Truth better than fiction

FORMER prime minister John Howard's devastatingly complete memoir should end the time-wasting what-if debate about his handling of the succession of the Liberal Party leadership but, of course, it won't.

There are sufficient Howard-haters in the media determined to attempt to smear the reputation of Australia's second-longest serving leader to ensure that no stone will be left un-thrown if there is the slightest off-chance of scoring a glancing blow. My colleague, the venerable and venerated Laurie Oakes, claims that the extracts of Howard's 711-page book, Lazarus Rising, provide proof to establish that on the leadership question, Howard, in effect, says: "It was all about me". That is a particularly narrow view of the argument Howard sets out at length, and might reflect more on Laurie's long-held opinion of Howard than the less emotional evidence-based position Howard puts forward. Any reading beyond the initial extracts would indicate that it was all about providing the Coalition with its best chance of winning. Loyal readers of The Sunday Telegraph are in the fortunate position of having had access to the inside story all along. As this writer noted in these pages on May 14, 2006, Howard was considering vacating the leadership later that year. "For the first time in the 10 years of the Howard prime ministership, some political minds with close ties to the Howard camp are now admitting that, just as in 1996, when Howard mused that he thought the times would suit his leadership, so, as 2006 advances, the times may suit an elegant departure ... "Howard does not want to linger as a lame duck prime minister and would certainly not wish to create a by-election in his seat of Bennelong, yet he would probably wish to ensure that the handover gives both the new prime minister and new treasurer time to work together before they face their first election. "A transferral of the leadership at the end of the year, in December perhaps, would permit Howard to go to the back bench, where he could provide advice as the elder statesman through an election in late March or April, before the next federal Budget. "The view, held by some, that Howard and his wife and closest political confidante, Janette, had their hearts set on staying at Kirribilli House until the September 2007 Sydney meeting of APEC leaders seems to have lost currency. Howard doesn't need to host regional powerbrokers on his home turf to demonstrate to Australians that he enjoys close ties with the most powerful figures in the world. He has already shown that, and some. "Those who say that the times may soon favour the Howard-Costello transition also note that Howard had no qualms about leaving (Treasurer Peter) Costello to bask in post-budget glory as he took off for Washington, Ottawa and Dublin last Friday, and that he has not been at all uneasy as Costello has broadened his commentary in recent months to talk on topics well beyond his portfolio." In his memoir, Howard writes revealingly of his relationship with Costello and contrasts the support he received from members of the Liberal Party with that received by his Treasurer. He says that after the 2004 election victory he began thinking of retirement, musing: "If I stayed and fought yet another election, and were successful, that would take me to 70 before I might properly step down. I thought that would be too long and tempting fate. "My wife Janette and I kicked the issue around, and I concluded that it would be in the party's best interests, all things being equal, if I retired before the 2007 election, giving my successor, who I assumed would be Costello, plenty of time to establish himself. "From early 2005 this became my working assumption; it was not set in cement - nothing like that could ever be - but it was to remain my working assumption until blown apart by the events of July 2006." "For myself, I felt that I would need to leave my successor at least a year in the saddle before facing the people. That would mean a retirement before Christmas 2006," he said, which readers of The Sunday Telegraph learnt in May 2006. This newspaper's readers were also the first to see the unravelling of that plan when Glenn Milne broke the story that former Howard minister Ian McLachlan believed there had been a deal made at a meeting in 1994, two years before the Howard government came to office, in which Howard had agreed to hand over the prime ministership to Costello after two terms. McLachlan had told a number of people about his view that there was a deal, but all seemed to be of the opinion that whatever agreement may have been canvassed two years before an election delivered victory was hardly likely to stand the test of political reality and his claim was ignored until Milne revived it with Costello's blessing. That proved to be a costly mistake. Costello could have continued to let the matter ride, as he had for the past 12 years, and he would have been passed the leadership baton without incident toward the end of the year. By making an issue of the matter, he drew the spotlight upon himself and his lack of support within the party was revealed. Setting aside any antipathy that Howard may justifiably have felt, he certainly could no longer contemplate handing the leadership to someone who was so obviously on the outer with so many of his colleagues. As Howard writes: "If this drama had not occurred or had been effectively cauterised, there would have been little pressure on me to say anything about my future until the approach to Christmas. "In those circumstances I would have gone then, allowing Costello a full year within which to make his mark as PM; that however was not to be." Playing what-if is always a singularly useless pastime to be enjoyed only by the self-indulgent. Those who believe that they are political savants would be better served reading Howard's book and learning real-life lessons from a master.