Tony Abbott used to tell us that he would not lead a government “depending upon dodgy deals … or wayward independents”.



“There is no point in basing government on dishonest deals behind closed doors,” he said.



Well, it is true that Labor and the Greens did their deals over lengthy negotiations in rooms with lots of advisers and lawyers and with the doors closed.



But that is surely preferable to Thursday when the Senate leader, Eric Abetz, the environment minister, Greg Hunt, manager of government business in the Senate, Mitch Fifield, and their advisers were hammering out the fate of the carbon tax repeal bills with Clive Palmer, his senators and the other crossbenchers in a corridor with a posse of journalists watching.



Yes, the government was ambushed by yet another Palmer drama – a last-minute, hastily revised amendment to its carbon tax repeal bills that turned out to be unconstitutional on the advice of the clerk of the Senate. It had the desired effect of catapulting Palmer back into the centre of the debate and making the government look like a flock of geese.



But the whole chaotic day would have been less embarrassing if:



• the prime minister had not already done a pre-emptive media conference hailing the imminent economic unburdening of the nation from the “axing” of the tax.



• the government had not itself forced through a “gag” motion, which then robbed it of the chance to let the debate continue while the amendment was negotiated.



• the prime minister had not told voters before the election that they were choosing between the “strong Coalition team” and “more of the same chaos and confusion under Labor”.



• if he hadn’t been so derisive of the Labor’s governments negotiations with minor parties.



Now, like any government that does not command a majority in both houses, Abbott and his team have to do deals and make concessions. Apparently that isn’t “dodgy” any more, but – like deals with minor parties always are – just a reality of the political system.



And they are dealing with a crossbench less experienced, more unpredictable and possibly more deliberately disruptive than the parliament has seen for many years.



But that is surely all the more reason to take things slowly and carefully. On Thursday they agreed to the Palmer amendment, desperate to rescue some dignity and ensure the passage of the repeal bills next week, when they can be reintroduced into the lower house.



The problem was that no business group or opposition party had analysed it and no one could explain what it meant. Different government ministers had quite different interpretations. It might only slightly expand the scope of the consumer watchdog’s price exploitation powers or it might expand them a great deal. And it certainly increases paperwork and regulation. Lucky we’ve already had red tape repeal day.



It’s a hell of a way to make public policy, and Palmer may have more surprises waiting – including an amendment to another carbon bill to reintroduce a “dormant” emissions trading scheme. The Business Council is clearly warning the government not to do a backroom deal on that.



It all means Abbott and his team may have to rethink their rhetoric and their strategy because they are going to have to do a lot more deals with some very “wayward” independents.

