Sic ém, Harry!

Sometimes being Speaker in the House of Representatives in the Australian Parliament would test the patience of a saint.
On days like this Harry Jenkins is a joy to behold.
Yesterday Harry went Teh Poodle, snapped at Robb, sat Hockey smartly on his behind, and warned Randall along with about eight other MPs:
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Canning
will resume his seat. The generosity that I have shown
with both the original question and the supplementary
question may have a downside, and the downside is
that there is greater scope given for direct relevance in
an answer. The member for Canning stretches any
friendship with anybody when he makes comments
like that. He made his point of order. He has used the
point of order now for this question and he will sit
there in silence. The Prime Minister has the call......
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister will
resume her seat. The member for Sturt’s inability to
understand standing order 65(b) is breathtaking. He is
warned and he knows that a warning is a precursor to
naming. He cannot expect to interrupt continually
without being in danger of being put outside the services
of this House for longer than one hour.
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on
the statement that you have just made. I ask you: how
can the opposition be expected to not respond to the
slurring, smearing and attacking of us by the Prime
Minister?
The SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition
Business will resume his place. As I have said before,
as much as some people in this House, and as much as
some people outside this House, think that question
time is a debate, it is not a debate. I simply say to the
Manager of Opposition Business, who I understand
believes that he has a duty to do something on behalf
of his side of this House, that I absolutely regret the
generosity given in the way in which the questions
have been framed today. He does not take from anything
in the conduct of the House that he can, as I have
used the word before, prattle on incessantly. I do not
care how aggrieved he feels. There are other avenues
and devices that he might like to use if he wants to
have a debate if he feels aggrieved, but he is warned
for his disruptive behaviour.
Mr Robb—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It
is a very important issue. I put to you that the propositions
advanced by this side in the questions that have
been asked to date are all statements of fact. Facts may
provoke the other side, but the responses have been
highly provocative—
The SPEAKER—Order! The member for Goldstein
will resume his seat.
Government members—Not a good one.
The SPEAKER—It may not have been a good one.
I can hear comments like that. The member for Goldstein
should realise that there is no point of order. The
questions were ruled in order. I was making observations.
The Prime Minister has the call......
Mr Hockey—Mr Speaker—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Sit down. The Prime Minister has the call.
She will be directly relevant to the question.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER—Order! Those on my left could
learn a lesson by not interrupting as much as they do
because, quite frankly, I could not listen to the answer
because of the hubbub that was going on, and given the
reaction of members on my left I am assuming that the
member for North Sydney was going to raise a point of
order on relevance. He is lucky not to have been named
or given one hour because of the way that he approached
the dispatch box. We might rule a line in the
sand about this question time now, but I am telling you,
the behaviour has got to pick up. The Prime Minister
has the call. She will be directly relevant to the question....
The SPEAKER—Oh, it was the member for
Bendigo. There are a few dobbers in the House.
Regrettably now the member for Bendigo—it has been a
big day for Bendigo today—is warned.
I suggest to the member for Sturt that if he stepped
back and tried to disengage himself from his positions
on some of these answers, he would understand that, in
this case, it may not be the answer that his side of politics
is seeking but it is an answer that could be considered
directly relevant to the question. I am not in a position,
as Speaker, to dictate how a minister or the
Prime Minister answers the questions. I think that the
member for Sturt should learn to sit there quietly. If he
really wants to make changes that will get the result
that he wants, he should engage with the Procedure
Committee as they review the success or not of the
newly implemented standing orders. The Prime Minister
has the call. The Prime Minister knows that she
must be directly relevant in responding to the question....
Mr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I seek
leave to table the article in the Australian of 1 November
which refers to the quotation, so that it can be put
beyond any doubt.
Leave not granted.
The SPEAKER—I simply say that some of the devices
that have been used today make me think that
some of the people should reflect upon them. The
Manager of Opposition Business was involved in the
point of order about identifying who the officer was.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition
Business are incredulous but, if we are to see
stunts like this, where the information was available
and could have been given to the member for Dawson,
the generosity that I displayed to the member for Dawson
as a new member will not be as forthcoming. The
alternative was that I could have ruled the question out
of order.

Are Australians looking for new best friends?

Now I know Australian governments and politicians are unlikely to drift from supporting old established international relationships, including defence and trade partnerships, but one has to wonder if the rest of us are not begining to quietly review our options.

Is China on the way to becoming our new best friend?

Here is a snippet from the Essential Report of 15 November 2010. The survey was conducted online from 9^th to 14^th November 2010 and is based on 1,037 respondents.

Click on image to enlarge

· More than half the respondents think it is very important to have close relationships with the United States (56%) and New Zealand (54%) and just under half think it is very important to have a close relationship with China (45%) and United Kingdom (44%).

· A close relationship with the United States is considered very important by 65% of Liberal/National voters and 62% of Labor voters but only 37% of Greens voters. Greens voters consider relations with New Zealand (58%) and China (47%) more important.

· Since this question was asked in April, the overall rating of the importance of relations with other countries has dropped – especially for Japan (-10%) and Indonesia (-9%).

· 30% think that Australia’s relationship with China should get closer and 29% think our relationship with New Zealand should get closer.

· Labor voters are most likely to favour closer relationships with China (32%) and New Zealand (29%).

· Liberal/National voters are most likely to favour closer relationships with New Zealand (29%) and China (28%).

· Greens voters are most likely to favour closer relationships with China (38%), Indonesia (36%) and New Zealand (36%).

· Since this question was asked in April, the percentage wanting a closer relationship with Indonesia has dropped from 30% to 23%.

Pom's prepared to take on an Australian XVII

Is there any truth in the rumour doing the rounds that the Poms have invited Australia to field the entire squad of 17 players chosen for the First Ashes Test at the Gabba in Brisbane next week?

Australian cricket teams have not had the best of things lately. Australia’s losing streak in all forms of the game has reached seven matches, the longest since the 1996-97 season.

Respected cricket scribe Peter Roebuck had this, among other things, to say in today's Sydney Morning Herald about the decision to pick a squad of 17 for the match:

Doubtless, player and public were bemused by the absurd function and the size of the party. Presumably the Poms are chortling into their Earl Grey. Australian cricket has been admired for the clarity of its thinking and the extent of its planning. Suddenly it seemed chaotic. At one stage it seemed that all 66 Shield players were to be included, and possibly Richie Benaud as well.

At first sight it will seem that the selectors have lost the plot. Certainly they have invited ridicule. Over the years Australia has considered 16players sufficient to cover an entire tour of England. Now 17 are required for a single match to be staged just up the road.

Credit: SMH

This is .... the answer to one of life's pressing questions

Sometimes one just has to share the joke......

At last, the real reason!

And that is why the chicken crossed the road.

A hat tip to Clarrie for this one.