Probably not, but if he’d been from WA, not Queensland, he would have. The latest revelations in the sorry saga of the Minister’s occasional and forgettable dabblings in the stock market include allegations that he under-wrote a capital issue for a developer whose business plan apparently included developing retirement villages. Santoro, remember, was the Minister for Ageing, and thus approval of licences and beds for such villages his ministerial responsibility. If this is true, conflict of interest is a lame phrase to describe it. And that’s only the start, it would seem. This has the potential to stink to high heaven.
Two points:
(1) If Howard had an ounce of the political judgement and savvy he’s apparently so renowned for, he could have seen this one coming a mile off if he knew a thing about Santoro’s activities in Queensland. Simply put, an ounce of due diligence would have seen Santoro never even considered for the Ministry. Howard is responsible for the stupidity of his disastrous appointment;
(2) The Federal Government has so far avoided the establishment of a continuing investigative body like the Queensland CMC or the Western Australian CCC. One should be established, forthwith, and Rudd should promise this. If the Feds are going to get down and dirty and actually administer things, then the potential for dodginess and favouritism and even corruption exists (not that I’m accusing Santoro of this…) – Ministers aren’t operating in any ethereal sphere of pure policy, they’re clearly making decisions which affect individual businesses and people, and the potential for shady dealing exists. It is simply unacceptable to have Christopher Pyne “investigate” the dealings of his predecessor.
Joh for PM Howard’s nemesis? His government is starting to look more and more like Joh’s all the time.
The trouble with this analysis is that even if the PM had known about this trouble, or at least smelt it, factional considerations may well mean that he had little choice. Sometimes people just can’t be overlooked for promotion, no matter how dodgy they are or might be.
It’s easy for us to judge from the outside, but balancing on the top of the greasy pole is very difficult and means that decisions that look crazy from our outsider’s point of view are supremely rational to an insider.
Before the evidence that has come out over the last week, could Howard afford to have a disgruntled Santoro complaining about being overlooked “after all I’ve done for the PM”?
In television they have the term “jump the shark” (I think it refers to an episode of Happy Days) to signify the moment when a popular series loses credibility and crosses over in to permanent decline and inevitable cancellation.
The Libs have trademarked arrogance, hubris and lack of accountability during their term in Government. Why these matters are now being seen as important negatives when the electorate has apparently ignored them for so long is a good question to ponder.
But these latest polls would indicate that the Howard Government may have “jumped the shark”.
Workchoices, perhaps interest rates are the negatives IMO, not arrogance or hubris in themselves.
Nothing else has annoyed a majority of voters enough to make a difference. Howard lied, or at least deliberately avoided the truth, on “Children Overboard”, but a majority of Australian voters simply didn’t care, because Howard was in touch with their mood.
And yep, Jumping the Shark does originally come from Happy Days.
There’s enough evidence around that Santoro was a bit of a Howard favourite. But “factional considerations”, though they might explain the appointment, don’t excuse it. Santoro, as everyone in Qld knows, has been a dodgy bugger for a long time and Howard should have known.
As to children overboard, etc, it’s a different electoral mood – he’s been here longer, and there’s a cumulative effect over time of all this stuff – Beazley used to be a popular oppo leader before people “stopped listening to him” and similarly I think the tipping point where Howard has lost cred has been reached. The government is older and tireder and there’s a stronger opposition.
Kim, I was only addressing your description of the Santoro appointment as ‘stupid’ and demonstrating ill-judgement.
As to morality, I think that many people have voted for Mr Howard over the last 11 years while being well aware that he is no more honest than he should be. My feeling is that perceived honesty is not as big a factor as self-interest when people decide who to vote for.
I don’t think that people are suddenly going “Oh, Howard lied a few years ago, I now realise he’s dishonest, and I won’t vote for him again”. I think they are going “WorkChoices? No bloody thanks! I don’t trust my boss as far as I can spit!”
If I’m right, that would explain why the attacks on Rudd’s credibility re his eviction as an 11-year old didn’t take (of course, a lot else has happened in the last couple of weeks, and the Government never really got a clear run with this line).
I think people have decided that Rudd will not be as bad for their workplace relations as Howard, and he’d have to be “caught in bed with a live man or a dead woman” for any personal attack on him to work before the election.
What would the Government have to do? There are no obvious issues to grandstand on like subsidising petrol prices in (pre-September 11) 2001. Huge tax cuts, a massive increase in the baby bonus or the First Home Owners’ Scheme?
I’m sure no-one disputes that the PM still has a few tricks up his sleeve.
DJ I think you are right about Workchoices being a major reason for the Governments poll woes. I certainly always split my sides when I see the Australian editorializing about how Industrial Relations is a negative for Labor!
