Coalition's war games: big names in the cross-hairs

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

Advertisement

This was published 12 years ago

Coalition's war games: big names in the cross-hairs

By Phillip Coorey

About six weeks before Julia Gillard moved against Kevin Rudd, there was a growing anxiety among some in the Coalition that it was underestimating the potential for a leadership change before the impending election.

It was mid-May and the government was sagging badly in the polls, its fall precipitated by the decision to abandon the emissions trading scheme and its struggle with the mining tax. Shadow cabinet discussed whether the Coalition should start targeting Gillard, given she would take over if Rudd were dumped.

Julie Bishop, the deputy leader, sensed a change was very possible and argued that Gillard had not undergone any real scrutiny and there was ample fodder to work with. She raised policy problems in Gillard's portfolio area, including the school buildings program, computers in schools and an abandoned pledge to build more than 200 child-care centres.

But Bishop lost the argument and when Gillard knocked off Rudd in late June and called an election soon after, the Coalition was unprepared to fight a campaign against her. As it transpired, Labor did all the heavily lifting for the opposition. The leaks against Gillard and her own hapless campaign made up in spades for the Coalition being caught short.

In today's volatile situation, the Coalition is taking no chances. It has started ''war-gaming'' a leadership change in the government before the next federal election, which is not scheduled until the spring of 2013.

It is not confining its efforts to the two men most likely to battle for the leadership should Gillard be deposed - Bill Shorten and Greg Combet. It is also focusing seriously on Treasurer Wayne Swan and Defence Minister Stephen Smith.

Both now qualify as elder statesmen and the thinking inside the Coalition is that should Labor change again, it would be such an act of desperation that the party would not opt for a raw recruit with a reputation as a machine man, such as Combet or Shorten. ''They would probably go for a much more benign person, a safe pair of hands to fight the campaign,'' said a source. The Liberals are not discounting Rudd being in the mix but he is ''a known quantity'' and not so much the focus of their efforts.

The Coalition is quietly beavering away on scenario planning, the source said, using focus groups to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each of Combet, Shorten, Swan and Smith, and the opportunities and threats that each presents.

The Liberals used the NSW election campaign as an opportunity to test voter attitudes towards the federal ALP as well. One should always take with a grain of salt the results of ''internal party polling'' but the Liberals, based on the recent research, say that if a federal election were held today, the Gillard government would be ''unelectable'' in NSW. It was also based on this research that the decision was made to intertwine the carbon tax - a federal issue - into Barry O'Farrell's campaign.

As diligent as the pre-planning by the Liberals may be, it ignores the greater realities. Gillard is doing as good a job as anyone could in difficult circumstances, and should Labor change leader before the election the government, like its erstwhile NSW counterpart, would be consigned to the political stone age. Even if the independents stuck by Labor, which would be doubtful, the voters would not.

Advertisement

As for the independents, Andrew Wilkie presents a greater threat to the longevity of Gillard and her government than any potential internal ructions down the track. Last week - twice - he repeated his threat that, if there is not federal legislation passed by both Houses by this time next year giving the Commonwealth powers to force the states into accepting new limits on poker machines, he will either shift his support to put Abbott in government or force a new election.

Loading

Legislation for the limits is not scheduled until 2014 but Wilkie says he regards the intervention legislation as ''a key milestone''. The government and the Greens are on side, meaning two more votes would be needed in the lower house. Wilkie said he was relatively confident he had the numbers but that was before Friday when Tony Windsor, whose rural electorate depends heavily on the largesse and community focus of its clubs, said he opposed the changes. It is unlikely Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott or Tony Crook will be enthusiastic either.

Wilkie says he will enact the threat if his bill fails because he will regard it as an inability of Gillard to muster the numbers. ''People should make no mistake of my determination to drive this and be true to my word.''

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading