An unhappy anniversary for Abbott government

And before the Abbott fan cub jump up and down about media bias, note that Niki doesn't speak of Shorten in glowing terms

An unhappy anniversary as Abbott government turns two

• The Australian
• September 3, 2015 12:00AM
• Save
• Print
• Niki Savva
  
  Opinion columnist
  Canberra
  

Illustration: Sturt Krygsman

Anniversaries are usually a time to celebrate, to reflect on progress, toast any successes, keep mistakes in perspective, promise to do better, then lay out goals for the future. Yet here we are almost exactly two years into the life of the federal government and Tony Abbott, again, is standing on the cliff edge.

Those gathered below are urging him to jump, while those behind stand ready to give him a push. Only the most devout are still willing him to succeed, desperately praying he will pull back from the brink.

Most of us believed it when, as opposition leader, he said the soap opera would end and this would be a government of no surprises, no excuses. Most of us thought that as a capable, long-serving cabinet minister in the Howard years, he would at the very least lead a competent administration.

Few dared to hope for major reform, but instead looked forward to incremental change from a steady, efficient, quiet period of governing. Few people would have thought two years ago that it would have come to this so quickly. But here we are — again — with speculation rampant that the Prime Minister may be forced to throw his Treasurer overboard to save himself, piled on top of speculation about whether he can be saved at all.

Pretty much everywhere you look the mood is foul. Victorians as well as Tasmanians feel betrayed by the activities of former Liberal Party state director Damien Mantach and those who mentored him. Queenslanders remain stubbornly resistant. The stupidity of Liberal lawyers in NSW left Dyson Heydon and the royal commission into trade unions exposed to charges of bias, undermining its essential role in exposing corruption. Nick Xenophon’s submarine torpedoes threaten previously safe Liberal seats in South Australia.

In the west, it gets crooker by the day. Not all that long ago Liberal politicians travelling west could count on hoovering up squillions in donations from devoted followers, so many that not all of them could fit into the grand ballrooms hired for the occasion.

Yet in the lead-up to the Prime Minister’s visit to Perth a fortnight ago, efforts by the Liberal Party to organise a fundraiser began awkwardly and ended in acrimony. The party wanted 10 people to pay $20,000 a head for the privilege of privately meeting Abbott. According to well-placed members of the party, there were only four takers, two of whom were prepared to pay but not attend, so reluctant were they to be in the same room as Abbott — one because he was so disappointed in Abbott for not delivering the stability and confidence he had promised, and the other because despite promises of no new taxes, the government had imposed the high income levy.

To fill the table, it was decided to halve the price. Those who had paid the full amount were furious when they found out. According to sources they have been demanding half their money back.
How embarrassment, as Effie would say.

It is a tough environment in which to be fighting a by-election, made tougher by yesterday’s national accounts showing the economy barely has a pulse. The fact it was forecast, as Joe Hockey argued, is no consolation.
Despite that, there is a widespread consensus the Liberals will retain Canning. There are several reasons why.
First, the candidate, Andrew Hastie, is so good. Second, he has a formidable campaign team, led by the party’s director, Ben Morton.

Labor also has a good candidate in Matt Keogh, but local Liberals believe they are holding back.
Julie Bishop told cabinet on Monday that even though Labor was not spending up big in the seat, even though it would be tough on balance, she believed Hastie would win.

Some Liberals have surmised that because the seat will be redistributed before the next general election, with the excision of stronger Labor areas into the new seat of Burt, Labor is refraining from spending money now trying to win a seat that it could expect to lose in a matter of months, and — critically — if it did go all out and managed to win, it knows that would precipitate a move against Abbott.

While acknowledging Abbott is their preferred leader, senior Labor figures scoff at this reasoning. They say they are not spending money in the seat because they haven’t got any. They say they are broke, particularly after having to make a big payout to their outgoing state director. Further they believe a swing of 8 per cent or more would still leave Abbott vulnerable, so they will do what they can with whatever they have.

Everyone has a vested interest in playing the expectations game. If Canning is lost, the Anybody But Abbott sentiment will take hold in the Coalition. Under normal circumstances, a win’s a win, enough to stave off leadership chatter. However, there are those who reckon even retaining the seat will not be enough to quell the disquiet. Another thing we have learned since 2007 is that there is no such thing as normal.

An increasing number of senior members of the Liberal Right are weighing up not whether they can afford the cost of removing Abbott but if the country can afford to leave him there and risk Bill Shorten as prime minister.

Shorten is a more unlikely prospect for the job than Abbott ever was.

In two key areas, that of the China free trade agreement, and in the smearing of Heydon, he has marketed himself as the chief protector of unions (as well as his own backside) against the national interest. It’s hilarious hearing the Opposition Leader, sans irony, complaining the economy is “wallowing in mediocrity”. (Hint, it’s not just the economy wallowing in mediocrity, Bill.)

Liberal MPs nominate the three FTAs secured by Andrew Robb as the government’s greatest achievement. Another reason Shorten is hell-bent on tearing them down. The government took too long to tell Australians what the deals would mean for them in jobs and in dollars. It should have begun that narrative last November when the China trade deal was clinched and continued relentlessly ever since. It is paying dearly for its negligence

In two years Abbott and his advisers have shown themselves incapable of flourishing or gaining ascendancy over Shorten or communicating in anything other than slogans. It is not internal disunity that has held them back, or the leaks, although they are not helping, or media bias, but their own inadequacies.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rnment-turns-two/story-e6frg6n6-1227509871606