Senator Andrew Bartlett
Monday, September 05, 2005
 
Howard vs Costello
When the Senate is sitting, each office is provided each morning with a big wad of newspaper clippings. This is twice the size on a Monday, because it includes the weekend papers. Looking through them today, I was struck by the huge number that dwelt on the perceived tussle between John Howard and Peter Costello, with Costello's response to Malcolm Turnbull's tax ideas used as a prism to assess the contest through.

This endless talk about whether John Howard will go or Peter Costello will challenge is starting to really irritate me. Firstly, because there are some immensely serious issues that are not getting anywhere near enough scrutiny as they should be (e.g. welfare changes, tax proposals, workplace relations, security laws, climate change and water usage and infrastructure just to pick a few), whilst so much time is being spent on something that is basically just theatre.

Secondly, because I can't see why people would even find it genuinely interesting as theatre. Unless John Howard's standing in the community changes dramatically, there is simply no way that Peter Costello will challenge him the way Paul Keating challenged Bob Hawke. Costello does not have the party room support that Keating did, and even if he did, Hawke was clearly in political difficulty (albeit some of that was generated by Keating), and Howard clearly is not. If Costello really tries to challenge in current circumstances, he will fail dismally.

Regardless of what you think of John Howard, objectively I can't see any reason why, as things stand, he should retire any earlier than he wants to. I think my public record would make it clear what my views are, but for anyone who isn't aware, I dislike many of John Howard's policies, his divisive modus operandi, his lack of respect for the truth and his calculated undermining of some of the pillars of our democratic system. However, that does not negate the fact that when someone is doing a job as well as John Howard is being seen to do it by those who support him, the fact that someone else wants a go is not sufficient reason for him to step down.

Frankly, I can't see any evidence that suggests that Costello will do a better job than Howard – or a worse job. If you think Howard's policies, ideas and methods are good, I can't see anything much that Costello has said or done suggesting he will do it better. And if, like me, you think there are many bad policies and destructive actions John Howard has taken, I frankly can't see any clear evidence Costello wouldn't be just as bad.

Costello has been Deputy to Howard for the entire period of the Coalition Government and I don't know of any evidence that suggests he was anything other than strongly supportive of the policies and strategies employed by John Howard in areas such as refugees, the Iraq war, industrial relations, tax or welfare. It's true that Peter Costello is a minimalist republican, and reputedly he is a bit less antagonistic towards reconciliation. Even if you think, as I do, that these are both improvements, I don't think they are reason enough to replace someone who is clearly successful and performing well with somebody untried, just for the sake of it. While Shane Warne is still taking wickets or Ricky Ponting is still scoring centuries, you wouldn’t replace them just on the off chance that the crowds might find it more exciting if someone new was in the team.

posted by Andrew Bartlett @ Monday, September 05, 2005 Permalink
|


<< Home