Wilkie has crossed a thin line

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.