Should I Stay or Should I Go?

For the second time in a month, the Coalition Government is facing the reality of one of their appointments being described as untenable. As was the case with former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop, the honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC is taking time to consider his future as the Prime Minister refuses to sack him. Mr Heydon’s decision was expected today, but he has asked for more time to ponder his position.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has praised Dyson Heydon’s impartiality and professionalism, British Libertarian Brendan O’Neill described the scandal surrounding Heydon’s ongoing role as Commissioner as a ‘’storm in a teacup” and conservative commentator Chris Kenny is trying to draw comparisons between Heydon’s speaking engagement at the Garfield Barwick Address and every other speaker ever to appear at a political gathering.

What is so damned important about the Trade Union Royal Commission anyway? Why does it matter if the Commissioner agreed to speak at a function associated with the Liberal Party?

Winners and Losers

The political stakes associated with this particular Royal Commission are manifest. Established by former Governor General Quentin Bryce at the request of the newish Coalition Government, the terms of reference (Letters Patent) for the Trade Unions Royal Commission invite inquiry into the financial dealings and rigour of governance of “employee associations”.

The benefit of illuminating the inner workings of unions and exposing wrongdoing is an undeniable benefit for all Australians. The political fallout is likely to benefit only one side: the Coalition government, which hopes the Royal Commission will unearth a veritable avalanche of dirty deals involving the Labor Party.

The significance of a Coalition Government inquiring into the business dealings of various unions lies in the origins of federal politics in Australia. Generally speaking, the Australian labour movement can be divided into two areas: the trade unions, and the Australian Labor Party. Both sides emerged from the state based labour movements in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The symbiotic relationship between the unions and the ALP has continued unbroken for over a century, with the unions being a primary contributor to the success of the ALP. Obviously, any inquiry into the financial affairs of a trade union will find multiple touchpoints between the unions and the ALP.

Whether the Government’s primary objective in establishing the Royal Commission was to bury the Labor Party is open to speculation. Perhaps it’s just a fringe benefit. The reality if that any adverse findings by the Royal Commission will reflect poorly on the Labor opposition. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the Liberal Party to keep the Royal Commission running for as long as possible. Similarly, it is potentially to Labor’s benefit to discredit the Royal Commission, particularly as so many prominent Labor politicians have backgrounds working with various unions.

Above Reproach

If the outcome of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption was not as politically significant, a loose association between the Commissioner and the political party currently in government might be excusable. Lawyers and judges have an affiliation for politics, and few judges of Heydon’s stature would have been able to avoid having friends in political positions, attending political functions, working with current and future politicians.

In this instance, Heywood has admitted that he was aware that the Garfield Barwick Address was a function arranged by the Liberal Party. It may have slipped his mind, as he has suggested, but he knew it – and frankly, with Sir Garfield Barwick’s ties to the Liberal Party, it would hard to imagine that he would not have known. Even had he not known, professionals on the speakers’ circuit like to know certain details before they accept a booking: who is arranging the function, who will gain from it, who is attending…these are standard questions that he should’ve asked.

And that’s only the Garfield Barwick Address. There’s also the fact that Heydon was on the selection committee that awarded the Rhodes Scholarship to none other than Tony Abbott…the Prime Minister whose government requested the Royal Commission Heydon now heads.

There’s also Heydon’s record while on the High Court: he dissented in about 40% of opinions, most notably when he favoured the tobacco industry, which has been a financial supporter of the Liberal Party.

Could these be a string of coincidences? Absolutely. Is the combined weight of these instances enough to raise the possibility of bias? Again, absolutely yes.

Julian Burnside, a noted progressive legal mind and activist, has again praised Heydon’s record and his integrity, but Burnside has also stated that Heydon should stand aside. A life beyond reproach is not enough to protect Heydon when the perception of bias has been raised. Heydon himself has said so.

"The law compels judges who have such a bias or may reasonably be thought to have such a bias to disqualify themselves (from sitting on cases)."

