NEARLY twenty years ago I had cause — in an official capacity and accompanied by two colleagues — to visit a lawyer in Melbourne. We needed advice on a legal matter of a constitutional nature and we needed it urgently. The lawyer was young — in his early thirties at the time — but had already made a name for himself at the bar. We met on a Saturday morning by which time he had received and read all the relevant papers that we had sent to him by express post together with such statutes and legal texts as he had found necessary to consult.
After the obligatory introductions and exchange of pleasantries the lawyer took us through the issue, explaining our options, the dos and don’ts and what we could and should — and could not and should not — do. It was a measured, informed and impressively clinical performance. It was a complicated issue but he explained it with such clarity and conviction that we were left in no doubt what we should do and the rationale for doing it.
That young lawyer has been Treasurer of Australia since March 1996 and Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party since 1994. He is Peter Costello. For all that, however, there are some, perhaps many, who believe that he should have stayed in the law.
More recently — within the past couple of weeks — Christian Kerr observed as follows in crikey.com: “OK, so you stole the lead story on the front page of the Oz on Saturday from the PM and may finally be making some hopeful noises on tax — but Cossie, mate, you wedge like a girl.”
Kerr then goes on to quote Greg Sheridan writing in The Australian: “Given that Cabinet quite explicitly considered this matter [deporting Muslim militants with dual citizenship] some months ago and decided not to go down that route, Costello’s comments struck me as inexplicable, except as cheap nasty populism … I wonder if Costello ever will be prime minister. I ponder whether he ever should be. His recent comments seem to have no connecting thread except to follow perfectly the pervading zeitgeist on every issue.”
Sucking up to the Uglies
Sheridan went on to say that “After ten years with Costello as Treasurer, the Government still confiscates half of every extra dollar someone on barely twice the average income earns. As Treasurer he can’t fix the tax system but he’s become an expert on Islam … To condemn extremists when they appear is absolutely right. To just go on and on with these lazy, incendiary remarks, without a skerrick of any positive direction in them, is a very poor show, irresponsible, distinctly low class.”
And Kerr then comments that Sheridan is absolutely right. “Costello was as convincing sucking up to the Uglies as he is when he masquerades as a moderate. Maybe even less so. … No, sorry, Peter. You wedge like a girl. Leave it to the master. John Howard’s still there to enjoy his party. All the parties. The party he shows no signs on relinquishing his grip on — and all the parties this week to mark the tenth anniversary of his election as PM.”
This is all very direct and vigorous stuff. One could be excused for thinking that Messrs. Sheridan and Kerr are not overly impressed with Peter Costello. Worse still for the Treasurer is that, from my crude survey, there are many other citizens and commentators who feel the same way. It is thus worth speculating why this should be so.
When I think of Peter Costello I think also of Gough Whitlam, two lawyers among the many lawyers who rose to the top of Australian politics. Lawyers, especially barristers, tend to be lucid, eloquent types, more than a little glib many of them, who can pick up a brief, immerse themselves in it, get on top of it and then take on the world — defending a criminal today and representing a victim of crime the next and so it is with tax fraud or a domestic fracas or the crash of a major company or indeed being in either government or opposition. Court craft is readily transferred from the bar to the bear pit of a parliament. In the nature of things barristers tend to know a little about a lot but they are very good at putting over the little they do know or are obliged to learn, quickly and probably in summary form.
Hand up the Treasurer’s back
One area where Whitlam and Costello knew very little — or to me at least seemed to know little — was economics. I never felt confident when listening to Whitlam on economic and financial matters, on the rare occasions he strayed into that area, and so it is with Costello. Neither of them have articulated such matters with conviction. Whitlam did his best to pretend economic issues did not exist — until he learned sufficient to make Bill Hayden Treasurer by which time it was all too late — while Costello has picked up the jargon but not the substance. Listening to Costello and watching him on television I feel that the head of the Treasury has his hand up the Treasurer’s back, under his singlet. That at least makes me feel a bit more secure and the numbers sound more convincing when I think of them in that context!
