Richard Farmer has an interesting argument to make in today’s Crikey about Rudd’s climate summit:
There is a danger for Labor Leader Kevin Rudd that his gimmick of having what he is calling a climate change summit will end up being one of those things that seemed to be a good idea at the time.
To put it somewhat crudely, Rudd is at risk of being seen as a smart arse – a politician being too clever by half.
While John Howard is delivering an actual policy to deal with at least part of the country’s water problem through his meeting of state premiers to arrange a federal takeover of the Murray-Darling Basin, Mr Rudd will be engaging in a talk-fest. Actions will surely create a better political outcome than words.
The motivation for Rudd’s summit is understandable enough. He is trying to overcome the advantages that being able to actually do things gives to an incumbent government.
Yet by settling on the need for a discussion to determine a broader strategy than that of Howard, Rudd is being left open to attack on the grounds that it shows how hamstrung a future Federal Labor Government would by the need to appease the eight state and territory governments.
This move highlights two problems with Rudd’s strategy – the first being that his experience in Goss’ Cabinet Office makes him think like someone who is in government. But he’s not. The challenges for an opposition leader are quite different. Although Labor is well ahead in the polls, Rudd has no power, and nothing to offer except promises to enforce agreement. The responses from Premiers to issues like recycled water and Howard’s Murray-Darling bid have been inconsistent. The incentives for Premiers to play to their own electorates at a talkfest like this outweigh those to present a united front with the Federal opposition. There’s a clear risk that the summit could end up displaying disunity – which raises the second problem about which I’ve previously written – there’s almost infinite potential to wedge Rudd and the states.
It’s no doubt one of Rudd’s strengths that he is skilled in, and capable of, broad consultation and thrashing out a policy approach that has wide support among stakeholders. But again, this is a skill of governance, not opposition. In 2001, Howard was able to make some play with the line that Beazley avoided firm commitments and promised inquiries and commissions and reports. It’s a good political line, because voters expect clear and contrasting policy positions from Opposition leaders, not meetings and briefing papers.
The electoral cushions most of the State Labor governments have also overstate their real popularity. The Queensland election last year, and the upcoming NSW election, both display the dynamic of unpopular and barely trusted governments gaining re-election because of disunited and hopeless oppositions. Victorian Labor was in somewhat better shape, but a better campaign than Baillieu’s could have dented Bracks’ win. Voters are frustrated over water, as with other issues, because basic issues of infrastructure investment and service delivery by state governments are seen to have been neglected. The state governments are more likely to be seen as part of the problem rather than the solution. Rudd needs to articulate a strong policy on water. If the premiers don’t like it, all the better. Having a good long yarn about policy issues won’t win him the election. A credible strategy to fix it would go some distance to doing so.
That is exactly how I would describe the move. High risk for little gain.
I think its the Fed Govt which bears most of the risks. Apart from this water thing and nuclear they have nothing constructive to add about climate change. This is an opportunity for Labor — witness Kevin all over Joe Hockey on Sunrise on the issue (watched by all those voters we keep being assured he can’t connect with.)
Hammering the fact water is just one part of the issue and putting things like carbon trading/renewables/clean coal etc seriously on the agenda is only good for Labor. If handled well, the opposite of above could happen — the govt will be seen to be stalling and waffling with tired ideological ideas and the Oppn will be seen to be finding wide ranging concrete solutions.
Mark has it right here Amanda. Here’s a sample of what Rudd may get himself involved in http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21168909-1702,00.html
In SA Rann has seriously miscalculated on Howard’s Murray River move. He’s seen as playing politics after every previous SA govt has been moaning for years that we need a united overseer with teeth for our water lifeline. He suddenly got tempted to play politics with Howard in a Federal election year and that’s a huge summit risk for Rudd. Shades of Latham running about meeting interesting people and listening to their needs. You put doubt in the punters’ minds that you don’t know what you’re on about now and they might decide to stick with what they know. Is Rudd dithering is what they and the meeja might start asking?
Water like GW are complex issues that don’t lend themselves to easy, backslapping agreement and don’t incumbents know it. You don’t want to weigh yourself down with that baggage in Opposition. Plenty of time to shoulder that burden in office.
The Ruddsters window of opportunity is rapidly closing unless he makes bold moves. This is a good one. Pulling rank on the Premiers and getting everyone behind the Rann line is what I call a good start. Remember the Ruddy ALP has to at least act like they are more about consultation and consensus to win.
As opposed to Howards stale command-and-control model.