The Heydon Singularity

Conservative commentator Chris Kenny is trying his best to compare the Unions Royal Commission with other Commissions. Quite simply, there is nothing in the same class as this. The political context of Heydon’s Commission sets it apart from, say, the Royal Commission into Institutionalised Abuse of Children. Adverse findings against a church or church-run charity operating schools and homes for children are as inevitable as they are appalling, but do not have the political ramifications of the Unions Royal Commission, despite the Prime Minister’s links with the Catholic Church.

Nor can Heydon’s role in the Unions Royal Commission be compared to Gillian Triggs’ role as President of the Australian Human Rights Commission or Tim Wilson’s position as Human Rights Commissioner. The Coalition Government has tried to tarnish Professor Triggs’ reputation with accusations of delays and bias. As abhorrent as her findings are, they are largely non-political. The same can be said of Tim Wilson. He is a former executive with the Institute of Public Affairs, an organisation strongly aligned with the Liberal Party policy, but his role as Freedom Commissioner has fewer partisan touchpoints.

Counting the Cost

Estimates for the cost to taxpayers of this Royal Commission range from $67m to $121m, but the cost to Australians is far greater than what we can count in monetary units.

As Heydon was another of the Prime Minister’s infamous Captain’s Picks, the questions raised here cast further doubt over the Prime Minister’s ability to make sound decisions. Is the Royal Commission anything more than a political witch hunt, with a handpicked Commissioner predisposed to favour the government? Or is it simply a personal gesture from Tony Abbott to thank Heydon for a dubious Rhodes Scholarship?

The left will also sustain damage if the Royal Commission is discontinued. The one benefit to Labor and the unions from this Royal Commission is that after the final report is handed to the Governor General, the left would’ve been able to say that they had been meticulously prodded and probed via a Royal Commission, and any adverse findings had been dealt with, leaving a demonstrably clean operation. This would draw a line under the murkiness of ALP-union dealings over the past two decades, and allow the Left to move forward. Furthermore, it will rob the right of their ability to smear Labor because of their union connections. If this commission is abandoned, that opportunity is lost.

Regardless of which way Heydon decides to go, the final insult is the additional cynicism this Royal Commission adds to Australian politics. If Heydon stays, it will be under suspicion of bias. If he goes, his Royal Commission will have been an immense waste of time and money to snag less than a handful of minor scalps. 

First Class Rorting

Australia, we need to talk about politicians' entitlements. 

Yes, I know we've been talking of little else for weeks, but entitled politicians behaving like bored orangutans flinging mud at eachother does not constitute civilised debate or useful discourse. 

The delightfully bizarre bipartisan defence of the family travel allowances when Anthony Albanese and Christopher Pyne defended Tony Burke's use of the entitlement is, well, a bit special, but it brought us no closer to understanding what it really costs to fund the work of a member of parliament.

The reality is that being a member of parliament costs money...a lot of money. MPs travel a lot, particularly if they are ministers or shadow ministers, and if their electorates are far away from Canberra. Equally, voters are skeptical about the spending habits of their politicians, because let's face it: most of us will not be in that income bracket in our lifetimes. 

That's the environment in which entitlements must be reviewed.

The Story that Won't Stop

What started with #Choppergate has taken it's first, and perhaps most profligate victim, with Bronwyn Bishop's forced resignation from the coveted position of Speaker. Her demotion to the back benches will cost her around $150,000 per year in lost salary, on top of the entitlements to which she will no longer have access, and the loss of prestige and reputation, which may be the harshest penalty for the proud Mrs Bishop. 

This week's target of choice was Tony Burke, head of Opposition Business in the house. It wasn't a wise choice to fly his family from their Sydney base to Uluru in business class. Having said that, Mr Burke does not appear in the list of top ten Family Travel spending MPs. Who is more wasteful? The various MPs who have spent over $20,000 on economy fares for family, or Mr Burke, who spent less, but chose business class when economy would've been less expensive. 

It's impossible to answer that question.

It's been been revealed that Mr Burke's opposite number, Christopher Pyne, flew his family from their home base in Adelaide to Canberra in Business Class, which explains why last week, he asked Liberal colleagues to go easy on Burke. This morning, we've learned that Treasurer Joe Hockey used the family travel allowance to fly his family from Sydney to Perth, in Business Class. No wonder they're all defending the practice; they're all doing it.

