Demonisation of Abbott is Labor's new game plan

THIS week Labor "did an Abbott". It launched a scare campaign against Tony Abbott drawing a link between the alleged student thug and aspiring prime minister who, Labor insisted, would punch holes in the education, health and public service job budgets.

Labor's hopes of political revival are vested, above all, in the demonisation of Abbott. The aim is to foment such distrust of Abbott that the public falters at the prospect of electing him.

Labor's tactic was given three useful hooks this week: by Campbell Newman, Barry O'Farrell and David Marr in his Quarterly Essay. Much of this, at face value, seemed pure political gold.

The subtext is unmistakable. Labor's message is that Abbott is a bully, a student who used punches to intimidate a woman, and a leader who will smash core services to the community. Its crudity is elemental. Labor, understandably, enjoys giving Abbott a return dose of his own medicine.

The intent is to fan suspicion of his character, notably among female voters. But this is a tricky and explosive project for politicians and the media. And it contains serious dangers for both Labor and Liberal.

First, Australia has never seen such a mainstream "gender war" campaign against a candidate for prime minister and the reaction of the public may not go to plan. Some people may decide that Abbott is a misogynist; others may conclude that Labor's desperation is exposed along with its personal slurs.

Second, the comparison made this week between the scrutiny of Abbott's and Gillard's past is false - the concerns about Gillard (documented in the mainstream media as distinct from the social media's sexist attacks on her) related to her professional life as a legal partner, while those about Abbott concern his personal life as a university student. The difference is fundamental. This point is also critical in assessing the mainstream media ethics on such issues.

Abbott denies Marr's 1977 "punch" story in relation to his student opponent, Barbara Ramjan.

A mere 35 years later it is impossible to know what happened, nor does it have any intrinsic importance for current politics.

Meanwhile, the actions of Liberal premiers Newman and O'Farrell have signalled a sea-change in politics. Harsh times have arrived. Individuals and families are being hurt by fiscal changes from Melbourne to Brisbane. Public-sector jobs are being cut to reflect budget reality.

In NSW, once guaranteed school funds are reduced. New state royalty increases are hitting an angry mining industry.

And the Gillard government is not exempt. It will be forced into fresh savings and tax increases this year to achieve its budget surplus. Inflated community expectations across Australia are being thumped.

The two-speed economy and softening revenues are unleashing new flashpoints and questions. Who is to blame? Who is best to manage tougher times? And who should bear the sacrifices? These are new challenges for Gillard and Abbott.

Newman has burst Queensland's lotus land debt bubble bequeathed by Labor. In bringing down the toughest budget for a generation, Treasurer Tim Nicholls says debt was heading to an incredible $86 billion by 2014-15. Such fiscal restraint by Newman was essential, but now casts him as poster boy for federal Labor.

Wayne Swan put it best: "What we are seeing is a clear warning. We are getting a sneak preview of what an Abbott government would do to health and education nationally. Today we have had news from NSW of some of the biggest cuts in education in 20 years. This is what Liberals do. They take the axe to health and education."

All week it was a conga line of ministers on the horror show of the Liberal premiers: Tanya Plibersek, Peter Garrett, Bill Shorten, Nicola Roxon, David Bradbury. They promise to whip up a frenzy.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing, Catherine King, led the field, declaring that Newman's cuts to the DonateLife network were "putting the lives of Queenslanders at risk".

As Acting Prime Minister, Swan led with his chin. "Some have called Campbell Newman a bully," he said. "But what we know about the Leader of the Opposition is that he is a thug."

It was an effort to tie Abbott's alleged 1977 student punch to the current crackdown on jobs and services. Swan was compelled to withdraw but still struck a tangential blow: "The only thing worse than a Liberal cutting jobs is three Liberals cutting jobs." Not bad on the run.

Marr's anecdote, however, got oxygen because it was too good to ignore - the product of his keen eye, Labor's tactics and the media coverage. By week's end a former Labor candidate, David Patch, an Abbott foe from university days, claimed in the Fairfax papers that Abbott's intimidatory punch did occur and, on cue, female Labor politicians Penny Wong and Deborah O'Neill said Abbott had to explain. O'Neill went much further and accused Abbott of lying, thereby throwing more petrol on the flames.

