Where else?
Ministry changes to stifle any Bishop challenge
By Norman Abjorensen
Posted Tue at 1:22pmTue 23 Dec 2014, 1:22pm
The ministry changes are clearly aimed at shoring up the Prime Minister's own stocks, and this can be read as code for heading off any possible challenge from Julie Bishop, writes Norman Abjorensen.
An eerily familiar scenario is starting to take shape in Canberra - admittedly fanciful but not entirely implausible. In other words a conspiranut beat up...
It runs like this: persistently poor polling for both the prime minister and the government creates anxiety over the next election, especially among those in vulnerable seats; a path is beaten to the door of the hitherto loyal deputy leader, who just happens to be a woman; the message is blunt: you have to challenge or we are gone. ooh.... just like Labor... does anyone think anyone would accept that scenario and subsequent behaviour again?
The ministerial changes announced at the weekend are about heading off just such a possibility.
Abbott simply has no room to manoeuvre to effect sweeping changes, and this is really just tinkering around the edges. Abbott's own position is far less secure than that of his immediate predecessor as Liberal prime minister, John Howard, who could operate from a position of strength that Abbott does not have.
It is worth recalling that Howard returned to the party leadership unopposed in 1995 after the failed Downer experiment, was swept into government the following year and was never challenged. Abbott, by contrast, scraped into the leadership by a single vote in 2009 and, while delivering government in 2013, has probably lost support since then, according to some Liberal MPs.
What this means, in effect, is that Abbott cannot risk alienating what support he retains - but sacking ministers always entails such a risk. Other balancing factors that constrain his freedom include powerful regional interests - most notably the big donors to the party coffers from the west - and the big business donors generally, which appear to exercise much more influence on the Abbott Government than on the Howard government. Yet Labor also have big donors and some of the same big donors... what the Libs don't have, is a huge secure bankroll... in the form of Union donations.
The two vacancies were easy shots. David Johnston's tenure at defence was unsustainable after his injudicious remarks about the Australian Submarine Corporation not being trusted to "build a canoe" and his removal was a no-brainer. The other change, replacing the long stood down former assistant treasurer, Arthur Sinodinos, is another gift, with Sinodinos now likely to face criticism from the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption over, if not his business dealings, then his judgment.
A lingering question is why Abbott appointed him in the first place when the ICAC investigation was already known, and it was public knowledge that Sinodinos had chaired a company controlled by the corrupt former Labor politician, Eddie Obeid. Like I keep telling people Abbott suffers from LOYALTY.
Two of the subsequent changes have seen seriously under-performing ministers - Peter Dutton who failed to make a case for the patient co-payment for a doctor's visit while health minister - and the funereal Kevin Andrews, who suffered from a generally lacklustre performance at social services - shifted into other key portfolios rather than being demoted. Importantly, they are both strong Abbott supporters. Yep and I have been critical of that... the hole in the theory though is that the numbers regardless of position remain the same.
Andrews to defence is an interesting call, the job generally regarded as one of the most demanding in government. Two things are suggested by this move. One is that Abbott is besotted with all things military - his appointment of Peter Cosgrove as Governor-General is a prime example - and the military is happiest with a non-intervening minister, which they now have. It might be nice to remember that Andrews and Abbott were the only 2 in the Howard cabinet to speak up against certain government policies... LOYALTY.
The second point is that the important defence white paper is due shortly, and this is almost certain to emerge largely from the prime minister's office rather from a defence minister, such as David Johnston, who fancied himself as a strategist according to one MP.
The big problem areas for the Government are right at the top, however. Abbott could not demote himself - but perhaps the party might have a reshuffle of its own down the track if the dismal record of 14 consecutive Newspolls becomes 15 and more. The Left keep pushing for a more prog friendly PM don't they.
Then there is Treasurer Joe Hockey, who was once laughably seen as a future leader, and is shown in the polls as the most unpopular minister and as the least regarded treasurer in the past 40 years. He is a poor communicator – always ready to deflect a hard question with a smirk or a sneer rather than an answer - who has palpably failed in framing a budget that he is unable to negotiate through parliament. This violates the cardinal rule of politics: that it is all about the art of the possible. Hard to negotiate through or in a poisonous parliament where even Labor vote against their own policies wouldn't you think?
It would have taken courage for Abbott to sack or demote Hockey - but at least one powerful member of the business lobby has privately advocated just that and suggested Malcolm Turnbull or Andrew Robb as more acceptable alternatives. And me...The question is whether his leadership could withstand whatever fallout such a bold move would almost certainly generate, although Hockey's stocks are now considered lower than in 2009 when he was, surprisingly to some, the first candidate eliminated in a three-way ballot against Turnbull and Abbott.
Quite clearly, the changes are aimed at shoring up the Prime Minister's own stocks, and this can be read as code for heading off a possible challenge from Julie Bishop, whose most vocal supporters have been largely, though not entirely ignored, in the changes. Really? Where's the cuckoo emoticon? You yourself admitted at the start it was and I quote... "admittedly fanciful"
There is little doubt that the Bishop push has taken on all the hallmarks of an offensive now. The ramped up publicity profile is no mere coincidence and the angry public spat over the climate change conference in Lima, where she was initially denied permission to attend, and then only on condition that she took with her as leading Liberal "dry" in Trade and Investment Minister, Andrew Robb, was extraordinary in itself.
When the Prime Minister tried to hose it down as just "gossip", Foreign Minister Bishop, instead of going to ground as an obedient minion would do, then gave the Financial Review chapter and verse, that just fanned the flames. Make no mistake: this was defiance.
Barring something cataclysmic, the party room won't meet until February. All indications point to a tense gathering that any amount of festive season cheer is unlikely to dissipate.
Dr Norman Abjorensen, from the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy, is the author of three books on the Liberal Party and its leaders. His book on all 27 former prime ministers, The Manner of their Going, will be published in 2015. View his full profile here.