But that's just the headline acts of the past few weeks. There's still Joe Hockey renting his wife's apartment at taxpayers' expense, and his conspicuously frequent flights to Cairns, which is the nearest major airport to his Malanda farm. There was even that pesky air charter in Tasmania that he was forced to take when the roads were closed...except that a Sydney journalist drove the same "closed" route at the time Joe was on his charter. Oops.

There's still a question mark over Prime Minister Tony Abbott's trips to various swimming and athletic meetings where he competed, plus his expenses claims relating to his own Pollie Pedal charity, and now, the extremely dubious claims related to a campaign trip to the Tamworth Country Music Festival in 2012. Somehow, he totted up almost $10,000 in expenses in Tamworth, but didn't stay there for even a single night. Another urgent and unavoidable charter flight?

Media is Entitled to Report

Whether or not any of these so-called 'rorts' pass the sniff test depends on who is sniffing. Conservative commentator Chris Kenny has tweeted yesterday

All the gallery and twitter outrage against Bronwyn has fallen silent about Burke. #hypocrisy #youknowitmakessense

Not just politicians out of step with community standards it seems. Gallery screamed for Bronwyn's head but avert their eyes from Burke.

There is a noteworthy lack of outrage at Tony Burke, Christopher Pyne, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott in comparison to the universal outrage following the revelations about Bronwyn Bishop's extravagances. While taxpayer-funded business class airfares for MPs' families fail the infamous pub test, the dollar amounts are relatively small, the expenditure was declared, and there is no regulation that expressly forbids it. Most Australians are fair minded  and can see that spending thousands on helicopters and limousines when ComCars are available is blatantly wrong. 

ABC Insiders host Barrie Cassidy commented via Twitter:

Pollies away from their families by necessity entitled to negotiate modest family friendly work arrangements. Let's not get too hysterical.

The government's spectacular mishandling of the entitlements crisis during the long winter parliamentary recess has allowed media figures and bloggers to devote time to understanding the many issues. The area of parliamentary entitlements is a mess of deliberate rorting, poor administration and fuzzy guidelines that leave standards open to interpretation. Lack of oversight has made rorting, both deliberate and accidental, too easy.

The Review

Prime Minister Abbott has announced a comprehensive "root and branch" review of entitlements, the fifth such review in seven years. If the review is to include recommendations on bringing entitlements into line with the expectations of average Australians, it must include average Aussies as part of the review, and within the group that has oversight of the process.

As someone with experience in assessing and developing new systems and processes, and framing new business rules, I have some ideas around what might be acceptable as new regulations for entitlements. Before sharing my recommendations, it's helpful to clarify a few things.

1. Politicians are well paid, and they need to be. They have huge responsibilities, long days; they make frequent family sacrifices and live their lives in the public spotlight. Few members - Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, Joe Hockey and Clive Palmer excepted - are well financed outside of politics.

2. The requirements of the Prime Minister, in that he travels more, both domestically and internationally are entirely different and should not be subject to standard MP entitlements rules. While cheaper, commercial flights are often available, the Prime Minister of the day must have access to appropriate security and communications facilitates at all times. For this reason, the PM of the day should always have access to a VIP RAAF jet.

3. Technology allows all expenses to be uploaded quickly and be visible to all via the internet. There should be no secrets and no surprises.

4. The "root and branch" review of entitlements is sadly lacking any input from the electorate; everyone on the five-member review panel has a background as a senior politician or senior corporate officer, and are well used to six-figure incomes. They will struggle to form an entitlements framework which is aligned with 'middle Australia'.

Suggested Business Rules for Entitlements

Domestic Travel: Ministers/Shadow Ministers, Speaker: Business Class

Others: Flights over 4 hours may be Business Class; flights under 4 hours should be Economy Class

International Travel: All international flights to be Business Class

Road Transport: All travel to be via private plated vehicle or by ComCar

Travel for purposes unrelated to Parliamentary or Portfolio Business are to be via  private plated vehicle only.

