Kevin Rudd’s front bench may be inexperienced in government – long term oppositions usually are.
But on raw talent it looks pretty good, certainly a hell of a lot better than either John Howard’s first ministry of 1996 or his last one of 2007. There is little if any dead wood, plenty of qualifications (both academic and real life), a surprising variety of backgrounds and a heap of enthusiasm.
There will, of course, be mistakes; in a new government there always are. But for a while they will be forgivable and forgiven, provided always that the ministers remember Stubbs’ Three Laws of Politics: (1) Sooner or later everyone stuffs up. (2) Any attempt at a cover up is invariably worse than the original stuff up. (3) Everyone forgets rule (2).
In practice this is where inexperience may actually be an advantage. The Rudd team may be low on maturity but it’s high on idealism. The Howard mob had long passed the stage where any one of them was prepared to sacrifice self-interest for the general good of the party, much less of the country: all that mattered was protecting the individual arse. Rudd seems genuinely concerned with reforming the standards of government, with improving transparency and responsibility to the point where there is once again at least a modicum of trust in the system.
It would be foolish to get too excited: others have arrived in the Lodge with similar good intentions, and have succumbed, quickly or slowly according to the circumstances. Even John Howard at one stage had a code of ministerial conduct.
Rudd has promised an even stricter one, and can hardly wait to demonstrate his sincerity by sacking his first minister. But he will go much further. Ministers are to be banned (how, it is not quite clear) from diving into related private employment as soon as they leave office.
Boards of public institutions such as the ABC are no longer to be stacked. Government advertising will be subject to independent scrutiny and political ads prohibited. Ministerial staff are to be drastically reduced and those remaining subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. Performance pay for senior public servants will be abolished and an attempt made to find some way of restoring a form of permanency to departmental heads.
Cabinet decisions will routinely be made public with a press conference to follow. Freedom of Information laws will reformed so that the assumption will be that material should be released rather than retained, and conclusive certificates will be scrapped. And so it goes on: open, responsible government, an Australian version of the old Westminster system in which the pernicious phrases “national security,” “operational matters,” “Commercial in confidence,” “inappropriate question” and the like will be used only when they actually mean what they say, and can be justified by reasoned argument.
If this all sounds too good to be true, then it probably is: we have heard it all before. Back in 1972 Gough Whitlam came to power promising open government, a promise which he honoured scrupulously until his government started getting into trouble, after which the shutters were clamped back into position. He did, however, persevere with a code of conduct to the bitter end, sacking ministers for reasons which Howard would find so trivial as to be incomprehensible, although in the end it cost him his government. And he trusted the public service mandarins he inherited from his conservative predecessors, even though some of them later betrayed his trust.
If Rudd behaves half as honourably we shall have cause to be very grateful to him. Howard debased and corrupted the system almost to the point of no return. If Rudd is prepared to put his energy into trying to salvage it good luck to him. Hardheads may put it down to naiveté – even inexperience. If so, we need as much inexperience as we can get.
Fortunately the Liberals are also supplying their share of it: inexperience in the black arts of opposition has left them floundering. It was cruel and heartless of the crusty conservative John Stone to describe Brendan Nelson as a political hermaphrodite, an Andrew Peacock without the substance, but Nelson might as well get used to it; he will get called far worse once parliament meets, and by his own colleagues.
The government will be tempted to treat him with total contempt, but that would be a mistake; they’d like him around for as long as possible. Not that the hugely puffed Malcolm Turnbull would necessarily be much of an improvement, but he would at least be more noticeable. Nelson is shaping up as a hole in the air.
Still, this might be the best option for the Libs as they seek to regroup; at least it gives them a chance to evolve some sort of coherent philosophy. Turnbull as leader would simply impose his own, which would undoubtedly be entertaining but would equally certainly not be coherent. It seems inevitable that sooner or later he will take over. But the shattered remains of the Libs will be glad of a period of rest and recuperation before they have to face the prospect.
And meanwhile, back in the shadow of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Howards are still in residence, although at last report they were preparing to move out – well, maybe. The ex-PM can still be seen taking his morning walk; here is little song for him to sing as he does so:
It’s a long way from Kirribilli
It’s a long way to fall
It’s a long way from Kirribilli
Where I used to have it all;
So it’s goodbye to Sydney Harbour
And farewell to The Lodge;
It’s a long, long way from Kirribilli
And my wife won’t budge.
What I’m trying to ask is; is the AWB scandal indicative of the way big corporations do business in the Middle East? Even so, the stench of it was worse than the Werribee sewage farm on a bad day.
hehehehe; love it. When you quoted rule 2 did you mean that the AWB cover up was worse than the original crime? Or was this just par for the course. The Middle East I mean.