Abbott uses speaker in quest for early election

The past two weeks have seen the Opposition Leader use his cheer squad to fabricate an excuse for reneging on his commitment to pair the Speaker.

The arguments advanced by his flankers have been self-serving and often based on falsehoods.

Christopher Pearson, criticising my role in advising Rob Oakeshott to pair the Speaker, wrote in The Weekend Australian that the group advising Oakeshott should have involved former House of Representatives clerk Ian Harris. In fact, we did consult Harris. Not only did the Labor advisers (Simon Banks and I) consult Harris on the reforms, but the Liberal advisers to Oakeshott (Grahame Morris and Arthur Sinodinos) also had the benefit of Harris's advice.

The other Christopher - Pyne - was briefed by the Oakeshott-nominated senior Liberals well before the opposition signed up to the full set of parliamentary reforms. If at any time Pyne or Tony Abbott had been concerned about the legality of pairing the Speaker, they could have obtained legal advice or had the issue raised with our consultative group; but they made no objections or even queried the pairing proposals. In fact, it is now clear the Liberal Party's legal adviser on the parliamentary reforms, David Bennett QC, had no substantial concerns about the legality of pairing the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker (The Australian, September 22).

It is true, as Pearson says, that I recommended that the Speaker be paired with the Deputy Speaker. It is a practical and, as the Solicitor-General advised, perfectly legal way of solving the problem of getting both parties to agree to the prospect of offering up someone to be the Speaker without losing a crucial vote on the floor.

It is also true that there was no objection by anyone to this proposition right until the two independents agreed to back Labor.

After our consultative group had completed deliberations, we passed our recommendations over to Anthony Albanese and Pyne to consider the practical implications of what was proposed.

This led to a few days of negotiation - but not about the pairing arrangements for the Speaker - until agreement was reached the day before the independents announced their decision to support Labor. Readers will recall that the independents insisted the parliamentary reforms were agreed to before they announced which side they would be supporting.

It was only after the independents sided with the government that Abbott started identifying what he claimed were problems with pairing the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker.

Then Abbott had George Brandis present his legal opinion, which differed not only from the independent Solicitor-General's advice but also from the Liberal Party's own QC, Bennett.

Brandis could have raised those objections at any time before the agreement was signed if the opposition really did have concerns. The consultative group's draft recommendations were circulated to both parties days before the agreement was signed.

The reason for the Opposition Leader's ex-post-facto objections to pairing the Speaker are obvious: he wants to reduce Labor's majority in the house by one one vote to one vote. Everything he and his crew have said in support of abandoning the pairing arrangements are designed to give him a justification for reneging on an agreement that he endorsed when he thought it would help him in the event that the independents sided with the opposition.

These disruptive tactics are a return to Abbott's pre-campaign form. Throughout the election campaign he managed to hide the old "do or say anything to get a win" image he had on display before the campaign. Remember how he chopped and changed on climate change, first backing his then leader Malcolm Turnbull, and then deserting him and an emissions trading scheme in order to win his party's leadership?

Remember how in the election campaign he found every excuse not to present his promises to Treasury for costing? It was only after the election that he was forced to show them to Treasury on the insistence of the independents he was trying to win over. Was this the sort of behaviour the Opposition Leader had in mind when he told The 7.30 Report's Kerry O'Brien he doesn't always tell voters the gospel truth?

We could be forgiven for believing that when Abbott authorised the opposition to sign up for that parliamentary reform agreement, he intended honouring it only if he won the support of the independents and formed a government.

It's the old "whatever it takes" Abbott we are seeing again. It's clear he has one aim: to destabilise parliament. Why? Because he thinks he stands a better chance of getting an early election, which he believes he will win.

This wrecking approach may serve to destabilise parliament, but is that the stuff of a prime minister? The danger for Abbott is that he could seriously damage his image with the Australian public.

Australians are pragmatists when it comes to their leaders. They want someone who can build on the present to create a better future. The Abbott we see now isn't even able to point to strong moral conviction, something he could do at least with his conservative stand on social issues. How can he present so-called moral leadership when his present political stance is so starkly amoral?

So Abbott should be careful of what he wishes for. If he were to engineer an early election, he might not get the result he expects.

And while his special brand of confrontational politics - born out of his days in student politics - may suit his party now, he could find that it sits uncomfortably with the Liberal leadership when the next election looms.

Turnbull - or someone else untainted by the negative strategy Abbott is running - is well positioned to make a run at the opposition leadership some time in the 12 months leading up to the next election.

It may be that Abbott does all the dirty work but is forced out by a leader who can present some sort of Liberal vision to the electorate.

How ironic would it be if Abbott proved to be Turnbull's stalking horse.