    

When a ComCar is required and is unavailable, and private vehicle is inappropriate, a hire car / driver may be used, with prior approval from authorising travel manager

Charters:  Charters are permissible only with prior approval from the travel manager, when no other options are available, and when travel is essential. 

Family Travel: A family travel allowance, based on the distance of the member's electorate from Canberra, will be made available. This allowance may only be used to allow family members to accompany the Member when the Member is conducting Parliamentary business, or to visit the Member in Canberra. 

The Family Travel Allowance will be capped. The usual restrictions regarding class of travel apply to the travelling Member and any family members also travelling. 

Travel Arrangements for Staff accompanying Members: Staff will be expected to travel in the same cabin as the Member.

Office Fitout: A specialist design/fitout company should be selected for use by Members, who will have the opportunity to work with the designer to upgrade and/refit electorate office space to the value of $X, if required. Members offices and suites within APH will be subject to the same guidelines.

Party Functions, Fundraisers and Conferences: Costs incurred in attending party conferences are not considered a Parliamentary entitlement. 

In the case of travel to a destination where both Parliamentary and Party business is included in the itinerary, the duration of each will be calculated and the Member may claim pro rata for the Parliamentary Business only.

Balancing Act

Any process for assessing and processing entitlements will be a complex knot of regulations, guidelines, loopholes, names and numbers. It won't be fast, and it's never easy. We can only hope that when our "expectations" of what is reasonable are incorporated into the latest rule book, the demands of functionality and the rewards of status are balanced against similar standards in the private sector.

And this is a starting point for the many conversations that need to follow.

Dead Man Walking

Why is Abbott a Dead man Walking?

Was it justice, was it Karma?
Was it Murdoch, was it Palmer?
Was it lying and conceit?
Was it backbenchers fear of defeat?

Was it Mathias and Joe's cigars?
Was it because we've stopped making cars?
Was it climate change denial?
Was it putting Julia on trial?

Was it the daughter's scholarship prize?
Was it debt and deficit lies?
Was it removing the Carbon Tax?
Was it trying to give the RET the axe?

Was it cutting Foreign aid?
Was it being so retrograde?
Was it the Minister for Women joke?
Was it all the promises broke?

Was it Brandis's bigots rights?
Was it prancing around in lycra tights?
Was it cutting the SBS and the ABC?
Was it costing more for university?

Was it imposing a GP tax?
Was it the disregard of facts?
Was it the ridiculous Dames and Knights?
Was it the threats and talk of fights?

Was it Joe's "lifters and leaners"?
Was it cutting the pay of parliament's cleaners?
Was it punishing pensioners and the unemployed?
Was it the total moral void?

Was it the embarrassing G20 address?
Was it the ongoing budget mess?
Was it the book-launch travel rort?
Was it knighting the Queen's consort?

Was it use of the sham inquiry stunt?
Was it the weasel words of Hunt?
Was it a budget most unfair?
Was it too much body hair?

Was it nobbling the NBN?
Was it lying again and again?
Was it exploiting terrorist threats?
Was it job applications of Eric Abetz?

Was it the sex worker wink?
Was it being too slow to think?
Was it Joe's "poor people don't drive"
Was it the polls taking a dive?

Was it the surprises and constant excuses?
Was it asylum seeker abuses?
Was it the work of Peta and the IPA?
Was it repeating slogans day after day?

Was it the dog whistle of "Team Australia"?
Was it the pungent smell of failure?
Was it wimping Putin's shirt front?
Was it because Christopher Pyne is a pain?

Was it Arthur's memory at ICAC?
Was it giving Mr Burns the sack?
Was it ever declining polls?
Was it funding Internet trolls?

Was it Newman's election loss?
Was it the submarine double cross?
Was it saying the "Adults are in charge"?
Was it making the deficit more large?

Was it the whole damn useless crew?
Was it the ties of bogus blue?
Was it the hubris and the swagger?
Was it Malcolm and Julie's dagger?

Was it saying he would change?
Was it becoming even more deranged?
Was it eating an onion raw?
Was it the data-retention law?

