May 15th; Buderim girl and solo yachtswoman, Jessica Watson sailed into Sydney Harbour, three days shy of her seventeenth birthday. In time, she would become, in betting parlance, an ‘unbackable favourite’ for Young Australian of the Year honours. On May 15th though, the Amelia Earhart of the sea had just completed her round-the-world sailing trip, entering the Heads in the early afternoon of a sunny Sydney Saturday.
Channel Seven, Nine and Ten broadcast her arrival live. A documentary was to follow. A book deal had reportedly already been signed. She was a girl with the world at her feet, as she started to get her land legs back. A little proppy at first, she soon got into stride. For all the vocal critics who had said she was too young, who criticised her for not sailing far enough into the Northern Hemisphere to qualify for having sailed ‘round-the-world,’ this was not their day. It was a day shared by Jessica with admirers of those who follow their dreams, who rise to the challenge and succeed where others before them have failed. It was a day shared with her mum Julie, dad Roger, siblings Tom, Hannah and Emily and best friend Pamela – as well as Kevin Rudd.
Rudd happened to make it to the Sydney Opera House where a large group of admirers had gathered. A Prime Minister with the challenges he faced could not let such an opportunity pass him by. Yet that Saturday not all would go according to plan for Rudd, and soon after his speech wrapped up, he would have been wishing he had not even played a supporting role.
"Jess,” he said, “Welcome back home to Australia. You know something...in the eyes of all Australians you now stand tall as our newest Australian hero." Jessica would have none of it. As she stepped up to the podium, she began by saying; “I’m actually going to disagree with what the Prime Minister just said. I don’t consider myself a hero. I’m an ordinary girl who believed in a dream. You don’t have to be someone special...to achieve anything amazing. You just have to have a dream, believe in it and work hard.”
Rudd seemed to step further into the background. Such was his luck of late, nothing, not even this day, seemed to be going to plan. A sixteen year-old, ineligible to vote, had taken centre stage. The crowd cheered. They believed she’d broken a record, no matter what officialdom said. In the month of June, Rudd would go on to set a record of his own – he would become the first Prime Minister to be dumped by his own party in his first term in office.
Fast forward to Wednesday, June 23. Canberra in winter. And what a cold winter it would turn out to be for the Prime Minister. His role would be taken from him, not by the people that had elected him not three years earlier but rather by his own party, which seemed obsessed with polling data and popularity as the sole purpose of high office.
Sky News would keep thousands of viewers entertained throughout the night of June 23, with reporters standing outside of Parliament House looking in. The cold night air was visible as they spoke, with scarves drawn tightly around their necks and gloves firmly set on chilly hands.
Back in the Sky News studio, political commentators sat in front of the cameras as the broadcast of what was unfolding continued through the night. Never before had a phone conversation that could not be heard, between journalist and Labor Party contact, appeared so enticing, enthralling. Host David Speers was directing the conversation in the studio. Or more likely, he was being directed by the person whose voice he could hear in the microphone he had fitted to his ear. Speers switched back to Ashleigh Gillon outside Parliament House. It was like a game of football with a commentary team, two competitors...and only one winner.
No matter how many visitors Rudd had to his office that night, he would feel anything but popular. Alone and lonely, he would appear that night to confront the media, awaiting anxiously for any news from within the walls of Parliament House. Rudd began:
“Earlier this evening, Julia Gillard came to see me and has requested a ballot for the leadership of the Labor Party. As a result of that request I will be writing to the secretary of the caucus to convene a special meeting of the caucus at 9 o'clock in the morning...a number of factional leaders within the Labor Party no longer support my leadership...I was elected by the people of Australia to do a job. I was not elected by the factional leaders of Australia, of the Australian Labor Party to do a job - though they may be seeking to do a job on me, that's a separate matter.”
Initially, it had been the ABC that had broken the story. According to Chris Uhlmann, there was shock and awe amongst ministers at the speed and voracity with which the move on the leadership had occurred. But even so, Uhlmann wrote; “Although Mr. Rudd looks likely to survive the challenge, news of the attempted coup will undoubtedly weaken him...On Friday, Mr. Rudd will travel to Canada for the ‘Group of 20’ leaders’ meeting.”
They say hindsight is 20-20 vision. Rudd did anything but survive the challenge, and that Friday he would not leave home for Canada and the G-20. An evening can be a long time in politics.
Gillard was the sole nominee for the leadership of the Federal Labor Party that morning of June 24. Though Rudd may have sought support from his colleagues, it was not forthcoming. Australians had not even had the chance to vote in their first female Prime Minister. Paul Howes of the Australian Workers' Union, and other factional leaders such as Bill Shorten of the Victorian Right, had ensured she was installed with their support. Rudd's non-factional background had done him no favours.
As Rudd said farewell to the people that had shown a preference to him over Howard, he gave what could well be his most heartfelt and genuine speech of his Prime Ministership. In part, he said:
“I’m proud of the fact, and some people have probably never heard of this one, that we have a National Organ Transplant Authority. As somebody who borrowed someone else’s aortic valve I feel a particular responsibility for that. There’s nothing like having a bit of somebody else in you, it focusses the mind and in my case also focusses the heart. What I’m really pleased about in the last two months is the organ donation rates for the first time have started to rise. People now are getting transplants because we chose to make a difference. That’s the funny thing about health isn’t it, it has an effect on you.”
Why couldn’t he have spoken that way more often? The people may have gotten to like him after all, even forgiven his use of words like “blubbered,” “zip,” and who could forget “fair suck of the sauce bottle?”
He was to finish with a word about his wife. “The work Therese has done in the community is formidable. And whether it’s disabilities, homelessness, UNICEF. This is a very good person...and one of life’s eternal mysteries is why she ever married me in the first place.”
And he was gone.
Seven months. That’s how long it took for the face of Australian politics to change. An unmarried, childless 48 year-old had replaced the man that lacked the common touch, with constituents and colleagues alike. Kevin ’07 had been unable to convert his popularity from that election year into something that his party could take to the 2010 election with confidence. Julia Gillard must have been aware that the possibility of a similar fate awaiting her was strong. Her tenure as Prime Minister and Federal Labor leader depended on her ability to speak to the crowd, the constituents, not at them. Would we see the fakery of spin or the believability of substance?
The 17th July gave us all a clear indication as to what the voters had to look forward to. Whether Gillard spoke slowly because she wanted to ensure clarity, or whether it was to appeal to the lowest common denominator, one could not be sure. Whether she repeated herself because she had heard that listeners will only remember fifteen percent of what one says, or whether she was determined to be annoying, the Mrs. Marsh of politics, one could be anything but certain. Suffice to say everyone recalled the term 'moving forward' after she announced the federal election would take place on Saturday, August 21st.
Here's a little of what the Prime Minister had to say:
“...I seek a mandate from the Australian people to move Australia forward...this election is about the choice as to whether we move Australia forward or go back...Moving forward, of course, requires conviction...and moving forward means moving forward with plans...Moving forward means moving forward with budget surpluses...Moving forward also means moving forward with stronger protection...Under my leadership, we will move forward, we'll move forward together with a sustainable Australia...this is a moment for all of us to strengthen, to innovate, to learn - in short, to move forwards...”
This was certainly no “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. According to Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard represented a different salesman, but the same dud product. The problem with moving forward was that the voters were uncertain as to where they were being taken. Why? For what? And to whose benefit?
The election awaited both her and Tony Abbott. And wouldn’t the end result prove a surprise to all? Was it possible the move forward could be stalled before the journey had begun?
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Going, going...
Tony Abbott seemed to be on a roll. Kevin Rudd’s popularity was continuing to go south and Julia Gillard, all smiles and jocularity, was having to answer questions about the leadership and her aspirations for Rudd’s job pre-election. A comedian was in the audience, according to Gillard, but the front page photo of her seemed to be airbrushed to make her look ‘prime ministerial,' whatever that meant.
But as the government and the opposition continued to journey towards the election, a bend in the road appeared. Abbott was managing the turn well until he came across Kerry O’Brien and a night on air on The 7.30 Report.
All started well enough until O’Brien asked Abbott how he could promise no new taxes one month and the next month repudiate those comments by promising to increase taxes to fund his paid parental leave scheme. Abbott:
“Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”
Oops. Abbott had just handed the Rudd government more ammunition than he could ever have dreamed of. 'Phoney Tony' was the term being bandied about in the course of the day. And on the very same day, the ALP had rushed to air an ad using that term to say Abbott could not be trusted.
But Abbott's blunder was nothing compared to a report a week earlier. A new month had begun and the paper had just been thrown out the window of the oncoming car. It landed somewhere on the front nature-strip. What was news that fine and sunny late Autumn morning? For one, the insulation program seemd to be anything but forgotten.
The Weekend Australian got straight to the point:
“Officials in Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett’s departments assessed the risk of death or injury under the government’s insulation program to be ‘extreme’ three times in the past three months before the first of four young workers was killed.”
Spokespeople for Garrett as well as for Rudd were reported as saying neither the minister nor the Prime Minister had seen the risk assessment. This seemed to show the insulation program and the deficiencies in its handling and delivery, was anything but ‘dead.’
Who knew what would follow in the coming months? Rudd’s only hope could be that surely it could not get any worse. Surely.
If Tony Abbott was to be believed programs such as insulation were unnecessary at best. That same week, the Opposition Leader had been in the federal electorate of Sturt, marginally Liberal and held by Chris Pyne...for now. He’d been busy inculcating into the minds of children the idea that climate change had little if anything to do with the activities of man, and was anything but a recent phenomenon. As Michael Owen reported in The Weekend Australian, “climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history," referring to the Ice Age and the Dark Ages, Caesar, and Jesus of Nazareth.
What a fun lesson for a Year Five or Year Six student. Yet the question had been raised – if Abbott was close to the truth, then what benefit is obtained from government initiatives such as the insulation program?
