Waleed Aly June 28, 2013
Kevin Rudd: "Held the party to ransom". Photo: Andrew Meares
Do you have that hollow feeling, too? That feeling that after months, no, years of build-up, after the arrival of the final climax, there is something oddly underwhelming about the fact that Kevin Rudd has finally reclaimed the throne? It's not that this isn't a momentous development. It is. But after the incessant focus on whether or not this would happen, we're left with the question so many Labor MPs couldn't answer while they were vainly denying anything was going on: what exactly was that about?
It certainly wasn't about integrity. Julia Gillard's magnificent concession speech revealed the person the public so rarely saw, but that her loyal colleagues clearly knew. This is very much unlike Rudd's axing in 2010, which we now know was mainly about Rudd's impossibly dysfunctional style of governance, which led much of the caucus to detest him. Gillard's colleagues like and respect her, but in the final act simply couldn't abide her diabolically bad polling. No doubt the data reflected her constant political missteps, but they also reflected Rudd's constant undermining of her. Now the man who contributed so much to making her prime ministership impossible, who has done so much to put Labor in this catastrophic position, has been rewarded with the leadership. He held the party to ransom, and ultimately got paid.
This was sheer, bloody pragmatism. There's no central policy dispute or matter of principle at stake. Listen carefully to Bill Shorten's statement half an hour before the ballot: ''I have now come to the view that Labor stands the best chance to defend the legacies of this term of government, and to continue improving the lives of millions of Australians if Kevin Rudd is our leader,'' he explained. The emphasis is mine, but if you think about them, the italicised words are astonishing. The legacy he's protecting is Gillard's. His support for Rudd was, paradoxically, all about his admiration for the woman he helped eject from politics, a prime minister who has "accomplished remarkable things'' - ''once-in-a-generation reforms'' no less, and ''in very difficult circumstances in a minority government''.
Julia Gillard: showed the person the public rarely saw. Photo: Andrew Meares
That's one of the great ironies here. For now, the electorate clearly prefers Rudd to Gillard, and that's the only reason we now have him. But in policy terms, Gillard has the more impressive record. Rudd's time in office was frantic, but barren. Beyond his great symbolic moments (the apology and Kyoto), his biggest initiatives, such as the emissions trading scheme and his mining tax, fell over. His education revolution amounted to little - far less than Gillard's Gonski-inspired initiative. Gillard has her name on the national disability insurance scheme, the carbon tax and a newly negotiated, if deeply flawed, mining tax. She achieved a health funding deal with the states where Rudd couldn't. She has established a landmark wide-ranging royal commission on child sex abuse. Some of these (health, mining tax) were renewed, compromised versions of Rudd's failures. Others, (carbon tax, royal commission) were not her idea and were forced upon her. Still, her legacy is far more concrete than Rudd's.
Rudd's one virtue is that he gives Labor the spectre of a chance in this year's election. Not necessarily even the chance to win so much as the chance not to be utterly destroyed. That's why his caucus supporters rarely have glowing things to say about him. Foreign Minister Bob Carr was more spirited on Lateline, celebrating Rudd as ''the leader who saved us from the GFC''. No doubt, that was Rudd's great practical achievement in office. But that was a response to circumstances, not an agenda.
What is his agenda now? We know Rudd has long wanted the leadership, but to what end? The most emphatic reason he gave was to ''do what I can to prevent Mr Abbott from becoming prime minister''. Then came Shorten: "I believe that Tony Abbott and his conservative Coalition represent a once-in-a-generation risk to the advancement of this nation and its peoples''. Then came Carr: "Too much is at risk … [it's] overwhelmingly in Australia's interest that Tony Abbott not be our national leade''. It's no longer about what Labor will do. It's a little bit about what Labor has done - almost entirely under Gillard. But it's mostly about their stopping their opponents. Umpteen Labor voices have declared the importance of offering the Australian people a choice this year. But it's not yet clear exactly what that choice will be other than a choice between a man named Tony Abbott, and someone who isn't.
Illustration: Simon Letch
The upshot is this: we're now witnessing a contest between two opposition leaders. More than that, it's a contest between the two best opposition leaders we have seen in decades. Rudd's 2007 dismantling of Howard was so clinical and thorough that he looked destined forever to be a Labor hero. Abbott hasn't so much dismantled Rudd and Gillard as destroyed them. But the fact both men are skilled in opposition is scarcely encouraging. It means both excel in the symbolism and sharply crafted critique that opposition rewards. But as Rudd so spectacularly demonstrated after 2007, opposition and government are entirely different enterprises.
What we don't have is a leader. We don't have a government that can run energetically on its record, because while his colleagues might celebrate the NDIS and Gonski, Rudd simply doesn't own them, and will surely look ridiculous spruiking them. This is, in some ways, a re-run of 2010, when Gillard had no way of owning Rudd's economic management, so we didn't talk about it. The result that time was perhaps the most substance-free election campaign we've ever seen; one characterised by small ideas and mutual scare tactics. We might just be headed there again.
Columnist Waleed Aly hosts RN Drive on Radio National.
EmoticonEmoticon