Much of the commentary surrounding the resignations of Nicola Roxon and Chris Evans has interpreted the departures as yet another episode in the neverending disaster that is the Rudd-Gillard government.
This is Tony Abbott’s “constant crisis” narrative. As government MPs have been at pains to point out, not just this week but this term, the government has been nothing if not stable and will likely run full term, or close to it.
Talk of “crisis” seems hyperbolic. There has, however, been a consistent sense that the government is teetering on the brink. It’s a sense which can largely be put down to the inevitably precarious appearance of minority government, especially when voters and commentators have had few experiences of it, at least at the national level.
Abbott’s crisis narrative has been actively encouraged by business groups and right-wing media particularly hostile to minority government. The common charge from the self-interested corporates is that minority government forces too much “uncertainty” into the system. Not for them parliamentary democracy, it seems.
Given that Labor and Liberal party polices are rarely radically divergent these days, it’s difficult to know what business means by “uncertainty”. It seems likely that minority government has given business just enough rationalisation to go to war on its natural enemy – Labor – despite remaining uneasy about Abbott’s capacities.
Even as the government has strenuously denied accusations of crisis, at least since the alleged source of the crisis, Kevin Rudd, was eliminated (twice), the government has done its best to otherwise feed into the narrative with its own occasionally bizarre behaviour.
An obsessive focus on Abbott has led the government more than once into making reactive decisions, motivated by the need to neutralise the threat. To observers such a focus has been odd, given that Abbott has done little other than bandy about negative slogans.
But from the moment it backed away from its carbon emissions reduction commitment in response to some negative populism from the new Opposition leader, the ALP has lurched from one panicked reaction to another.
It worried about Abbott’s appearance among crazies at a carbon tax rally. It tried to out-flank Turn-Back-the-Boats Tony on the right with its Pacific Solution Ultra, first by negotiating an unenforceable people-swap with Malaysia and then by making traumatised people not convicted or charged with any crime languish indefinitely on remote Pacific islands. It even decided to announce the election date early in a weird attempt to neutralise Abbott’s campaigning and shift the focus back to “policy”.
Julia Gillard’s early announcement of this year’s election date seemed to highlight the government’s dysfunctional internal consultative processes. That was the rationale given for Rudd’s elimination. The question left hanging in the air then was how the Labor party had been hollowed out to the point that one person was left with the capacity to mess up internal processes in the first place.
Complete with new glasses eerily similar to Rudd’s, Gillard is now being tarred with a similar brush: she did not exactly bring her party with her on her recent decisions to announce the election date six months early and to draft in Nova Peris as the party’s Senate candidate in the Northern Territory. That decision should have been applauded as a commendable instance of affirmative action. That it was not is surely evidence of the lack of respect Gillard has within the party. John Howard made executive decisions all the time, but his team took those decisions on faith. Labor has not been prepared to do that for either of its leaders.
Speculation about Roxon and Evans’ resignations is natural, especially given the circumstances surrounding previous high-profile exits. Lindsay Tanner, it seems, became so disgusted with internal dysfunction that he made a swift departure, wrote one book projecting ALP dysfunction onto the media’s 24-hour “news cycle”, and then wrote the book he should have written the first time, complaining of the lack of fundamental purpose behind much of the government’s activity.
Indeed, far more damaging to the government as we kick off this election year is Craig Thomson’s continuing presence in the media for all the wrong reasons, and Eddie Obeid’s appearance at a NSW corruption inquiry. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that this is the sort of thing that happens when a social democratic party trades away most of its social democracy for the ideology of its opponents – free-market capitalism – and then attracts and rewards highly ambitious numbers-men.
This government enters its second re-election year justifiably proud that it has defeated Abbott’s attempts to bring the house down with his brand of vacuous populism that trades on fear and uncertainty. But what of the once sparkling white, red and blue hopes of Kevin07 tshirt wearers, now faded to a dull neo-liberal grey?
The hopes of Kevin 07 were largely those of a competent, social-democratic government which would change the conversations of John Howard’s Australia, and invoke pride in a nation of good global citizens.
The Labor party’s structure since the 1980s has not allowed for the promotion of men and women able to run such a government. When a party is struggling to articulate its purpose, it’s no wonder some of its key agents run out of puff early.