It is part of an emerging Labor tactic. Female Labor ministers, notably Roxon and Plibersek, have previously questioned Abbott's capacity to manage women with respect.

Sooner or later his wife and three daughters inevitably will be dragged into this fracas to defend the character of their husband and father. Ultimately, this is the necessary reply despite the efforts of his deputy, Julie Bishop, who says she has worked closely with Abbott for 14 years and he has never once raised his voice with her. Nor, evidently, did he punch a nearby wall.

Given these events, Abbott had to keep a low media profile this week. But his fears were apparent; triggered by O'Farrell's schools policy, witness Abbott's exhortation to the partyroom saying support for private and Catholic schools was "in our DNA". Indeed, Abbott has been slammed recently by Labor, not for pledging private school cuts but for his generosity towards private, as opposed to public, schools.

In the end O'Farrell softened the blow for private schools in an overall $1.7bn school and TAFE saving over four years. But Liberal education cuts play into the Gillard-Swan demonisation. Despite his efforts, Abbott is seeing the carbon tax decline in public profile.

The new politics is far trickier than it seems. Initially, it is an acid test of the political skill of Newman and O'Farrell to sell their tough medicine and persuade people it is justified. The backlash will be strong. Yet if the backlash is led by public-sector unions and pro-Labor special interests then the spectre of Labor denialism - in the sense that Labor caused the problem and now opposes the solution - gives the Liberals an opening. Remember, however, that in the early 1990s Jeff Kennett's hard line in Victoria worked for him but also created problems for the John Hewson-led Coalition.

Gillard and Swan plan to make budget savings an electoral issue by highlighting the different nature of Labor v Liberal savings. This week was a pointer to the tactic. Federal Labor cannot avoid its own harsh decisions but it can differentiate itself from the Liberals by trying to impose the burden on better-off households, resorting to more means testing, elimination of business tax breaks, more defence cuts and selective tax rises. By exempting education and health, Gillard and Swan will seek to reinforce their brand as true Labor.

Yet the current brawl undermines Gillard's own policy credentials. For example, her 10-day-old response to the Gonski report on schools now looks a farce. She held out lofty new aspirations but, as some commentators said, she had no policy, no agreement with the states on funding shares, no agreement on a quantum of new funding for government schools, no agreement with independent schools and no agreement with Catholic schools. Devoid of such agreements, Gillard now sees NSW, the largest state, making education savings in an exercise that reveals her announcement was aspiration before policy.

Marr's essay, filled with dubious assertions, is damaging about Abbott the university student rather than Abbott the Opposition Leader. He brands the student Abbott as a "loudmouth bigot" who now seeks to bury as history his identity as "the homophobe, the blinkered Vatican warrior, the rugger-bugger, the white Australian and the junkyard dog of parliament".

According to Marr, Abbott's problem with women is that in his heart he still dreams of rolling back abortion laws. Yet Marr concedes that this will not happen, Abbott knows it will not happen and that Abbott will not try. Of course, this is an established fact given Abbott's pledges during the 2010 campaign. The abortion issue is going nowhere.

Writing for the converted, Marr offers a sustained tract for those who believe Abbott's temperament and values make him unfit to be PM. Note, however, this is neither Marr's conclusion nor his argument. Marr is too astute and elusive a writer to commit to the pure propaganda line.

Indeed, Marr's central thesis is that in the conflict between the two Abbotts - Politics Abbott and Values Abbott - the result is no contest. "The Abbott that matters is Politics Abbott," Marr concludes. He's right.

It is the Politics Abbott who has brought the Gillard government to its knees. It is the Politics Abbott who Labor has to combat.

Fanciful notions that Labor can defeat Politics Abbott by resorting to a culture and gender war against the Opposition Leader seriously misread the common sense and outlook of the Australian public. The deeper truth, that Labor recognises, is that Politics Abbott is looking less effective than before. Abbott needs to ride harder to convince the public it can trust him to run the country.