The Kevin Rudd Scorecard

It’s been 87 days since the election that the Labor party won in a landslide, and 78 days since Kevin Rudd assumed office. So in the two and a half months since the Rudd government took over, I thought it might be worth running down a little scorecard to see if, in fact, the world has collapsed (as it was predicted to do by some people), or if Labor might just be doing a bang-up job.

It should be no news to everyone what Rudd’s first official act as Prime Minister was. It was a rather important thing he did. In his first day, he signed the instrument of ratification for the Kyoto Protocol. Essentially, he proved John Howard quite wrong when he said that Labor’s climate change policy was “the most unbelievable capitulation” to Liberal policy. Here’s a government that had been around since the birth of the Kyoto Protocol (11 December, 1997), and they never once indicated they would sign it at all.

Well, that’s a bit of a lie. Because some people did was to sign onto the Protocol. As I mentioned in a previous post, MP Peter Costello felt that the Coalition should have signed Kyoto well before MP Malcolm Turnbull advocated signing it in the lead-up to the 2007 election. But Howard was never on for that. In fact, he was never on for the whole ‘climate change’ hoopla to begin with. A climate change skeptic I believe he would be classified as (if not, then a climate change denier a.k.a. an idiot). When it became popular politics though, then he had to acknowledge it, and, as he said of the Labor party, capitulate.

The signing of the Protocol was both symbolic and realistic. Australia now had permanent goals to meet. This was the realistic part. The symbolic part was two fold. First, Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of coal. Second, it left the United States as the only other developed nation to have not signed onto the Protocol.

By signing onto the Kyoto Protocol instruments, Prime Minister Rudd was able to lead the Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, and the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, (with actual substance behind them) to the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the Bali Climate Change Summit. The Australian contingent was able to take part in negotiations and talks for the successor to the Kyoto Protocol in a way that wasn’t accessible to previous governments. The reception given to Kevin Rudd (the standing applause) when he addressed the assembly was nothing short of impressive. Reuters even pronounced Australia as the ‘show stealer‘.

Early in December as well, Rudd vowed that he “won’t interfere” with an A.C.T. bill that was blocked by the Howard government. The civil unions bill, which was the A.C.T.’s way of recognising same-sex relationships, had been overturned by the Howard government in a different form, and was under threat when it was revised again. While Kevin Rudd has stated in the past “that marriage is between a man and a woman”, it was his view that “legislation of [this] type lies properly within the prerogative of the states”, and he wasn’t about to stop it.

Into the new year, and the first white paper for the government. It would also be the second election promise that Rudd made to be fulfilled in a very short period of time. $150 million was to be spent for additional accommodation places in crisis centres for the needy and the homeless. Resulting investigations and assessment of the funding would help to create a long-term solution to the homeless situation in Australia, as well as policies to tackle the causes, such as mental health and education issues.

Not so surprising on an issue like this, or with the state the Liberals are in, Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson supported the spending and the white paper. You couldn’t possible say anything against the efforts to try and prevent 100,000 people each night going without a home. Nor the figure that 10,000 of those people are children under 12 years of age. But at least support was expressed, and the trend of bipartisanship began here.

January also saw the beginning of the ‘razor gangs’ – and their job to cut government spending. This was a published attempt to reduce inflationary pressures, which would in turn reduce the pressure on interest rates. I’ll say it now: Yes, there was an interest rate rise, but I’m hardly about to blame Rudd and his government for that. Not even for a second. At the same time, the target surplus for the Gross Domestic Product was increased from 1% to 1.5%. The 1% level was declared at the end of the election campaigns after the spending totals had been added up. The revised total, however, came after predictions were released that the figure would easily be able to reach 1.07%, or $12.7 billion. Whether they make up the extra .43% is entirely up to the government and how much of the slashing (and possible political damage) they want to bear, because eventually you run out of obvious, money-wasting things to slash.

