence of someone's degree of stupidity then when they continue to disregard proven dismal failure yet refuse to give a new team the benefit of doubt that they may possibly prove to be more competent.
Let's put the australian voting age up to 40.

JF have you learnt to count?

Do you realise they count the votes in parliament? That's how they decide if a bill has passed, in case you had never heard.

individual

Not sure what your trying to say, the ALP by any measure are a big failure, to be honest the over all state of economics is not too bad yet they have failed to sell their message to the electorate. How have they done this ? by not listening.

Their is nothing new about the ALP new cabinet, its based on factionalism and feuding. The electorate has judged this badly.

If they can keep a lid on things the ALP might recover in the polling but by 8-10% in 4-5 months on primary ?

Abbott has just stood by mostly while the ALP has just self imploded.

JF Aus

And the need to do anything while the ALP self destructs is ?

If Abbott has been given a free ride into the PM's job ...... whose fault is that ?

JF ....There was no effective opposition to the non-productive NBN or the 'carbon' tax either.

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken.

The alternative to the NBN, suggested by the opp, was to continue using the current system, upgraded, at an approx cost of $6 billion.

As there was never any guarantee that the new NBN system would be utilized, partially because not even the government was able to provide costs info, it made more sense to risk $6 B than $36 B.

Besides, if big business wants faster broadband, then it is they who should be taking out their cheque books, not the tax payer.

Now as for the carbon tax, it was also the opp that pointed out that emissions are a global problem and as such should be addressed globally, as opposed to us being the go it alone heroes the Gillard government wants us to be.

Indi spot on.

My brother recently fielded a call from one of these polling mobs.

The first question they asked was his age, and when he said 50+, they said thank you and hung up.

Polls like most numbers in politics (unemployment as an example) are a joke.

The best thing we could do would be to dump compulsory voting.

Hasbeen,
Those Bills have involved non-productive nonsense and proof of that is the deficit. e.g. What profit and export revenue has been generated by the NBN and carbon tax?

RightSaidFred,
While Abbott has been there doing a good job at complaining he could also have been pushing coalition project agenda involving new productive local and export industry to create business and employment for the nation at the same time.
Even at this moment while the unwanted ALP leader wastes time going nowhere, Abbott could be pushing new productive project agenda.

Australia needs leadership to develop new productivity.
Instead, both sides of politics lead each other in waste of time abuse of each other in Parliament, about NBN and carbon and pink bat schemes that cost the nation and burden the people, while there is no exportable product created whatsoever.

Now we are going to hear on and on rhetoric as we do every election, about money for schools, hospitals and roads. Schools hospitals and roads should be already funded, full stop. Previous and present debate to entice voters should be about new projects involving new productivity that will generate wealth for the nation and people instead of debt.

Example of possibly productive local and export generating opportunity can be found toward the end of the following thread. But coalition leader Mr Abbott and Mr Truss are not reachable. Meanwhile the Gillard government is focussed on CO2 instead of need for whole of water ecosystem management and associated opportunities.
http://evacuationgrounds.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/barnaby-joyce-doorstop-coalition-dams.htm

rehctub,
By no effective opposition I mean exactly that.
Yes, there was an alternative system for long distance communication but the opposition failed to get it happening. Maybe Malcolm Turnbull could have made the opposition effective with his online experience if he had been leader at the time.

I observe polls occurring after the media has not fully informed the public, or after misinformation or political spin has been aired in news. A good example is news with image of those tapered chimney-like structures pouring out white stuff while news spiel goes on about CO2, when in fact the structures are cooling tower emitting steam.

Polled people and even the politicians fall for the CO2 aka steam, as their votes and lack of relevant debate indicate. On the subject, I think ocean is warmer in some areas and weather is sometimes more severe, but not due to CO2.

I think there is evidence to establish beyond doubt the system of politics and government is failing due to lack of transparency especially in the public/government ABC news.

Right at the moment I am endeavouring to ask the ABC why sinking down of seabed following the 2007 Ranogga earthquake is not being reported re sea level rise (or not) in the Pacific. There are witnesses to the sinking down, including one area that has sunk down about 800mm.
Latest in reply from te ABC is that relevant information has been passed to ABC news.

All new aspects of problems and of opportunities should be allowed to be heard.
Otherwise it is, “opposition to what”.

Abbott has just stood by mostly while the ALP has just self imploded.
RightSaidFred,
Well, to let them go down the tube is the most moral thing Abbott could do because if he tried to stop them they'd be more burden on us for a lot longer. Good on him for just standing there watching.
The intelligent voters of Australia already know what Abbott stands for so there's no need for him to distract from the Labor implosion by repeating the obvious, the obvious to the reasonably intelligent that is. Might as well enjoy the show which will hopefully bring us better Government.

I think Mr Abbott intends removing the carbon tax and introducing an ETS.
Same difference.

JF AUS, sorry, but you are very wrong.

The carbon tax is little more than a permit to pollute, as this who pay the tax, simply pass it on.

My understanding of An ETS is that the ommiter has to buy permits, in order to omit. Huge difference.

Whether or not TA intends to introduce same, I don't know, but I do know he thinks like most level headed people and recognizes climate change for what it is, a global issue.

The impacts of this insane tax are just now beginning to be felt.