Jane Critti
student
Asked the question, BUT did you answer it?
Darren Parker
logged in via Facebook
Does "greater purpose" mean "hope of reelection"?
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Pretty speculative article, seeing as Roxon said she wanted to leave and focus on her family almost a year ago and Gillard asked her to wait for an appropriate time
Are we not believing Roxon? or are we suggesting that this was bad timing? or are you suggesting that Gillard should of refused to let her go?
Its a reallly strange article and seems to be mostly assumptions and speculation
Craig Minns
Self-employed
A pretty good article, thanks.
The problem for the ALP is that it has tried since Hawke to attract middle-class women voters, spending inordinate amounts of time and taxpayer money to pander to this demographic and making legislation that discriminates in their favour. It has demonised its core constituency of working class men in doing so.
It has pandered to a vocal minority with lots of time on its hands while the rest of us have become ever-more disillusioned.
At the same time it has become a party of lawyers, mostly with a background in the seedy politics and shady deals of Unions, with few people at any level with a background as workers in the productive sectors of the economy. To those lawyers it's all about "framing the debate", not about elucidating the issues that face ordinary men and women trying to make a go of life.
As a long-term Labor voter, I weep for what the party has become.
margaret moir
old lady
Craig Minns - framing the debate what debate have you seen any great debate reported on the media even when there is important information the media goes to at the moment glass speculation and the contents of this article we are commenting on.
I do not like all that this govenment has put in place but I think they have achieved more to be congratulated for than critised about Is there a government that do not make mistakes anyone clever enough to check past records and give us a run down on previous successful governments and thier mistakes may be enlightening.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Hi Margaret,
"framing the debate" refers to creating spin to influence public perception and discussion. The endless parade of earnest feminist women spruiking spurious statistics about gender inequities are a good example - they never actually say anything new, but reiterate standard lines, hoping to swamp any thoughtful dissenting views with sheer volume and hence "frame the debate" in the way they desire.
What do you think this Government has to be proud of? Mistakes don't bother me, we all…
Read moreWhyn Carnie
Retired Engineer
Same could be said of the other big party. Too many lawyers in the back room pontificating on how to toady up to various minorities in exchange for their votes.
Ask either party or the individual pollies they attract what they see in the politically correct, stupid, UN-sponsored Agenda 21. The 'framing the debate' technique is the same. It just means scripting the front line elected pollies words to prevent any honest response.
But weeping won't get them to change. it has taken a long time to get them down to this low level. It will take a long time to get them back up. Or the emergence of at least one more sizable truly democratic political party.
It must happen before the Republicans get their wind back. We'll regret it for ever if current political parties have anything to do with designing the New Republic and handing back democracy.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Hi Whyn, as I see it there's a qualitative difference between Labor and LNP, which is that the ALP leadership group and nearly all the senior members are from a background in Unions and those unions are a cooperative endeavour for the benefit of members. The people in question are adept at using the rhetoric of collectivism when it suits, but they have never themselves been members of the collective, having always been well-paid (much better than the people who pay union subs) by the Union. In other…
Read moreWhyn Carnie
Retired Engineer
Surely democratic Government is not driven by personal backgroungand philosophical differences. It is supposed to offer good management of the country by elected representatives doing their best for everybody. Demos means "the people", not 1/2 or 1/4 of them.
Edward III got it right when he barred lawyers from the English parliamentum. Didn't last. We shouldn't have lawyers, who make their lively hood talking about law, designing it. The ordinary man in the street should not need these parasites…
Read moreCraig Minns
Self-employed
You're quite right that lawyers have colonised the top branches of the tree on both sides, but I think you've underestimated the depth of hypocrisy and venality that is inherent in those careerist union lawyers. They want to have the lifestyle and income of wealthy people and they take money from much poorer people to do so, all the while proclaiming their commitment to the best interests of their victims. Crossin's (National Tertiary Education Union) outrage was instructive - she wasn't upset at…
Read moreWhyn Carnie
Retired Engineer
Where our democracy is failing is the difficulty politicians of all flavours have with accepting that the people are their boss. Unfortunately, politicians see their boss as the body that pays them. Everybody has a boss. It is just who really is the boss that is the conundrum.