The things that got ‘razored’ first were the Coalition promises made since May of 2007. A lot of marginal electorate ‘initiatives’ were scrapped, followed by anything to do with WorkChoices, a cut in government advertising, some of the 175 spending proposals announced between the May 2007 budget and the mid-year budget, and the 50 proposals that were announced before the Howard government went into caretaker mode. There’s a slew of things that can, and will, be cut, so making the extra .43%, I think, will be done with little-to-no political damage.

Towards the end of January though, the first crack in the ‘federal-state relations’ approach that Rudd has espoused was beginning to show. The federal Minister for Health and Aging, Nicola Roxon, was leading a meeting of the state health ministers in negotiations for funding and assessments. During the election campaigns, Rudd had promised that the “buck would stop” with him on state issues – health included. And he had also advocated the Howard government’s position on hospital ’scorecards’.

So when N.S.W. Health Minister Reba Meagher opposed the scorecard system, and the federal government, through Nicola Roxon, abandoned the idea, it probably came as a bit of a surprise to those people that though Rudd would put substantial pressure and influence on the state governments. Of course, the people who doubted him the whole time, like MP Joe Hockey, didn’t have enough to say.

It was always going to be a tough battle to get the states on-side with everything the federal government had in mind. But I was slightly disappointed that on this issue, the first and relatively demure (compared to what will come) issue of hospital scorecards, the Rudd government seemed to drop it’s ideas to the ground. Even without state approval, the federal government could have done the ’scorecards’ on their own. But the idea was canned.

The thing about the state problem was that it received little coverage in the news, and got even less of a public reaction. Contrast this to what happened on the 13th of February. Prime Minister Rudd officially apologised to Indigenous Australians for the stolen generation, the first order of business for the new sitting parliament, and another fulfilled campaign promise. The act and apology were received well by nearly all concerned. The issue of compensation seemed to be resolved when Rudd ruled it out, though it continues to be brought up every now and then.

As significant as Kyoto was between differentiating the two political parties, the ‘Sorry’ was monumental. However, it really only served to distinguish the current Labor government from seven people: John Howard, Wilson Tuckey, Don Randall, Dennis Jensen, Alby Schultz, Sophie Mirabella, and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells. These seven boycotted anything to do with the day – Tuckey walking out before the apology was read, and Howard refusing to attend the further address outside of the chambers, where every other living Prime Minister was attending. Both reactions were to be expected. The rest of the MPs and Senator who didn’t attend: Who cares. They are nobodies in the scheme of things, and certainly some of them are right-wing lunatics who don’t really add anything to parliament.

The bipartisan trend continued, as Brendan Nelson issued an address as well. It wasn’t as well received, but I think substantial in that it show the Liberal party was under new leadership, had a new face, and a fresh set of ideas. The fact that the second-longest serving MP walked out, and a bunch of nobodies (and Howard) didn’t show, did nothing, really, to overshadow the efforts made by Nelson and the rest of the Liberal party. Of course, some people took umbrage at some of his more specific points, but that was to be expected. While there was a change in leadership, there hasn’t been a change in Liberal party basics.

Two days before this, and what was the first real test of Rudd’s and the Labor party’s resolve on foriegn policy, the assassination attempt on José Ramos-Horta, President of East Timor, plunged the country back into awful violence. The Australian government was asked to provide additional military assistance. It was granted, and the Australian public was notified in a press conference held by Prime Minister Rudd and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. Towing the line that the Howard government had with this country, there was not going to be a backward step in relations between Australia and East Timor. The Rudd government proved that it wasn’t going to bend over backwards for rebels, or be the pacifist government that it was ridiculed as being when it announced an Iraq withdrawal.

