Three Amigos turned into Mexican bandits

Australians know that a deadlock has left the country without government and the situation is serious.

But the three non-aligned MPs who will play the key role in deciding which party governs have looked about as serious as kids in a toy shop.

In the days following the election - and particularly at the National Press Club - Bob Katter, Tony Windsor, and Rob Oakeshott were suddenly at the centre of things and loving it.

Every thought bubble from an independent became a headline. Whatever they said, no matter how flaky, was soberly reported. Even Oakeshott's nonsense about unity governments and Kevin Rudd possibly serving in the foreign affairs portfolio under prime minister Tony Abbott.

Plenty of punters saw it as tosh, and said so on talkback radio. You could feel respect for the so-called Three Amigos slipping away.

And by week's end, as a result of their antics, the independents were getting the blame for the lack of progress in forming a government, even though it had nothing to do with them.

Talks could not begin in any meaningful way until the make-up of the new House of Representatives was clear.

The hold-up had nothing to do with independent grandstanding, everything to do with the slowness of vote-counting by the AEC.

But people were asking: "When will this circus end?"

And it was the independents they had in mind. The three rural independents - former National Party MPs now on the cross-benches - that is.

Andrew Wilkie, the Iraq War whistleblower elected in Tasmania, and Adam Bandt, the Melbourne Green, have been more circumspect.

The truth is that preparations that will give us either a Labor or Coalition minority government are well under way.

Yesterday's decision by Abbott to allow Treasury to cost Coalition policies and then brief the independents on their impact on the Budget bottom line was a significant breakthrough.

It means the cross-bench group who have to make the choice that voters failed to make will at least do so on the basis of proper information about both parties and their programs.

Abbott's agreement to the process also suggests that Greens leader Bob Brown and others are wrong in suggesting the Liberal leader's aim is to force Australians back to the polls.

"Nobody wants another election," a shadow minister said yesterday.

"We're all tired."

The parties are also broke. So, while Abbott has been less fawning than Gillard in early dealings with the cross-benchers, he is no less keen than she is to win their support. Negotiations begin in earnest next week.

Meanwhile, a few things are worth keeping in mind.

* ABBOTT says the Coalition should form government because it received about 500,000 more primary votes.

Gillard says Labor should get the nod because it got a majority after preferences.

These arguments are just spin for the independents.

Tasmanian Governor Peter Underwood, who sorted out a hung Parliament earlier this year, wrote that "the total number of votes received by the elected members of a political party is constitutionally irrelevant". All that matters is "who can form a stable government".

In other words, who has support in the Lower House.

* THE Coalition claims it will have 73 seats, ahead of Labor on 72.

But Tony Crook, the West Australian National who beat Wilson Tuckey, is included in the Coalition total - and Crook has said he is "clearly an independent" and won't sit with the Coalition.

That seems to put Crook in much the same position as Bandt from the Greens, who is supporting Labor.

In which case, Gillard and Abbott can be viewed as having 73 seats each.

* ABBOTT has good reason to be less luvvie-duvvie in dealing with Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter than Gillard has been.

According to a Liberal source: "He doesn't want to be seen by his Coalition partners crawling to three National Party rats."

Coalition disunity, papered over when Abbott became leader, would quickly re-emerge if he was seen to be kow-towing to the trio and granting concessions the Nationals have failed to win.

Abbott needs to ensure that any independents deal is not seen by the Nationals as contrary to their interests.

* ABBOTT'S excuses for initially refusing to let Treasury cost his policies were ridiculous.

First he claimed that "it is very difficult for the public service to understand Opposition policy with the same insight and depth that it has of Government policy."

In that case, why did the Howard government introduce a Charter of Budget Honesty that requires oppositions to submit their policies to Treasury for costing in election campaigns?

Excuse No. 2 was to claim that a leak a few months ago indicated corruption in Treasury. This from the party that, until the forged email scandal last year, had the notorious Godwin Grech as its own highly-placed Treasury mole.

* GILLARD'S sudden enthusiasm for parliamentary reform - one of the things the independents are keen on - exposes her hypocrisy.

During the election campaign she rejected outright proposals to improve Question Time, even though they were similar to ideas she herself had put forward when Labor was in opposition.

Now comes the crunch. The leader who signs up three independents will be prime minister. The sooner the better. Until that happens, cross-benchers in the Lower House will revel in their unaccustomed relevance - and Senate independents like Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding will do their best to gatecrash.

Laurie Oakes is Nine Network political editor. His column appears every Saturday in The Daily Telegraph