Abbott's approval rating started to climb up again, the party settled down, and the crisis was absolutely put behind the government forever. So it's interesting that the lesson that everyone's taken away from this is "let's do the same stuff that precipitated the last crisis, because the result will obviously be different." "For those who've come across the seas / We've boundless plains to share…" First up, as we discussed at some length Monday, we have the dignified image of our Prime Minister telling the United Nations that Australia won't be dictated to about our human rights record with regards to our treatment of asylum seekers.

See, the problem is that the UN just isn't credible. "I think the UN's representatives would have a lot more credibility if they were to give some credit to the Australian government for what we've been able to achieve in this area," your PM said with a straight face. Now, just think on that for a moment. What other world leaders have recently told the UN that they have no business criticising their human rights record? It's folks like Russia's Vladimir Putin. Or North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Or Syria's Bashar al-Assad.

Not, in other words, the kind of company many of us would fancy our nation keeping, surely? UN: we're not angry, Australia, just very disappointed Unlike the government, United Nations special rapporteur Juan Mendez thinks that it's reasonable to expect more from Australia than they would from, say, an autocratic and repressive dictatorship. "I'm sorry that the Prime Minister believes that we lecture," Mendez told Fairfax on Tuesday. "We don't believe so. We try to treat all governments the same way and deal with specific obligations and standards in international law as objectively as we can." And what is the onerous human rights standard to which Australia is expected to adhere?

"People who are detained in the high seas and subject to prolonged detention on the basis of their status and not given a fair opportunity to make their case that they should not be sent back to a country where they might face torture. I think it is my duty to tell Australia that, at least in that respect and in respect of keeping children in detention, that policy needs to be corrected." Now, you might read that and think, "hey, that seems pretty reasonable and not at all difficult to achieve." But obviously that wouldn't be sufficiently credible. Hockey: smash! Meanwhile, the Treasurer's exciting new suggestion that people should be able to raid their superannuation funds to buy stuff like houses has met with praise from the real estate industry – who, obviously, aren't going to support any plan that might see property revert to "real" or "not completely insane" value – and awkward silence from his own party, condemnation from the superannuation industry, and predictable fury from the opposition. In fact, so incensed are they that their most venerable former PM has lashed out on this very site about the dangers of Hockey's plan, as well as declaring that Joe's driven more by ideology than sense. "Breaking what is now a national consensus on the principle of preservation, where savings cannot be drawn down till age 55, would amount to the wilful destruction of one of the best retirement systems in the world," wrote Paul Keating.

"Superannuation for them is fundamentally an ideological matter. Just like Medicare. The Liberals object to the universality of Medicare and they keep having a go at it, like the recent attempt to require a co-payment to doctors… That having failed, they are back again at super – the other great universal scheme." Of course, as we mentioned Monday, the government haven't actually dropped the co-payment plan: they're currently retooling it as a bulk billing rebate change so it doesn't obviously disadvantage doctors while still ensuring that those at the bottom get punished for being poor. But the point stands. Backbench pickup Meanwhile, the backbench is now openly declaring that they now dictate policy. It's an exciting reversal of typical government process, sure, but at least those MPs feel that there might be consequences if the government doesn't stop openly targeting less well-off Australians. There's nothing like clinging to a marginal seat to really hone one's social conscience.

Backbench MP Andrew Laming is especially delighted about this new development, since he's holding himself pretty much responsible for it – and he plans to scuttle the pension changes next. "It's no secret that over the last two months a group of Coalition backbenchers have been squarely putting a couple of policies in front of the leadership – four of them in fact, and this [pensions] is one of them," he explained. "I would just make the observation that there a couple of large missiles, Exocets and torpedoes aimed at this policy and we're just hoping from the backbench that we will see some change." So: the PM is threatening to shirtfront the UN, the Treasurer is suggesting disastrous plans for retirees, and the backbench is busily claiming credit for policy (apparently with heavy armaments). Hmm. It's all starting to feel very September 2014 all over again…