If K-Rudd can’t get herd the Premiers into line on this then he won’t be able to cut off the right factions testicles either. Failure to do that led directly to Bombers demise remember?
The ALP has to present an alternative narrative that includes a new start on all those basic inalienable human and civil rights that the ALP premiers have flushed down the toilet. Reconciliation as a practical matter of maintaining national security and the tourist trade. A republic like most Aussies want instead of an industrial situation where TWO democratic socialist govts can be sacked without notice and locked out. Finally as I’ve mentioned before, to get my vote back the Alternative Liberal Party will have to promise brothel vouchers for all health carders. The three ‘ R’s
Reconciliates
Republicizes
Roots
‘ Take care of the roots and all will be well in the garden’
Chauncey Gardiner
I’m with Obby on this one. There’s endless possibility for interest groups invited to the summit to bitch and moan and disagree before we even get to the Premiers.
Matt Price in his column in the Australian quoted Rudd on his justification for the summit:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21171108-12854,00.html
We do, but Rudd’s communicating to two different audiences at the same time. He’s having some justified success in convincing business and commentators that he’s a serious policy player. That goes a long way to dispelling Latham’s ghost.
But his approach is too redolent of assumptions which are really the habits of governance he picked up as a public servant. As Price observes wryly, leaders normally wait til they’re elected PM before they start governing.
Climate change is an incredibly complex issue. Inviting different interest groups to a summit risks generating confusion and self-interested argument. Howard is having enough trouble keeping Nats MPs quiet on irrigation rights.
Beazley, much derided for his prolixity, was able to clearly articulate what he would do with WorkChoices. Rudd, in search of business support, has made the message more complex. Anthony Albanese was able to capitalise on the government’s problems by saying Labor would sign Kyoto. A policy wonk debate on climate change and water may not do so.
Rudd’s problem is that by going down this particular road he may be playing to his own weaknesses, which are ironically also his strengths. Few doubt that from a policy and governance perspective, he’d be a good PM. But being a good opposition leader is a different thing altogether.
Try Goss.
Oopsy. Tired today. Fixed now.
I think Rudd’s move is a good one, but he does need to follow up with concrete detail soon. eg National Carbon trading scheme, solar R&D investment/ export industry scheme, signing Kyoto and being a player in Kyoto mark 2.
Id say its clear Howard is rattled: now he’s allegedly supporting carbon trading schemes. Last week he wasnt. Oh, but he doesnt suport a “carbon tax”. Which, strangely, is effectively what carbon trading involves. Putting a price on it, and taxing those who arent efficient with it.
Basically, he’s all over the shop like a mad woman’s poo. Media – where’s the scrutiny, you lazy losers? He cant keep his position straight from one day to the next.
His water plan is bold, yes, but politically neutralisable – there is no long-term water management scheme worth of pinch of Murray mud without action on climate. How’s a 4-5 degree increase in average temperatures by 2070 going to affect water supply?
Oh, and speaking of strategies backfiring: Id say Howard’s attempt to paint Rudd as an IR moderate plays quite well for the ALP. Sets it up nicely for Rudd to make a few cosmetic changes to the “bin it” pitch and come up smiling in the Government Gazette (aka The Oz) as Mr New Labour.
I also like the ‘pre-Accord’ feel to what the recruiting he’s doing in different sectors, inclusing business, for his climate pitch.
Meeting and talking will be the necessary first step prior to coming out with the clear set of policies required to go to an election with. Water, energy and climate cannot be solved by fiat fom Canberra (unfortunately), and so Rudd is taking advantage of ALP run states to get actual governmenta on board to thrash out his opposition’s policy. He’ll have an agreed state/federal carbon trading plan – whereas Howard will have nothing but sweet-heart deals with Big Coal and the CFMEU.
Well, I hope it works, but who was it who said that making policy and legislation was like watching a sausage machine operate – you’d rather not look at it out in the open. I still think there are considerable risks associated with a talkfest, and I think Labor needs a simple message to communicate. You can have the fights with the interest groups after you’re elected.
You are probably right from a campaigning point of view, Mark. But are we at that stage yet? The election is a ways off – and from experience, voters have the memory of gold-fish.
Rudd has to do actual work AND keep the media ventilated. So killing a couple of birds with single stones in the short-term is probably OK.
Well, wbb, put it this way. He has a limited window where people are curious about what he stands for and prepared to give him a go. If it comes out too prolix, or too much “we’re consulting with experts” etc, they’ll turn off until the campaign. You’ve got to lay the groundwork for the campaign messages early because people don’t pay attention a lot of the time – so you need to establish them in people’s minds to define the terms of the debate in your own favour, which is usually 90% of the difference between winning and losing.