Was it the daughter's low rent at Kirribilli?
Was it "Fixer" Pyne being silly?
Was it acting like a bar room yob?
Was it offering Bjorn Lomborg a job?

Was it saying "I suppose we must grieve"
Was it the constant attempts to deceive?
Was it ditching his gold plated PPL mess?
Was it then making Labor's PPL less?

Was it saying the deficit is no longer trouble?
Was it increasing your own deficit double?
Was it a second budget based on deception?
Was it threatening to call an early election?

Was it trying to get Gillian Triggs out?
Was it Dutton acting like a Brussel sprout?
Was it "get a good job that pays good money"
Was it laughing at things that just weren't funny?

Was it all the talk of double dipping?
Was it cabinet leaks a constant dripping?
Was it denying marriage equality?
Was it Brandis reading poetry ?

Was it paying people smugglers to turn around?
Was it the dead cat bounce the polls have found?
Was it saying how much he hated wind farms?
Was it lying each day without any qualms?

Was it the false outrage at Q & A?
Was it telling ministers to stay away?
Was it Bishop's ride in a chopper?
Was it cos Abbott did nothing to stop her?

Was it Shorten's conference revival?
Was it party room fears for their own survival?
Why will Abbott get the shove?
The answer is, all of the above.

 - with thanks to Graeme Henshel & Warwick Hempel

Lessons to be Learned

Choppergate

Tony Abbott's now infamous tweet from 2011, on the Peter Slipper scandal and the Gillard Government.

Google the words “Bronwyn Bishop Choppergate” and you’ll get almost 250,000 results. For a mid-sized political snafu that should’ve been over in a day, that’s an awful lot of hits. In fact, it’s a public relations disaster for Mrs Bishop, for her acolyte Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and for his stumbling government.

Almost three weeks of Choppergate reached their inevitable conclusion this afternoon, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s press conference in which he announced the resignation of Bronwyn Bishop from the position of Speaker of the House, backed up by a new review of parliamentary entitlements.

The events of this afternoon, and indeed the last three or so weeks, will be remembered fondly for decades by lecturers and students of Public Relations; it’s the new textbook example of the wrong way to handle a crisis.

In what will probably be a most unpleasant surprise for Mr Abbott and Mrs Bishop, it’s far from over.

Choppergate started on Wednesday July 15, when it was revealed that Mrs Bishop had chartered a helicopter to fly her from Melbourne to Geelong, a lavish folly that cost taxpayers over $5,000. At the same time, there were whispers of other, much larger expenses that might not hold up under scrutiny: a trip to Europe costing almost $90,000, and a tour around South East Asia costing over $40,000. 

Non-Apology 1

Instead of an immediate mea culpa, Mrs Bishop waited until July 19, four days since the story had blasted onto the front pages, and held a peculiar press conference in which she characterised her little helicopter jaunt to Geelong as “an error of judgment”, and refused to apologise.

 “The biggest apology one can make is to repay the amount.”

How wrong she was! The biggest apology Mrs Bishop could have made was an actual apology that included the words “I’m sorry.” Her media advisors should’ve known that they were the only magic words that would soothe the situation. Everyone else knew.

It wasn’t as if the nation had nothing else to talk about: The Liberal plan was that the winter recess should be dominated by outrage aimed at Bill Shorten over revelations he may have made at the Unions Royal Commission. Marriage equality was moving from a simmering issue to a rolling boil, Reclaim Australia had held controversial rallies across the weekend, and the QandA fiasco, complete with the Prime Ministerial ban on front benchers appearing, continued. Yet all were relatively minor stories when Bronwyn stepped into the spotlight to assert her supremacy.

Not only had Team Bishop waited too long to respond, they had taken the worst approach possible. Even inside the Coalition bunker, they must’ve known that Mrs Bishop’s wildly partisan approach to her duties as Speaker had damaged her personal brand. An arrogant Bronwyn, still claiming that she was right, that she need not apologise, that she would not step down, would feed the negative elements surrounding her and inflame the audience even further.

And it did.

