Rudd is all talk and no voter pain

A NAGGING feeling emerges from the prime ministership of Kevin Rudd. Increasingly, he looks like a no-pain Prime Minister. For a leader who has built up enormous political capital through consistently high poll ratings since his election in 2007, Rudd has done nothing of great substance. The old adage of no pain, no gain does not apply under Rudd. On the contrary, he relies on no pain and all gain: inflict no pain on voters to continue the political gain for Rudd.

The Rudd government's handouts during what was billed as the looming great recession appear to have taught the Prime Minister an early lesson. Australians happily banked their so-called stimulus cheques, parents smiled and sub-contractors busily inflated their prices to build taxpayer-funded Julia Gillard memorial school halls. The smiling punters have kept Rudd's prime ministership secure. In other words, no pain for punters means all gain for the Prime Minister.

The same rule applied when Rudd pursued an emissions trading scheme before the recent meeting in Copenhagen. The Rudd government had no choice but to table the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation given its promises at the 2007 election. But the dilemma was clear. An ETS with the kind of serious targets required if climate change were truly the greatest moral challenge of our time - as Rudd claimed during the election campaign - would have delivered financial pain to voters. And that would have meant political pain for the government.

So what did the government do? It softened the targets 'til they fell below the pain threshold and promised compensation to everyone who squealed loud enough. Rudd and his ministers spoke in catchy and uplifting platitudes about the ETS but put little effort into explaining the detail.

The last thing the government wanted was for the average voter to understand what the ETS was and how much it would cost. Accordingly, Rudd must have been relieved the ETS was knocked back by the Senate. He can now blame the rejection of his election promise by the Senate on a perfidious opposition. And he can continue to grandstand on climate change knowing that, in the lead-up to the next election, he will not be inflicting any financial pain on voters. Once again, the Rudd rule of politics applies: no pain for voters means all gain for Rudd.

Happily for Rudd, the pattern was repeated at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last week. Nothing of substance happened in the Danish capital. This is what happens at most UN gabfests. Talk and grandstanding from leaders looking for photo opportunities to send back home. Then, when the real work starts, each country pursues its national interest.

The result is no agreement and no great surprise. Copenhagen was always going to get bogged down in precisely the way it did. Developed countries want to move beyond Kyoto to lock in accountable emission reduction targets from the developing world. The developing world wants none of that, given the high price it will inflict on its economic growth and its people. Instead, underdeveloped countries want a huge stream of money directed their way from rich countries such as Australia. For countries in Africa and elsewhere, climate change is a cover for a gravy train of aid. A global agreement fell over for one principal reason, the delicate matter of money. Leaders baulked when it came to inflicting financial pain on their people, through capped emissions (in the case of developing countries) or a financial stream (from the developed world). That is the sharp end of the politics of climate change. Moral arguments counted for nought.

It is disappointing if this is now the politics of Rudd's prime ministership. Despite Rudd's tendency to conflate issues as moral challenges, he appears to view every political decision through one prism: inflict no pain and it's all gain for him. As a "friend of the chair" at the climate change conference, Rudd was able to feed his UN-sized ego on the world stage without making any hard political decisions that would affect his home constituency. Here, in a nutshell, is Rudd's political nirvana. He can continue a prime ministership based on rhetorical flourishes and symbolism without inflicting any pain on voters.

The problem with Rudd's rule is it means that he is fast becoming a Prime Minister who lacks the spine to make tough decisions needed to expand an economy. Inevitably, all political leaders weigh up the political costs of their decisions. But the best prime ministers of the past were bold enough to make decisions in the greater national interest. The restructuring of the Australian economy under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating inflicted short-term pain on many Australians for longer term bigger gains for more Australians.

Similarly, John Howard restructured the workforce to deliver gains to workers and the wider economy. Alas,his government's Work Choices overstepped the pain barrier, which led to the Coalition's ousting.

By contrast, there is little sign of political bravery in the national interest from Rudd. Consider the federal government's recent decision to shelve plans for a much needed new Sydney airport at Badgery's Creek. By stalling that decision - it has been sent to a committee that will report by 2011 - Rudd has stuck to his modus operandi of no pain, all gain in the lead-up to the next election. Same story on the health system. Rudd's grand promise of taking over responsibility for health if the states did not lift their game has been sidelined as a political cost that he will not wear. We will have to wait for the next budget for further confirmation of the Rudd rule of politics. But already the pattern of his political strategy points to a budget that will be premised on bolstering Rudd's political success rather than one that addresses the needs of the nation.

Rudd is a smart politician. He has no power base or natural support within the Labor Party. His leadership hinges on poll results and nothing else. The moment those numbers dip, he is on shaky ground within his own party. Accordingly, he has refused to do anything that will upset the voters until the next election. Another win will secure his position for a while longer, but not much longer. Even with his no-pain strategy, Rudd will inevitably have to confront the growing push for Gillard to become prime minister. When that kicks in, Rudd risks leaving a legacy of having done as little as possible for as long as possible.