I would suggest the reason the Governments mud-slinging is backfiring is not because Howard is a liar or because of Workchoices but because people just don’t like mudslinging and they don’t like sanctimony. They especially don’t like sanctimony from politicians, about whom they are very cynical
Well it is, among readers of the Australian, who are often to be seen in low-status jobs such as manual labouring, call centre work and nursing. Oh wait, that was in Bizzaro world.
As Private Eye’s version of Dennis Thatcher used to say:
“Even the Daily Mail, which normally supports the Labour Party, said I was right”.
I don’t think we disagree much, David, except I think the dishonesty stuff is likely to be more persuasive once you are already leaning against the government on policy/interest grounds.
No doubt Howard does have a few more tricks up his sleave. But he’s also got to contend with a panicky backbench and a media who are probably going to start writing about him quite negatively soon. Sure, he can summon spirits from the lusty deep, but if he calls them, will they come?
Work Choices certainly provided a disconnect with the “Howard Battlers”. The intersest rate rises from late last year have now flowed through to family budgets and people are feeling the pinch. Apparently, more are on the way!
If all you can hear and see is a government pre-occupied with mud slinging, sleaze and things that aren’t particularly important to the electorate why wouldn’t they stop listening and be looking elsewhere for inspiration.
The impending rosy speech on our excellent adventure in Iraq will only emphasise that Howard is a cranky old bugger who will never admit he is wrong.
The Liberals seem too polite to put the old dog down. The Australian electorate won’t be as sentimental.
Quite possibly. A catalyst, but not a prime mover in itself.
According to the ABC, the PM lectured the party room today on the changes of Government in Australia since WWII, saying that Governments change when they are seen as incompetent, or having stopped listening.
The PM claims the Government is ‘seen as competent’. No word on whether he thinks people are still listening.
If the media proprietors smell victory for Rudd, they will start, at least, hedging their bets.
via Henry IV (that bugged me for about fifteen minutes before I found the quote, knew I’d heard it somewhere).
If the Government goes with any of the things I suggested earlier, Rudd can pose as the responsible leader and say (all together now):
“Where’s the money coming from? The ALP will reluctantly oppose these tax cuts, because we don’t want to risk inflation.”
Which is political code for ‘I smell blood, let’s put the boot in’.
Don’t you get it? Rudd said he was evicted the week his father died! But the rich people who owned the house he lived in, and half the town besides, say that’s just not true! Hello! People! Hello…
Gee, I wonder why people aren’t connecting with that.
Any Liberal who moves against Howard between now and the election will get the blame for the election loss. No-one wants that smear on their record.
Saying someone is guilty of the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (roughly, “The thing that happened first must have caused the thing that happened second”)* is not a very effective retort in party-room brawls.
*(I had to look it up the first time it was said to me online)
I’m totally with DJ and Kim.
No-one has addressed point (2). I personally think that it would look badly timed if Rudd announced a CMC-style thing right now. It would be interpreted by many as politically opportunistic and not well thought out. However, an announcement in a months time will get Labor headlines that will remind people about this whole Santoro mess. A good trigger for this would be the unfolding printing allowance saga in Queensland.
The only downside to this is being beaten to the punch by Howard, though I think if Howard announced a CMC-style thing it might be seen as an admission that the quality of his government is on the slide. I think that it’s also unlikely because a CMCish organization would throw open the doors to his government, which I’m sure is something that he really doesn’t want to do. Well, either that or it would be a completely token gesture which could be shot down by the opposition.
It looks to me like Rudd is being kept above the fray in this mudfight.
Cast your minds back to when the Burke thing broke in Parliament. Smirker and Rasputin went at Rudd like two starving seagulls after the last chip.
Many, including me, were inclined to regard Rudd’s lack of response as showing irresolution.
But ever since, Rudd’s conduct has been consistent.
He has allowed Gillard and Smith to be the attack dogs, while he (Rudd) keeps promising quietly an important debate on policy.
It is clear that the ALP is endeavouring to build Rudd’s reputation for being strong on policy. His voice is one of calming reason above the filth of politics.
Three points are worth noting:
1. Rudd does seem to be good at this role. The ALP has thus matched the man’s strengths with his task.
2. It is quite possible that memories of Latham’s berserker meltdown are fresh in the minds of ALP handlers.
3. Unlike during Latham’s ascendency, the ALP front bench looks like a team rather than a one-man-band.
I disagree, mick. I think it’d be a smart move at this stage of the game.
Two reasons:
(1). There’s a need for it.
(2). Counters the Christopher will look into it crud.
Kim, I agree but only if they do it right. I can imagine that Labor could be crucified for doing too much policy on the fly. This was Latham’s style and they need to avoid comparisons. Still, you are so right that it would force Howard’s hand on so many issues. He would have to respond, if he responds negatively it looks like he has stuff that needs to be hidden. If he is positive, it looks like Rudd is dictating the agenda and it’s a win for Labor.
That whole Chris Pyne will “investigate” it stuff is rubbish isn’t it? I hope most people realize just how bad a call that was.
