Shameless Rudd wields a blunt wedge

KEVIN Rudd has attempted one of the most shameful examples of wedge politics in recent Australian political history.

On Tuesday this week he stood up in parliament and linked his controversial and contested $42 billion stimulus package with aid for victims of the Victorian bushfires.

Speaking during a condolence motion in the parliament, Rudd said: "The Government of Victoria will be able to draw on its estimated $1.5 billion share of the social housing fund to assist families in need as a result of the Victorian bushfires." The look in Rudd's eyes when delivering the statement gave away his political motives.

It is an unseemly thing to talk about the politics of the bushfire tragedy. But in the coming weeks it will develop a strong theme, just as it did in the US following the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

After Rudd made his play at wedge politics, Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull immediately urged the Prime Minister not to tie bushfire assistance to any other legislation, particularly legislation as contested as the stimulus package. He well knew what was going on.

Liberal MPs were furious. One told me: "It shows the measure of the man (Rudd). Politicising the fires and the related tragedies is an absolute outrage." A senior Opposition frontbencher went further: "Can you imagine the gallery response if we tried shit like that?"

Despite a large number of MPs speaking during the condolence motion, Rudd was the only one to link the funding for bushfire victims to the stimulus package.

The PM may have been so moved by his recent visit to the bushfire-affected areas in Victoria that his judgment was put out of whack. Even just reading about the fires and watching the television footage is moving enough. Let's hope that's what motivated Rudd, because the alternative explanation is that he is so politically shrewd (and unscrupulous) that he was prepared to use the suffering and the horror felt by many Australians to put pressure on Opposition MPs to pass his unrelated stimulus package.

If the former was the case, he can of course be forgiven. However, if the latter was his motive, it was an early sign of the kind of politics Rudd will engage in during the coming years.

Many of my academic colleagues shook their heads at John Howard's use of wedge politics during his decade in power. Blocking the Tampa, opposing gay marriage and the Northern Territory Aboriginal intervention are just some of the decisions that led to accusations of wedge politics against Howard. Fair enough. But none of the instances in which Howard employed the wedge tactic sank as low as Rudd's use of it this week.

I'll be interested to see if the usual suspects who criticised Howard for his use of wedge politics flood the opinion pages of the nation's newspapers in the coming weeks to criticise Rudd's more-than-mirroring of Howard's tactics. I doubt it will happen.

Fortunately, Rudd's office and his senior ministerial colleagues immediately recognised their leader's mistake in making the political threat. Treasurer Wayne Swan issued an immediate "clarification", making it clear funding for the bushfires was uncapped and entirely separate from the funding tied to the stimulus package. He should have told the PM.

Jenny Macklin made similar comments, but couldn't help following them up with a little reminder that Rudd's words were not entirely delivered by mistake: "It's really just common sense that if this (stimulus) package does go through the parliament this week, that some of the money could be used by the Victorian Government to rebuild schools (in the affected areas)." Translation: if the Liberals don't pass the stimulus package they are denying bushfire victims much-needed assistance. Welcome back, the wedge.

Wedge politics is unsightly and uninspiring. Craig Emerson agrees. In 2003 the now-Rudd minister made the observation that "the actions of a few are starting to endanger our society. Their actions are tearing apart Australia's social cohesion."

He was talking about Howard's use of wedge politics when blocking the MV Tampa. He went on to describe wedge politics as: "using dirty tactics to divide your opponents from their major public supporters". He could just as easily have been describing his own leader's actions this week. That is, before Rudd's colleagues and staff counselled for a different approach.

Emerson is a man of considerable talent and intellect. His concerns over wedge politics may not be his only area of contestation with Rudd in coming years. He is the Minister assisting the Minister for Finance on deregulation. Rudd has slammed the notion of deregulation in his recent article in The Monthly attacking neo-liberalism. One suspects a title change for Emerson's portfolio responsibilities may be on the cards.

I was not impressed by the wedge politics tactics Howard often embraced during his prime ministership. But Howard went down that path only in the second half of his prime ministership, and he did so only on policy scripts he, albeit sometimes misguidedly, believed in. It was, perhaps, a symptom of hubris that can develop in a long-term government. But Rudd has used an even more egregious example of wedge politics in his first 18 months in the job.

What should we expect in the future?

Peter van Onselen is an associate professor of politics and government at Edith Cowan University. The payment for this article will be donated to the bushfire appeal.