As the weekend came to an end, lo and behold, who should be on the TV screen but Tony Abbott? A new liberal ‘campaign ad’ had been launched, with Abbott explaining to the people he had a plan. The unofficial federal election campaign had begun.
On the Monday of 10th May, the media had seen the AC Nielsen poll, published in Fairfax newspapers. The Newspoll had been proven to be anything but a ‘rogue poll’, as some media commentators had hoped only a week earlier. Rudd was in trouble.
Fran Kelly was lucky enough to have Julia Gillard as company that Monday morning. With headphones on and her best and most non-descript answers at the ready, Gillard was placed in the difficult but perhaps not unwelcome position of having to answer questions about the leadership...the leadership of the federal government.
Although Abbott's 'gospel truth gaffe' was generous, it proved not to be enough to help Rudd escape the abyss in which he now found himself.
As the days and weeks went by, it was looking like a potential position, post-politics, with the United Nations, was becoming an attractive proposition for Kevin Rudd. Was this the future he had set for himself? One wondered.
Although President Obama had declared him to be a humble man, surely Rudd’s ego and need for vindication would not allow him to take the easy road. An election victory would provide Rudd with a moment in the sun, a moment to savour. But the question remained as to whether he would be given that opportunity. Going quietly did not seem in his nature. Going was now a distinct possibility.
But as the government and the opposition continued to journey towards the election, a bend in the road appeared. Abbott was managing the turn well until he came across Kerry O’Brien and a night on air on The 7.30 Report.
All started well enough until O’Brien asked Abbott how he could promise no new taxes one month and the next month repudiate those comments by promising to increase taxes to fund his paid parental leave scheme. Abbott:
“Well, again Kerry, I know politicians are gonna be judged on everything they say, but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark, which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth is those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”
Oops. Abbott had just handed the Rudd government more ammunition than he could ever have dreamed of. 'Phoney Tony' was the term being bandied about in the course of the day. And on the very same day, the ALP had rushed to air an ad using that term to say Abbott could not be trusted.
But Abbott's blunder was nothing compared to a report a week earlier. A new month had begun and the paper had just been thrown out the window of the oncoming car. It landed somewhere on the front nature-strip. What was news that fine and sunny late Autumn morning? For one, the insulation program seemd to be anything but forgotten.
The Weekend Australian got straight to the point:
“Officials in Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett’s departments assessed the risk of death or injury under the government’s insulation program to be ‘extreme’ three times in the past three months before the first of four young workers was killed.”
Spokespeople for Garrett as well as for Rudd were reported as saying neither the minister nor the Prime Minister had seen the risk assessment. This seemed to show the insulation program and the deficiencies in its handling and delivery, was anything but ‘dead.’
Who knew what would follow in the coming months? Rudd’s only hope could be that surely it could not get any worse. Surely.
If Tony Abbott was to be believed programs such as insulation were unnecessary at best. That same week, the Opposition Leader had been in the federal electorate of Sturt, marginally Liberal and held by Chris Pyne...for now. He’d been busy inculcating into the minds of children the idea that climate change had little if anything to do with the activities of man, and was anything but a recent phenomenon. As Michael Owen reported in The Weekend Australian, “climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history," referring to the Ice Age and the Dark Ages, Caesar, and Jesus of Nazareth.
What a fun lesson for a Year Five or Year Six student. Yet the question had been raised – if Abbott was close to the truth, then what benefit is obtained from government initiatives such as the insulation program?
As the weekend came to an end, lo and behold, who should be on the TV screen but Tony Abbott? A new liberal ‘campaign ad’ had been launched, with Abbott explaining to the people he had a plan. The unofficial federal election campaign had begun.
On the Monday of 10th May, the media had seen the AC Nielsen poll, published in Fairfax newspapers. The Newspoll had been proven to be anything but a ‘rogue poll’, as some media commentators had hoped only a week earlier. Rudd was in trouble.
Fran Kelly was lucky enough to have Julia Gillard as company that Monday morning. With headphones on and her best and most non-descript answers at the ready, Gillard was placed in the difficult but perhaps not unwelcome position of having to answer questions about the leadership...the leadership of the federal government.
Although Abbott's 'gospel truth gaffe' was generous, it proved not to be enough to help Rudd escape the abyss in which he now found himself.
As the days and weeks went by, it was looking like a potential position, post-politics, with the United Nations, was becoming an attractive proposition for Kevin Rudd. Was this the future he had set for himself? One wondered.
Although President Obama had declared him to be a humble man, surely Rudd’s ego and need for vindication would not allow him to take the easy road. An election victory would provide Rudd with a moment in the sun, a moment to savour. But the question remained as to whether he would be given that opportunity. Going quietly did not seem in his nature. Going was now a distinct possibility.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Great Big New Backdown
Prior to the release of the Henry Review, Abbott delivered a speech to the Lowy Institute, advising all who cared to listen that Australia was punching below its weight. He believed we as a nation were contributing less than we should in current fields of service, especially Afghanistan, where he proposed increasing troop deployment to replace the role of the Dutch once they pulled out.
Our own national security, including our border protection, was an issue that deserved serious consideration, and increased investment in the areas that mattered most. This was Abbott’s view.
Twenty-four hours later, and Rudd announced a doubling of Australia’s civilian involvement in Afghanistan – more diplomats and aid workers would be deployed to the area. In doing so, he criticised Abbott for making “erratic policy decisions on the run.”
Such a statement was typical of Rudd at this time. He appeared on our TV screens that night, looking self-satisfied and sanctimonious. Looks can be deceiving, but in Rudd’s case, there was little room for misinterpretation of intent.
The writer's sympathy went out to the press present for the announcement. Delivered in his usual monotone, Rudd’s ability to disinterest the most avid follower of political affairs was acute.
As important as defence spending and procurement was, however, it was the arrival of Tuesday, April 27th that made front page news for days thereafter. This day would go down in Australia’s contemporary political history as one of the greatest policy ‘u-turns’ of modern times. It was Kevin Rudd who faced the media to announce a major change in policy, no, the major change in policy – the ‘postponement’ of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Paul Kelly of The Australian referred to it as the greatest back-down in public policy in the last fifty years. The media at large were unable to put a positive spin on the story. Tony Abbott laughed out loud. Bob Brown was less than impressed.
Rudd had reverted to Brendan Nelson’s position of a couple of years prior. At the time, Nelson was the Opposition Leader and was pilloried by left and right for his stance. With Rudd’s announcement, what was once considered the greatest moral challenge of our generation had been put off until 2013 at the earliest.
No matter which way the ALP tried to ‘spin’ the story, it was indeed a back-down of immense proportions. A ‘wait and see’ approach had replaced the proactive stance the ALP had previously espoused.
Tony Abbott had won.
All that talk, all that press coverage, all those feature articles and editorials on the ETS had come to nought, nothing, nil. Kevin Rudd had become the Prime Minister who announced grand schemes and programs but could not implement them with any success, if at all. He simply could not walk the walk.
On Thursday, April 29, in The Australian, it was Peter Van Onselen who said it best. “In December 2009 Rudd said: ‘The argument that we must not act until others do is an argument that has been used by political cowards since time immemorial.’” By Rudd’s own admission, his current position of postponement was one of cowardice.
Van Onselen continued. “...Rudd once said: ‘To delay [implementing the CPRS] any longer would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and our environment.’” By Rudd’s own admission, he was now acting in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
As Van Onselen concluded: “It would appear Rudd is more concerned about being in power than implementing policies he believes are important...” What is it that is said about power corrupting?
The whole saga was not unlike the story of the village boy who sat on the hill watching the sheep. “Wolf, wolf,” he cried. “The wolf is chasing the sheep.” The villagers came to his aide to help him drive the wolf away. All the shepherd boy could do was laugh as he watched the reaction of the villagers when they soon realised there was no wolf.
It was the best entertainment in town. The shepherd boy could not resist. “Wolf, wolf,” he shouted out once more. The villagers fell for it...again. The third time the boy cried wolf, the villagers had had enough. “Nobody believes a liar," they told him, “even when he’s telling the truth!”
Aesop’s Fables have stood the test of time, and although not much is known about Aesop himself, the fables attributed to him have a cogent message for contemporary politicians of every ilk.
Kevin Rudd, the shepherd boy of Australian politics, was not going to fool the voting public, the villagers if you will, any more. The greatest moral challenge of our age appeared to be anything but. And even if the “liar” was “telling the truth” it may well have been too late for the villagers to listen to his message.
Our own national security, including our border protection, was an issue that deserved serious consideration, and increased investment in the areas that mattered most. This was Abbott’s view.
Twenty-four hours later, and Rudd announced a doubling of Australia’s civilian involvement in Afghanistan – more diplomats and aid workers would be deployed to the area. In doing so, he criticised Abbott for making “erratic policy decisions on the run.”
Such a statement was typical of Rudd at this time. He appeared on our TV screens that night, looking self-satisfied and sanctimonious. Looks can be deceiving, but in Rudd’s case, there was little room for misinterpretation of intent.
The writer's sympathy went out to the press present for the announcement. Delivered in his usual monotone, Rudd’s ability to disinterest the most avid follower of political affairs was acute.
As important as defence spending and procurement was, however, it was the arrival of Tuesday, April 27th that made front page news for days thereafter. This day would go down in Australia’s contemporary political history as one of the greatest policy ‘u-turns’ of modern times. It was Kevin Rudd who faced the media to announce a major change in policy, no, the major change in policy – the ‘postponement’ of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Paul Kelly of The Australian referred to it as the greatest back-down in public policy in the last fifty years. The media at large were unable to put a positive spin on the story. Tony Abbott laughed out loud. Bob Brown was less than impressed.
Rudd had reverted to Brendan Nelson’s position of a couple of years prior. At the time, Nelson was the Opposition Leader and was pilloried by left and right for his stance. With Rudd’s announcement, what was once considered the greatest moral challenge of our generation had been put off until 2013 at the earliest.
No matter which way the ALP tried to ‘spin’ the story, it was indeed a back-down of immense proportions. A ‘wait and see’ approach had replaced the proactive stance the ALP had previously espoused.
Tony Abbott had won.
All that talk, all that press coverage, all those feature articles and editorials on the ETS had come to nought, nothing, nil. Kevin Rudd had become the Prime Minister who announced grand schemes and programs but could not implement them with any success, if at all. He simply could not walk the walk.
On Thursday, April 29, in The Australian, it was Peter Van Onselen who said it best. “In December 2009 Rudd said: ‘The argument that we must not act until others do is an argument that has been used by political cowards since time immemorial.’” By Rudd’s own admission, his current position of postponement was one of cowardice.
Van Onselen continued. “...Rudd once said: ‘To delay [implementing the CPRS] any longer would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and our environment.’” By Rudd’s own admission, he was now acting in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
As Van Onselen concluded: “It would appear Rudd is more concerned about being in power than implementing policies he believes are important...” What is it that is said about power corrupting?
The whole saga was not unlike the story of the village boy who sat on the hill watching the sheep. “Wolf, wolf,” he cried. “The wolf is chasing the sheep.” The villagers came to his aide to help him drive the wolf away. All the shepherd boy could do was laugh as he watched the reaction of the villagers when they soon realised there was no wolf.
It was the best entertainment in town. The shepherd boy could not resist. “Wolf, wolf,” he shouted out once more. The villagers fell for it...again. The third time the boy cried wolf, the villagers had had enough. “Nobody believes a liar," they told him, “even when he’s telling the truth!”
Aesop’s Fables have stood the test of time, and although not much is known about Aesop himself, the fables attributed to him have a cogent message for contemporary politicians of every ilk.
Kevin Rudd, the shepherd boy of Australian politics, was not going to fool the voting public, the villagers if you will, any more. The greatest moral challenge of our age appeared to be anything but. And even if the “liar” was “telling the truth” it may well have been too late for the villagers to listen to his message.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Taxing Success
The release of the Henry Tax Review saw articles and commentary galore, in particular relating to the Rudd Government's announcement that they were to introduce a Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT).
But first, out came a Newspoll that led to some members of the media coming close to writing off Rudd as a leader and his government as electable. Nothing could have been further from the truth of course. As we all know, whenever there are two opposing camps competing against one another, both have a chance of success.
Yet the Newspoll was to prove to be anything but a 'rogue' poll, as some commentators liked to imagine. It showed a massive swing towards the Opposition on a two-party preferred basis, with the government down five points to forty-nine percent and the Coalition up five points to fifty-one percent. As the Greens remained stagnant on ten percent on a primary basis, it was 'other' that seemed to be the real winner. All this meant was that Labor voters were moving away from the government they no longer trusted and towards someone 'other' than the Coalition. But as the federal system was one of compulsory preferential voting, Tony Abbott was the real winner.
And so began the commentary on the resource tax. An extra tax on mining had not been a recommendation of the Henry Review. No wonder Ken Henry, Treasury Secretary, looked so grim after the announcement. The review had recommended the resource tax as a replacement tax and had also recommended an easing of corporate tax to twenty-five percent from its current level of thirty percent as a compensatory measure. The government had announced the resource tax as an 'add-on' to existing tax structures and had further announced a reduction in corporate tax to twenty-eight percent. One hopes Henry was being well recompensed for his efforts as it was clear that, for all his hard work and the hard work of those on the Review Board, he did not have the ear of the Prime Minister.
Rudd's idea of reform was to announce the introduction, in one form or another, of only two out of 138 recommendations made by Henry. The second recommendation was the heightening of the superannuation contribution to twelve percent by 2019.
It raised a number of concerns. Firstly, what was a super tax and when did it kick in? The government's explanation was not clear.
Rudd tried explaining it soon after the release of the proposal and got tied up in knots. It seems wise for one never to try to answer a question one doesn't know the answer to. As Abraham Lincoln had once said: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Wayne Swan tried to untie Rudd's knots but with limited success. He had been reported as saying the Super Tax would kick in at a level at which a mining company was declaring a profit over and above that deemed reasonable in a competitive market. But what did this mean? It sounded like a term straight from a lawyer's handbook. We've all heard the old joke that goes something like this: 'Question: How can you tell when a lawyer is not telling the truth? Answer: When they open their mouth.'
In other words, Wayne Swan's explanation was anything but helpful. So how did the resource sector feel about these developments? Clive Palmer, the Queensland mining magnate, was 'pissed off,' to say the least. The fifth richest man in Australia at the time, self-made billionaire, and donor to the Liberal National Party, found himself calling the Federal Treasurer a fool. Not the best way to win friends and influence people, but Clive Palmer was no shrinking violet.
His view, along with that of many others, was that the federal government was taxing success. As Palmer said, the Soviet Union lost the Cold War decades ago - the market economy was here to stay but the resource sector could easily move offshore. After all, where was the love? Where was the incentive to stay?
It appeared possible that taxing success could well lead to a reduction in mining projects, which in turn could see a reduction in employment in the resource sector. Alternatively, to supercede the super tax, mining companies may well engage in some 'creative accounting' that could lead to a reduction in declared profitability.
A reduction in the profitability of the mining sector could see a reduction in the level of revenue projected by government forecasts, and this could, in turn, be anything but compensatory for the increase in costs to the corporate sector as a result of an increase in compulsory superannuation to twelve percent by 2019.
Wage pressure and a reduction in real wage increases as labour costs increased could well result. Potentially this could lead to an increase in collective bargaining and strike action and a potential decline in workforce participation. Ultimately, this could have the effect of a decline in productivity. The flow-on effects were immense.
One such potential flow-on effect was a reduction in share prices. Superannuation accounts are one of the major investors in the share market, including the resource sector. Were the super funds of voters to be effected as a result of the RSPT? And if so, what benefit would they get from an increase in superannuation to twelve percent by 2019? If their salary was to be capped and their superannuation account(s) didn't perform as expected, then how would they be better off as a result? How would this effect their voting intention?
As it turned out, the RSPT was, unlike Swan's explanation earlier on, to kick in at a six percent return, at which time the mining companies were to be taxed forty percent. As similar return could be achieved on a short-term term deposit. ING Direct were advertising on their website a return of six percent on a one hundred and eighty day, one year or two year term deposit with a minimum balance of $10,000.
Debra Cameron, host of Mornings with Debra Cameron on ABC 702 Sydney, could see nothing wrong with the Resource Super Profits Tax. After all, "they've got pots of money," she said. Congenial, amenable, friendly, she had a thing against News Limited, the Melbourne Storm, Tony Abbott and all things anti-Rudder-like. It made for interesting morning radio.
It wasn't the "pots of money" the mining companies had that was the concern, so much as the small companies or businesses that relied on the resource sector for their livelihood. Any negative effect on mining in this country would also negatively effect small business. After all, only about one-third of small businesses were incorporated, meaning only one-third of small businesses could look forward to a measely two percent reduction in company tax. But those small businesses reliant on mining activity in Kambalda, Mount Isa, and elsewhere, had an uncertain future.
As Tony Abbott said in his budget reply, the first role of a government is to do no harm. Millions of potential voters had no confidence this government was doing no harm. It was little wonder their poll numbers were nosediving and rogue polls had become a trend.
Yet one kept hearing from this government that "working families" would benefit from the resource tax. What of retirees, childless couples with a single income, singles working full-time and living alone, university students?
The retiree may well have worked in the mining industry, and have felt the industry in which he worked hard for years had been singled out. The childless couple with only one income may well rely on sub-contracting in the construction industry for their income, and be concerned prices may rise as a result of the resource tax. The university student may well be planning to do work experience in the banking sector, another sector with super profits, and believe that sector likely to be the next to be affected by a super tax.
After all, why single out the resource sector? Surely the mining industry was only the beginning. These people all vote. Were they not important? Did they not contribute to society? Were they for some reason precluded from day-to-day commentary?
One thing was for sure. When exit polls are taken at the next federal election, they will include more than just working families. An important part of our society, but not the only part. A contributing factor, but not the whole. The government was getting tired and stale. And Tony Abbott had been given a segue to the next great big new tax on everything.
But first, out came a Newspoll that led to some members of the media coming close to writing off Rudd as a leader and his government as electable. Nothing could have been further from the truth of course. As we all know, whenever there are two opposing camps competing against one another, both have a chance of success.
Yet the Newspoll was to prove to be anything but a 'rogue' poll, as some commentators liked to imagine. It showed a massive swing towards the Opposition on a two-party preferred basis, with the government down five points to forty-nine percent and the Coalition up five points to fifty-one percent. As the Greens remained stagnant on ten percent on a primary basis, it was 'other' that seemed to be the real winner. All this meant was that Labor voters were moving away from the government they no longer trusted and towards someone 'other' than the Coalition. But as the federal system was one of compulsory preferential voting, Tony Abbott was the real winner.
And so began the commentary on the resource tax. An extra tax on mining had not been a recommendation of the Henry Review. No wonder Ken Henry, Treasury Secretary, looked so grim after the announcement. The review had recommended the resource tax as a replacement tax and had also recommended an easing of corporate tax to twenty-five percent from its current level of thirty percent as a compensatory measure. The government had announced the resource tax as an 'add-on' to existing tax structures and had further announced a reduction in corporate tax to twenty-eight percent. One hopes Henry was being well recompensed for his efforts as it was clear that, for all his hard work and the hard work of those on the Review Board, he did not have the ear of the Prime Minister.
Rudd's idea of reform was to announce the introduction, in one form or another, of only two out of 138 recommendations made by Henry. The second recommendation was the heightening of the superannuation contribution to twelve percent by 2019.
It raised a number of concerns. Firstly, what was a super tax and when did it kick in? The government's explanation was not clear.
Rudd tried explaining it soon after the release of the proposal and got tied up in knots. It seems wise for one never to try to answer a question one doesn't know the answer to. As Abraham Lincoln had once said: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Wayne Swan tried to untie Rudd's knots but with limited success. He had been reported as saying the Super Tax would kick in at a level at which a mining company was declaring a profit over and above that deemed reasonable in a competitive market. But what did this mean? It sounded like a term straight from a lawyer's handbook. We've all heard the old joke that goes something like this: 'Question: How can you tell when a lawyer is not telling the truth? Answer: When they open their mouth.'
In other words, Wayne Swan's explanation was anything but helpful. So how did the resource sector feel about these developments? Clive Palmer, the Queensland mining magnate, was 'pissed off,' to say the least. The fifth richest man in Australia at the time, self-made billionaire, and donor to the Liberal National Party, found himself calling the Federal Treasurer a fool. Not the best way to win friends and influence people, but Clive Palmer was no shrinking violet.
His view, along with that of many others, was that the federal government was taxing success. As Palmer said, the Soviet Union lost the Cold War decades ago - the market economy was here to stay but the resource sector could easily move offshore. After all, where was the love? Where was the incentive to stay?
It appeared possible that taxing success could well lead to a reduction in mining projects, which in turn could see a reduction in employment in the resource sector. Alternatively, to supercede the super tax, mining companies may well engage in some 'creative accounting' that could lead to a reduction in declared profitability.
A reduction in the profitability of the mining sector could see a reduction in the level of revenue projected by government forecasts, and this could, in turn, be anything but compensatory for the increase in costs to the corporate sector as a result of an increase in compulsory superannuation to twelve percent by 2019.
Wage pressure and a reduction in real wage increases as labour costs increased could well result. Potentially this could lead to an increase in collective bargaining and strike action and a potential decline in workforce participation. Ultimately, this could have the effect of a decline in productivity. The flow-on effects were immense.
One such potential flow-on effect was a reduction in share prices. Superannuation accounts are one of the major investors in the share market, including the resource sector. Were the super funds of voters to be effected as a result of the RSPT? And if so, what benefit would they get from an increase in superannuation to twelve percent by 2019? If their salary was to be capped and their superannuation account(s) didn't perform as expected, then how would they be better off as a result? How would this effect their voting intention?
As it turned out, the RSPT was, unlike Swan's explanation earlier on, to kick in at a six percent return, at which time the mining companies were to be taxed forty percent. As similar return could be achieved on a short-term term deposit. ING Direct were advertising on their website a return of six percent on a one hundred and eighty day, one year or two year term deposit with a minimum balance of $10,000.
Debra Cameron, host of Mornings with Debra Cameron on ABC 702 Sydney, could see nothing wrong with the Resource Super Profits Tax. After all, "they've got pots of money," she said. Congenial, amenable, friendly, she had a thing against News Limited, the Melbourne Storm, Tony Abbott and all things anti-Rudder-like. It made for interesting morning radio.
It wasn't the "pots of money" the mining companies had that was the concern, so much as the small companies or businesses that relied on the resource sector for their livelihood. Any negative effect on mining in this country would also negatively effect small business. After all, only about one-third of small businesses were incorporated, meaning only one-third of small businesses could look forward to a measely two percent reduction in company tax. But those small businesses reliant on mining activity in Kambalda, Mount Isa, and elsewhere, had an uncertain future.
As Tony Abbott said in his budget reply, the first role of a government is to do no harm. Millions of potential voters had no confidence this government was doing no harm. It was little wonder their poll numbers were nosediving and rogue polls had become a trend.
Yet one kept hearing from this government that "working families" would benefit from the resource tax. What of retirees, childless couples with a single income, singles working full-time and living alone, university students?
The retiree may well have worked in the mining industry, and have felt the industry in which he worked hard for years had been singled out. The childless couple with only one income may well rely on sub-contracting in the construction industry for their income, and be concerned prices may rise as a result of the resource tax. The university student may well be planning to do work experience in the banking sector, another sector with super profits, and believe that sector likely to be the next to be affected by a super tax.
After all, why single out the resource sector? Surely the mining industry was only the beginning. These people all vote. Were they not important? Did they not contribute to society? Were they for some reason precluded from day-to-day commentary?
One thing was for sure. When exit polls are taken at the next federal election, they will include more than just working families. An important part of our society, but not the only part. A contributing factor, but not the whole. The government was getting tired and stale. And Tony Abbott had been given a segue to the next great big new tax on everything.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Mr. Flip-Flop
The news of the day provided Rudd with an out clause. April 22 was the day the public was told the Melbourne Storm’s National Rugby League franchise was in doubt. The club had allegedly fiddled the books and disobeyed salary cap restrictions to the tune of $1.7 million.
The full story would come out in good time. For now, the only thing known for sure was that the club was being fined, stripped of two premierships and not allowed to compete for points for the rest of season 2010. It was also known that three major sponsors wanted nothing further to do with the club. It’s future, financial or otherwise, was in grave doubt.
What a great day for the federal government to announce the official closure of the insulation program and the alleged lack of need for the remaining couple of hundred child care centres they had promised to build. The Daily Telegraph moved that story to page fifteen. It was clear what some broadsheets considered more important news for the people. Sport rules. Politics and public service delivery, or the lack thereof, comes a distant second.
Rudd must have been grinning from ear to ear. Tony Abbott may well have been ruing a lost opportunity. But in describing the Prime Minister, he referred to him as worse than Whitlam. Some media commentators thought that was a bit harsh...on Whitlam.
As the day progressed, Greg Combet, Rudd’s Mr. Fix-it, made an appearance. He’d been left with the job of explaining how the insulation program, which seemed like a good idea at the time, had ended up detrimentally effecting many a small business, and more besides. No matter what spin anyone tried to put on it, there could be little doubt or disagreement that the program had been a fatal disaster – failure personified.
As if that wasn’t enough for one day, along came Kate Ellis, Minister for Looking Good, and in her spare time other things such as sport and child care. It was her responsibility to announce that although the federal government had promised to build 260 new child care centres, only 38 would be completed.
One may ask, why? Simple. According to Ellis, though they had been promised, they simply were not needed. An easy way out of another policy failure – big ideas leading to disastrous service delivery. One could be forgiven for thinking it may well be time for the government to get out of the way. Being seeing to be doing something was more important to this government than the quality of what was being done. Promises made and promises broken had led to instability, uncertainty, and unpopularity.
The question on everyone’s lips now was: what next for the Melbourne Storm? But despite salary caps taking precedence over policy, over time, the onus would be back on the government to explain why it was unable to successfully provide quality service delivery of insulation and child care facilities. What chance was there health would see a better outcome?
One other concern had been raised also. This seemed to be a Prime Minister who was keen to be front and centre when positive news stories were being announced to the press, but conspicuously absent when the announcement was negative. The Prime Minister was so busy visiting hospitals, he went 'AWOL' on issues pertaining to the processing of asylum-seekers, the need to respond to criticism of cost blow-outs in the BER scheme, as well, of course, as the closure of the insulation program and the abandonment of child care centre construction.
Bob Carr used this technique to great effect when NSW Premier. Only problem for Rudd was it was starting to raise concerns that here was a man that could not be trusted. Were the Spin Doctors now running the country?
Amongst all this news, it was announced the Henry Tax Review, which the government had been keeping under lock and key since January, would finally be released in May, just prior to the May Budget. It was to be released on a Sunday – a day voters' attention turns to fun, frivolity, family...and the Melbourne Storm.
The full story would come out in good time. For now, the only thing known for sure was that the club was being fined, stripped of two premierships and not allowed to compete for points for the rest of season 2010. It was also known that three major sponsors wanted nothing further to do with the club. It’s future, financial or otherwise, was in grave doubt.
What a great day for the federal government to announce the official closure of the insulation program and the alleged lack of need for the remaining couple of hundred child care centres they had promised to build. The Daily Telegraph moved that story to page fifteen. It was clear what some broadsheets considered more important news for the people. Sport rules. Politics and public service delivery, or the lack thereof, comes a distant second.
Rudd must have been grinning from ear to ear. Tony Abbott may well have been ruing a lost opportunity. But in describing the Prime Minister, he referred to him as worse than Whitlam. Some media commentators thought that was a bit harsh...on Whitlam.
As the day progressed, Greg Combet, Rudd’s Mr. Fix-it, made an appearance. He’d been left with the job of explaining how the insulation program, which seemed like a good idea at the time, had ended up detrimentally effecting many a small business, and more besides. No matter what spin anyone tried to put on it, there could be little doubt or disagreement that the program had been a fatal disaster – failure personified.
As if that wasn’t enough for one day, along came Kate Ellis, Minister for Looking Good, and in her spare time other things such as sport and child care. It was her responsibility to announce that although the federal government had promised to build 260 new child care centres, only 38 would be completed.
One may ask, why? Simple. According to Ellis, though they had been promised, they simply were not needed. An easy way out of another policy failure – big ideas leading to disastrous service delivery. One could be forgiven for thinking it may well be time for the government to get out of the way. Being seeing to be doing something was more important to this government than the quality of what was being done. Promises made and promises broken had led to instability, uncertainty, and unpopularity.
The question on everyone’s lips now was: what next for the Melbourne Storm? But despite salary caps taking precedence over policy, over time, the onus would be back on the government to explain why it was unable to successfully provide quality service delivery of insulation and child care facilities. What chance was there health would see a better outcome?
