By Tim Dunlop Wednesday 24 December 2014
Photo: Despite his cabinet reshuffle, Tony Abbott is still facing the same problems. (Alan Porritt, file photo: AAP)
Reshuffling the cabinet is like changing who wears which colour skivvy in the Wiggles: it doesn't make any difference, and they all end up singing the same old tunes, writes Tim Dunlop.
The Abbott Government won office in 2013 with a fairly decent majority. Not spectacular, and certainly not as large as many had predicted, but decent.
Once the votes were counted, Mr Abbott and his cheerleaders in the media congratulated themselves on a job well done, acted as if a natural order had been restored - there was much talk of the adults being back in charge - and everyone settled in and waited for the so-called greatest opposition leader of the past 40 years to grow into the job of prime minister.
Trust me, Godot will get here first.
In fact, rather than growing into the job, Prime Minister Abbott has done a pretty good impression of the incredible shrinking man.
Even the media cheer squad that hailed his every three-word slogan in opposition as some sort of cross between Winston Churchill and David Ogilvy has been pouring out their broken little hearts in piece after piece, telling us how disappointed they are in him.
And maybe we shouldn't be surprised. It's not just that his track record in politics was hardly of a standard that would inspire a Netflix miniseries (or even an Aaron Sorkin one), it's that weak leaders are almost built into the fabric of our two-party system.
Labor swapped leaders three times between 2007 and 2013, despite being in government for two of those changes. The Libs went through Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull before settling on Tony Abbott by a single vote, and he was chosen in the end more or less out of desperation.
He was installed, not because he offered the people of Australia anything in particular in the way of personal qualities or a policy blueprint for the future, but because his election helped settle an internal party argument about climate change.
As I noted last week, as disappointing as Tony Abbott has been, he isn't in and of himself the problem: he is a symptom.
The underlying issue is that both major parties have drained the office of prime minister of authority by converging on an economic program that subsumes economic sovereignty into the vagaries of a globalised economy. Control over key aspects of social and economic policy has shifted from the Treasury benches in Canberra to the stateless instrumentalities of so-called free-trade agreements and organisations like the G20.
The office of prime minister is thus less about leading the country than about managing the electorate's disappointments within that system, and Mr Abbott inherited an electorate hip to the tricks of a political class who have been selling us moonshine - privatisation, deregulation and the rest of it - for the best part of four decades now.
But even allowing for these structural problems, and the electorate's well-founded scepticism, Mr Abbott has brought his own special brand of stupid to the role.
Having sworn black and blue that he would restore trust and integrity to the office of prime minister, on gaining office he set about breaking promises like crockery at a Greek wedding.
...even allowing for structural problems, and the electorate's well-founded scepticism, Mr Abbott has brought his own special brand of stupid to the role.
He compounded his problems with a budget that attacked not just programs and spending but Australia's idea of itself as the land of the fair go. The burden of his "reforms" fell on the poorest, and even in this neoliberal inflected era, the unfairness of that sat badly with many Australians.
Plus, you know, he's just sort of creepy. It's a vibe thing.
Anyway, the net effect of all this is what Mr Abbott himself has helped christen a "ragged year". It's what the rest of us call a train wreck.
And so, in response, the PM has now reshuffled his cabinet, the political equivalent of shouting, "HEY! LOOK OVER THERE!"
The columnists have been out in force telling us all what it really means, who the winners and losers are, and I don't dispute that there is some value in all that. But I can't help but feel it isn't what we should be focussing on.
The problem is, without a fundamental policy rethink, reshuffling the cabinet is like changing who wears which colour skivvy in the Wiggles: it doesn't matter, they all end up singing the same old tunes.
Tony Abbott can swap his team around as much as he likes: it doesn't un-break his broken promises, nor does it take the stink out of his stinky Budget.
And you only have to look at what the Government is already signalling for next year to realise we are simply going to get more of the same.
We've been promised an inquiry into work practices, which everyone knows is just another way of cracking open the chest and massaging the heart of WorkChoices.
Joe Hockey has said, "We are going to give it [economic reform] a red hot go in 2015," and everyone knows that doesn't mean we are going to get, say, a more equitable approach to university funding, let alone something inventive like a guaranteed basic income.
It's hard not to share Ross Gittins' frustration:
Really? One more time? That's the best advance you've been able to think of? That's the best the whole nation has come up with? Another argument about the GST? Another argument about bringing back Work Choices?
...It reveals the limits to our ambition, the incestuous nature of our policy debate [and] the limits to our imagination....
Meanwhile, the new Minister for Social Services has already announced funding cuts to housing advocate groups and other community organisations, including to Blind Citizens Australia, while the Treasurer has reneged on his promise to go after tax avoidance by multinational corporations.
Doesn't exactly sound like the government has been poring over definitions of fairness.
Various ministers and commentators have said that the Government's problem has been one of communication, but I doubt Mr Abbott and co. really care about that.
Despite their earlier insistence that Vocational Education Training (VET) would stay with the Industry Department, that has now been shifted to Education (which adds Training to its title). Child care has been moved from Education to Social Services.
These are potentially significant changes, but what explanation has the Government offered for either beyond some vague yammer about a workplace participation agenda?
Far from being intent on better communication, then, the thrust of their approach looks less like being upfront about their overall intentions and explaining exactly what they want to do, and more about sneaking through changes and hoping we don't notice.
To put it plainly, "better communications" is a euphemism for spin and neither has anything to do with telling the truth.
Yes, we've had a reshuffle, but big deal.
Tony Abbott is still the Prime Minister. Joe Hockey is still the Treasurer. They are still committed to their budget and its underlying philosophy of market liberalism and a wholesale attack on the pillars of the welfare state.
Let's focus on that, not which Wiggle is wearing which skivvy.
Tim Dunlop is the author of The New Front Page: New Media and the Rise of the Audience. He writes regularly for a number of publications. You can view his full profile here.
The more things shuffle, more they stay the same - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
