Tomorrow marks the ten-year anniversary of one of the most banal and flat speeches given by a Prime Minister-designate.
“Friends, tomorrow, the work begins,” said a jubilant Kevin Rudd. “You can have a strong cup of tea if you want, even an Iced VoVo on the way through. But the celebration stops there.”
Banality aside, Rudd’s election victory was spectacular, and an incredible turnaround for Labor. Only three years prior the Coalition, under Prime Minister John Howard, had not only increased its numbers in the House of Representatives, but also won a majority in the Senate — the first government to do so since 1981.
“The greatest risk which our nation faces is this: the Coalition being returned to office and nothing, repeat nothing, changes,” declared Rudd in the month before his victory, reinforcing perceptions of government stagnation and decrepitude. Howard’s knack for being attuned to public concern had deserted him, thus allowing Labor to portray WorkChoices as the actions of a government abusing its new-found power. Belatedly forced into succession planning, Howard was a lame duck Prime Minister even before the campaign began.
The loss of his seat — a fate that has befallen only two sitting Prime Ministers — was seen as the ultimate repudiation of the Howard era. Certainly, it was an ignominious end. However, his demise has overshadowed what was the second-longest prime ministership and one of the most stable. In the years since the country has seen the leadership change on five occasions, and there are strong indications it will do so again soon. What could the troupe of Howard’s successors — who range from the mediocre to the outright incompetent — have learned from him, but failed to do so?
To begin with, Howard projected stability. Neither charismatic nor dynamic, he was seen by many as mundane and predictable, which was a liability in the 1980s when the personalities of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating dominated. By the time Howard returned as Opposition Leader in 1995 the electorate had wearied of excess, and what was previously his limitation became strength.
Conversely, Rudd cultivated an image that alternated between rock star and philosopher king. Howard for the most part was a careful strategist, ever cognisant of what government could and could not change. Rudd on the other hand was at best an erratic tactician, obsessed with symbolism and the politics of the moment, although admittedly this initially appealed to the luvvie set. “Rudd has established himself as a statesman,” gushed academic Waleed Aly in March 2008. Thought bubbles defined him, as did sugar hits worthy of the world’s biggest Iced VoVo. Howard eschewed the personality cult whereas Rudd sought, and in his honeymoon phase received, adulation.
Critics derided Howard for what they termed his ‘white picket fences’ conservatism, but they could never justly accuse him of departing from his philosophy. Rudd on the other hand was whatever his immediate audience wanted him to be. “I have no intention today of repeating Mr Howard’s irresponsible spending spree,” said a straight-faced Rudd in 2007, describing himself as an “economic conservative”.
Irresponsible spending? Rudd’s fiscal record was replete with impulsive and simplistic quick fixes. What does he say of pink batts, Building the Education Revolution, the National Broadband Network, Grocery Watch and Fuel Watch? As for the stimulus response to the Global Financial Crisis, Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan acted with the restraint of a degenerate gambler. To this day they portray their actions as decisive, heroic and visionary. Their legacy lives on, not in the form of an economy saved, but one of burgeoning debt. Yet only last week Rudd had the audacity to call for a royal commission into the Turnbull government’s “waste of public funds”.
Not only did Howard lay bare his vision, his tenacity was such he pursued it even at the risk of losing government. Taking his proposed taxation reforms to the 1998 election, Howard took a battering and was returned with a reduced majority, yet one that gave him a mandate for the Goods and Services Tax.
“Unless you are maintaining people’s trust and what you say you will do and what you won’t do,” said Rudd in 2008, “then it undermines your ability to lead the country in the future when hard decisions arise.” He had won government promising action on climate change, which he described as “the great moral challenge of our time.” Such was Rudd’s firmness of purpose that he choked at the prospect of a double dissolution and abandoned plans for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, thus losing people’s trust and undermining his ability to lead.
Malcolm Turnbull at least did not baulk at a double dissolution last year. However it was not until weeks into the campaign that he concentrated on its ostensible basis — the reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission — leaving voters with the impression that there was no correlation between his vision and his actions.
Rudd was not the only post-Howard Prime Minister to suffer from perceptions of opportunistic shapeshifting. As Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard had been decisive and formidable. Yet only two months after deposing Rudd she left people bemused in terms of what she stood for. “I think it’s time for me to make sure that the real Julia is well and truly on display,” she said.
Although nowhere near as bad Rudd with respect to indecisiveness, Gillard too was prone to abrogation. Who could forget her harebrained proposal in 2010 to establish a so-called citizens’ assembly to discuss how to respond to climate change? And while Howard was a big believer in conciseness and simplicity of communication, he would never have resorted to meaningless slogans such as “We are us.”
Howard knew well it was folly to try to appease those who despised him, and he did not waste time doing so. That segment of the electorate he treated with polite indifference, which only infuriated them and illustrated their impotent rage. None of the Prime Ministers since has learned the value of that.
While Howard possessed calm self-assurance, he still respected the importance of consultation. Unlike Rudd and Abbott, Howard did not surround himself with advisers to the extent that he alienated colleagues. He employed a canny and seasoned Arthur Sinodinos as his chief of staff. Conversely Rudd’s decision-making circle comprised a kitchen cabinet and youthful, inexperienced advisers, leaving his ministers frustrated and resentful.
“Unlike most heads of incoming governments,” proclaimed The Age in 2008, “he [Rudd] has arrived with an intimate understanding of how the cogs and wheels of the administrative machinery are supposed to fit together.” That editorial, as they say, did not age well. Inexplicably Abbott would repeat Rudd’s mistakes of failing to consult with colleagues and ceding too much power to advisers.
As for Turnbull, little needs to be said on the state of his leadership. “I have never had more fun in my life,” he asserted last month in response to the chaotic staff of affairs, which only served to demonstrate his insincerity.
Sadly, this prime ministerial malaise looks set to continue if and when Opposition Leader Bill Shorten assumes government. As to what he stands for is anyone’s guess, given his tendency, like Rudd, to view principles as something that can be discarded or changed to suit his audience.
If only Howard, in the year before the 2007 election, had arranged for an orderly handover to his faithful Treasurer, Peter Costello. Unlike Rudd and Swan, his response to the GFC would be one of prudence, not panic. Would we even have a budget deficit today?
To paraphrase Rudd, where would we be had the Coalition been returned to office in 2007 and nothing, repeat nothing, had changed?
More Coverage
Miners change tune on climate change
Peak mining industry body The Minerals Council of Australia has joined the fight on climate.
Easy to point the finger
Demanding we abandon coal for climate is akin to asking NZ to give up love affair with sheep.