Earlier in February, again, the Rudd government announced and initiated the Australia 2020 Summit. This summit would convene over the 19th and 20th of April, and would address the issues that faced Australia:

1. Future directions for the Australian economy – including education, skills, training, science and innovation as part of the nation’s productivity agenda;
2. Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities;
3. Population, sustainability, climate change and water;
4. Future directions for rural industries and rural communities;
5. A long-term national health strategy – including the challenges of preventative health, workforce planning and the aging population;
6. Strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion;
7. Options for the future of indigenous Australia;
8. Towards a creative Australia: the future of the arts, film and design;
9. The future of Australian governance: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the role of the media), the structure of the Federation and the rights and responsibilities of citizens;
10. Australia’s future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world.

The summit would see 1000 of the “best and brightest brains” from across the country meet in Canberra to address all these issues. The reports that would be compiled from the summit would provide recommendation that extended well beyond the first term of the Rudd government.

And that’s what has tangibly been done by the Rudd government to date. Oh, sure, there are bills and legislation that have been drafted, some even sent to the Senate already, but they don’t come into effect until they are passed – and things are only going to be passed in this Senate with some amendments it looks like. This is a pretty long post, but it serves to show that not only has Australia remained standing, but effective and real change has already come about in 78 days of Kevin Rudd’s leadership. Two rather important things (the Kyoto Protocol and the Apology), and a lot of groundwork for future benefits. Yes, there has been some issues raised, but let them stand as examples of what not to do in the future for the government.

All his results thus far have been noticed by the Australian people as well. In Newspoll polling released today in The Australian, Kevin Rudd’s “Preferred Prime Minister” rating lifted 2 points since January to 70 points – the highest rating ever achieved by any Prime Minister in Newspoll polls. Brendan Nelson’s rating, on the other hand, fell 2 points since January to 9 points. There was reported a 21 point uncommitted.

Anyone who said Rudd couldn’t get things done has been proven wrong in my books.

Thomas.

Fidel Castro resigns

And in news I totally missed today, Fidel Castro has resigned the presidency of Cuba, effectively leaving the post to his brother Raul. The 81 year old is making way for the new and fresh-faced 76 year old. It’s not often that I report on political news that doesn’t happen in Australia or the U.S., but such a historical figure Castro was, I couldn’t help myself.

“I will not aspire to nor accept – I repeat, I will not aspire to nor accept – the post of President of the Council of State and Commander in Chief.”

After nearly 50 years in power, he’s seen nearly everything. Assassination attempts, a U.S. invasion (that failed), and the Cuban Missile Crisis that saw the world come to the brink of nuclear war. He saw 10 U.S. administrations come, try to defeat him through various ways (like I referenced, the Bay of Pigs invasion, trade and tourist embargoes), and effectively beat all of them. Castro even supplied Cuban support and troops to socialist revolutionary parties through Africa and Latin America.

He continued his Communist government through the fall of the Soviet Union, despite the overwhelming pressure from the United States to go democratic. Even in 2005, the U.S. had a transition plan for democracy drawn up for when Castro died. It importantly prevented Castro’s brother from taking power. But the administration didn’t want a bar of it, said that the country would live on as a socialist country even after Castro’s death. Both the current administratio, and Castro himself, wanted to see him lead unto the very end. He said, in the letter written and published by the online edition of the Communist Party daily Granma:

“My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath. That’s all I can offer. [But] it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer. This I say devoid of all drama.”

The supporters of Castro admired the ability he had to provide a high level of health care and education for Cubans, while staying independent of the United States. However, his detractors called him a dictator; a totalitarian government that would systematically deny individual freedoms and civil liberties, such as freedom of speech, movement and assembly.

After the Cold War, Cuba itself thawed out. He improved relations with governments that previously shunned him, and even received a visit from Pope John Paul II. This improvement in relations saved the country. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, and funding to Cuba dried up, the country his economic rock-bottom. When it opened up its borders, and was received by other countries, the tourism boom that it experienced in the late 1990s helped save the nation. However, the U.S. stayed firm in their position on Cuba, baring travel and trade with it.

