I’ve only met Peter Costello once, but over the last 20 or so years I’ve had a very problematic relationship with him.
On one level he was a very competent cabinet minister. If Australia is weathering the international financial storms better than most, part of the credit goes to Costello. The government paid back its debt, the economy was run steadily and business’s share of the economy grew. As a result Australia moved up the wealth rankings.
He was also a consummate performer in the parliament, not in the nasty snarky way of a Keating or a Gillard, but more in the civilised way of a Killen or a Daly. He could deliver a line well, and forcefully, normally drawing blood and raising a smile.
Like Keating he could effortlessly change the direction of debate. This is a rare skill in a politician, and his recent small interventions in debate reminded me that no-one else in this parliament has it.
Then there was the other level – his leadership ambitions and how he pursued them.
Our polling showed that Australians didn’t like the idea of Peter Costello PM. His “sneer” suggested superciliousness and a sense of superiority. And there was also a sense of superficiality. That he had the barrister’s skill of putting on the gravitas with the wig and being right across the brief in the court room, but once he stepped outside becoming completely disengaged.
If you want to be Prime Minister you have to be entirely engaged with the task, not just during working hours.
Had he been prepared to take on John Howard for the leadership and force the issue, as others including Keating, Peacock and Fraser before him had been prepared to do, the public’s attitude might have changed. So might mine.
But while Costello may have been a 9-5 man, his urgers and backers weren’t. Another reason that I had little time for Costello was the trouble that his supporters caused in the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party. The corruption in the Young Liberal Movement with rorting and branch stacking, the 1998 state election result and the loss of Ryan in the 2001 byelection can all be laid at their feet, the root cause of them all being an unsuccessful attempt to boost Costello’s chances by taking control of the organisation. In the process of taking control they lost control of more valuable things, and ultimately had no effect on the leadership.
However, times move on, and watching Costello on the back bench, and assuming that he wanted to be leader I thought he might be worth giving a go, if, as seems likely, Turnbull loses the next election. If that was his strategy, then he was showing some “mongrel” by taking himself off the front-bench and waiting for the opportunity. But alas, I was wrong. Costellos was still playing Hamlet, his new website and occasional cameos just distractions from what now seems obvious to be the only plausible denoument.
Which leaves the Liberal Party in a difficult position.
Much of this morning’s commentary suggests that the Liberal Party will be better off without an alternative leader. This is nonsense. It may be better for Malcolm Turnbull, but only in the short-term, and it will be to the detriment of all. Every party needs a succession plan. The Liberal Party’s biggest problem is that it hasn’t had a proper one in around 16 years.
When Howard became leader it was out of despair. He was the last man standing after the “dream team” of Downer and Costello knocked itself out. Howard himself would probably not have stayed as long in the job as he did if Costello had, at that time, really presented as an alternative, and been prepared to do what was necessary.
Now, with Costello gone, there is no Plan B. Rudd has Julia Gillard but Turnbull has no-one. If Turnbull prevails, and in my view that means being prepared to lose the next election and run again at the one after that, the risk will not have mattered. But if Turnbull isn’t committed for the long haul or otherwise fails the test, the Liberals have no-one to fall back on. That is not a good position for the country to find itself in.
And while having a strong rival can distract a leader, it has the advantage of making that leader more responsive to demands from within their own party. There are always two fronts in an election – the front where you win new voters, and the one where you retain the ones you already have. A leader who is secure can afford to ignore the faithful more easily which can actually rob them of the commitment from supporters in the community that they need to win. By pushing a harder line from the back bench on issues like industrial relations and climate change in the context of possible leadership ambitions, Costello was actually doing Turnbull a favour.
As a result of Costello’s retirement Victorians now have three (and if my mail is correct possibly four) preselections in safe seats. His departure should concentrate the minds of the preselectors even more than usual. Whoever they preselect has the opportunity to fill a very large void.