Political leaders dont get many chances to admit they were wrong, clear the slate and announce a new direction. Do it once and it is evidence of a leader who listens and learns. Do it twice, or more, and its a sure-fire sign of weakness and failure. When Tony Abbott fronted the media on Monday, confessed to a ragged week and invited critics to bowl up any questions in the longest media conference of his prime ministership, some saw it as Abbott playing the mea culpa card and pressing the re-set button on his government. Here was Abbott doing what his mentor John Howard did back in 2001, when he was on the ropes after then Liberal Party president Shane Stones leaked mean, tricky and out of touch critique of his government.Except for one thing. There was no big concession from Abbott, no promise to change course and no apology for his failure to address the trust deficit, something he said before the election was more important than the budget deficit. Some colleagues dubbed his performance courageous and honest. Others were left scratching their heads. Ragged week? What about horror year, punctuated by own goals, ideological frolics, policy defeats and a failure to communicate? What about the worst set of poll numbers over a 12-month period for any new government in more than two generations? What about a loyal and disciplined backbench that is increasingly frustrated at being taken for granted and kept out of the loop? What about the claim that power is too heavily concentrated in the Prime Ministers office, and that micro-management is leading to poor decisions, tension and frustrated ministers?: In the case of both questions, a target of criticism is the PMs chief of staff, Peta Credlin, who Abbott singled out for praise as the fiercest political warrior Ive ever worked with in his end-of-year speech to Parliament. What about the Victorian election that saw a first-term government banished for the first time in 60 years after Labor campaigned heavily on Abbotts unpopularity? What about the response from Abbott ministers: that federal factors played no part in the result? And what about the signs of tension within the Abbott cabinet, like Foreign Minister Julie Bishop having to hose down a report that she had gone bananas at the PM after learning that Trade Minister Andrew Robb would be keeping an eye on her at a climate-change conference in Peru? When Howard stood in precisely the same spot in the Prime Ministers courtyard, almost 13 years earlier, he said at the outset: Let me make it clear that I was plainly wrong in not understanding the concerns held by the Australian people about the price of petrol and I acknowledge that. He then abandoned a position he had obstinately held for the previous 242 days, announcing a cut in fuel excise that would cost his budget $555 million and the end of half-yearly indexation of petrol excise, a decision that denied future governments billions in forgone revenue. Prime Ministers and political leaders should never confuse strength with stubbornness, Howard remarked in Brisbane the following day. Occasionally we get it wrong and, when we do, we ought to fix it and acknowledge it and move on with the business of government. Back then, Howard was nudged toward his mea culpa moment by frank assessments from his backbench and a warning from the now retired Petro Georgiou that a failure to admit mistakes and reverse unpopular decisions would be fatal. But, if the Howard message back then was I was wrong and Ill fix it, Tony Abbotts missive this week was something very different, something more like: I am right and well persevere. Yes, he admitted the obvious, that the ABC cuts were a broken promise. And, yes, he announced a modest concession on defence force entitlements and flagged a possible tweaking of his signature paid parental leave scheme. But the key point he wanted to make on Monday, and at every opportunity since, is that this has been a year of very considerable achievement, during which the government had shown considerable courage and strength of character and substantially delivered on its election promises. In one sense, he is right. The Coalition has delivered on several core commitments, from the abolition of the mining and carbon taxes to the stopping of the boats, while signing three big trade deals and hosting the biggest meeting of world leaders on Australian soil. This is why some cabinet ministers struggle to comprehend the antagonism of voters. It is why, after interviewing Abbott on Friday, Melbourne broadcaster Neil Mitchell asked his listeners: Is he really that much on the nose? The response from the first caller, a self-described unattached voter named Dean, was emphatic. The Prime Minister still wants to keep blaming Labor. The reality is hes not listening. If Abbott knows he is bloodied – and he must – he is unbowed, and even a touch fatalistic. Come the election, he told the reporters on Monday, he was confident that voters would appreciate that the governments main aim had been true: to leave the country in better shape for the next generation. Appreciate? They may not agree with it, they may not even support it, but I think theyll appreciate it, he said before departing. When the ABCs Leigh Sales asked on Thursday if he would contemplate stepping aside if the Coalition was polling as badly as it is now and his personal approval ratings were unchanged before the next election, Abbotts reply was extraordinary. Well, look, thats a fair question, Leigh, he said. But I think the one fundamental lesson of the last catastrophic government was that you dont lightly change leaders. That a leader who secured a thumping victory barely 15 months earlier, and who believed he had delivered on his core commitments, would even countenance such a question indicated just how big a hole the Coalition is in. Yet it is