Katz you seem to suggest that Rudd is a passenger rather than the driver.
I think the opposite. Rudd is the driver of the bus and unruly or lazy passengers will be unloaded quick smart.
It is not the ALP that is ‘masterminding’ it is Rudd. Believe you me.
Let’s not forget that the super thing was one of Latho’s smarter plays, mick.
You may be correct.
I have no inside information on the ALP. All I can do as an outsider is to observe behaviour.
That behaviour has changed markedly since Rudd’s ascendancy, whether he is the driver or a passenger
I’m happy to believe it’s the former, but I don’t know.
Kim, it was one of his smarter plays. Maybe I’m a cautious player but I always felt that Latham’s super thingo was a bit too smart, it looked like policy on the fly and I like to think that good policy is well thought out. It totally had Howard scrambling though. I could see how something like your suggested CMC-thingo (am loving the word “thingo” in this post) would have a similar effect.
On the other hand, the model for a government watchdog is already there – the CMC is exactly that. At a federal level what would be the appropriate limits to such a watchdog’s power? Should it’s stated goals be to explore the financial dealings of members of the government or should it go further?
Oh, and whatever happened to Senate oversight? It was wishfully said by many in 2004 that gaining control of the Senate might ultimately lead to the LNP’s downfall. I’m beginning to think that this prediction was on the money.
I was about to say, mick, there are well established models. Potentially it should be able to look at anything that falls within federal jurisdiction – I’m sure there’s a need for oversight of the federal police and intelligence apparatuses as well beyond the investigator-general model, particularly with the politicisation of many of the issues. It could also be presented as strengthening institutional autonomy as well as accountability – this government has been horrendous on both. At times, Labor has come up with some very good public admin stuff – and this would fit well into the framework already there.
Kim, I am slightly worried that an additional oversight body might be too easily politicised or could easily be given too much power. For instance, I could imagine the scenario where Howard puts in a body and stacks it with LNP people and then the oversight body then is used as an attack dog for the LNP if they lose the upcoming election. It would be very hard to keep something like this impartial.
What’s more, we already have the Senate, the Courts, and the Ombudsman all of which are there to keep the government in check. Could a non-elected commision be established that has more power than these bodies? Is such a move democratic? I suspect that any watchdog might require a strict focus in order to get around such concerns (that is they are restricted to simply focus on government corruption and nothing else).
I don’t think Howard would agree to it in a million years, mick. And I think that a legislative model similar to that of the Queensland CMC addresses concerns of independence and appropriate scope.
I think Howard would have a fit over it. Could you imagine the CMC’s response to something like the AWB affair? I imagine that such oversight would have long ago brought Howard’s government down.
Katz, the rise of Rudd is in spite of the ALP ‘factions’ or ‘organisation’ rather than the result of. He has always been his own man.
This is not to say that Rudd has always been master of his own destiny. I can think of several instances where Goss put Rudd in his place.
The point I am making is, that when given the opportunity, Rudd will always elect to be in (complete) control. It seems to me that his (ALP) time has come and he will brook no interference.
I don’t know whom his staffers are but I bet they are approaching exhaustion.
BTW, I didn’t like Rudd but I prefer Rudd to Howard. But I guess I am not alone.
Senator Santoro just announced in the Senate that he will resign as a Senator at the end of the current two-week sitting.
Link to the recording I just made of his Senate speech here.
Santoro obviously studied at the Bjelke-Petersen University of Politics, with a post graduate degree in ethics under Russell Hinze. As owner of a company that did road contracting and as Minister for Main Roads who approved road works contracts, he, when accused of favouring his own company for government contracts, apparently said: “That’s not a conflict of interest, that’s a convergence of interest.”
‘Nuff said.
Cheers…
Wow. I didn’t see that coming.
To-morrow’s headline. SANTO CUTS AND RUNS. HOWARD CLAPS.
Question is, who pushed him?
Short-ish, wooden demeanour, had surgery for hearing problems in the 80′s, walks a lot. Shoulder known to twitch now and again.
As I was driving late this morning there was a suggestion that Santoro might end up in jail for contempt of the Senate. I have no idea of the legal basis for this possibility, but perhaps Santo thought a full apology and exit might keep him out of the slammer.
Also he knows what he’s done and it must be presumed that it will all come out. His political career is obviously stone dead and he sure doesn’t need the money.
The House or Senate can jail anyone by a simple resolution that they have breached the privileges of the House (or Senate).
It’s only happened once in Australian history, and I can’t see it happening to Santoro. You’d need a majority for a start. Shafting someone out of the Senate is one thing, jailing a political opponent raises the stakes very high indeed.
Oh yeah, and ethics of jail without trial, and stuff, I guess.
Text of the Parliamentary Privileges Act is here.
Well, more time for organising payback in Queensland for Santo, too.
Good Bye Santo.