Rule of reckless vows

THE Rudd Government is at risk of becoming little more than an over-promising, under-delivering administration. However, Kevin Rudd's political dominance is blinding him to this looming reality. The first full calendar year of the Labor Government is coming to an end and the early indications are that the Prime Minister is more salesman than leader, watering down the policy detail of his pre-election rhetoric and using further rhetorical flights of fancy to sell new initiatives he simply won't achieve.

The latest example came last week when Rudd committed to halving the number of homeless in Australia from 100,000 to 50,000 by 2020. As Tony Abbott pointed out, at least Bob Hawke set a time frame by which he could be held to account with his failed "no child will be living in poverty by 1990" pledge.

The list of over-promised and under-delivered commitments by Rudd is long.

As Opposition leader, Rudd described climate change as "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time". He identified the need for Australia to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a huge 60 per cent by 2050. Rudd told us we couldn't afford to wait for the rest of the world; Australia needed to lead the way.

Yet the Government has now committed to a lowly 5 per cent emissions reduction by 2020, only likely to increase if the rest of the world follows suit.

Rudd's lower emissions target might be economically prudent, but retreating from his earlier rhetoric has left environmentalists feeling betrayed. Rudd continues to disingenuously stand by the 2050 target of a 60 per cent reduction, knowing full well he is unlikely to even be alive to witness the nation's failure to reach it.

Poor standards in public health care led Rudd to commit to a federal takeover of Australia's 750 public hospitals, pending approval by referendum, if state governments didn't lift their game by mid-2009. "The buck stops with me," Rudd boldly declared, committing on his website to "fixing public hospitals". More recently his website has been amended to read "improving public hospitals" and the PM's rhetoric on any federal takeover has also softened.

Part of Rudd's pitch on public hospital improvements was a more general commitment to "end the blame game" between state and commonwealth governments. Co-operative federalism has been a rhetorical catchcry for Rudd ever since his first speech as Opposition leader.

Actions speak louder than words.

The leader of the Government in the Senate, Chris Evans, was asked in parliament why the new West Australian Liberal Treasurer, Troy Buswell, had not been invited to a gathering of state Labor treasurers ahead of the recent Council of Australian Governments meeting. Evans told parliament, "I would regard it as quite prudent not to invite Mr Buswell to certain meetings: not because he is from WA, not because he is a Liberal but because of his own personal characteristics that many of us find offensive."

This, of course, is an outrageous position to take. Apart from WA being the engine room of the Australian economy, excluding an elected treasurer of a state government from an important meeting during the greatest financial crisis since the Depression shows a contempt for democracy. It certainly does not represent co-operative federalism. Rudd should have insisted Evans recanted his spiteful hissing.

The PM's pledge to initiate "nothing less than a revolution in education" is a sign of further rhetorical overreach. According to Mao Zedong, a revolution is "an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another". The steadily receding promise to provide every high school student with a laptop computer as well as high-speed broadband for primary schools hardly amounts to a revolution.

Denise Bradley's review into higher education called this month for a huge injection of funding coupled with significant reforms. The early indications are that Labor will shy away from the more complex recommendations, as have previous governments that have looked to reform the higher education sector.

Joe Hockey lampooned Rudd in parliament in November for declaring war on everything from drugs and inflation to poker machines and bankers' salaries.

Even Rudd couldn't avoid a smirk on his face before responding to the question. The list exposed the vacuous nature of much of the PM's first year in office.

In each of these policy areas Rudd's delivery has not matched his rhetoric and it doesn't look likely to match up any better in 2009.

There is a brace of additional, albeit relatively minor, promises that the Government has broken. For example, before the election Rudd committed a Labor government to instituting "legal proceedings against (Iran's) President Ahmadinejad on a charge of incitement to genocide". In October, Rudd wheeled out Foreign Minister Stephen Smith to admit they would be doing nothing of the sort.

When Japan began its annual whaling hunt during the final term of the Howard government, Rudd said Australia should "take Japan to international courts such as the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to end the slaughter of whales".

In government, Rudd has done no such thing, mindful of the diplomatic impact court action might have on our relationship with Japan.

When Peter Costello tried to steal the election with a $34 billion tax cut package, Rudd cleverly matched it, including the 2011-12 aspirational tax cut targets. The Government has already taken those targets off the table, declaring them unachievable.

The problem for Labor is that it is unlikely to learn from its mistake of rhetorical overreach. The Opposition is in no position to hold the Government to account. Good government requires good Opposition; however, Coalition infighting, Liberal leadership woes and the poor performance of deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop have combined to distract the conservatives from their main task.

In the eyes of the electorate the global financial crisis has also cemented Labor as the party best placed to steer Australia through the present economic uncertainty. During times of crisis voters usually place their faith in the incumbent. John Howard benefited from this phenomenon after the September 11 terrorist attacks just as Rudd is benefiting from it now.

Opinion polls put Labor further in front of the Coalition than it was at the landslide election victory in November 2007, and Rudd's personal approval ratings are higher at this stage of a first term than they have been for any previous prime minister since Newspoll began. There is therefore no political need for Rudd to continue to overstate his Government's agenda.



During the past decade the skill of state Labor governments' at winning elections has not been matched by good governance. NSW is a standout example.



The federal Labor Government is at risk of replicating the performance of recent state administrations: successful in the context of the short-term electoral cycle but ultimately remembered for a failure to get things done.

Thomas Peters, a former McKinsey & Company management consultant and best-selling author of In Search of Excellence, coined the phrase "under-promise and over-deliver" as the recipe for success.

Rudd is doing the exact opposite.

History will judge him harshly if his achievements don't catch up with his rhetoric

Peter van Onselen is an associate professor of politics and government at Edith Cowan University.