premature to be canvassing worst-case scenarios and there are significant differences between the situation Howard faced in 2001 and the one confronting Abbott now. With a much slimmer majority, Howard was facing an election within 11 months after being in power for five years. Abbott has a big buffer, and hasnt even reached the halfway mark of his first term. Moreover, Howard was presiding over an economy poised for a strong burst of growth and which would soon reveal his fifth straight budget surplus. Economist Saul Eslake argues that Howard petrol tax retreat marked the beginning of the end as far as his governments fiscal and reform legacy was concerned. From that point on, whenever Howard saw the opportunity to take a soft fiscal option, he took it. In contrast, the economy Abbott and Joe Hockey are presiding over is stuttering, with real gross domestic income – a broad measure of national earnings – declining for a second straight quarter. Deloitte Access Economics chief Chris Richardson has observed deficits loom as far as the eye can see, while outgoing Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson has warned that, unless the budget problem is fixed, we will not be able to guarantee rising income and living standards for Australians. Herein lies the governments biggest failure: to persuade the electorate that Australia is facing a budget emergency and that its response is both fair or right. Rather than abandon any of the most unpopular measures, like the $7 GP co-payment, the Abbott message (so muddied by talk of barnacle removal last week) is that he will plough on. You dont abandon your objective, but you find another way which, in all the circumstances, will get you to where you need to go, is how he explained it. Perversely, the release of the mid-year economic forecasts in a fortnight, which will pinpoint how the situation has deteriorated in recent months, looms as an opportunity to ramp up the case for the unpopular May budget and the $28 billion in savings being opposed by Labor. It will also represent the beginning of the most important six months in the political career of Hockey, who began the year as the governments stand-out performer but whose political fortunes were summed up in his home-town tabloid on Friday under the splash headline: JOES ON THE NOSE. Of all the governments own goals, Hockeys observation that the poorest people either dont have cars or actually dont drive very far in many cases was the most damaging. After a budget that comprehensively failed the fairness test, the remark reinforced the image of a government, and a treasurer, lacking in empathy and out of touch. Now Hockey has to prosecute the case that his budget does address the structural problem highlighted by Parkinson and others and craft a second budget that does pass the fairness test. He has Abbotts unqualified support, but the challenge is not his alone. It is summed up neatly by Craig Laundy, a first-term MP, who used to run pubs in western Sydney and recalls his fathers observation that its always easier to tell people what they want to hear, but it takes courage to tell them what they need to hear. We need to make the Australian public understand the gravity of the financial position that we find ourselves in as a country. Im to blame in my electorate if this hasnt been sold well enough. Im a part of the team and, if the people in my electorate dont understand it, its my fault. The communications challenge extends well beyond the economy. It involves avoiding clangers like Attorney-General George Brandiss people do have a right to be bigots and the appearance of petty parochialism that diverted attention from the success of the G20 meting in Brisbane. It should involve rewarding competence and communication skills in the looming reshuffle, and discarding under-performers. The governments problems are more than just a few barnacles – it has failed to connect with the electorate from day one, says John Stirton who polled for Fairfax for 17 years until mid-year. If the government is to turn things around it needs to change the whole narrative, it needs to explain what it is doing and why it is doing it. Most importantly, it must demonstrate to voters that what it is doing is fair – either by explaining its policies better or by making significant changes to them. One of the Abbott promises was grown-up government, and that is another area where improvement is required. For all the talk of dysfunction and chaos under Julia Gillard, the first year of minority government stands up well against Abbotts first year in control of the lower house. Debates have been gagged far more often, opposition MPs have been ejected from proceedings more than four times more under Bronwyn Bishop than under Labors speaker, Harry Jenkins, and the number of bills passed was virtually the same – 185 in the last parliament and 189 in this one. For Labor, the Coalitions misery has taken the pressure off Bill Shorten and given him ample opportunity to find his feet and his voice. But, even by his own reckoning, the year from the Oppositions perspective was defined by the force of Labors resistance (or the same brand of negativity that worked for Abbott in opposition). In the course of 2015, it will be defined by the power of Labors vision and its positive plans for the future of this country, he told the Labor caucus this week. Implicit is the recognition that the alternative government will come under much more scrutiny next year. One consolation for Coalition MPs departing Canberra after such a miserable year is that Abbott still has the mea culpa card up his sleeve. If their fortunes arent transformed by early next year, the pressure on the Prime Minister to play it will be immense. But will it be too late?
Posted on: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 02:41:17 +0000