Funny that nearly 50 years after Castro took power (making him the longest serving head of state in the world (monarchs excepted)), his first words upon entering Havana during his victorious revolutionary wars were:

“Power does not interest me, and I will not take it.”

Thomas.

Blog stats

This post is about the numbers for this blog over the past two weeks. The first week, where I was here for all bar two days, was the most successful week that the blog has seen. It ended up with 1,603 visits (by WordPress’s stats) for the seven-day period. The week just finished saw a reduced audience, though that is to be expected when I’m not here to blog each and every day. Only 811 visits for the seven days.

This brings the month’s views, so far, up to 2,865 so far. With many days left in the month, and me here for all of them to blog, I expect to break 3,000 visits for the month easily. This will be quite an achievement for this humble blog I feel.

In terms of the most viewed posts and pages, and I’m reporting on ‘all time’ results, Superdelegates ranks in first with 1,582 individual visits. Second is Amélie vs. Garden State with 356. A recent post comes in third: Obama news – Endorsements, money, debate with 278. I get quite a few regular visits to that, though I think from people expecting something different. The post is, now, old news. Fourth is Super Tuesday I – Democrats with 268. Fifth is Mike Huckabee is an idiot with 230. Sixth is Virginia and Maryland polls – Democrats on 218. And seventh, and the last post that has over 100 views individually, is Ron Paul: The only Republican you could get behind on 159.

For search terms, the ‘all time’ number one is ’superdelegates’ on 538, second is ‘deus lo vult’ on 132, third is ‘huckabee is an idiot’ on 100, fourth is ‘what are superdelegates’ on 54, and fifth is ’superdelegate’ on 50. No real surprises there if you look at what the most popular posts are.

My number 1 referrer (for ‘all time’) continues to be Old Lines from a Floating Life with 369, though there has been no growth there. Second is WordPress Dashboard, in all its incantations, on 333. Google is third on 104. Fourth is New Lines from a Floating Life with 80. And fifth is my old BlogSpot blog of Deus Lo Vult on 72.

And that’s a quick post about my blog stats. Looking to be another impressive month on the trot, and a month that once again goes against everything I predicted at the start for stats.

Thomas.

Howard’s End

I watched Four Corners last night entirely off the back of Treasurer Wayne Swan referencing it in an answer on the non-inflationary rate of unemployment in Question Time yesterday.

That was, as a side note, the first Question Time I had been able to watch since the victorious Labor election last November. The Labor front bench seem to be a little green in terms of answering questions, but I really did expect that after 11 years in opposition. It’s good to be able to see who the new ‘Order Dogs’ are for the Coalition now – Joe Hockey and Malcolm Turnbull. It will make a change from Anthony Albanese and Lindsey Tanner. Speaking of Malcolm Turnbull, his questions over the past two days have been killers. He seems to be a hitman on the floor, and is targeting Wayne Swan something fierce. The new Speaker – Harry Jenkins – is an absolute hoot! He is great. He makes jokes, he has a laugh, and he is much more entertaining than David Hawker.

The only downside to the change in arrangements is that Kate Ellis is now seated down in the last seat on the bench. A shame really.

Anyway, Four Corners had a very interesting, at times amusing, feature piece called Howard’s End, focused on the year leading up to the November 24 election as seen through the eyes of big-wigs who are now in opposition. It was something I found extremely entertaining, as I’ve been waiting for the ‘revelations’ and ‘truths’ to come out since the Liberals headed in a downward spiral. All the backroom meetings, the closed door conversations, and the whispering in the corridors would make for an interesting story for anyone interested in Australian politics. And, I feel, the show did that – it wrote an interesting narrative of what happened. Of course, there were a few key players absent from the piece; John Howard being the biggest name. It would have really made the show if Howard was there spilling the truth as well. Though, how much you can believe from everyone else on the show is up in the air. They are, after all, politicians.

