Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

In Search of Kevin Rudd

Chris Saliba is one of Webdiary’s active citizen journalists, having contributed numerous articles and book reviews over the past three years. His Webdiary archive is here, and he also has his own website. In his previous article, Chris subjected the Federal Government’s new citizenship test to critical analysis. Now he applies the analytical tools to the Kevin Rudd phenomenon.

In Search of Kevin Rudd, by Chris Saliba

With only weeks to go until the election I thought I better pull my finger out and try to learn something about Kevin Rudd. I must admit, Rudd’s winning the Labor leadership for me was a bit of a bummer. His fastidious personality and love of detail seemed perfect for some high brow portfolio, but I couldn’t imagine the public flocking to him as leader. (Boy was I wrong.)

Watching Rudd being interviewed on Lateline was like staring at a human metronome – never missing a beat. I wasn’t even sure that he needed me in the room watching him, such was his self-assurance. Listening to his smoothly modulated speech, his words marching like well disciplined soldiers over numerous policy terrains, resistance seemed useless.

In search of Kevin Rudd I read his maiden speech, his two Monthly essays and the two biographies that were published half way through the year. They gave me a pretty clear picture of his thinking, and a kaleidoscopic portrait of his personality.

How much of his political thinking he would put into action if he became PM remains to be tested. How much of his personality would impact on his prime ministership remains as mysterious as his penchant for secrecy and control.

The Maiden Speech

Rudd’s political ‘values’, to use the current vernacular, spring from the perceived shabby treatment both his parents suffered from their community and the state, and ‘the bleak charity of the time’ that the Rudds survived on after his father, Bert, died tragically at the relatively young age of 50 after a car accident. Rudd lays the blame for his father’s death with the hospital that treated him. After his father’s death his mother was kicked off the farm that his father had worked for some 13 years.

‘It made me think,’ Rudd said in his 1998 maiden speech. ‘that a decent social security system designed to protect the weak was no bad thing. It made me think that the provision of decent public housing to the poor was the right thing to do. When I saw people unnecessarily die in the appallingly under funded Queensland hospital system of the 1960s and 1970s it made me think that the provision of a decent universal health system should be one of the first responsibilities of the state.’

In his maiden speech Rudd sees the state in stark terms of power. Politicians hold that power to either effect positive change, or for their own political ends.

‘Politics is about power. It is about the power of the state. It is about the power of the state as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work. Most critically, our responsibility in this parliament is how that power is used: whether for the benefit of the few or the many.’

As a wielder of state power, Rudd sees his responsibilities as regulating markets, fostering an environment that supports education, and a positive engagement with Asia. On the last subject he is quite sophisticated, displaying a rarely seen objectivity on the subject of Asia in this country. (Check out Alison Broinowski’s fascinating book, About Face: Asian accounts of Asia, on Asian attitudes to Australia to find out more.) Can you imagine John Howard saying the following?

‘When the region looks at us, it is often through the deep cultural prism of their respective national experiences of European colonisation over a long period of time, experiences that were for them almost universally negative. When you add to that particular overlay the White Australia Policy and the fact that the White Australia Policy has been taught in the region’s school history texts for several generations, it becomes easier to understand why our place in this region can sometimes be delicate.’

Faith in Politics

Rudd first Monthly essay, Faith In Politics, illuminated the politician’s religious beliefs, one of his key inspirational figures, and how Christian faith, especially the ‘muscular Christianity’ of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, can positively influence questions of state and society. Rudd even goes so far as to conflate Christian and Labor values. Chifley’s phrase, ‘light on the hill’, we learn is borrowed from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.

‘A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.’

The choice of Bonhoeffer does seem an extreme Christian example for Australian politics on which to test itself. (Bonhoeffer was murdered by the Nazis for his association with a group plotting Hitler's assassination.)

Rudd says that the ‘intensity of Bonhoeffer’s gaze’ is needed to enable Australian churches to be able to speak ‘truthfully, prophetically and incisively in defiance of the superficiality of formal debate in contemporary Western politics.’

Howard’s Brutopia

Rudd’s second essay, Howard’s Brutopia, develops a familiar theme to maturity. Howard has moved the country too far too the right, and it urgently needs to be pulled back. Ironically, the free-market ideology of the Howard government is also helping to destroy its traditional conservative social values. Everywhere society now serves the market, instead of the market serving society. This fault in right-wing thinking, its free market wing devouring its traditional social values, Rudd sees as a great opportunity for Labor to argue a new program that tilts the balance back in favour of ‘the family, community and society which markets ultimately serve.’

The most clever part of this essay is Rudd’s adoption of traditional conservative values for modern Labor, shrewdly painting Howard as nothing more than a reckless radical.

‘Classical conservatism, both in the UK and Australia, has always expressed reservations about the impact of unrestrained market capitalism. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, argued that society should be seen as an organic whole, based on reciprocal rights and obligations.’

Having rejected the idea that Friedrich Hayek, the hugely influential writer on free-markets, should be considered the apogee of conservative thought and values, Rudd writes a brilliant paragraph aligning himself and modern Labor with a succession of Liberal politicians.