On Probation

Under mounting pressure to show strong leadership, Mr Abbott slapped Mrs Bishop with a limp lettuce leaf, agreeing with her ‘lack of judgment’ and placing her ‘on probation’. To this day, no-one knows what ‘on probation’ means when the subject is the Speaker of the House. Despite calls from everyone from the Leader of the Opposition to my 94-year-old neighbour, the Prime Minister cannot sack the Speaker, so if she had broken the undisclosed terms of her probation, there’s not much available as punishment. 

Now the Liberals had a bigger problem than a minor rort involving a helicopter trip. Now, they had a leader who appears as weak, confused and partisan as the Speaker he appointed.

Journalists kept digging and social media kept on keeping on. Petitions to remove her from the Speaker’s position were started. Every helicopter picture on the internet became a meme, and they were retweeted, reposted, emailed and shared in a never-ending gigglefest at Bronnie’s expense. Conservative commentators with decades of experience were turning against the Speaker, and by association, against the government.

The first question on QandA on July 20 was from David Boothey.

The Prime Minister today has said that the Speaker, Mrs Bishop, is on probation over her helicopter ride. Can someone on the panel please explain the difference between the previous Speaker, Mr Slipper, Mr Peter Slipper's $900 Cabcharge error of judgment and Mrs Bishop's $5,227 flight to a Liberal Party fundraiser?

There was no support on the QandA panel for Mrs Bishop. None. Even shockjock Alan Jones voiced his concerns about the number of charter flights were being taken by members of parliament, and on Mrs Bishop’s excesses in particular.

…the notion of, for example, going from Tullamarine to Geelong in a helicopter is just bloody ridiculous. It’s as simple as that.

Trouble at the PR Mill

Mrs Bishop’s spin team was now in real trouble. If they wheeled her out again, and she apologised, she’d look flaky and insincere. If they dug in and kept her out of sight, they ran the risk of the media unearthing more damning evidence of rorting.

The Prime Minister’s PR group had a similar problem, but one which was easier to solve. All he had to do was ask Bronwyn Bishop to stand aside as Speaker while the investigation into her expenses was completed. It would get her out of the spotlight, rob the Opposition of ammunition, and settle the media. It was the opportunity for breathing space.

Instead, the Coalition continued pretending that their world was still turning, despite a various stray comments that suggested that Mrs Bishop might not have the full throated support of her colleagues.

Within a few days, it was obvious that Choppergate was not going to fade away. Despite the ALP National Conference, the kerfuffle by various singers about their songs being used at Reclaim Australia rallies, the first close-up pictures ever or Pluto and Australia’s triumph in the cricket at Lords, the single story on everyone's lips was Bronwyn Bishop and her penchant for the high life at taxpayers' expense.

Non-Apology 2

By mid last week, they realised that they had to do what they should’ve done two weeks earlier. Whether it was public pressure, or a directive from the Prime Minister’s Office, a most contrite Mrs Bishop faced the media again, this time full of remorse. She was sincerely sorry, as far as I can tell, for being caught out, and nothing more. Deep down, she was still sure that she had every right to claim every damned entitlement. Someone should have told her that the schedule of entitlements is not an all-you-can-claim smorgasbord. 

"I am disappointed that it's taken the heat off Mr Shorten and his double carbon tax paper. I haven't noticed too much attention being paid to that and I'm sorry this has distracted from that."

A national chorus of “Too little, too late” echoed across chat shows, social media and dinner tables. She could  not have been worse if she was being paid by the ALP. It was an appalling performance, emphasising every failing of her first media conference, a week and a half earlier. Her tone was subdued, and her words more gentle, but ultimately, she failed to apologise to the Australian people, or to her Prime Minister and colleagues. Sheagreed to repay various small sums that she had claimed as expenses, but in light of recent revelations citing hundreds of thousands of dollars in luxury travel claims, no-one was dancing a jig. All she had achieved as to ramp up community anger, and ensure she continued her domination of the front pages.

It’s not clear if she was taking any media advice at this stage, but if she was, whoever was advising her should be hung from the nearest clothesline by their toenails, and forced to drink warm fish and spinach milkshakes while being spun around and around and around at ever increasing velocity. 

