Welcome back, joining me now in our panel of politicians, the Liberals, Paul Fletcher and Labour's Sid Side Bottom. Good afternoon to both of you. Before we get started, I do want to play you another grab from Tony Abbott's door-stop this morning. One of the key criticisms directed out the opposition leaders to do with his choice of words when he said the government should die of shame in the Parliament yesterday, Mr Abbott, defended himself this morning. This phrase has been used by me on at least 17 separate occasions before yesterday, including in a nationalised address in my televised budget reply. I said that this is a government that needs to change before it dies of shame. Now, the last thing I want to do is to cause offence to anyone, but I was absolutely oblivious as I was making that speech to comments that other people might have made, which were very different and which have been universally condemned, including by me. Alan Jones said a very insensitive, a very offensive thing, but it really is time for the Labour Party to stop hyperventilating. Paul Fletcher, is that really a good enough excuse? Can we really be expected to think that those Jones comments which dominated the political debate for more than a week had simply slipped, Mr Abbott's mind yesterday? Well, look, there's been a lot of emphasis from the Prime Minister and Labour on these kinds of issues, but essentially that missed the point. Yesterday's debate was about the question of whether the speaker was appropriate to be in the role and remain in the role, and whether that added to the credibility of the Parliament, or whether it was time for the speaker to step down. That was the motion that the coalition moved. That was the context in which Mr Abbott was speaking, and incidentally it was a judgment which was supposed to be the correct judgment, as we saw in the action, the speaker himself chose to take correctly later in the day. It was just untenable to have somebody continuing in that role based upon what we now know about what he's been saying in the whole series of text messages. So Paul, you're saying that when you heard Mr Abbott say quite a few times yesterday, this concept of dying of shame in the Parliament, after we've seen so much outrage about those Jones comments that he didn't cringe even slightly to hear those words coming out of your leaders mouth. Look, I think there's any connection at all, but clearly it suits the Labour Party to try and continue to distract from what is the central issue here. The central issue here is whether it was appropriate that Mr Slipper, Continuous Speaker, in the context of what we now know about the things that he had said and the attitudes that he had expressed. Clearly it was not appropriate. The Prime Minister yesterday sought to distract from that issue by focusing on something completely different in her speech on that motion, but the real question is this, had the opposition not taken the initiative, would anything have happened? I would, Mr Slipper, still be the speaker, and I suspect he would, and that would not be to the advantage of the Parliament, and it would not increase the confidence of the people of Australia in the work of their Parliament. So, it's our bottom. We haven't seen hypocrisy from Labour here. As Paul Fletcher points out, everyone on your side today agrees that Mr Slipper did make the right call by resigning, but when it came to that vote, we saw Labour yesterday trying to protect him. We've seen today, some of your colleagues saying, well, Parliament isn't a kangaroo court, but if you can't make a decision on that evidence that no one was disputing when it comes to those text messages, then when was Labour going to act and make a judgement? Well, I think, first and foremost, the reported statements of Mr Slipper, are totally inappropriate, and all sides of Parliament have agreed to that, but let's not forget yesterday was a deliberate tactic of the opposition to use question time deliberately to raise an issue about the speaker, and for Paul and his colleagues, and Tony Abbott, to believe that, given that this is a deliberate tactic, that the leader of the opposition would not have the wherewithal or the forethought to realise what he was saying was insensitive himself and inappropriate in terms of some of the language he used, then that reflects very poorly on Mr Abbott and all those that advise him. So he can't just dismiss this. He knew what he was going to say. It was a deliberate tactic. He knew the language that he was going to use, and I'm afraid it was hardly insensitive. Now, if he's not aware of that himself and his colleagues aren't aware of that, then we've got an issue here. So, it's side of what I would have thought the broader issue is that Labour is now back to square one with this way for thin majority. It was a mistake to put Mr Slipper in that role initially, wasn't it in hindsight? Does that decision make some of your colleagues question the Prime Minister's judgement, let alone her judgement of sticking by him yesterday? Well, hindsight's mighty thing. I'm sure I could use many, many examples for the leader of the opposition to contemplate on. Well, allow me to finish that. I'm sure I could use many examples in terms of hindsight that Mr Abbott could well benefit from. Look, when Mr Slipper was made speaker, we weren't, and no one was aware of what he was doing privately in terms of his communications. And, in actual fact, Mr Slipper, I believe, and I was a member of the Speaker's panel for some time, Mr Slipper did an excellent job in the House as Speaker and conducting himself in terms of his ceremonial role as well. So, yeah, look, things are easier with hindsight. We can be a lot more wise in hindsight, but of course, his private communications and what he does with those communications, how will we to know, how could you know, and indeed, no one he did know? Well, actually, if I can just respond to that. Paul, I will let you respond to that. I also, though, Paul, want to, in particular, bring to you to this issue of accepting votes. Isn't this a ridiculous argument we've heard from the coalition today of where to draw the line, Mr Abbott saying, well, Craig Thompson's vote is more tainted than Mr Slipper's? Look, let's start with the question of Julia Gillard's judgment. Julia Gillard showed terrible judgment yesterday to defend Peter Slipper and focus on trying to keep him as speaker. When, clearly, it was not appropriate that he remained as Speaker, but there were serious questions raised about her judgment in November last year when she took the decision to appoint him as Speaker. This was seen as a masterstroke by some, but there were plenty of people around the Parliament on both sides of the House who were saying this will come back to bite labour. Only a few months later, it has. In public life, when you are discharging a job with serious responsibilities, one of the things you've got to be good at is making judgments about people. I don't think this was a good judgment that the Prime Minister took and that has been devastated in his days. On this judgment of accepting votes, Mr Abbott saying that he won't accept Craig Thompson's, he will accept Mr Slipper's. How does that work? Where exactly does one draw the line here? Well, let's start by making the point that it's based upon how Mr Slipper has voted since he stepped down. It seems a fairly hypothetical issue because he's voted with labour, but the key point, the key distinction is that Mr Thompson has been the subject of serious adverse findings of fact by a regulator and is the subject of ongoing police investigations. Now, the notion that you should apply the same position to Mr Slipper as you should to him really is a side show from the central issue, which is, was it appropriate that Mr Slipper remain a Speaker? Clearly, it wasn't. Was it appropriate for the Prime Minister sort to defend him in the face of the mounting evidence that was clearly inappropriate in an era of judgment and it's all been a distraction from the Parliament doing what it is supposed to do, which is getting on with passing laws and delivering improved outcomes for ordinary Australians. Well, soon, the Parliament's going to be getting on with question time just quickly before we go there, live though, said, so I'd bottom up, are you expecting any leadership issues to be ignited from the drama of the past couple of days? Well, I suspect Tony Abbott will still lead the coalition, if that's what you mean. Well, exactly what I was suggesting, Sir Edward. I'm sorry. Oh, right. And let me assure you, Julia Gillard is well and truly in control of our party and is a fine leader. Make no mistake about it. Okay, it's Sir Edwardham and Paul Fletcher, we do need to let you run off to question time. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. We do appreciate it. This afternoon's question.