And so ends another parliamentary year in Canberra. While it doesn’t feel like the year has had the same level of high drama and tension as 2012 or for most of 2013, it has been unique in many ways. A first-term government is seriously being considered as a first-term loser (not since James Scullin lost office in 1931 has there been a one-term federal government) and it hasn’t even reached its mid-way point. The Treasurer, Joe Hockey, is rumoured to be replaced by the Minister of Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, and there is also now open speculation about Tony Abbott being replaced as Prime Minister before the next election. These are speculations that are usually reserved for parties in Opposition, or a long-term government, not a first-term government elected in a landslide victory after several years of leadership instability in the Labor Party and a hung parliament. So, what’s behind this speculation, and is the Coalition Government performing as badly as its poll numbers suggest? The most obvious point is that Tony Abbott has never been widely regarded by the electorate, even after he assumed the position of Prime Minister – his approval numbers are usually in negative territory (approval, minus disapproval rating). But there are other factors in play, most notably the introduction of several extreme pieces of legislation that were never discussed during the 2013 election campaign – the reforms to higher education, the attempt to repeal funding for Labor’s funding plan under Gonski, the proposed Medicare $7 co-payment tax, raising taxes and cutting pensions. On top of this, the Coalition has implemented $308 million of cuts to the ABC and SBS over five years, even though Tony Abbott emphatically stated that this would not occur if they won the election. Then there have been other strange actions, such as the $250 million for a modified chaplains program, which excludes secular workers, and the $821 million over the next four years to fund training for priests. Aside from the state–church separation issues, in the context of the so-called ‘Budget emergency’ the Coalition has been claiming since it won office, this is an outrageously high figure for what is, essentially a Tony Abbott pet project (remembering that Abbott trained as a seminarian for two years, and has strong relationships with figures in the Catholic church, most notably, George Pell). From the time Tony Abbott became leader of the Coalition in 2009, he performed the very effective political campaign to remove Kevin Rudd (twice) and Julia Gillard to win office in 2013. But, the political strategy employed at that time excluded a policy strategy, and this emphasis on politics is the main reason why the Coalition currently is suffering so badly. For all of the six years in Opposition, the Coalition primarily focused on creating chaos within Parliament, and very little else. It is surprising that Christopher Pyne has held the education portfolio since 2008 – surprising in the sense that no policy of note has been released from this time (except for backgrounding about more autonomy for schools and principals). Even more surprising is the idea that Pyne expected that he could go back on his word about the funding of Labor’s Gonski reforms, refashion the national curriculum into a conservative wishlist using his hand-picked right-wing colleagues (including the unfortunate Barry Spurr from the University of Sydney), and introduce a massive deregulation of the higher education sector, without causing great consternation within the community and media backlash. Certainly, if these policy ideas were presented to the public prior to the election, and the public voted for it, then the democratic course of action allows for the implementation of such a program. But, that never happened. And it’s obvious from the reaction of the public, that the agenda is something that the public would never vote for. The Medicare co-payment tax is something that was inarticulately announced by Health Minister, Peter Dutton, in December 2013, several months after the election. It’s bizarre to think that Dutton was considered Liberal leadership material in 2007, because he performance as Minister has been mediocre. The Medicare co-payment tax has been promoted as a mechanism to ‘price signal’ visits to the doctor, making the Medicare system sustainable in the future (why it is ‘unsustainable’ now has never fully been discussed), linked to a medical research fund of $20 billion, or a way to reduce the Budget deficit. The problem with this reasoning is a Medicare co-payment tax can either be linked to a medical research fund or it can be used to reduce the Budget deficit: it can’t do both. ‘Price signalling’ to reduce visits to the doctor means that people become sick more often, and more chronically, adding to future Budget costs by adding to hospital medical expenses in later years. The public has recognised this incoherency and understood the flaws in what the Coalition is attempting to do. In his most recent press conference, Tony Abbott announced that 2014 for the Coalition was a year of “very considerable achievement”, where the Government had shown “considerable courage and strength of character”, often referring to “stopping the boats” (as if that’s an issue that puts food on the table of working families), “reducing the debt” (it has actually increased by $4.9 billion), and “removing the carbon and mining taxes” (carbon emissions have increased since the carbon tax was removed; the mining tax, according to the Coalition’s own words, wasn’t raising any revenue anyway – it’s a future gift to the mining industry when there profits reach a ‘super’ level again). The free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea have been developed by successive governments over many years – understandably, the government that signs the agreement takes the political credit, but it was primarily the work of the Howard, Rudd and Gillard governments. While Abbott is keen to promote this idea of “very considerable achievement”, the record shows nothing of the sort. The May Budget still has key measures that have not been passed by the Senate, and many other projects that have been attempted by the Coalition are driven by ideological desires, personal prejudices devoid of any supporting research. Ministers have been very ineffective and error prone (choose from any of this list: Kevin Andrews, David Johnston, Joe Hockey, Christopher Pyne, George Brandis, Peter Dutton, Mathias Cormann) and have often provided contradictory public statements about their policy and political intentions. And the main reason for this is virtually no policy development for all of the time the Coalition spent in Opposition, and the laziness in relying on creating chaos for the Labor Government, for the sole purpose of becoming the government themselves. As a result of not having any policy ideas and springing ideologically-driven surprises upon the electorate, the Abbott Government is the most poorly polling first-term government ever, and by some measure. It’s aggregate polling is currently 45 per cent on the two-party preferred vote, compared to Howard’s 56 per cent, and Rudd’s 58 per cent at the same point in the political cycle. It has been behind in all published polls over the past 12 months. But a government and its ministry can only be as good as its Prime Minister will allow. Abbott’s prime ministership has been poor, and he has been more intent on governing as a tribal leader of the Liberal party, and a narrow partisan collection of business people, spivs, rent seekers and hangers on, instead of government for the broader community – which is where the electoral rewards will be, not in some conservative mind-set that smells like the 1950s, and tries to take us back to supposed glory days that never existed. The recent G20 meeting in Brisbane was possibly the first time that Abbott’s Coalition colleagues were genuinely starting to think: ‘who is this guy’. ‘What is his purpose and why is he our Prime Minister?’. His partisanship knows no bounds – denying entry to Labor’s Deputy Leader, Tanya Plibersek – and using his opening address to the world leaders to announce his government’s actions and complaining about the reaction to his Medicare co-payment tax of $7.A leader governing for all would realise that it’s not about himself, or for his political party, and would include Opposition spokespeople (yes, hard to believe for Abbott, but there will be future Labor governments that will need to negotiate with other countries in the world), or discuss more broader economic agendas, rather than using the occasion to rescue his poor political standing and promote partisan propaganda. Judging by their reactions, perhaps it was the world leaders that were thinking: ‘who is this guy’. ‘What is his purpose and why is he their Prime Minister?’. It’s not so much that Abbott was an embarrassment to Australia at the G20 but, as many analysts have suggested, it was a lost opportunity to present Australian ideals and ideas to an international audience. The event itself was a success and, irrespective of the foolishness of a leader, other countries used the event to work towards consensus on global economic and climate change agendas. Australia behaved like a little country from hicksville, looking to complain about Barack Obama’s speech referring to climate change. Global leaders understand host countries will use the forum for their domestic political advantage but any more performances like Abbott’s, and future G20 events will be hosted via Skype and Dropbox. Tony Abbott is the accidental Prime Minister, in a similar way that George W. Bush became the accidental US President in 2000. He only defeated Malcolm Turnbull by one vote in the Liberal leadership ballot in 2009 and had to rely on Labor Party leadership instability and a grotesquely negative campaign to become Prime Minister. He can’t perform on the world stage, as the 2014 Davos address showed and the G20 performance confirmed. He is increasingly unable to perform on the national stage, and after the mainstream media overlooked many of his flaws and blunders during the first 12 months of his term, the worm has slowly started to turn.In a recent interview on the Today program, Karl Stefanovic stated the obvious: ‘no one is buying what you are selling’. Abbott looked about as stunned as Nicolae Ceaușescu on the steps of Revolution Square in Bucharest in 1989, just before being deposed and executed. Abbott has not been seriously scutinised by the mainstream media and would have least expected such an interrogation from Chanel Nine, supposedly friends of the Liberal Party. Former fanatics and cheerleaders at News Limited have started to seriously critique Abbott’s performance, perhaps hoping for a repeat of the ‘mean and tricky’ memo from Shane Stone in April 2001, which prompted a change in John Howard’s political strategy and supposedly one of the factors behind the Coalition winning the federal election later in that year. But Tony Abbott is not like John Howard. Just like an elite athlete, Prime Ministers need to be tried and tested, need to go the hard yards in tough interviews, develop difficult policy ideas and work out ways to implement them with a broad electoral support. It’s a test of their character and the electorate admire toughness and hardness in political leadership. But Abbott has had an easy ride in his path to becoming Prime Minister and soft interviews, such as last week’s interview on The 7.30 Report with Leigh Sales, do him no favours. He used three-word slogans and policy lies during the 2013 election campaign to become Prime Minister, and developed little policy of any use during his time in Opposition. His signature paid parental leave policy is ridiculously expensive and favours high-income families. But, it is yet to be implemented and, judging by his demeanour, will never be implemented. It was a cynical plan to feminise Abbott’s image, and hasn’t achieved that goal. He expected the electorate to accept his unannounced radical right wing agenda and failed to understand that anyone could question his Government’s motives. Australia is neither to the far left, or to the far right, and any attempts to pursue either of these extremes, especially when such an agenda has not been announced, or taken to an election, will never be accepted by the electorate. While Tony Abbott is a radical, he’s a lazy and impatient radical. Such ideas, as John Howard worked out, need to be a 10-year project. And, as Bob Hawke and Paul Keating understood in the 1980s, the electorate needs to be persuaded to be attracted to new and big ideas. But, as Howard found out to his detriment in 2007, taking a radical program such WorkChoices program without taking it to an election first, leads to great electoral problems. My feeling is that Tony Abbott’s prime ministership is doomed, and unable to be repaired. In a previous posting, ‘Tony Abbott: Bad Prime Minister’, I outlined all the reasons why Abbott would be a dangerous leader. But, I’ve changed my opinion and, to paraphrase the only quote from John Maynard Keynes that Abbott will ever use, when the fact changes, I change my mind. I now believe Abbott is more in the style of an incompetent Prime Minister, behaving as though the office can be used as a play adventure zone for ideologically-driven unfinished projects, influenced by the drivel of B.A. Santamaria, and driven by payback from his unsuccessful time as student president at the University of Sydney. Yes, Abbott is incompetent: not in the same way that Billy McMahon was incompetent in the early 1970s, but incompetent nevertheless. He’ll more than likely be replaced as leader some time in 2015 and then he can continue the relationship with his Chief of Staff that won’t inflict any further damage on the Australia community. But worse is to come. If Abbott goes, he might be replaced by someone who is truly dangerous and even more politically psychopathic: Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 02:07:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015