Rudd's decline shows voters want reform but never retreat

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 13 years ago

Rudd's decline shows voters want reform but never retreat

By Peter Hartcher

Kevin Rudd told us his popularity collapsed because he was trying to make ''tough reforms''. And that collapse was the reason his party destroyed him. If Rudd is right, this is a dire moment for Australia.

It would mean that the starkest possible warning has been sent to Julia Gillard and any other future prime minister: if you attempt any unpopular reforms, you, too, will be destroyed.

Julia Gillard and her team announce details of the mining tax agreement yesterday.

Julia Gillard and her team announce details of the mining tax agreement yesterday.Credit: Andrew Meares

Did Gillard's capitulation to Big Dirt yesterday confirm she has absorbed this lesson?

Australia has become one of the world's standout economies, withstanding the global recession, largely because of two decades of near-continuous reform by federal governments, Labor and Liberal.

Has the golden era of reform died before our very eyes? Are we destined to drift into a long European-style malaise, in which we keep our comfortable living standards but enter a genteel decline against the rest of the world?

In his late-night press conference on the eve of his fall, Rudd said: ''Right now obviously we're in the midst of a debate on the future of the taxation system. This is a hard debate … tax reform is never easy; a lot of paint has been taken off the government on the way through.

''This obviously has created some challenges and tensions within our party … having lost the support of certain factional leaders.''

Wayne Swan, the chief advocate of the mining tax within the government, had the same view.

The reason Labor's primary vote had collapsed, Swan told the Ten Network's Meet the Press on June 20, was ''because reform is always hard in the Australian environment and it is always hard-fought and we have got a very hard fight on our hands right now.''

Advertisement

But is this true? Did Australia punish the Rudd Government for attempting tough reforms?

There are two longstanding, credible, closely watched polls on federal politics: the Nielsen poll published by the Herald and The Age, and Newspoll, published by The Australian.

A more recent arrival that is starting to build a following is the online poll conducted by Essential Media, the Labor-leaning communications consultancy that designed the ACTU's campaign against the Howard Government's Work Choices.

The only objective way of testing Rudd and Swan's claim is to examine the trail of evidence these polls have laid. And the conclusions?

Nielsen first. ''Through the end of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the opposition and into the first part of Tony Abbott's, Labor's primary vote was essentially where it was at the time of the last election - around 42 or 43 per cent,'' says Nielsen's head of research and the Herald's pollster, John Stirton. This is, historically, a strong performance for Labor. ''It stayed there until April.''

Just two months later, the Nielsen poll had it at 33 per cent. ''It was a short road to Rudd's poll collapse.''

Stirton identifies three steps along the way.

First was Rudd's decision to take a harder line against asylum seekers, announced on April 9.

Next was the revelation that Rudd had decided to shelve for at least three years the emissions trading scheme, his policy for dealing with climate change. That was on April 27.

Third was the announcement of Rudd's proposed mining tax on May 2.

''It's always dangerous to attribute a shift in polling to a single event, but having said that, the big plummet came after the climate change decision,'' Stirton says. ''Rudd seemed to be leaving it behind too lightly. I think voters would rather see him keep fighting and lose rather than just give up the fight.''

Next, Newspoll. The chief executive of Newspoll, Martin O'Shannessy, is emphatic: ''The collapse in Rudd's polling coincided exactly with the decision to shelve the emissions trading scheme,'' he says. ''The weekend following the shelving of the ETS - crash!

''There may be a heap of other things coming along as well, and doubts about his ability to deliver, but if people had any doubts about Rudd's ability to deliver anything, this was the event that confirmed all those doubts.''

Third, the Essential Media poll. Why did Rudd's polling collapse? ''It's really easy to say,'' a director of the firm, Tony Douglas, says. ''There were three instalments over 12 months.

''Before the federal budget in May 2009, Rudd's approval rating was in the high 60s and 70s. But he ran into trouble selling it and looked slippery over the size of the deficit - remember he wouldn't say the number? He dropped 8 percentage points over that.

''Then he was in the low 60s. He remained there till the boat people started arriving and he started talking about his 'tough and compassionate' policy. His numbers dropped another 8 percentage points over that.

''Then he stayed there until he ditched the ETS. When he did that, his approval dropped 12 percentage points immediately and then continued falling after that. The ETS decision was especially damaging because it demonstrated weakness.

''He dropped 30 points over 12 months under very little pressure. It seems to be some sort of Australian record.''

So the three polls and their interpreters identify different details and phases but converge on a central explanation for the decline.

It was Rudd's decision to abandon the fight on his core reform proposal, the emissions trading scheme, that was the biggest single reason for the collapse of his standing in the polls.

The pollsters are unanimous and emphatic. Rudd and Swan are wrong.

The Rudd government's threshold poll problem was not caused by their attempts at tough reform.

The truth is just the opposite. The electorate punished Rudd not for pursuing reform, but for abandoning it. The people lost faith in him not because of his strength but because of his weakness.

Once he'd walked away from the reform with which he was most closely identified, the electorate was not prepared to support the sudden, new reform that he appeared to pluck out of thin air.

So what should we conclude about the prospects of future reform?

The two prime ministers who presided over Australia's golden era, the two decades of reform, are Labor's Bob Hawke and the Liberals' John Howard.

First, Hawke: ''There is no reason to assume economic reform can't go on,'' he told me this week.

''The overriding lesson is the importance of consultation.''

He recalls his own ascension, how he convened a national summit, how he instructed the Treasury to give all the delegates the same economic briefing that it gave the prime minister.

''Once they knew the facts, they were prepared to give us the authority to do what needed to be done. The basis for our reforms were public knowledge and public understanding.

''From that broad canvas of public support we went to consultation with particular sectors - the steel industry, for example. That concept hasn't changed.

''It would be criminal to adopt the attitude of saying it's too hard. You have to bring people generally, and their representatives, along with you; you have to win their understanding. And I don't need to be theoretical about it.''

Next, John Howard. ''I hope all aspiring and current prime ministers understand that economic reform requires involving people in a consultative process,'' he told me yesterday.

''All successful reforms have that as a component. Sometimes your opponents will give you political indemnity for your reforms - that's what we did for the Hawke-Keating reforms to tariffs and financial deregulation. We supported them.

''When we were in government we received no such indemnity from our opponents. But you can still achieve economic reform if you're patient and you argue your case over a period of time. Rudd never really explained what the ETS was, and the mining tax came out of nowhere.''

And the current prime minister? What has Julia Gillard concluded about the possibilities for prosecuting economic reform?

First, she disputes that her deal with the big three miners is a capitulation. ''Well, let's not forget that, you know, we struck an arrangement where our mining industry will pay $10.5 billion more tax over the forward estimates,'' she said yesterday.

''That is a lot of money, and a lot of money that is going to be used to do a lot of good. So I think we can say, well that is an effective reform.

''In terms of stomach for hard reform, I think I've shown a predisposition to go after some hard reform agendas as deputy prime minister and I bring that same predisposition to the task as prime minister.''

Gillard cites the unified national school curriculum and the advent of the My School website as achievements. ''So I think that shows you we can achieve difficult reforms, but they require a methodical work process.''

The evidence is clear. Rudd lost the trust and support of the Australian people not because he attempted tough reform but because he abandoned a major promise.

Our successful reformist prime ministers agree that reform can be achieved, so long as the government works to carry the country with it.

And the new prime minister seems to get it. Although she certainly compromised with the miners to strike yesterday's emergency deal, Gillard preserved the central elements of the mining tax plan.

We'll soon see how much stomach she has for hard reform in her own right.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading