Abbott still blind to how he failed his party and people

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke

Speaking with Viewpoint’s Chris Kenny on Sky News last Sunday, Tony Abbott set out his motivation for being in politics: “It’s about the party, the government and ultimately the country. That’s what it’s about. It’s not about me.” And again, a few minutes later, the former prime minister said: “I serve the party, I serve the government, I serve the people. That’s what I want to do.”

It is a deeply laudable and most humble aspiration. Yet it’s not yet clear that Abbott understands how he failed to live up to that aspiration as prime minister.

Certainly, Abbott has come a long way since the party turned to Malcolm Turnbull last September. That the former prime minister appeared relaxed and comfortable on Sunday during his first major interview during this election campaign is a good sign both personally and professionally.

The past eight months have provided Abbott with time to reflect, learn and heal. And yet maybe not enough time has passed for him to truly reflect, learn and heal.

Before the The Delusional Conservatives (so aptly labelled by Miranda Devine) rise up in feverish fury to defend Abbott, this is neither an attack on the former prime minister, nor cheerleading for the current Prime Minister.

As Abbott should understand, when you’re in public office, and you choose to remain there for another three years, what you say will be judged against what you did and what you do.

The deliberately false dichotomy that any criticism of Abbott is a sure sign of blinkered support for Turnbull is entirely irrational.

The DelCons would rather see Bill Shorten become prime minister to vindicate their loathing of Turnbull. That, too, is irrational. Politics is not about spurned friends in a kindergarten playground. It’s a contest of ideas, a search for good government for the sake of the people, and holding to account a government that fails on that basic measure. When politics stops being about that, we, the people, lose.

Australians expect little more from their government than that it be economically responsible and that it genuinely defend our basic freedoms and respect voters.

To pick up on Abbott’s benchmark, we expect politicians to serve their party, their government and the people. The Rudd government failed that test by trashing the Labor brand, failing to deliver good government and ultimately betraying the people. The Gillard government repeated that disaster, as did the reprised Rudd government.

In 2013, millions of Australians placed their hope in Abbott as the man who could put the country back on track after seven years of fiscal recklessness, diabolic and deadly policy failures and political dysfunction. Certainly Abbott has a record to defend as prime minister. As he told Kenny on Sunday: “The boats were stopped and they stay stopped. The carbon tax and the mining taxes are gone and we want to keep them gone. The free trade agreements that no one said we could ever finalise are done, and they will set the country up for decades. Very serious infrastructure is under way.”

He added budget repair to his record. Yet on this critical issue, Abbott failed. He underestimated the task and did not treat voters with respect. He was removed from office less than two years into the job because he didn’t meet his own benchmark of serving the party, the government and the people.

Together with then treasurer Joe Hockey, Abbott presented voters with a tough reforming budget in 2014 with very little preparation except slogans about a budget emergency. The hard task of making the case for serious economic reform wasn’t made to the people prior to or after that first budget. Hockey made one good speech in London to a small roomful of people, wiped his hands in self-satisfaction and assumed the job of explaining the need to rein in the age of entitlement was done.

Remember Hockey’s woeful delusion last October when he said during his farewell address to parliament: “I challenge all and sundry to name a speech in the last 20 years that has influenced the national debate in the way that the end of the age of entitlement speech did.”

Senior Liberals laughed at the claim because that speech had little impact on Australians.

That’s why the 2014 budget failed and then Abbott and Hockey retreated from economic reform in 2015. Hockey failed in the treasurer’s role because he was out of his depth. Yet, Abbott would brook no criticism of his treasurer, even from the most senior Liberals with the best intentions for the party, the government and the people.

Similarly, Abbott refused to accept any criticism about the control and command bunker mentality within his office or the behaviour and judgment of his chief of staff. Not even from those who, once again, were only looking out for the best interests of party, government and people.

This raises another area where Abbott may need more time to reflect — in front of the mirror. Speaking on Sunday about his former chief of staff, now political commentator Peta Credlin, ­Abbott defended her criticism last week of Turnbull as Mr Harbourside Mansion and the government’s superannuation changes as being devious. He said: “I think she’s been riveting viewing.

“Let me say that. I think she’s been riveting viewing. She’s made some powerful calls this week. She’s got to call it as she sees it.

“Her job is not to be a ‘yes’ person for anyone. Her job is to call it as she sees it.’’

Abbott’s repetitive defence of Credlin and his new-found respect for commentators who call it as they see it brought a wry smile to the faces of some in the media. As prime minister, Abbott personally lambasted some of us on the conservative side of politics who criticised his decisions and his office. Unlike his predecessor John Howard, who respected criticism from the Right even when he didn’t agree with it, there was no sign that Abbott understood it was our role to call it as we saw it.

Sometimes on the day of publication, the beep-beep of his incoming texts sounded out over many hours as he attacked both character and motive. As prime minister, Abbott assumed that all those who shared his basic values about individual freedom and responsibility, smaller government and so on, would be cheerleaders to defend his every move.

He seemed to expect student politics tribalism even when, as prime minister, he broke promises, turned his back on free speech, failed on economic reform, and ­allowed his office to diminish the office of the prime minister.

While blind loyalty might be common on the collective Left, on the other side of the ideological divide, intellectual honesty tends to trump echo chamber tribalism. Why? Because of a steadfast belief that leaders should serve their party, their government and the people. And when they don’t live up to that benchmark, they will be held to honest account.

[e-mail]