And how about his in front of camera style?
Did you see the 7:30 Report clip of Rudd letting the dry as dust soil trickle from his hands on somebody’s drought stricken farm? It was as stilted and hammy as all get out. Fair way to go in that area too, for Kev. He’s no Hawke.
Howard is cringe making too. But for the different reason that he’s genuine. When he bowled the worst ball in cricket history at that refugee camp in Pakistan – his exertions to get the ball back to have another go (worse, unbelievably) were real. He wanted to bowl that little kid out. Or get it on the track, anyway.
‘Fair way to go in that area too, for Kev.’
Yes, but he can take instruction. In any case, his job is to look sensible (unlike Latham) and energetic (unlike Beazley). This was enough for Bob Carr, as I’ve said several times (and will probably go on saying until someone praises me for my penetrating and original insight).
An interesting post, Mark.
Great analysis. Lots of risky opportunity for Rudd to appear like a posturing, smart-arse, Howard-wannabe. And lots of opportunity for Howard to counter with an all-walk-and-no-talk response. And stiled, yes, excruciatingly so. There is a car-crash quality to Rudd’s desperation for power and his entirely transparent use of media imagery to construct his political persona.
Good analysis here, but I think there’s another aspect to Rudd’s actions that hasn’t been mentioned. He has to show that there is a benefit in having Labor in power in the states (all of them, remember) and in Canberra, that we don’t need to have a mummy party in the states and the daddy party leading federally. He has to demonstrate, quickly, that – in the best of all possible worlds – there are benefits with the state and federal governments coming from the same party.
He has to convince the voters in their polling booths later this year that the great australian tradition of having a bet each way, with one party in power in canberra and the other in the states as a counterbalance, tends to lead to the buckpassing and sclerosis that we often find so frustrating with our federation.
Never been convinced by this thesis. People do not focus that intently on the political landscape for that sort of sophisticated hedging to come into play.
It’d be very easy to prove with the historical record – and I’m sure someone has done it – but I’d be surprised to see a negative correlation between Fed and State governments.
“He’ll have an agreed state/federal carbon trading plan – whereas Howard will have nothing but sweet-heart deals with Big Coal and the CFMEU.”
Don’t come between a Premier and a bucket of coal err… royalties wbb http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21168909-1702,00.html
I suspect Rudd’s problem on this one is that he’s got trouble in deciding his policy. It’s tricky within the ALP with all sorts of views including some favouring nuclear. Beazley had a policy that was pretty OK with only one or two loose ends to be sorted out. Now it’s up for grabs. Having Peter Garrett, who is surely still on a learning curve within the ALP, doesn’t help all that much.
Howard had a massive problem also. He needed to go on the front foot in the new year. But on this one he decided the best way was to ambush the premiers. Rann is rightly pissed because Howard looked him in the eye last year (Melbourne Cup day, I think) and told him it was all going to be done through consultation. The AFR had a story today saying a small group of officials worked on it excluding Treasury, Finance and I think (we’ve thrown the paper out and I can’t check without waking the neighbours) the main department with carriage of the issue. (There’s a story here where Albanese does better than I could ever imagine Garrett doing.)
Rann and Beattie couldn’t sign a blank cheque on powers. SA has no natural right ot any of the water, as they contribute none of it and Adelaide is outside the basin. Queensland are the evil upstreamers who came in late. The political power and the votes are with NSW and Victoria.
At the summit on Thursday Howard will prevail. He’ll set up an expert advisory committee (you can’t have the experts running the show as Rann proposed) and he’ll establish some consultative mechanism at the political and/or senior official level.
His problem is that the scheme is conceptually flawed. I’m becoming less and less impressed with Turnbull. It’s based on saving water through engineering and making more water available to farmers. The problem is that there will most likely be less water, as Lefty E says. Peter Cullen said today you should only bank on having half as much, but you should use it on activities that produce twice the value. Hence a question over rice and cotton.
That doesn’t seem to be where the plan is going but the wrong turn won’t be obvious for a year or two.
So Howard short-term looks the pragmatic man of action, while the Ruddster…, well I agree with Mark, it’s a risky strategy trying to find a path through complex problems in a consultative way.
In an ideal world, Brian, we’d have more of it! But it works badly from opposition, I think…
Yes Mark, and something wierd has happened. I’ve found myself in agreement with observa twice on the same thread!
I know, disturbing hey!