What emphasises this last point (about relative truth) is the part where they showed Alexander Downer, during the APEC summit:

Alexander Downer: There is no other candidate for the Prime Ministership and I think he’s the best candidate…

Reporter: Would you tap him on the shoulder?

Alexander Downer: What sort of question is that? I think his leadership is in the best interests of the Liberal Party.

Quite clearly, from the stories that we were being told by the interviewees on Four Corners, there another candidate for the Prime Ministership:

Liz Jackson: That night, Thursday the sixth of September, Alexander Downer invited eight of his Cabinet colleagues to his suite at the Quay Grand Hotel for a drink and a confidential chat.

…

Peter Costello: I heard pretty, pretty soon afterwards.

Liz Jackson (To Peter Costello): Pretty soon…

Peter Costello: I got reports of what was going on.

Liz Jackson (To Peter Costello): And what was that? What were you being told by Alexander Downer as the outcome of the meeting?

Peter Costello: That I’d better get ready because there could be a change of leadership.

I remember this news hitting the papers, and then hitting the floor during Question Time, and it was hammered home so hard that anyone watching would have suspected the Liberals of not just being in trouble, but being in disarray. But then you had to question how true the information we were receiving was. Each person summoned to answer the charges emphatically denied anything, but could never say they weren’t there. It was something interesting yet confusing to watch at the time. But now, with most of the people speaking out about it, it has begun to all make sense.

Joe Hockey really came off looking quite good from this program. I had always liked the guy, but especially now. A focus point of the program was when WorkChoices was introduced. Part of the interview with Hockey is very interesting:

Liz Jackson: A new Minister for Workplace Relations was appointed to repair some of the damage done. Joe Hockey’s problem was that under the new laws, some people would be losers.

Joe Hockey: Quite frankly when I took over the job I don’t think many ministers in Cabinet were aware that you could be worse off under WorkChoices and that you could actually have certain conditions taken away without compensation. And once I started to raise those issues with colleagues and they became more informed of the impact of WorkChoices we introduced the fairness test.

Liz Jackson (To Joe Hockey): You’re saying to me that Cabinet colleagues were unaware that you could be worse off?

Joe Hockey: Some were, yeah, yep.

This is followed up by a statement by Andrew Robb that probably encapsulated the feelings of the Australian voters who voted Labor, as well as the campaign by the Labor party itself during the election month:

Andrew Robb: I think it was the most powerful symbol of the fact that we had stopped listening and that we’d run our race and that we’d been there so long, that we were no longer alert to the views of the Howard battlers, the people who’d put us there in the first place.

Any government who puts in place a policy that directly disadvantages the voters, and hasn’t even dug deeper than the surface (in terms of the effects on the citizenry) for research, then that government is really looking for trouble. What government would even think about building a policy where people “could be worse off” under it? It was a shame that Hockey got lumped with the portfolio. Well, maybe not an entire shame. Seeings he was the face of WorkChoices, it seems remarkable that he kept his seat even though the policy was so unpopular. I think it might be because his constituents saw he got a bum deal from Howard.

On Kyoto, well, it came as no surprise to me to find out that Peter Costello wanted to ratify it. Though, I was rather surprised that he though they should have signed onto it before the climate change issue really came to the front in Australian politics:

Liz Jackson (To Peter Costello): So did you back Malcolm Turnbull when he suggested that Kyoto be ratified before the election?

Peter Costello: Well I actually think that the time for ratification was much earlier than that, having when it first came up endorsed the target, the time for ratification was then.

I had only ever thought that the Liberals had got serious on the issue because it had become ‘popular politics’. And even their ’seriousness’ about climate change was quite a few steps away from Labor’s position. From what was said on the program, the party blames Howard for losing ground on this issue.

Anyway, the program is repeated tonight at 11:35pm on the ABC. I’ll be watching it again just for th kicks. There are some good laugh-out-loud moments too. And because you know the outcome, it’s like watching a bomb count down to 0. A great watch.

Thomas.