Read moreThat is obscured by the machinations that go on inside Party back rooms to bully, cajole and manipulate wannabe politicians (candidates) at preselection time. In order to be able to get a grab at parliamentary salaries, perks…
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
That's a curious way to view politics - as an employer. It's actually a view I have not come across before.
Implicit of course is the notion that one employs a government to do something. What?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
A "boss" isn't necessarily an employer, Peter, merely one to whom a person answers for their decisions and actions.
As Whyn points out, the Party systems form a class of middlemen (and women) who obscure the reporting relationship.
Whyn Carnie
Retired Engineer
It comes down to three questions. Is the Boss the one who pays the wage? Is the Boss the one who tells the employee what to do for the wage? Is the Boss the one who hires and fires? In most cases the Boss is all three, except in the case of our Political Representatives. There is no question that they are employees of someone and therefore have a boss.They take the salary from the government but marching orders from somewhere else. and once in Parliament forget all about those who chose them for…
Read morePeter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Yes Whyn that's what I thought you were saying - but what to you - as one of the employers (disenfranchised) if not the actual boss - want a government to actually achieve or produce?
Chris O'Neill
Telecommunications Engineer
"if Labor had greater purpose?"
There's a feeling of deja vous from when Rudd announced the (supposedly temporary) abandonment of attempts to introduce an ETS. Seemed pretty clear that the purpose of some in the Labor party did not include reducing carbon emissions.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
Interesting viewpoint.
One quibble: "The question left hanging in the air then was how the Labor party had been hollowed out to the point that one person was left with the capacity to mess up internal processes in the first place."
One person was not actually left with the capacity to mess up ... he had it taken away. The system worked.
There is always a capacity for our first "elected Prime Minister" (Kevin '07!!! Strewth!) to get a rush of blood to some organ or another and start believing…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
" people-swap with Malaysia and then by making traumatised people not convicted or charged with any crime languish indefinitely on remote Pacific islands"
No prizes for guessing what the author's position on this issue lies.
Tony Grant
Student
It wouldn't matter what either member of the government had said...journalists...their employers want "news speak"..."anti-matter of fact"!
If we use the line of thought of a "team sport" can we replace these two "players" before the grand final (14th September) yes, they are guaranteed to be there, shock horror do I hear from those that do not decide the outcome?
Many on these blogs aren't concerned with policy, for their political brand doesn't believe in "Advance Australia Fair" just as…
Read moreJohn Clark
Manager
Signifying their departure is not all that suprising, since there is no chance of being ministers after the election (if indeed they were to stand). Better to get out with some dignity, rather than be relegated. One commentator contends that this is a strategic move, on the basis that once an election is called, no by-election is required, ensuring the PM can hang on till September.
Darren Parker
logged in via Facebook
Both of your points make perfect sense.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
After this excuse for a Federal Government, I have begun thinking of ways to run the country without political parties or politicians. Perhaps establishing 5 or 10 year plans, and then electing people to carry out the plans. At least the country may have some direction.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Yes that sounds very different to what we do now
John Kerr
IT Education
Does anyone remember the 'rethink' that was to occur after the last disaster? How Labor was going to take notice of its members and supporters and reinvigorate itself. How Labor was going to stop the erosion that was quickly killing its branches due to members leaving. How Labor was going to get its direction back. The elder statesmen came forward with a plan that could have propelled Labor forward but strangely the powers-that-be managed to kill that idea and hide it somewhere. When your army…
Read moreDarren Parker
logged in via Facebook
So if you were waging cyber-warfare John, and Ulysses S. Grant came to you with a plan, you'd follow it?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Industrial relations is first and foremost about people, Darren. The problem for the ALP and the unions is that people have stopped believing that the people in that cosy arrangement have any concern for anybody outside it, except insofar as they might be a pebble in the career shoe.