One other concern had been raised also. This seemed to be a Prime Minister who was keen to be front and centre when positive news stories were being announced to the press, but conspicuously absent when the announcement was negative. The Prime Minister was so busy visiting hospitals, he went 'AWOL' on issues pertaining to the processing of asylum-seekers, the need to respond to criticism of cost blow-outs in the BER scheme, as well, of course, as the closure of the insulation program and the abandonment of child care centre construction.
Bob Carr used this technique to great effect when NSW Premier. Only problem for Rudd was it was starting to raise concerns that here was a man that could not be trusted. Were the Spin Doctors now running the country?
Amongst all this news, it was announced the Henry Tax Review, which the government had been keeping under lock and key since January, would finally be released in May, just prior to the May Budget. It was to be released on a Sunday – a day voters' attention turns to fun, frivolity, family...and the Melbourne Storm.
All things COAG...
The health debate found its way to the COAG meeting. COAG stood for the Commonwealth of Australian Governments, and gave the states a chance to have a say in federal policy. As Rudd did not plan to take over funding of the health system in its entirety, the states were front and centre as far as reaching an agreement on funding arrangements was concerned.
A drama of sorts was taking place on the Monday of the 19th April in Canberra. Or was it a soap opera? Either way, it had always seemed a deal would be reached, despite the language of the media and the Premiers in the lead up to the meeting itself.
Yet what remained uncertain was whether the deal would be for the better for the patient recently admitted to the emergency ward of a public hospital in the south-west of Sydney, suffering from a heart defect. Would they be seen within the four hours that Rudd had set down as the limitation on emergency consults? And would this target really be met ninety-five percent of the time, as he had suggested? Or was the Health Summit really just a way Rudd could divert attention from the failures the insulation program, the BER program, the SIHIP program, and others like them, represented?
The result of the Health Summit seemed to be to show once and for all the subservience of Labor State Governments. With substance sadly lacking, The Prime Minister had once again shown himself, within the space of forty-eight hours, to be ‘The King of Spin.' WA Premier Colin Barnett would now be shown to be either ‘out on a limb’ as a result of his unwillingness to sign up to the agreement reached with all other premiers, or the sole source of reason. And what now for Tony Abbott? To oppose or support was the decision before him.
Just another layer of bureaucracy was the way he saw the reform package. And, as NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell sensibly said on the Wednesday following the meeting’s wind-up, it wasn’t so much how much money was being offered, but how effectively it was to be spent, that mattered most.
Colin Barnett’s refusal to sign up to conceding thirty percent of his state’s GST revenue seemed at the time to have more to do with common sense than the political colour of his state government. One thing was for sure, though.
A caller to talkback radio that day had said he did not know whether Barnett was right or wrong to hold out for retention of GST funding, but he knew for sure that guy, meaning Barnett, “had balls.” The WA Premier would surely have been pleased with the caller’s review of his minority position.
A drama of sorts was taking place on the Monday of the 19th April in Canberra. Or was it a soap opera? Either way, it had always seemed a deal would be reached, despite the language of the media and the Premiers in the lead up to the meeting itself.
Yet what remained uncertain was whether the deal would be for the better for the patient recently admitted to the emergency ward of a public hospital in the south-west of Sydney, suffering from a heart defect. Would they be seen within the four hours that Rudd had set down as the limitation on emergency consults? And would this target really be met ninety-five percent of the time, as he had suggested? Or was the Health Summit really just a way Rudd could divert attention from the failures the insulation program, the BER program, the SIHIP program, and others like them, represented?
The result of the Health Summit seemed to be to show once and for all the subservience of Labor State Governments. With substance sadly lacking, The Prime Minister had once again shown himself, within the space of forty-eight hours, to be ‘The King of Spin.' WA Premier Colin Barnett would now be shown to be either ‘out on a limb’ as a result of his unwillingness to sign up to the agreement reached with all other premiers, or the sole source of reason. And what now for Tony Abbott? To oppose or support was the decision before him.
Just another layer of bureaucracy was the way he saw the reform package. And, as NSW Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell sensibly said on the Wednesday following the meeting’s wind-up, it wasn’t so much how much money was being offered, but how effectively it was to be spent, that mattered most.
Colin Barnett’s refusal to sign up to conceding thirty percent of his state’s GST revenue seemed at the time to have more to do with common sense than the political colour of his state government. One thing was for sure, though.
A caller to talkback radio that day had said he did not know whether Barnett was right or wrong to hold out for retention of GST funding, but he knew for sure that guy, meaning Barnett, “had balls.” The WA Premier would surely have been pleased with the caller’s review of his minority position.
Kevin the humble one...
A happy face was what was seen on the TV news after the release of further Newspoll results showing Rudd had gained an ‘easy’ lead over Abbott and the Coalition once more, twelve percentage points on two party preferred in fact. Abbott’s face was devoid of a smile. He had been accused by media outlets nationwide of spending too much time showing how fit he was, pollie pedalling his way from Melbourne to Sydney for nine days, after having entered an Iron Man Triathlon in Port Macquarie, the winner of which would find their way on a trip to Hawaii to compete further.
If he spent as much time fighting the government as he had spent showing off his health and fitness the Coalition may actually have a chance at the next election. This was the view of some. Perhaps those journalists most vocal were just envious that here was a man of a similar age or older than they were showing no signs of obesity, cramps, a sore back, or nicotine-induced emphysema.
Still, the truth was that the Premiers seemed to be doing a good enough job of criticising Rudd’s Health Plan without the need for comment from Abbott. John Brumby, Premier of Victoria, was even mentioned in the same sentence as Abbott by no other than Rudd himself, as an obstructionist distraction standing in the way of his grand vision for the future of health in this country.
There were other distractions at play as well. Julia Gillard, widely seen as the best performing member of the Government’s team, and a potential future Prime Minister, was under pressure to take ownership of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program’s failures to deliver infrastructure to public schools at a reasonable price.
The Australian newspaper was running an ongoing campaign to discredit the program through practical examples of bureaucracy out of control. Building a new canteen for $600,000 without general amenities required for it to run efficiently seemed to be anything but ‘value for money.' In fact, it had become clear that, via The Australian and other news outlets' discoveries, the BER was potentially a greater problem for the Rudd Government than the insulation program had been.
Many companies involved in the BER employed builders on a ‘fly-in fly-out’ basis and consultation fees and other expenses led to an artificial inflation in costs. As a result, the BER had become known as the Builders’ Retirement Fund. So what was to be done? There was only one answer. Initiate an inquiry.
An inquiry appeared to be the answer to most problems faced by the Federal Government around this time. It served the purpose of moving the issue to the inside pages of newspapers and diverting television’s and radio’s attention to the news of the day. It also had the effect of making the Rudd Government’s ‘spin doctors’ part of the story.
Hawker Britton was the firm widely believed to be the main source of political advice for Rudd and his team. Bruce Hawker had been considered by many to be a vital cog in the wheel that turned the Rann Labor Government’s chances of success at the South Australian election around. The result? Rann was returned, and had since offered his support to Rudd for his National Health Plan, unlike other Labor Premiers who had yet to face the people.
But what did the health plan really represent? Another diversion? Another layer of bureaucracy? An ability to campaign across the country in local areas in order to obtain local media publicity? All of the above?
One thing was for sure. Rudd had sent John Faulkner, Minister for Defence, to Washington, to meet with US President Obama. A chance to show, once again, he was a global visionary, gone. A chance to finally part ways with his nickname ‘Kevin 747’ taken. But oh, those photo opportunities. Rudd would have been quietly seething that the need to stay home to campaign for a health program designed to divert the people’s attention from bureaucratic and service delivery failures in other areas had resulted in a lost opportunity to appear on the world stage.
President Obama appeared that week on the ABC’s 7.30 Report. Interviewed by Kerry O’Brien he had described Rudd as “humble.” This was about as believable as climate change being the greatest moral challenge of our generation. Such are the ways of the world.
If he spent as much time fighting the government as he had spent showing off his health and fitness the Coalition may actually have a chance at the next election. This was the view of some. Perhaps those journalists most vocal were just envious that here was a man of a similar age or older than they were showing no signs of obesity, cramps, a sore back, or nicotine-induced emphysema.
Still, the truth was that the Premiers seemed to be doing a good enough job of criticising Rudd’s Health Plan without the need for comment from Abbott. John Brumby, Premier of Victoria, was even mentioned in the same sentence as Abbott by no other than Rudd himself, as an obstructionist distraction standing in the way of his grand vision for the future of health in this country.
There were other distractions at play as well. Julia Gillard, widely seen as the best performing member of the Government’s team, and a potential future Prime Minister, was under pressure to take ownership of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program’s failures to deliver infrastructure to public schools at a reasonable price.
The Australian newspaper was running an ongoing campaign to discredit the program through practical examples of bureaucracy out of control. Building a new canteen for $600,000 without general amenities required for it to run efficiently seemed to be anything but ‘value for money.' In fact, it had become clear that, via The Australian and other news outlets' discoveries, the BER was potentially a greater problem for the Rudd Government than the insulation program had been.
Many companies involved in the BER employed builders on a ‘fly-in fly-out’ basis and consultation fees and other expenses led to an artificial inflation in costs. As a result, the BER had become known as the Builders’ Retirement Fund. So what was to be done? There was only one answer. Initiate an inquiry.
An inquiry appeared to be the answer to most problems faced by the Federal Government around this time. It served the purpose of moving the issue to the inside pages of newspapers and diverting television’s and radio’s attention to the news of the day. It also had the effect of making the Rudd Government’s ‘spin doctors’ part of the story.
Hawker Britton was the firm widely believed to be the main source of political advice for Rudd and his team. Bruce Hawker had been considered by many to be a vital cog in the wheel that turned the Rann Labor Government’s chances of success at the South Australian election around. The result? Rann was returned, and had since offered his support to Rudd for his National Health Plan, unlike other Labor Premiers who had yet to face the people.
But what did the health plan really represent? Another diversion? Another layer of bureaucracy? An ability to campaign across the country in local areas in order to obtain local media publicity? All of the above?
One thing was for sure. Rudd had sent John Faulkner, Minister for Defence, to Washington, to meet with US President Obama. A chance to show, once again, he was a global visionary, gone. A chance to finally part ways with his nickname ‘Kevin 747’ taken. But oh, those photo opportunities. Rudd would have been quietly seething that the need to stay home to campaign for a health program designed to divert the people’s attention from bureaucratic and service delivery failures in other areas had resulted in a lost opportunity to appear on the world stage.
President Obama appeared that week on the ABC’s 7.30 Report. Interviewed by Kerry O’Brien he had described Rudd as “humble.” This was about as believable as climate change being the greatest moral challenge of our generation. Such are the ways of the world.
Mea Culpa
Rudd had gained a sense of ‘the need to apologise,' not just for the 'stuff-up' that was the insulation program, but for pretty much anything and everything he may have done wrong since day one. This soon became known as Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa.' Suddenly, the man who never made a mistake was responsible for and admitting all errors. Was this Rudd’s ‘confessional?' Did he think saying three Hail Mary’s would solve all his problems? He wasn’t even Catholic!
Newspoll, March 2, 2010. The Coalition was ahead of the Rudd Government on primary votes and four percentage points behind on a two-party preferred basis. What Abbott had achieved in only three months was to reconstruct an Opposition from a rabble to a true alternative government. He had also achieved what he had told the electorate was his intention, that being to hold the government to account. Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ would not have occurred if Abbott had not been successful in this regard.
Abbott declared that “the choice will be clear-cut” in an article published in The Australian on March 1st. He mentioned key policies such as “stronger border protection... ending... parochialism over the Murray-Darling basin...ensure that all...NSW and Queensland public hospitals are run by local boards...take the Unfair Dismissal monkey off the back of small business and...allow...individual employment agreements...”
As this was being published, Kevin Rudd was appearing (or should I say ‘being heard’) on talkback radio across the country. Yes, that’s right, talkback radio. To this point his favourite form of radio communication with the people had been through the softer FM variety. Now he was in some trouble, he turned to those he knew had ‘pull’ with the more mature members of the electorate whose support he knew he needed to maintain (or gain) to perform well at the next election.
Rudd’s ‘word of the week’ was “whacking." That was the word he used to describe what he forecast the government would receive in the polls that week.
Here was a politician who used words such as “mate," “ain’t” and “bullshit," amongst others, in media interviews, to appear like ‘one of the guys’ in the belief this would add to his electoral appeal. Only problem was, it was so obviously false, he just couldn't hide the smirk.
Smirk. A quick search via Google and I found a number of definitions. The website, thefreedictionary.com defined 'smirk' as "to smile in an affected, often self-satisfied manner," "a smile expressing scorn, smugness, etc., rather than pleasure," to "smile affectedly or derisively." It brought back memories of Nick Greiner and Peter Costello.
Nick Greiner, former Premier of New South Wales, was a very likeable guy. His only problem was that he always seemed to have a smirk on his face, which came across visually as a sense of self-satisfaction. The electorate, consciously or otherwise, can easily perceive public figures in a negative light based upon their facial image. The age of television and the 30 second sound-bite personifies public figures. This has led to the electorate having a sense of ‘knowing’ public figures in a way that was not possible before the visualisation television brought with it. Peter Costello had this same problem throughout his career.
In no way is this reaction rational, but it is real. A perfect stranger may stand five centimetres away from you in a lift and say “hello, how are you?" Your instinct may well be to take a step away and look upon them as a threat. They have not only invaded your personal space but have also entered the realms of familiarity without your consent.
Rudd had recently appeared bedside with a patient in hospital, the patient’s wife looking on. It was a great photo opportunity to use in launching his Health Program, but how must the patient have felt? Well outside of his ‘comfort zone,' one would think. He could well have seen Rudd’s approach as a ‘threat.' Perhaps Rudd was assured of his vote. After all, Rudd's spin doctors would have advised him there is no point in showing empathy for the sick unless they are going to vote for you.
The launch of Rudd’s national health program was sure to see resistance. It had been launched prior to COAG, prior to the Premier’s ‘round table’ with the Prime Minister. People in general appreciate consultation, especially those that have risen to the top in their field. Even if their opinion is not taken up as policy, the fact they have been consulted in advance of a policy launch will make them feel more engaged when next approached. It is simply human nature.
The Premiers were unlikely to be quite so accepting, however. Here was a case where conciliation and compromise was a necessity. Was Rudd simply not aware of this? Or did he not care?
Self-satisfaction, arrogance, detachment. It was little wonder Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ was so widely seen as an artificial apology. How can one apologise when they see themselves as never having made a mistake?
His way of moving on was to release big policy pronouncements, such as the National Health Program and the National Education Curriculum. Policies which were based on service delivery and federal involvement in improving industries which were failing to meet the electorate’s expectations were bound to play out in the media as Rudd being pro-active and being seen to ‘do something’ where doing something was well and truly required.
Only thing was, it didn’t play out that way. The insulation program and The Department of Environment’s service delivery had failed completely. It was little wonder there was concern about the Health Department’s ability to deliver a much larger program successfully.
And so it was that Rudd was criticised by one scribe as a Prime Minister who “doesn’t know that he doesn’t know," an insult if ever there was one. Even the Labor states were asking for the detail, probably concerned at the loss of one third of their GST revenue so the federal government could take a sixty percent share in funding the health system. ‘Another layer of bureaucracy,' was another criticism.
Rudd’s best bet was to hope that those voters turned off by his self-congratulation would be evened out by those voters turned on by his Mea Culpa. There seemed little chance of that just now.
Maybe Rudd was on a winner if only he’d use Botox to hide the smirk and change it to a smile. Everyone loves a happy face.
Newspoll, March 2, 2010. The Coalition was ahead of the Rudd Government on primary votes and four percentage points behind on a two-party preferred basis. What Abbott had achieved in only three months was to reconstruct an Opposition from a rabble to a true alternative government. He had also achieved what he had told the electorate was his intention, that being to hold the government to account. Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ would not have occurred if Abbott had not been successful in this regard.
Abbott declared that “the choice will be clear-cut” in an article published in The Australian on March 1st. He mentioned key policies such as “stronger border protection... ending... parochialism over the Murray-Darling basin...ensure that all...NSW and Queensland public hospitals are run by local boards...take the Unfair Dismissal monkey off the back of small business and...allow...individual employment agreements...”
As this was being published, Kevin Rudd was appearing (or should I say ‘being heard’) on talkback radio across the country. Yes, that’s right, talkback radio. To this point his favourite form of radio communication with the people had been through the softer FM variety. Now he was in some trouble, he turned to those he knew had ‘pull’ with the more mature members of the electorate whose support he knew he needed to maintain (or gain) to perform well at the next election.
Rudd’s ‘word of the week’ was “whacking." That was the word he used to describe what he forecast the government would receive in the polls that week.
Here was a politician who used words such as “mate," “ain’t” and “bullshit," amongst others, in media interviews, to appear like ‘one of the guys’ in the belief this would add to his electoral appeal. Only problem was, it was so obviously false, he just couldn't hide the smirk.
Smirk. A quick search via Google and I found a number of definitions. The website, thefreedictionary.com defined 'smirk' as "to smile in an affected, often self-satisfied manner," "a smile expressing scorn, smugness, etc., rather than pleasure," to "smile affectedly or derisively." It brought back memories of Nick Greiner and Peter Costello.
Nick Greiner, former Premier of New South Wales, was a very likeable guy. His only problem was that he always seemed to have a smirk on his face, which came across visually as a sense of self-satisfaction. The electorate, consciously or otherwise, can easily perceive public figures in a negative light based upon their facial image. The age of television and the 30 second sound-bite personifies public figures. This has led to the electorate having a sense of ‘knowing’ public figures in a way that was not possible before the visualisation television brought with it. Peter Costello had this same problem throughout his career.
In no way is this reaction rational, but it is real. A perfect stranger may stand five centimetres away from you in a lift and say “hello, how are you?" Your instinct may well be to take a step away and look upon them as a threat. They have not only invaded your personal space but have also entered the realms of familiarity without your consent.
Rudd had recently appeared bedside with a patient in hospital, the patient’s wife looking on. It was a great photo opportunity to use in launching his Health Program, but how must the patient have felt? Well outside of his ‘comfort zone,' one would think. He could well have seen Rudd’s approach as a ‘threat.' Perhaps Rudd was assured of his vote. After all, Rudd's spin doctors would have advised him there is no point in showing empathy for the sick unless they are going to vote for you.
The launch of Rudd’s national health program was sure to see resistance. It had been launched prior to COAG, prior to the Premier’s ‘round table’ with the Prime Minister. People in general appreciate consultation, especially those that have risen to the top in their field. Even if their opinion is not taken up as policy, the fact they have been consulted in advance of a policy launch will make them feel more engaged when next approached. It is simply human nature.
The Premiers were unlikely to be quite so accepting, however. Here was a case where conciliation and compromise was a necessity. Was Rudd simply not aware of this? Or did he not care?
Self-satisfaction, arrogance, detachment. It was little wonder Rudd’s ‘Mea Culpa’ was so widely seen as an artificial apology. How can one apologise when they see themselves as never having made a mistake?
His way of moving on was to release big policy pronouncements, such as the National Health Program and the National Education Curriculum. Policies which were based on service delivery and federal involvement in improving industries which were failing to meet the electorate’s expectations were bound to play out in the media as Rudd being pro-active and being seen to ‘do something’ where doing something was well and truly required.