Secondly, apart from their narrow range of experience in economic and financial issues, neither of them has ever managed anything of substance in their lives. It is the way of the world with barristers. With Whitlam this was readily apparent as he allowed his team to run off in every direction at once. Managerial cohesion, discipline and direction was non-existent. Costello has the same gap in his background but sensibly seems to leave such matters to be handled by the Treasury or God or his minders. Some may argue that a broad familiarity with management principles is unnecessary in heads of government and treasurers because their business is making policy, not implementing it. That is true only to a limited extent because, if you don’t comprehend what the bureaucrats are up to, then you run the risk of sitting there waiting for a bomb to go off without knowing it. True, you don’t actually run your department(s) but you better have a fair idea what they are up to because they are responsible to you and, if disaster strikes, the buck stops with you. (Well, it used to stop with the minister until successive governments, notably the present one, redefined the notion of ministerial responsibility in their own interests.)
However, where Costello and Whitlam really differ from the majority of Prime Ministers is as politicians. Whitlam was hopeless as a politician — because he saw himself as some kind of superior being — and Costello is much the same. I have seen Costello in a crowd and he seemed to me to be thoroughly uncomfortable — stiff, fixed grin, looking as if a horrible disease had just blighted the room and he’s so jammed in by all those awful voters that he must get out. Quickly. It may not have been quite as bad as that but he certainly did not look at ease in that situation. Against that, John Howard in such settings seems to enjoy himself immensely. It is where he is in his element. He seems genuinely to enjoy campaigning — pressing the flesh, listening to people, offering a comment, relaxed, easy, comfortable with himself and the setting. Howard has no preferred theatre sporting events, street walks, airports, formal or informal occasions — he is at ease with himself, even if some of the company are not sympathetic to his politics or to his view on a particular issue at the time. He came from the small business end of town and for politics and for winning votes it is about the best end of town to come from or to visit. They don’t wear blue singlets up that way but nor do they wear suits — just clean, open-neck shirts with the sleeves rolled up and a sharp eye for the costs and the margins. It is not Costello territory. There is a certain remoteness about Costello — a stiffness, an unease, a distance — that I think people recognize but it is not something they see in Howard, seemingly the eternal campaigner.
Howard is clearly enjoying the job
This leads us inevitably to Costello’s obvious and well documented aspiration to succeed John Howard as Federal leader of the Liberal Party and as Prime Minister. I don’t think it will happen. I think his chances diminish as each year passes because more people see more of him and I don’t think they are entirely comfortable with what they see. They don’t dislike Peter Costello. On the contrary, I think they respect him and I think they applaud him for what they believe he has delivered as Treasurer but I don’t think they believe he is up to the job as Prime Minister. They compare him to Howard and they conclude that he doesn’t compare, so they are content with him staying on as the book-keeper where they think he fits — what with all those Treasury boffins looking over his shoulder they reckon he can’t get into much trouble there.
But then, if not Costello who else? I think the first point to make here is that the reasons to believe that John Howard will step down any time soon are diminishing by the day. Howard is clearly enjoying the job and is very much on top of it, even if not always to everyone’s satisfaction but that is politics. He has given no indication that he wants to step down; he continues to enjoy widespread support; he is fit; and, while surely not aspiring to the Menzies record, would love to distance himself even further from the pack behind him. Beyond all that he also has the continuing luxury of a flaccid and factionalised Labor Party opposition.
That in turn would throw the succession issue into even more of a lottery. With Costello going off the boil the next colt in the ring would have been Abbott but I think he would have severely bruised his chances with his obvious discomfort — and a certain ineptitude — in his handling of the abortion pill issue. Tony Abbott is a highly intelligent, competent and a shrewd politician but many believed that he wore his faith on his sleeve in that issue and it would not have gone down well with the voters. Many Australians well recall the political heat of the 1950s when sectarianism tarnished and complicated Australian politics and those memories reinforce the strong Australian commitment to the division between church and state. Abbott may yet restore his fortunes and so he will not be unhappy with Howard’s continuation in the job for a few years yet.
Then there is Brendon Nelson. He may look a bit like an actor in The Godfather but he has not really put a foot wrong in difficult portfolios. He is one to watch but if John Howard stays on for a further three or four years — say, until a year or so after the next election or longer – then it really does become a lottery. Other serious contestants could have emerged by then — Malcolm Turnbull for example. What I do believe however is that Peter Costello is going off the boil and that his claims to the Prime Ministership will diminish the longer John Howard stays in the job.
It seems that we shall continue to live in interesting times.