Now, you might think it hopelessly old-fashioned to feel it is reasonable for people to expect their representatives to behave decently and with due care for the interests of their constituents, but I no longer belong to a union and I have deliberately chosen not to vote rather than vote against the ALP over the past two elections, but I will be changing that position next election. Not because I want an LNP Government, but because the ALP in its current form is so appalling and I sincerely believe it can only get worse without a complete overhaul, including selection of genuinely representative candidates instead of the placeholders that are the stock in trade today.
Harvey Westbury
Not being a dinosaur
"minority government, especially when voters and commentators have had few experiences of it, at least at the national level."
This is just not accurate. We're had years of minority government at the national level in the past. It was called a coalition as neither party, Liberal and National (Country) Party, could govern on their own right so they joined forces. How is that different to today. If I recollect correctly Menzies even governed in a coalition with a razor thin majority, just like today. I would expect that an academic would understand this fact rather than merely regurgitate incorrect concepts, and exhibit such a lack of understanding. Plenty of scribble on this assignement from this examiner !
wilma western
logged in via email @bigpond.com
The writer confuses media frothing with evidence of disfunction in the government. Some of the meanest-minded commentary has followed the announcementof Evans' and Roxon's departures. Nicola Roxon has often said that the hardest part of her Canberra job is that her small daughter misses her so much. Yet people rattle on about "lack of glamour" ( in the AG's job) and fears of defeat to explain her decision, and go on to carp about timing. The last few weeks of 2012 were the most rugged ever with…
Read moreMeg Thornton
Dilletante
I think the question regarding the purpose of government is one of those conversations that the whole of Australia needs to have every couple of decades or so, in order to keep our ideas about why we're electing people to represent ourselves in Parliament, and indeed why we have a parliamentary process at all. We're about due for it again, since the last time this discussion was held, it got hijacked by the question of a republic (which quickly changed the question from "what should our government…
Read moreKim Darcy
Analyst
Why is someone like Nicola Roxon even in the ALP, let alone Parliament. Why does the ALP continue to pre-select these authoritarian, private school, upper middle class types. What on earth has Nicola Roxon got to with labourers or even working class people? An MLC girl swot. She was a disaster, and good riddance to her. But what do they replace her with? Another upper-middle class type. This time, he's a QC from SCOTCH College, for goodness sake. And then we have even the Minister for Education, who had never inside a public school until 2 years ago. Himself a Barker boy, who sent his daughters to Frensham, of all places! They really need to root out all these upper middle-class carpet baggers. Maybe then, they'll have some focus.
Darren Parker
logged in via Facebook
I agree Kim. Our next AG should be a Broady Boy!
Henry Verberne
Former IT Professional
Oh come on Kim, get real! Maybe I am naive or trusting but unless the talent is out there or prepared to put themselves forward, there is little alternative.
Whyn Carnie
Retired Engineer
These two resigned but for entirely different reasons that have nothing to do with "Labor purpose".
Roxon's resignation would have a lot to do with her pubic perception as an incompetent lawyer trying to manipulate law reform in the party interest. Her departure would have been a Party directive, something like, "That's three, you are out. Want it here or the hard way?"" .
Evans' departure would have more to do with his genuine efforts to give the party at least some direction and purpose but direction and purpose that Julia's Emily's lister sisters did not like. His thoughts would have been along the lines, "I've done my best for these losers, I'll leave them to it with as little appearance of ALP unconstitutional dissent."
One day someone will do a book on this ALP series in which some of the lies and deceptions are exposed. Problem is, both big parties rarely commit to paper, preferring the spoken word and its plausible deniability.
Alex Njoo
Architect/academic (ret.)
Am I being presumptuous to assume that Russel Marks' comments from the relative safe haven of academia, are fatuous? Notwithstanding the barrage of accusations (of incompetence etc.) levelled at this minority government, the country is economically and socially stable. The majority of us - of all political persuasions - are still able to live our respective lives in relative comfort.
What we have is a minority government that has successfully navigated the country through a global economic tsunami. At the same time, we have a policy-challenged Opposition, propped up by a right-wing media conglomerate, sabotaging just about every government initiative.
The 'changing of the guard' may be the subject of derision. Shades of disunity, as it were. But for anyone to read that any cabinet reshuffle is a sign of disunity of sorts is both fatuous and asinine.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
How can you say such things Alex, when the sling-backed jackboot of Gillard's Gestapo is trampling on our very freedoms and free speech as a nation?