Only thing was, it didn’t play out that way. The insulation program and The Department of Environment’s service delivery had failed completely. It was little wonder there was concern about the Health Department’s ability to deliver a much larger program successfully.
And so it was that Rudd was criticised by one scribe as a Prime Minister who “doesn’t know that he doesn’t know," an insult if ever there was one. Even the Labor states were asking for the detail, probably concerned at the loss of one third of their GST revenue so the federal government could take a sixty percent share in funding the health system. ‘Another layer of bureaucracy,' was another criticism.
Rudd’s best bet was to hope that those voters turned off by his self-congratulation would be evened out by those voters turned on by his Mea Culpa. There seemed little chance of that just now.
Maybe Rudd was on a winner if only he’d use Botox to hide the smirk and change it to a smile. Everyone loves a happy face.
A step too far...
The Opposition had been reported as intending to block the $0.25billion rebate for commercial television stations unless the Rudd Government could demonstrate a viable reason for it proceeding through parliament.
This and other programs entered into by the Federal Government since Rudd’s election raised another, much broader question that related to governance generally. What was the role of a federal government in the lives of the people that employed it? After all, the parliamentarians of the day were all public servants, and, by definition, were answerable to taxpayers and registered voters at large.
Many years prior, the federal government’s role had been much smaller, responsible for areas such as foreign affairs, defence (the protection of Australia’s borders), and welfare, i.e. the provision of financial support for those unable to care for themselves.
The federal government was now involved front and centre in many and varied areas of the lives of its constituents. The ever-increasing level of bureaucratisation and the ever-increasing ratio of public servants to parliamentarians led to the government creating a much greater role for itself. This had gone so far as to create a sense amongst constituents that they had the right to ask “what is the government doing about it?” This could be in relation to a $45 dishonour fee charged by their bank, a Medicare form filled in incorrectly resulting in a delay in the issuance of a rebate, or their loss of a job within their probationary period for constantly being late for work. The sense of personal responsibility can be negatively affected as government takes on a larger role in our lives.
The $0.25billion rebate to commercial television stations and the insulation program are just two examples of cases where doing nothing may well have been so much better than government action. A $1600 rebate through the Medicare system only created what some may have seen as an artificial sense of demand for a product that would have been better left to the private sector to market to potential customers with regulatory safeguards such as Fair Trading legislation already in place.
Articles started appearing relating to scams associated with the rebate. People who had allegedly had insulation installed by a registered company under the insulation program were receiving letters from the Department of Environment when no such installation had taken place. This was so that ‘bogus’ installers could claim the rebate on offer...at the taxpayers' expense. The Auditor-General was requested to investigate the level at which this fraudulent activity had occurred. The Auditor-General would be busy for some time to come.
Regulatory safeguards are required in most industries. But direct government involvement in the private sector could be considered to be taking government action one step too far. Just how far should government assistance to private industry go? Should it exist at all? If so, in what form? Or is this just playing favourites? Where should the line be drawn?
As such questions were being pondered by all, it had become apparent that Rudd was about to make an ‘artificial apology’ – an apology with one thing lacking – any sense of sincerity. This was duly done in the sense that Rudd took ‘ownership’ of responsibility for the recent 'stuff up' that was the insulation program. As Greg Combet, who appeared to be Rudd’s ‘Mr. Fixit,' stood beside him trying to feign interest, Rudd announced that Combet would be taking over responsibility for seeing the ‘new and improved’ insulation program brought to fruition. Rudd could not let it lie. He had to prove the program could work. Combet had drawn the short straw. No wonder he couldn’t smile.
Meanwhile, Peter Garrett was the most relieved man in Australian politics. Whilst the press conference rolled on, he could be forgiven for opening a bottle of very expensive champagne and celebrating with his wife and family the end of his involvement in a failed program. He maintained his ministerial wage, his lurks and perks, and was now Minister for Environmental Protection, Heritage and the Arts. He could concentrate on what was close to his heart, the survival of the endangered dugong. He could hark back to his ACF days, take trips to wetlands, Tasmanian forests and the like.
Would Garrett be burning the midnight oil that night? One could hardly blame him if he did. Perhaps in his heyday as an ardent pop star, he’d done that often enough. Maybe now he’d just resign himself to a better understanding of the art of politics, move on... and smile.
What would Rudd be doing? The weekend had arrived and the Sun-Herald had released a poll showing the Government and the Coalition neck and neck, fifty-fifty on a two-party preferred basis.
The government was in damage control. They were looking stale and tired. Abbott was on a roll.
This and other programs entered into by the Federal Government since Rudd’s election raised another, much broader question that related to governance generally. What was the role of a federal government in the lives of the people that employed it? After all, the parliamentarians of the day were all public servants, and, by definition, were answerable to taxpayers and registered voters at large.
Many years prior, the federal government’s role had been much smaller, responsible for areas such as foreign affairs, defence (the protection of Australia’s borders), and welfare, i.e. the provision of financial support for those unable to care for themselves.
The federal government was now involved front and centre in many and varied areas of the lives of its constituents. The ever-increasing level of bureaucratisation and the ever-increasing ratio of public servants to parliamentarians led to the government creating a much greater role for itself. This had gone so far as to create a sense amongst constituents that they had the right to ask “what is the government doing about it?” This could be in relation to a $45 dishonour fee charged by their bank, a Medicare form filled in incorrectly resulting in a delay in the issuance of a rebate, or their loss of a job within their probationary period for constantly being late for work. The sense of personal responsibility can be negatively affected as government takes on a larger role in our lives.
The $0.25billion rebate to commercial television stations and the insulation program are just two examples of cases where doing nothing may well have been so much better than government action. A $1600 rebate through the Medicare system only created what some may have seen as an artificial sense of demand for a product that would have been better left to the private sector to market to potential customers with regulatory safeguards such as Fair Trading legislation already in place.
Articles started appearing relating to scams associated with the rebate. People who had allegedly had insulation installed by a registered company under the insulation program were receiving letters from the Department of Environment when no such installation had taken place. This was so that ‘bogus’ installers could claim the rebate on offer...at the taxpayers' expense. The Auditor-General was requested to investigate the level at which this fraudulent activity had occurred. The Auditor-General would be busy for some time to come.
Regulatory safeguards are required in most industries. But direct government involvement in the private sector could be considered to be taking government action one step too far. Just how far should government assistance to private industry go? Should it exist at all? If so, in what form? Or is this just playing favourites? Where should the line be drawn?
As such questions were being pondered by all, it had become apparent that Rudd was about to make an ‘artificial apology’ – an apology with one thing lacking – any sense of sincerity. This was duly done in the sense that Rudd took ‘ownership’ of responsibility for the recent 'stuff up' that was the insulation program. As Greg Combet, who appeared to be Rudd’s ‘Mr. Fixit,' stood beside him trying to feign interest, Rudd announced that Combet would be taking over responsibility for seeing the ‘new and improved’ insulation program brought to fruition. Rudd could not let it lie. He had to prove the program could work. Combet had drawn the short straw. No wonder he couldn’t smile.
Meanwhile, Peter Garrett was the most relieved man in Australian politics. Whilst the press conference rolled on, he could be forgiven for opening a bottle of very expensive champagne and celebrating with his wife and family the end of his involvement in a failed program. He maintained his ministerial wage, his lurks and perks, and was now Minister for Environmental Protection, Heritage and the Arts. He could concentrate on what was close to his heart, the survival of the endangered dugong. He could hark back to his ACF days, take trips to wetlands, Tasmanian forests and the like.
Would Garrett be burning the midnight oil that night? One could hardly blame him if he did. Perhaps in his heyday as an ardent pop star, he’d done that often enough. Maybe now he’d just resign himself to a better understanding of the art of politics, move on... and smile.
What would Rudd be doing? The weekend had arrived and the Sun-Herald had released a poll showing the Government and the Coalition neck and neck, fifty-fifty on a two-party preferred basis.
The government was in damage control. They were looking stale and tired. Abbott was on a roll.
Terms of endearment...
It seemed the media had found a new term of endearment – ‘cut-through’ was being used more and more often to describe the ability of a policy or a politician to ‘connect’ with voters. Tony Abbott’s comment that the $250million rebate offered to commercial television stations recently by the Rudd Government was an election year bribe was a case in point. He had made the comment, waited for it to ‘cut-through’ and left the hard work to the media to advertise it for him and work their magic with those voters that were tuned in to the day to day activity of the federal political scene.
The media were onto the story as soon as the word ‘bribe’ passed Abbott’s lips. Was this a form of defamation? Had Abbott just stated that he thought the Rudd Government was in some way corrupt? One could make up their own mind. The term surely gained traction with voters. Another poll showed Abbott and the Coalition favoured over the Government in terms of their ability to manage the economy, and only five percentage points behind the government in terms of who was best able to manage the issue of climate change.
The policy of the week was sure to be that of Abbott’s intention to introduce local hospital boards to take ownership of policy in public hospitals and to better affect improvements in the ability to provide doctors, nurses, and beds where and when they were needed. Again, Abbott’s interest was in announcing a scheme that would ‘cut-through,' creating a popular reaction with voters and a reaction of some sort with the media. The latter was guaranteed.
The media loved terms that would resonate with voters. ‘Quick-fix’ was one used to describe Abbott’s local hospital board(s) policy and a term unlikely to engender a positive response from readers of the paper that day. Health was always going to be a big issue in any federal election. But it was no less so currently as a result of promises made by the Rudd Government to address deficiencies in the public hospital system directly. All care taken but no responsibility was the way the role of the federal government could be interpreted at present. Promises made were sure to be broken within Rudd’s first term. Did this mean he would take the issue of health and the public hospital system generally to the election with broken promises hanging over his head?
The media had, for decades, rightly or wrongly, considered health to be a strength for Labor, a weakness for the Coalition. Thus any Coalition proposal would likely be met with negative headlines such as ‘Abbott’s Quick Fix.' It was just par for the course.