‘Previous generations of the Australian Right have been variously dominated by old-style conservatives or social liberals: Deakin, Menzies, Fraser, Peacock and others. All supported the welfare state as a form of social insurance and an institutional corrective against market fundamentalism. This partly explains why, in the period of Deakinite Liberalism, it was possible for a number of Right-Left alliances to be formed to secure the passage of what can be described (in the context of the times) as progressive legislation. The Harvester Judgement of 1907, which legislated a minimum wage based on Justice Henry Bourne Higgins' determination of a living wage "for human beings living in a civilised community" - defined not by market forces but rather from an entirely different values-base - is a case in point.’

Howard’s Brutopia seems to be deeply influenced by David McKnight’s Beyond Right and Left, a book which argued that the ideologies of the left and right had exhausted themselves, and what we needed now was a more centred politics that rejected ideologies and depended rather on common sense. The essay quotes McKnight extensively. Rudd takes that book one step further though by positioning himself as a classical conservative.

Here may lay the secret of Rudd’s extraordinary success: by dropping all left / right baggage and presenting himself as a politician who makes decisions based on common sense, not on petty politics or by indulging in culture wars, Rudd can present himself as the voice of reason and balance. Howard, by contrast, comes off as a dangerous radical thumbing his nose at classical conservative values.

‘As John Howard takes his party further to the Right in key policy areas such as industrial relations, the opportunity arises for Labor to reclaim the centre of Australian politics, thereby reframing the national political debate. Labor also now has the opportunity to form fresh political alliances with other groupings alienated by this new form of market fundamentalism, which is blind and indifferent to its social consequences.’

The Nicholas Stuart biography

There are two biographies available of Kevin Rudd. Read together, they give a Jekyll and Hyde portrait of Rudd. For the world there is the fresh faced Dorian Gray of Australian politics, yet closeted away is a different, more complex portrait.

Biographies of political aspirants always have that strangely unfinished feel about them. Their subjects are necessarily works in progress, and so their biographies come across as premature. How many similar biographies of failed leaders now litter the dustbins of history?

Nicholas Stuart is a former ABC journalist and now columnist for the Canberra Times. Stuart ran into numerous troubles getting people to be interviewed on the record, and so most of the people providing comments on Rudd provide them on the condition of anonymity. Early in the biography we are told that Rudd had instructed people not to speak to Nicholson.

Nor would Rudd be interviewed for the book, then suddenly at the last minute, as the book was sent to the publisher, Rudd’s office called, flirting with the idea of now being interviewed. A game of cat and mouse ensued, but no interview with Rudd materialised. The author makes it quite clear by Rudd’s behaviour that he is very controlling of his media image and controlling of those around him. For a public figure, there is a lot of secrecy.

The overall impression the Stuart biography gives of Rudd is of a very astute and hardworking man, someone who through sheer determination and a refusal to accept failure willed himself into a brilliant, shimmering success, this against a tough and mean upbringing.

As an example of Rudd’s extraordinary work ethic, he managed to turn his marginal seat of Griffith around by his relentless working of the electorate. In 1998 he won the seat by 3,858 votes. By the 2004, he romped it in on 13,898 votes. This stunning result was not handed on a silver platter; Rudd worked his tush off to achieve it.

Stuart spends some time concentrating on key parts of the Rudd mythology. In the main these are the early death of his father, Bert, and his subsequent treatment at the Royal Brisbane Hospital (he blames the hospital for Bert’s death). Following his father’s death Rudd claims his mother was kicked off the farm that Bert had worked for 13 years, plunging the family into destitution.

These key events, as noted above, had an enormous impact on the young Rudd, and went a long way to forming what would later become the man and politician.

Yet memory is a strange thing, and emotion can and often does colour ‘the facts’ of what happened in our personal histories. This is a controversial point with Rudd. Sunday program journalist Ellen Fanning investigated Bert Rudd’s death, digging up the coroner’s report. The report however didn’t show up anything untoward. Rudd may have become a Labor politician, Fanning suggested, due to a misunderstanding.

Then Kerry-Anne Walsh from the Sydney Sun-Herald investigated Rudd’s claim of being evicted from the farm by owner Aubrey Low. Low’s children hotly disputed Rudd’s eviction story, saying their father was a decent and honourable man.

In a bizarre twist, however, it was the story behind this story that became the real shocker. On 3 March 2007, Rudd’s young press secretary rang Kerry-Anne Walsh, swearing a blue streak. The story was held over until a week later, to double check the facts. Kevin Rudd himself now called the paper’s editor, Simon Dulhunty, and went ‘ballistic’, insisting the story was not to be run.

An even more intriguing story about Rudd and media manipulation came in April 2007, when the Sunrise program tried to stage a fake dawn service at the battlefield of Long Tan in Vietnam because it would better fit into their television schedules. The idea was junked after veterans voiced opposition. Rudd denied any involvement with the fake dawn service, then when it was revealed that his office indeed was aware of the plans, