Both respect the triangular processes of the partyroom, the parliament and the Australian people when it comes to choosing leaders. They understand the uneasy mix of party processes, the workings of the Westminster system and the realities of an emerging presidential style of politicking.
Revelations in this masthead that Joe Hockey believed he had a deal with Abbott to take over the leadership say more about Hockey’s failure to understand the rigour of what’s required to make it to the top than the veracity of any deal done.
Side chats about natural successors are common in politics. I remember Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin, being criticised for making such an observation about Hockey while both men were still in office. From memory I was one of those critics.
But such discussions do not automatically amount to a deal done, far from it. Certainly not when they are discussions had with traditionalists such as Abbott and Howard. Both of whom had to fight to get to where they did. They were gifted nothing. Any seasoned politician should know that, and Hockey was a seasoned politician.
So was Peter Costello, who thought he had an iron clad deal with Howard all those years ago. Loose understanding, sure. Iron clad deal, there is no such thing. Certainly not in the Liberal Party where marshalling support is like herding cats.
These types of assumptions all steam from the deal done at Kirribilli House between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating ahead of the 1990 election. But Labor Party politics is very different, as is the rigidity of its factional system. Ultimately who leads is a preserve of the same forces as it is within the Liberal Party, but when factional leaders are present for age of entitlement deals, they can be a little more rigid than on the conservative side of the divide.
Even then history tells us Hawke didn’t honour the deal. That should have been enough of a lesson for Costello and Hockey to learn from. They aren’t worth the paper they weren’t written on.
None of which is to take away from the story today, just to be clear. Hockey said what he said. My colleague Troy Bramston pushed him over and over to clarify there was no misunderstanding between them about what Hockey was claiming. It was a very good get, and there was no misunderstanding between Hockey and Bramston. The misunderstanding was between Hockey and Abbott. The latter has already declared the supposed deal “fake news” in a statement.
— Tony Abbott (@HonTonyAbbott) April 7, 2022
Irrespective of who is overplaying and who is underplaying whatever might have been said, the fact that Hockey was focusing in on such things at a time when the Abbott government was under so much pressure perhaps helps explains why it wasn’t able to pull itself out of the quagmire. Why it wasn’t able to thwart the Malcolm Turnbull coup.
Hockey was always the hope of the side for moderate Liberals, until he wasn’t. They eventually turned to Turnbull instead, before he also let them down. Hockey had been around for a long time, showing signs of being capable of stepping up and into a leadership role. But in the end the fellow who said he wanted to end the age of entitlement believed that a side chat with an incumbent PM entitled him to taking over in an orderly manner sooner rather than later. When that didn’t happen he took a government appointed posting overseas instead.
Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University
Biggest drag on our nation is ineptitude of government
After my experience of governments for more almost four decades, having always tried to work with government from the non-government side, I have to confess to being an unbeliever.
China cannot change who we are
The Prime Minister must devote more time and effort to the US relationship. Regardless of Australia’s current warmer relationship with China, the latter’s strategic ambitions in Asia are fundamentally different from Australia’s view.
If I had to name two politicians in the modern era who wouldn’t agree to gift the Liberal Party leadership to a colleague, much less the prime ministership, they would be John Howard and Tony Abbott. And not necessarily in that order.