Please, Ruddy, be careful not to overmilk this Climate Change thing. I know it is important, but I am hearing so much about it in recent weeks, the topic is starting to leave me cold.
Howard won’t have a sweetheart deal with the CFMEU for the simple reason that the CFMEU Mining & Energy Division is a much better union politically and industrially than the CFMEU Forestry Division, and has been in the front line of defending its members and its coverage against the nastiest bunch of employers in the country during the period of the Howard government. The Mining & Energy Division may find bones to pick with Rudd over specific aspects of climate change policy, but come the election it will be running as hard as any other union against Howard.
Laura Tingle in the AFR today says that Rudd announced his climate summit to gazump Howard. Rudd’s intelligence was that Howard was going to announce a summit on climate change.
Rudd’s intelligence was wrong. For ‘climate change’ read ‘water’.
But Tingle stll sees Rudd as scoring because he broadened the issue.
Hi, just come over from reading the Crikey article. Mark, I think you are wrong to say that Rudd is making a mistake to display the skills of a PM as opposition leader. Beazley specialised in carping from the sidelines, bleating about keeping the govenrment honest, it did nothing for him. If people are going to vote for Rudd they want a sense of what he will be like in government. Even if this summit does turn into a bunfight between interest groups he gets a bucket of media coverage whilst doing it, and is seen to be listening and forming policy in public. He also gets lots of good talking points to lob at the government. Unlike the PM’s water plan which was drawn up on the back of an envelope by a few mandarins, this is someone out there, demonstrating their willingness to take on new ideas. Jesus, the ALP used to do this stuff all the time and it was what got them into Parliament in 1983. More power to them.
BTW, Paul Norton is right. I know the CFMEU have also been engaging with their members on the issue of climate change – in fact they have a position paper out that is about winning consensus.
Salvador Dahlia, that’s an interesting point. It might work if it works. The other risk is that it just becomes or is seen as a stunt.
I want that written in blood, please. The CFMEU white paper on CO2 that Paul linked to last year was not that impressive as I recall.
wbb,
The Mining & Energy Division has previously had bones to pick with the ALP over climate change policy, but on those occasions it never looked remotely like turning on the kind of hissy fit which the Forestry Division turned on in the 2004 election campaign. The Mining & Energy Division is the left of the left of the trade union movement, and given its politics and ideology it will not pursue its global warming agenda in a way which is harmful to the wider labour movement or to Labor’s chances of defeating the Coalition this year.
All of this concern for Labor and Rudd’s tactics should be framed by the remoteness of the actual election.
Some posters feel that Rudd can just coast into government pointing out Howard’s failures. This isn’t true because a) people don’t know him well, and b) he doesn’t have a lot of credibility as a policymaker. The idea of the Australia Day ad was to address a) and the summit to address b), all well ahead of the election. Salvador is right. It’s one of Howard’s mantras that you can’t fatten the pig on market day, and Rudd is doing the unsexy wonky stuff well ahead of the more-heat-than-light environment of the election campaign.
Yes, Rudd will be in trouble if he does too much of one or the other. But what seems to be happening here is that Rudd is closing off Howard’s options. If Howard can’t whip up fear (Labor is unknown, untried; they might stuff it up; isn’t Julia Gillard frightful?), he’ll have to battle Rudd on the level but arid battlefields of policy.
True, Howard could call an election at any time. Despite the attempts of the media to present an immediacy to this story that it just doesn’t have, and despite the question behind polling, there wasn’t a election last weekend and there won’t be one this weekend either.
Whenever a poll comes out Rudd tells people to take a cold shower – sound advice.
Andrew, I like your style.
Did anyone think Howard looked old and grey on the telly tonight? I mean, Rudd looked young and grey, but also prime ministerial.
Speaking of old and grey, the reason why Howard got his answer mixed up on the drought and emissions was obviously his hearing loss. But he couldn’t bring himself to admit that or he’d remind people of his age. A bit sad really.
You are too kind. He didn’t hear the question because he is old and grey and tired. He’s been deaf for a long time, but doesn’t usuallly stuff it up like that.
Or, if he does, it’s not widely reported by a media in thrall to their man of steel.
Paul Norton, while I respect your opinion of the CFMEU’s good faith, the fact is that they will prove an obstacle to the succesful winding down of the coal industry. It’s human nature.
The forestry division were probably decent unionists too at one point. But when their livelihoods were threatened, instead of seeing the writing on the wall and adjusting to the new reality while they had time, they turned reactionary. The coal miners will do the same.