They should also get out of the communications game because they don’t know what they’re doing…unless they’re undercover for the ALP, in which case, I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.

Untenable

It’s highly likely that the word ‘untenable’ has been used more times in the last few days in relation to Mrs Bishop’s position as Speaker than at any point in history. Independent Andrew Wilkie teamed up with Clive Palmer to threaten a No Confidence motion against the Speaker, if she was still the Speaker when Parliament resumes on August 10. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke were determined in their calls on the Prime Minister to act.

Choppergate had persisted for far longer than it should’ve been allowed to survive.

The Silent Resignation

Finally, someone listened. According to the Prime Minister’s two-flag press conference this afternoon, Mrs Bishop advised the Prime Minister today of her intention to resign as Speaker, effective immediately. She was not at the press conference, which was the first sensible decision she’s made regarding her public appearances in recent times.

Unfortunately, the press conference was every bit as awful as the rest of the Choppergate catastrophe. Prime Minister Abbott was determined to convince us all that the problem was not Bronwyn Bishop at all. It was the system that was broken. Dear Bronnie was taking the fall for a flawed process that had forced her to rort her way through hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yeah, right. If the system was to blame, why was anyone resigning? If the system was broken, wouldn't every MP be chartering the aircraft of their choice to whisk them from venue to venue, high above the traffic snarls  and commuter mayhem? Would train-lover Malcolm Turnbull and notorious cheapskate Nick Xenophon be forced to reject their economy class plans for the plush and far more private surrounds of chartered entitlement?

In practical terms, as far as establishing a functioning government goes, her resignation is a relief to many, although I’m not sure if Prime Minister Abbott, Education Minister Christopher Pyne, Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce or WA Premier Colin Barnett are happy; they seem to be her only supporters of substance.

There were political points to be won today, had Mr Abbott had the strength to take them. By positioning himself differently in the frame, he could’ve appeared to be a strong yet patient leader, who was capable of making personally difficult decisions for the good of the country. Instead, he tried to protect his friend and mentor, and the announcement of her resignation was framed as her decision, which Mr Abbott had reluctantly accepted. In framing it this way, Mr Abbott has allowed himself to look weak and out of touch, unable to accept the inevitable or unwilling to act on it.

When parliament does resume on August 10, the Government had better be prepared for a whole new set of rules. Acting Speaker Bruce Scott will fill the role until a permanent Speaker is appointed, and Bronwyn Bishop will pursue a far lower profile on the back benches. No longer will the Abbott government have the luxury of a blatantly biased Speaker who will allow her buddies on the Right to run wild, while chastising the opposition for such ghastly activities as laughing. God help us all if they had decided to sing a song!

What's Next? 

Firstly, what will become of Bronwyn Bishop? Will she stay on the back benches, a position she hasn’t occupied for almost two decades, or will she find the demotion untenable and resign from parliament? In either case, the Department of Finance investigation into her use of entitlements will continue, and may well be referred back to the AFP for criminal investigation. Any of these options appear to be far less cruel than the treatment endured by former Speaker Peter Slipper, over a few extravagant Cabcharge claims.

The second question is how much damage Bronwyn Bishop’s Adventures in Chopperland have done to Tony Abbott and his struggling government. His unwavering support for Mrs Bishop, even while announcing her resignation today, will be seen as another example of his poor political judgment. Her appointment to the position was his first Captain’s Call as Prime Minister, and that won’t be forgotten. Will his team of frustrated back benchers and dissatisfied front benchers allow him to continue to lead unchallenged?

The last question, courtesy of Fairfax journalist Latika Bourke, involves the new review into entitlements. Will this damage the Prime Minister's unsteady relationship with his junior colleagues even further if they feel they might be missing out on something?

In the meantime, if you’re lecturing a group of students in crisis communications, the last three weeks in Australian politics should give you plenty of examples of what not to do.

And a friendly note to the Labor Comms team: stay silent. Do nothing. Allow the resignation to dominate the news cycle and the commentators to express their I-Told-You-So columns. Labor has nothing to gain by crowing about their victory. A dignified silence can only help them now.