It's a crazy world when the ALP is using an ETS (ie Market Forces) to address the carbon issue and the LNP is using a socialist approach (handing out taxpayer money to polluters).

"Giving a new team the benefit of doubt that they may possibly prove to be more competent" sounds like nothing more than wishful thinking to me, based on nothing more than a bunch of slogans and a list of things they won't do, not what they will do.

Having a partisan and unbelievably hostile media on your side is no substitute for having some clear policy alternatives.

The main problem with the present and former ALP is that they habe not and will not listen to THE PEOPLE, as the people clearly want Rudd.

Now while I am not suggesting that that's a good thing, it's clearly what the people want, and after all, labor's problems have pretty much come from when the faceless men went away from what the people wanted (by axing Rudd) and set about their own agendas.

Now nit only has this arrogant approach damaged the labor brand, but it has done untold damage to future labor, as the only way back for them is to place trust in a future leader and have the faceless men pull their heads in.

Rache...It's a crazy world when the ALP is using an ETS (ie Market Forces) to address the carbon issue and the LNP is using a socialist approach (handing out taxpayer money to polluters).

I think you have your wires crossed there, as we have no ETS.

As for handing out money to polluters, just remember one very, very important fact, that being that while energy generators and large service providers may be generating emmisioms, they are doing so to provide energy and logistics FOR US.

On top of this they are also creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, jobs that are at risk, if the cost of business becomes unviable.

Climate change is the responsibility of THE END USER not the generator, because the best way to reduce emmisioms is to reduce consumption.

However, having said this, I still maintain the answer lies in dealing with Co2 rather than just trying to reduce it.

JF Aus

Politics is about winning the election, especially for the opposition (regardless who it is).

Your issues are nothing to to with Abbott who needs to do very little, its the ALP who has to lift its game, they are the ones who have failed to govern for all and have openly displayed disunity.

If Abbott wins and fails to deliver the same electorate will judge him the same way they are judging Gillard, regardless of his current strategy. He needs to do very little ..... Gillard needs to repair 5 years of incompetence in 4-5 months.

rehctub

They want Rudd as they elected him pretty overwhelmingly against a very strong PM in Howard .... then the ALP back stabbed him which gives him sympathy votes. Given the ALP was already going backwards, Gillard took them back to the stone-age on policy and brought a new level of lying and incompetence I have never seen.

I don't think an ETS will ever work as the carbon price (which I agree on with the greens) needs to be over $100/tonne. In Europe the ETS has collapse yet the ALP wanted a floor price of $23 / tonne over double what it is in Europe and over 6X what it is in China.

The ETS is a free market mechanism that just won't work, a small price just get absorbed much like speed cameras with no behaviour change.

It acts more like wealth redistribution as opposed to an env measure, I call it basic revenue raising.

Climate change is mostly caused by factors the users can not influence, all they can do is minimise foot prints , not reverse climate change.

The ambit claims from people like flannery suggests that these climate change proponents have stuffed up their message and science..... which is unfortunate as I like the theory just not the people saying it and their highly inaccurate assertions.

More of the current insane, the Government keeps saying Abbot, Abbot, Abbot and generally acting like the opposition, and then the their ABC (et al) keeps asking what is the Opposition going to do. The correct form is what is the Government going to to do and in any situation it is Gillard, Gillard, Gillard (the PM, you know the one with all the levers).

There are 1000++ dead trying to boat it here, ask Gillard, not the opposition. She wins the next election; is the death rate going to be the same, more or less?

Yes McCackie, and more importantly, if they do have a solution (very doubtful) why have they waited over five years to implement it, remembering, MOST IMPORTANTLY that it wasn't broken before one K Rudd came to play.

RightSaidFred,
If politics was truly about winning an election, the people would surely vote for the party proposing a new productive and viable and employment and business and export generating project/s.
I think politics at present is about self and crony interests.

The issues I am coming forward with are from ocean exploration and they are very much to do with Abbott. The problems are varied and a leader is needed to find new resources for various agency teamwork.
TA has been put where he is now by John Howard who led razor gang management to balance budgets while banning plastic bags instead of sewage nutrient pollution.
Howard was informed about marine problems, he responded with fishing license buyback and aquaculture policy, not ocean ecosystem management.

There is reason for 7 dead whales on Frazer Island in a 2 years period, have you heard about that and the actual real cause? Why do you think Australia is importing over 70% of fish product?
http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/beached-whale-calf-one-seven/1458287/

Mr Abbott is in my next door (Bronwyn B) electorate. His electorate dumps un-managed and unmeasured sewage nutrient loads from North Head into the ocean every day.
Besides, Lake Burley Griffin is choked with nutrient pollution.

TA will not talk with the people either. The system of government management of the economy and environment and people is broken down.

I am not a knocker. I am pro development of real solutions to fix problems.
For example based on evidence of substance I consider nutrients in sewage should be harnessed to feed algae for conversion to biofuel.
Return lower cost nutrients to farmers at the same time.

The world is not flat and there surely was a time when people were scared or reluctant to talk about it being round.
These days it's CO2 nonsense about AGW and even scientists are scared or reluctant to openly talk due concern being blacklisted for research resources and income to feed their family.

Politicians in general should be proposing and leading actions toward solutions to social and environment and economic problems, instead of hanging about schools and holding babies.