Former prime ministerial foes offer timely lessons

Like most Australian voters — even, tellingly, those in John Howard’s seat of Bennelong — this newspaper concluded it would be safe to call an end to the Howard era, 10 years ago this week, and install the self-proclaimed “economic conservative” Kevin Rudd as prime minister. There were two fundamental changes that could not be foreseen in 2007. One was how readily Mr Rudd would shed his veneer of economic conservatism, condemn what he dubbed “extreme capitalism” and proclaim the virtue of social democracy as he overreacted in the face of the global financial crisis. “Ironically,” he famously wrote, “it now falls to social democracy to prevent liberal capitalism from cannibalising itself.” He spent and borrowed at unprecedented rates. This was not the deal to which voters had subscribed. Nor had they expected the other lasting surprise that was directed at Mr Rudd rather than by him — the descent of our politics into a petulant, reckless and self-defeating cycle of leadership assassinations and remorse. To this day we suffer the consequences of these changes: a fiscal trough of debt and deficit; and a political valley of long-term problems and short-term solutions.

While Mr Rudd’s record in power is problematic, his views about how Labor used its factionalism and duplicity against him, without any regard for the democratic processes that installed him, are insightful and pertinent; even considering his understandable sense of personal resentment. “The Australian people were just stunned by such a deep assault on their trust in the political process on something as fundamental as the prime ministership of the country,” Mr Rudd said. He is right. That breach of faith echoes still. Voters, whether pleased or disappointed in a prime minister’s performance, expect the opportunity to pass judgment on them, except when they retire or fall in extraordinary circumstances. Mere political expediency is not sufficient reason — it is the currency of the political class rather than voters.

Both the prime minister vanquished 10 years ago and the one who replaced him worry about the rise of political apparatchiks in their respective parties, arguing the lack of experience outside politics leads to a poll-focused and insular approach. There is likely to be much truth in this yet, especially on the Coalition side; inexperienced MPs with pre-parliamentary careers outside politics were instrumental in first-term leadership ructions. “They reach for the numbers gun too readily and that is particularly marked on the Labor side but is developing on our side as well,” Mr Howard said, bemoaning how Tony Abbott fell. “Yes, he made mistakes, but there were huge transactional costs in removing him and not the least of those was the huge expectations that fell upon (Malcolm) Turnbull’s shoulders that he was going to change things. Political parties change leaders for political advantage and when they don’t get that political advantage, the let-down is all the more severe.”

With the Coalition’s single-seat majority under threat in a by-election for his old electorate, Mr Howard laments the lack of economic reform delivered by either of his Liberal Party successors. Political pressure points abound, so the prescription for revival is a vexed question. To take on board the lessons of both former prime ministers is to accept that yet another leadership switch would not be a cure but an entrenchment of the disease. The answer then must be in Mr Turnbull’s hands and in the ability of his team to unite behind a plan.

By this precarious state the Prime Minister should have realised that he has little to lose and everything to gain. Continuation down an uncertain path has the look of inevitable demise about it. Believed to be planning a ministerial reshuffle at year’s end, he should make it dramatic. Previously we have called for the recall of Mr Abbott to cabinet — as an act of reconciliation and to make best use of Coalition firepower. This really should not wait any longer. But Mr Turnbull could go much further, promoting an array of talent to refresh his line-up. Angus Taylor and Alan Tudge should go in to cabinet and Andrew Hastie could be given a start in a junior role, as could Linda Reynolds and Nicolle Flint. The Coalition parties can embrace renewal without resorting to leadership upheaval. Any personnel shake-up must flow through to policy reform. Talk of tax cuts is one thing, but a serious package that shifts the burden from income taxes to indirect taxes would give the government something worthwhile to fight for; it also might redress the vertical fiscal imbalance that undermines accountability across our federal system. And energy remains the highest priority for decisive action. Instead of fiddling with his national energy guarantee, Mr Turnbull ought to formally push off the nation’s Paris emissions reduction targets until he can resolve the crisis in power pricing and security. Labor will oppose this tooth and nail; it is a battle worth having. Unless a government is forging ahead with a worthwhile agenda, it leaves itself at the mercy of its opponents.