Be wary of pollies who labour to hide the truth

IN the past few days we have seen politics stripped bare - and it has been ugly. We often fear our politicians are less than honest, and we have seen minister after minister, MP after MP, lining up to share what they now say is their honest view; it just happens to be the direct opposite to what they have said in the past.

Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan, for instance, last year said: "What I can say about Kevin is that he's doing a good job, a terrific job as foreign minister." this week the Treasurer said: "He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott prime ministership, and now he undermines the government at every turn.

"He was the party's biggest beneficiary, then its biggest critic but never a loyal or selfless example of its values and objectives."

When Communications Minister Stephen Conroy was asked 18 months ago whether he could happily work with Rudd, he said, "Absolutely, absolutely". This week, however, he said the former prime minister "had contempt for the cabinet, contempt for the cabinet members, contempt for the parliament".

Julia Gillard said in December she was "obviously delighted with the work that Kevin Rudd is doing as foreign minister" yet this week she referred to his "chaotic" style and disloyalty, noting that "we see all of the evidence in our newspapers every day, there has been a concerted campaign here".

Then, of course, there has been Rudd himself. In his midnight Sky News interview last Saturday, he denied that a challenge was brewing and said: "We have a prime minister, I'm the foreign minister, I'm trying to get on with the job of doing Australia's foreign policy."

We could run an extended Cut & Paste column like this that would fill the entire newspaper. One of the consequences of all this is the breakdown of trust between politicians and the public. It also gives us a unique insight into the symbiotic but fraught relationship between the media and politics.

In the constant intrigue and mischief that filters between politics and journalism, a major misapprehension many politicians and journalists share is an overestimation of the power and influence of the media. This is precisely why the Canberra media-political bubble becomes distant from perceptions in the heartland - simply because they focus too much on story selection and commentary and not enough on the assessments of the public.

In short, the great Australian mainstream sees what transpires and makes up its own mind. It is as dismissive of the commentary as it is of the politicians. People have highly tuned bulldust detectors, and they can spot what is going on. No spin will deflect them.

The unstoppable force in these events is the major decisions made by the leading players, and the way they are assessed by the public. That is why, in my view, it has been clear since at least the middle of last year (when I first wrote about it) that this contest would arrive.

If Gillard had governed well, she would have been unassailable. But she broke faith with the public by reneging on her carbon tax promise, and lurched from one mistake to another. So with Labor flatlining in the polls, and Gillard's credibility irrecoverable, leadership was bound to be considered. Because of the recent history Labor created for itself, Rudd has always been the only plausible leadership option. That doesn't mean he will topple Gillard - although either next week or in the months ahead he might - but he is the only option, besides sticking with Gillard to the next election. This is because the public did not take kindly to having their choice as prime minister overturned in the dead of night by caucus. If Labor is to change again, it must be back to the man the public put there in the first place.

The media has played a crucial role in trying to tell us what has really been happening. From the dying days of the Rudd government to the months leading up to the current conflagration, much of the Canberra press gallery either did not understand what was going on, or did not deign to tell us.

Many in what I like to call the love media - the publicly funded and other progressive media - failed to report the failings of the Rudd and Gillard governments. They either ignored or sat on doubts and misgivings that were apparent even within government, presumably worried about the repercussions or hoping things would improve. They even criticised the journalists who sought to expose what was going on - and yes, most of them (but not all) have been News Limited journalists.

Journalists such as this newspaper's John Lyons exposed Rudd's difficult style as prime minister, and political editor Dennis Shanahan, and The Daily Telegraph's Simon Benson have been well ahead of the curve on revealing leadership tensions.

Now Gillard, Rudd, Swan, Nicola Roxon, Simon Crean and many others are telling us exactly what has transpired since 2010 - and we discover that these diligent journalists were exposing the truth. Yet none other than the nation's Communications Minister had dubbed them and their colleagues the "hate media" and accused them of campaigning for "regime change". He even established a media inquiry to consider more legislative control.

Just three weeks ago on the ABC, Swan said: "The great bulk of the coverage that I read is just completely divorced from reality ... but that's the media environment we live in at the moment."

Since then, many in the media have been vindicated and Swan has completely changed his version of reality. Some media were pinpointing the truth, and the politicians were hiding it.

The events of these past years will provide many lessons about how not to run governments and political parties. But they should also demonstrate, loud and clear, that for all the foibles of the fourth estate, we should always be wary of politicians who attack and seek to stifle the nation's media.