I actually wonder what planet some folks are living on. Obviously not the one you and I inhabit.
Markie Linhart
Rouleur
"The Labor party’s structure since the 1980s has not allowed for the promotion of men and women able to run such a government. When a party is struggling to articulate its purpose, it’s no wonder some of its key agents run out of puff early."
Probably the most provocative statement in this interesting piece just left hanging in the breeze…
Whyn Carnie
Retired Engineer
Excuse my paranoia but Ms Gillard does nothing without premeditation and of course plausible deniability. To believe that she really intends to go to the end of this term is belief in the Tooth Fairy. Of couse she won't articulate its purpose. That would give the whole game away and the Party minders would not like that.
She and Rudd have not had much to work with. But that is the whole ALP problem, arising from a predeliction for in-house rewards to good party hacks, staunch union comrades, and the odd entertainer. Never mind seeking good candidates just those who will toe the Party Line.
Said it before, say it again. First Rate PMs select First Rate Ministers, Third Rate PMs select Second Rate Ministers. What price her choice of Superloyal Conroy for Senate Leader? that will only add to her woes?
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
I agree with the basic assumption of this article , that there is no real vision in Australian politics, from either side. The opposition and the neo-con elements of our society have fought against the democratic process of the last election, where the people expressed their view. A poor choice either tweedle dee or tweedler
I see a real lack of any narrative other than as expressed by the author, Abbot seeks to return the the magnificent "Howard years" (which by the way was severely ejected by the populace) and Labor seeks to not do anything that makes it a target. What a mess!!!
I say more democracy in all parties . VOte greens and independents. Better still make the Senate what it is meant to be an independent house of review, as it is written in the constitution, not a place for party hacks
Kim Darcy
Analyst
"Abbot seeks to return the the magnificent "Howard years" (which by the way was severely ejected by the populace)."
Not. The populace rejected Howard himself, and the Workchoices policy. And Rudd/Gillard have done little more than seamlessly continue the 'Howard years', long after, Howard himself has gone.
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
This is exactly the problem no choice, except a more extreme move to the right.
Leigh Burrell
No win, no file.
The most scathing criticism is coming from within the party. They're just a corrupt, talentless rabble. Not a one of them could organise a root in a brothel. Oh, wait...
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
In both major parties the scum inevitably rises to the top and in both cases they are dominated by talentless rabble.
Tony Abbott clearly said, as revealed by Tony Windsor, that he would sell his own arsehole to become prime minister....or something to that effect.
It is people of this 'calibre' that dominate BOTH major parties and it is the reason why nothing substantive ever really gets done year after year.
Martin Male
logged in via Facebook
So wonderfully expressed ;)
John Gibson
Finance
Wilma Western - it seems a stock comment of Gillard supporters to tell us how this Government has 'achieved a great deal'.
Please educate me what these momentous achievements were. And perhaps can you explain why, if they were so admirable, has this escaped the notice and indeed admiration of the public who by their latest voting intentions seem eager to get rid off this benefactor.
Tim Traynor
Rocket Surgeon
Well, let's see...
They paid Chinese companies to ship us shredded paper so we could electrocute our youth in people's roof cavities.
They paid building contractors to install $20k worth of shade sail at a markup of 2,000%.
They gave everyone $1,000 so they could all have an extra 42" plasma in the kid's bedroom.
They spent a great deal of time and money (and loss of life) on eventually returning to the previous government's refugee program.
margaret moir
old lady
I think this change in the way politics is reported treated is enough to jaundiced the most dedicated politician and voter. The race to the bottom headed by media and Mr Abbott has been depressing to say the least. There has been little if any interest in delivering great news only a constant bashing of gloom and doom no matter how the facts do not stand up. TRivia on trivia theatrical debate on rumour at most. There has been an almost hysterical have another election. This government is what…
Read moreRiddley Walker
.
Yet another bullshit article on Labor based on nothing but gossip and innuendo. Even the most evidence based section, Gillard's new glasses, is incorrect. They look nothing like Rudd's.
Seems that Michelle is making her influence on lowering the editorial standards in the Conversation right away.