But Rudd seemed to be segregating himself from the electorate. When asked in mid-February why further progress had not been made on health reform, his response was ‘lame’ to say the least. He said his government had been working hard over the past 18 months to alleviate the affects of the Global Financial Crisis on the Australian economy (by spending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money).
Excuses, not reasons, abounded. His ability to ‘cut-through’ (there’s that term again) with the electorate was diminishing as the week’s progressed. The latest polling in Queensland showed the federal government losing ground by as much as nine percentage points. And Queensland was the state in which Rudd had a home ground advantage. Mind you, he also had in office a rather unpopular Premier in Anna Bligh.
Rudd’s health, so to speak, was in question.
The week also saw Peter Garrett escape to Coffs Harbour in northern NSW, to show concern for potentially at risk species of one kind or another whilst meetings were being held in Canberra in his absence. These meetings related to the catastrophe that the insulation program had become for Garrett, Rudd, and the federal government.
Meanwhile, Abbott’s IR spokesman, Eric Abetz, was interviewed by David Speers during the week, on Sky News PM Agenda. Someone should have told him before his appearance that a striped tie does not go well with a striped shirt.
Speers was as objective as can be expected in such circumstances. When asked if anyone would be worse off under the Coalition’s proposed IR policy, Abetz all too readily said he didn’t believe anyone would be worse off. Abetz must have been living in an ideal world. Speers had his man. A good day’s work. Another political scalp. Speers would sleep well that night.
Tony Abbott was more effective than his spokesman when commenting on potential policy ideas, and the likelihood the Coalition would espouse support for greater flexibility within work practices, a reduction or change to unfair dismissal laws as they applied to small businesses, and the ability for workers to once again sign non-unionised individual contracts.
Julia Gillard, somewhat quiet of late, keen not to be seen as complicit in the total failure the insulation program had become, was in this instance happy to talk... about ducks. She was of the view that if it walked liked a duck, and looked like a duck then it probably was a duck. In other words, she was doing her best to call Abbott’s IR policy ‘Work Choices,' the one policy more than any other that had brought John Howard undone in 2007. Abbott was smart, pragmatic, and progressive. He and Gillard would fight a good fight over IR in coming months. It would be a fight not to be missed. One thing was for sure – they had a keen respect for each other. Abbott had even said at one time that once they got off the topic of politics, Gillard made a fine companion. Gillard was the Prime Minister in waiting. Abbott held a similar position.
Yet the Rudd Government’s bad luck continued. Stephen Conroy was announcing details relating to the $42 billion National Broadband Network – locals seemed to think such expenditure was clearly an example of the government of the day making poor use of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Abbott’s comment about an “election year bribe” led to Rudd attempting to deflect attention from the negative by holding a press conference on homelessness and government programs designed to improve it. But none of the issues causing the government harm seemed to be going away.
As the end of the week arrived, Peter Garrett held a press conference to announce the end of the insulation program as we knew it and a reduction in the solar panel rebate. Penny Wong announced that Bondi Beach could dissipate to nothingness over the course of the 21st century. Wong even went into bat for the IPCC, stating that the climate science on which global warming was based was indeed true and correct, save for the odd error associated with published reports. There’s nothing like a ‘true believer’ to pedal a false premise.
In The Australian on February 19, it was reported that “the UN’s top climate change official announced he would resign”, Kevin Rudd’s promise to build 260 childcare centres at schools had led to only three being completed by the end of the week, with a new promise to build only thirty-eight. The Federal Government suddenly decided the $250 million “election year bribe” to commercial television stations would have to be handed back if, as The Australian announced that same day, commercial television “didn’t produce enough Australian content.” This issue was covered in their licensing agreement anyway.
And then in the Weekend Australian on page four, there were six negative headlines, all associated with the insulation program. They read as follows:
“Law firm warned Garrett”, “Ill-fated scheme goes out with a whimper”, “Lives lost in haste to be seen as green”, “Staff left burnt by Rudd workload”, “Arsonist worked despite fire”, “PM stands by minister as roof plan scrapped”.
If Rudd’s paper had been delivered to Kirribilli House that morning, it may have been beneficial for him to have left his glasses at the office.
The media were onto the story as soon as the word ‘bribe’ passed Abbott’s lips. Was this a form of defamation? Had Abbott just stated that he thought the Rudd Government was in some way corrupt? One could make up their own mind. The term surely gained traction with voters. Another poll showed Abbott and the Coalition favoured over the Government in terms of their ability to manage the economy, and only five percentage points behind the government in terms of who was best able to manage the issue of climate change.
The policy of the week was sure to be that of Abbott’s intention to introduce local hospital boards to take ownership of policy in public hospitals and to better affect improvements in the ability to provide doctors, nurses, and beds where and when they were needed. Again, Abbott’s interest was in announcing a scheme that would ‘cut-through,' creating a popular reaction with voters and a reaction of some sort with the media. The latter was guaranteed.
The media loved terms that would resonate with voters. ‘Quick-fix’ was one used to describe Abbott’s local hospital board(s) policy and a term unlikely to engender a positive response from readers of the paper that day. Health was always going to be a big issue in any federal election. But it was no less so currently as a result of promises made by the Rudd Government to address deficiencies in the public hospital system directly. All care taken but no responsibility was the way the role of the federal government could be interpreted at present. Promises made were sure to be broken within Rudd’s first term. Did this mean he would take the issue of health and the public hospital system generally to the election with broken promises hanging over his head?
The media had, for decades, rightly or wrongly, considered health to be a strength for Labor, a weakness for the Coalition. Thus any Coalition proposal would likely be met with negative headlines such as ‘Abbott’s Quick Fix.' It was just par for the course.
But Rudd seemed to be segregating himself from the electorate. When asked in mid-February why further progress had not been made on health reform, his response was ‘lame’ to say the least. He said his government had been working hard over the past 18 months to alleviate the affects of the Global Financial Crisis on the Australian economy (by spending billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money).
Excuses, not reasons, abounded. His ability to ‘cut-through’ (there’s that term again) with the electorate was diminishing as the week’s progressed. The latest polling in Queensland showed the federal government losing ground by as much as nine percentage points. And Queensland was the state in which Rudd had a home ground advantage. Mind you, he also had in office a rather unpopular Premier in Anna Bligh.
Rudd’s health, so to speak, was in question.
The week also saw Peter Garrett escape to Coffs Harbour in northern NSW, to show concern for potentially at risk species of one kind or another whilst meetings were being held in Canberra in his absence. These meetings related to the catastrophe that the insulation program had become for Garrett, Rudd, and the federal government.
Meanwhile, Abbott’s IR spokesman, Eric Abetz, was interviewed by David Speers during the week, on Sky News PM Agenda. Someone should have told him before his appearance that a striped tie does not go well with a striped shirt.
Speers was as objective as can be expected in such circumstances. When asked if anyone would be worse off under the Coalition’s proposed IR policy, Abetz all too readily said he didn’t believe anyone would be worse off. Abetz must have been living in an ideal world. Speers had his man. A good day’s work. Another political scalp. Speers would sleep well that night.
Tony Abbott was more effective than his spokesman when commenting on potential policy ideas, and the likelihood the Coalition would espouse support for greater flexibility within work practices, a reduction or change to unfair dismissal laws as they applied to small businesses, and the ability for workers to once again sign non-unionised individual contracts.
Julia Gillard, somewhat quiet of late, keen not to be seen as complicit in the total failure the insulation program had become, was in this instance happy to talk... about ducks. She was of the view that if it walked liked a duck, and looked like a duck then it probably was a duck. In other words, she was doing her best to call Abbott’s IR policy ‘Work Choices,' the one policy more than any other that had brought John Howard undone in 2007. Abbott was smart, pragmatic, and progressive. He and Gillard would fight a good fight over IR in coming months. It would be a fight not to be missed. One thing was for sure – they had a keen respect for each other. Abbott had even said at one time that once they got off the topic of politics, Gillard made a fine companion. Gillard was the Prime Minister in waiting. Abbott held a similar position.
Yet the Rudd Government’s bad luck continued. Stephen Conroy was announcing details relating to the $42 billion National Broadband Network – locals seemed to think such expenditure was clearly an example of the government of the day making poor use of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
Abbott’s comment about an “election year bribe” led to Rudd attempting to deflect attention from the negative by holding a press conference on homelessness and government programs designed to improve it. But none of the issues causing the government harm seemed to be going away.
As the end of the week arrived, Peter Garrett held a press conference to announce the end of the insulation program as we knew it and a reduction in the solar panel rebate. Penny Wong announced that Bondi Beach could dissipate to nothingness over the course of the 21st century. Wong even went into bat for the IPCC, stating that the climate science on which global warming was based was indeed true and correct, save for the odd error associated with published reports. There’s nothing like a ‘true believer’ to pedal a false premise.
In The Australian on February 19, it was reported that “the UN’s top climate change official announced he would resign”, Kevin Rudd’s promise to build 260 childcare centres at schools had led to only three being completed by the end of the week, with a new promise to build only thirty-eight. The Federal Government suddenly decided the $250 million “election year bribe” to commercial television stations would have to be handed back if, as The Australian announced that same day, commercial television “didn’t produce enough Australian content.” This issue was covered in their licensing agreement anyway.
And then in the Weekend Australian on page four, there were six negative headlines, all associated with the insulation program. They read as follows:
“Law firm warned Garrett”, “Ill-fated scheme goes out with a whimper”, “Lives lost in haste to be seen as green”, “Staff left burnt by Rudd workload”, “Arsonist worked despite fire”, “PM stands by minister as roof plan scrapped”.
If Rudd’s paper had been delivered to Kirribilli House that morning, it may have been beneficial for him to have left his glasses at the office.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)