By Michelle Grattan
THE term that springs to mind to describe what has happened in the federal government is ''regime change'', an expression more often used for rather different political systems. Not that it was undemocratic; there is just this extraordinary starkness. It's as though the man who controlled everything a month ago was never there. He has become an ''un-person''. It must be eerie in cabinet. The old team. Just without him. In personnel, the Gillard government is the Rudd government without Rudd.
But it won't be like this for long. Assuming Gillard wins the election, the regime change will be complete. We will have the Gillard ''team'', not just the Gillard ''government''.
Gillard will not go back on Rudd's historic change which gives the Labor PM (rather than caucus) formal power to choose the ministry - indeed, she advocated something the same when in opposition.
Rudd's new system had big implications, not least making caucus members more subservient to the leader - because their promotion depended on him. (It was the ultimate irony that the most quiescent caucus in memory became the most revolutionary, throwing out without demur a first-term PM. Perhaps their docility explains why they went along, without question or in many cases even knowing what was happening, with what the coup leaders did.)
In practice, Gillard will consult factional figures and others, and there will be a good deal of the usual pushing and shoving over who gets to the frontbench.
In choosing her ministers Gillard will be freer than a re-elected Rudd would have been - simply because she is a fresh start.
Her flexibility is further increased by the decision of two stalwarts, Defence Minister John Faulkner and Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, to bail out - Faulkner this week announcing he would go to the backbench after the election and Tanner earlier saying he would quit Parliament. Both hold linchpin jobs. A few months ago, there was speculation that Simon Crean might leave: instead he has a new lease on life with his move into Gillard's old portfolio of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
The most intriguing question will be what Gillard does with Kevin Rudd, assuming he continues to want to be on the frontbench. Rudd made a pitch for foreign affairs when Gillard had her minimalist reshuffle, but she resisted. The idea of the ghost sitting at the cabinet table in these stressed weeks was too much, although Rudd has behaved impeccably since he was deposed. Gillard did, however, promise him a senior cabinet post if she won. How, after everything, he could contemplate returning to the fray is difficult for many in Labor to understand. But he appears determined. Given all the bad character references Rudd has been getting, it should be said it takes some guts to soldier on.
It's like Malcolm Turnbull, on a promise of a ministry from Tony Abbott. What else does either have to do? Everything - but nothing that is fulfilling. And there are worse things than being a senior cabinet minister, even if it does sometimes sharpen the hurt and humiliation.
In Rudd's case, a ministry could eventually provide a launching pad for a later international job.
From Gillard's point of view, what to do with Kevin? He would be most qualified for foreign affairs, and as a former PM, should have the right to it. When Bill Hayden, then opposition leader, had to stand aside for Bob Hawke, Foreign Affairs was the consolation, and Hayden settled into it well enough.
Would Gillard want Rudd in Foreign Affairs? That would be a measure of her maturity - but also of the extent to which she might want to change the Rudd agenda. So far, how she sees Australia's role on the world stage is unclear.
Gillard's own international inexperience came out embarrassingly this week, and the thought of having Rudd as mentor and helpmate might be galling. For his part, Rudd could find it difficult to ''follow his leader'' in foreign policy as Stephen Smith has done. And putting Rudd in the job would mean an unhappy Smith.
Rudd is pointedly reminding the party of his qualifications. In a statement yesterday he said he was leaving today for the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington and New York, where he had been asked to chair the session on international security.
(As if to say ''up you'', he noted he had yesterday visited the Mater Hospital in his electorate ''to discuss new funding flows for accident and emergency services for the hospital''. He also went to a homelessness service centre, and attended an indigenous ''family fun day''. And when he gets back from the US, he would continue his regular community group meetings and mobile offices in his electorate.)
If she doesn't want Rudd in Foreign Affairs, and with the Defence spot opening up, Gillard could do worse than try to persuade him into that. It has a policy content but one with less discretion than Foreign Affairs - the strategic fabric is set by an existing white paper and commitments, such as to Afghanistan (which Rudd strongly supports).
Rudd's penchant for detail would also be useful in Defence, though Gillard, who recently reassured senior public servants reeling after the Rudd era, might worry about how he would relate to a difficult bureaucracy and deal on a daily basis with the military without tensions arising. Greg Combet, who has performed well as a junior minister in the Defence area, would obviously be a smoother fit for the portfolio.
Another alternative for Rudd would be Trade, giving him a chance to travel and prepare for a life after politics.
Tanner's Finance job is an equally, perhaps more, important post to fill than Faulkner's Defence post. The most obvious choice would be Chris Bowen, currently in Financial Services, from the NSW Right. Apart from the demanding ministry work, Tanner has done a lot of the government's heavy lifting in the media; Bowen is a feisty media performer.
All eyes would be on what rewards Gillard handed out to those who were players in the coup.
By keeping the pre-election shuffle to bare bones, Gillard avoided acknowledging debts. Should Labor win the election, parliamentary secretaries Bill Shorten and Gary Gray are likely to become ministers. Both felt mightily overlooked by Rudd. Each also deserves promotion on merit. Further up the power food chain, Mark Arbib, of the NSW Right, has already worked his way into the ministry, thanks to helping Rudd into the leadership. Would Gillard put Arbib into cabinet in return for a similar favour? That would send a big message - if it was seen as being too blatant, maybe Arbib would step into cabinet after a year or two.
Eyes will also be on the fate of another parliamentary secretary, Maxine McKew, assuming she survives in Bennelong, where she is up against former tennis champion John Alexander. McKew was very much a Rudd person, and is one of the few who has spoken out: she was quoted in The Sunday Telegraph saying of ''factional heavies'' that ''they spend a lot more time doing politics than they do on their work''. Making her pitch for promotion, the woman who toppled John Howard in his seat said, ''I know I could play a senior role in a re-elected Labor government.''
Within the ministry, the climate-environment area should be shaken up. Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett had a dreadful term, and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong a dispiriting one. Wong's main raison d'etre, the emissions trading scheme, is off the agenda for the forseeable future. She and Gillard had different views when the kitchen cabinet discussed whether to defer the ETS (Gillard was in favour of delay). Wong has alienated some stakeholders in the climate debate by being abrasive. For her own sake she would be better out of the area, and she would no doubt welcome a move.
The disastrous insulation and green loans schemes led to Garrett being stripped of responsibility for them. He remains a publicly popular figure; to drop him altogether would send a negative message about the Gillard government's heart. But he should be moved, and out of cabinet.
The new term will see a clutch of backbenchers knocking on the frontbench door. One who deserves a guernsey is Victorian Mark Dreyfus, a former prominent Melbourne barrister.
The conventional and probably correct wisdom is that by its leadership change, Labor has secured the election (people are divided about what would have happened with Rudd). But what if Gillard loses? The devastation is hard to imagine.
To be defeated after a first term would shake Labor to its core, especially as it would be only months before the near certain demise of the NSW Labor government.
As caucus chairman Daryl Melham remarked to Bob Hawke earlier this year, when they were speculating about the leadership, if a Gillard-led government lost, Labor would have trashed two leaders. What would happen to Gillard would depend on present ''unknowables''. But you can bet she wouldn't be leading Labor into the 2013 election.