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.