Wilkie has crossed a thin line

Figuratively speaking, Australian politics today presents us with twin brothers, Senator Bob Brown and Member for Denison Andrew Wilkie.

Not so long ago they were on a joint Senate ticket in Tasmania.

However, for reasons I never understood they fell out.

My personal relations with both men continue to be good. Yet I cannot resist "sanctimonious humbug" as my current description of each man.

The main joint characteristic they have is the expression of outrage that Julia Gillard would breach a woman man agreement made after the 2010 election while expressing no concern that she could tell the Australian people that "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" as a prelude to its introduction.

Dudding the Australian people is fine but dudding a powerful member or senator is an outrage to democracy! On Wednesday, September 21 last year, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, introduced a Bill titled "Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and other measures) Bill 2011".

It is known for short as the "Migration Act amendment". Its purpose is to circumvent the decision by the majority of High Court justices handed down on the previous August 31.

Both men opposed the amendment as a matter of principle.

The consequence of that rejection will be that TonyAbbott will be able to implement and fully justify asylum-seeker policies both Brown and Wilkie find appalling.

One would hope they might revise their thinking but I cannot say I expect it. I know too well what principled people are like.

There is a very thin line between a self-proclaimed "man of principle" and a man I describe as a "sanctimonious humbug".

There is no doubt in my mind: Brown and Wilkie today are big assets for Abbott.

Of the two men, I know Wilkie the better. Back in 19801 was a lecturer in government at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and he was one of my first-year students in Australian politics.

In 1981 he was one of my secondyear students in American politics.

We have more or less kept in touch ever since. Consequently, in October last year I called on him at Parliament House to congratulate him on his election as Member for Denison.

However, I told him, "I do not agree with the legislation that will be needed to implement your poker machine reform." He asked me why and I said, "This is a power that lies with the states." He said, "The states cannot be trusted."

I replied, "Australia is a federation and the parliaments of the states existed before the Commonwealth came into being."

Anyway, he then explained to me in some detail why he was so confident that the legislation would be passed by the House of Representatives. I did not say to him what I thought of his explanation but readers may be interested.

In effect he was saying that Gillard and he had an agreement to bully fellow legislators to vote approval of the legislation.

They both knew that a solid majority of members were opposed but, in Wilkie's view, Gillard had a duty to help him bully members into acceptance.

On the evening news on Saturday, January 21, we learnt that the Gillard/Wilkie agreement had fallen through.

I cheered. An excellent outcome, I thought.

However, we should also remember an important feature of the bullying process.

Wilkie said repeatedly that his support for the Gillard Government depended on the success of the legislation.

Be it noted: it was not good enough for Gillard merely to try to help. The legislation must pass or else the Government might be brought down by him.

I called that "an important feature of the bullying process". Others called that "blackmail".

One has to wonder about our system and Wilkie's place in it.

With Adam Bandt of the Greens we can say at least that his party received 12 per cent of the overall vote at the August 2010 election which is why they also have nine of the 76 senators.

With Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor we can say that neither man made unreasonable demands in return for their support.

But what can we say about Wilkie? I would say he represents a tiny Tasmanian electorate which he won on preferences after coming third on the primary count.

The vagaries of the electoral system then produced an overall fluke result which gave him enormous power he then abused.

Above all else it never occurred to him that he might lose that power but on Thursday, November 24, last year, he lost that power when the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives passed from Harry Jenkins to Peter Slipper.

Could Gillard seriously be blamed when she said to herself that day, "Now I can get the monkey Wilkie off my back" ? Then, last Saturday, a thoroughly sensible announcement of policy was made.

Predictably, that announcement was greeted by (largely) hypocritical denunciation from politicians of left and right. And media commentators asked us to have sympathy for Wilkie, of whom cartoons showed knives in his back.

When Gillard broke her "no carbon tax" promise she had a duty to explain herself to the Australian people.

By contrast neither party to the Gillard/Wilkie agreement needs to explain anything.