Political Chronicles
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 54, Number 2, 2008, pp. 289-341. Political Chronicles Commonwealth of Australia July to December 2007 JOHN WANNA The Australian National University and Griffith University The Stage, the Players and their Exits and Entrances […] All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; [William Shakespeare, As You Like It] In the months leading up to the 2007 general election, Prime Minister John Howard waited like Mr Micawber “in case anything turned up” that would restore the fortunes of the Coalition. The government’s attacks on the Opposition, and its new leader Kevin Rudd, had fallen flat, and a series of staged events designed to boost the government’s stocks had not translated into electoral support. So, as time went on and things did not improve, the Coalition government showed increasing signs of panic, desperation and abandonment. In July, John Howard had asked his party room “is it me” as he reflected on the low standing of the government (Australian, 17 July 2007). Labor held a commanding lead in opinion polls throughout most of 2007 — recording a primary support of between 47 and 51 per cent to the Coalition’s 39 to 42 per cent. The most remarkable feature of the polls was their consistency — regularly showing Labor holding a 15 percentage point lead on a two-party-preferred basis. Labor also seemed impervious to attack, and the government found it difficult to get traction on “its” core issues to narrow the gap. Although a number of scandals and embarrassing incidents emerged that could have hurt Labor (such as Labor’s legal spokesman having given a character reference to an convicted drug peddler, Rudd visiting a New York pole-dancing joint and getting intoxicated, and his millionaire wife getting rich on government contracts), they did not register any impact in the polls. The consistency of Labor’s unassailable lead eventually caused the government to lose its nerve on the brink of the election, causing them to behave like political novices and very much out of character. The World’s Stage — Sydney’s APEC and the “Crank Coup” Considerable planning and political calculation had gone into the arrangements for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting held in Sydney between 2–9 September 2008. John Howard wanted to strut the world’s stage as host leader mixing with other world leaders and foreign dignitaries. He had been holding off both the election and his Journal Compilation © 2008 School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd. 290 Political Chronicles rival Peter Costello until a successful APEC was concluded. But not everything went according to plan. George W. Bush came without his wife for just a couple of days, and seemed absent-minded. It gave the impression it was all an unavoidable holiday for him, spending the first day dirt cycling before he cruised the harbour. In his formal address to delegates he made the mistake of calling APEC a meeting of “OPEC” and then thanking “you Austrians” for military support in Afghanistan! While the government milked every photo opportunity for press conferences and media releases, Kevin Rudd somewhat stole the show with a short address in Mandarin to the Chinese delegation. APEC ended as a farce; Sydney complained about the disruption; ministers were left arguing how many languages they could or couldn’t speak; meanwhile a comedy team from the Chaser’s War on Everything waltzed through the squadrons of security staff dressed as Osama bin Laden. But behind the scenes, Howard’s fate hung in the balance as his own cabinet members debated whether to oust him as the last visitor departed Australia. During the APEC talkfest, most of the cabinet (minus John Howard and his deputy Peter Costello) held a secret meeting at Quay Grand Hotel on Thursday 6 September. Howard had asked some of his senior ministers to “sound out” cabinet over their attitude to his remaining leader. At this meeting a majority of cabinet ministers expressed grave doubts Howard could win the forthcoming election due in only a matter of a few weeks, and urged him to consider resigning in favour of his deputy, Peter Costello (this was despite widespread fears that Costello was even less popular than Howard). A couple of senior ministers duly reported the ministry’s mood back to a resilient Howard who chose to disregard the amateurish revolt by his cabinet colleagues and instead stare them down (the final message back was not so unequivocal Howard later said). The PM did not want to appear a coward walking away from a fight, and personally believed he was most likely to win the pending election. This contradicted his stock answer to questions about how long he would remain leader, which was to assert he would remain only for as long as his party wished. But on election eve, his colleagues (and the “great pretender” Peter Costello) lacked the mettle to depose him and Howard refused to go of his own volition. A destabilising stalemate ensued. This “crank coup” as the journalist Matt Price dubbed it, merely gave the impression of a desperate government, floundering about and riven with internal disunity. Moreover, there was widespread disbelief that the Coalition had brought such misfortunes entirely on themselves. A temporary truce was arranged with a so-called “joint team” or diarchy of Howard and Costello ostensibly leading the party together into the election and making joint pronouncements. Howard then surprised everyone when he announced, in an unscripted TV interview, that he would consider retirement sometime late in the next term if he won the forthcoming election. Some of his colleagues doubted his sincerity, believing he was again buying time. In the days following the aborted “coup”, disaffected Costello supporters continued to spread rumours Howard might agree to step down if the polls did not improve. Such obvious signs of panic and disarray on the eve of the election appeared to undermine Howard’s core political strengths — his astuteness, credibility and leadership experience. His government was spectacularly imploding, caught in the pathology of a government in decline and unable to do anything about it. To buy more time, Howard chose to delay the announcement of the formal election allowing a “phoney campaign” to develop with both leaders extensively zigzagging the country Political Chronicles 291 pressing the flesh and shamelessly touting for votes. Opinion polls remained unmoved and decisively pro-Labor. Finally, the Onset of the Formal Campaign Howard delayed calling the election until virtually the last possible minute. Finally, he announced on Sunday, 14 October that Australians would go to the polls on 24 November (a longish campaign of six weeks). The government attempted to seize the initiative on the second day of the campaign with an audacious move that promised $34 billion in tax cuts over four years. Taken aback, Labor responded by the end of the first week copying the government’s proposed cuts almost line-by-line except it delayed cuts for very high income earners — committing $31.5 billion in tax cuts while diverting $3.4 billion toward a schooling bonus for parents to cover educational investments. Labor’s presidential-style campaign emphasised “New Leadership” under the theme of a “plan for the future”. Rudd claimed to be the man with “the plan”, and although much was aspirational rhetoric it was effective against a demoralised government. One of the main messages repeated by Labor was that “working families” faced severe difficulties and were finding it hard to make ends meet. This became a powerful message framed largely from focus group research, driven home at every opportunity, and backed by a $20 million union campaign on “Your Rights at Work”. The Opposition also trickled out a string of policy statements and platform commitments generally strong on rhetoric but short on detail (for example, to promote affordable housing Labor promised to release unused Defence land for private dwellings but omitted to include any specific commitments or actual figures). On almost all policy matters the Opposition’s tactics were to copy the government’s policy commitments — often announcing identical positions a day or so after the government had declared its position. This intentional “me-too” strategy was designed to minimise any differences between the two major protagonists — and also to reduce the government’s ability to criticise the Opposition’s policies as being unworkable or unaffordable (as policy commitments were virtually identical to those of the government). Such tactics non- plussed the government — leaving it to complain about Labor’s “setting the world record in being copycats” and asking what Labor would do when the government was not there initiating the decisions (The Weekend Australian 3-4 November 2007). There were indications Labor’s policy thinking was thin, as when the Shadow Treasurer, Wayne Swan, admitted Labor had no intention of formulating its own tax policy to go to the electorate with, but would accept the government’s tax system!). Kevin Rudd also emphasised his conservative credentials — to reassure the electorate that he offered continuity and was a safe bet. He stressed his austere upbringing and the importance of his religious faith. Above all he declared himself as a fiscal conservative who would extract $10 billion in spending cuts (“savings”) and wield a “meat axe” to a bloated public service in Canberra (including abolishing performance pay for bureaucrats). The only gaffes in Labor’s campaign came from the environment spokesperson, Peter Garrett, who developed a knack of putting his foot in his mouth.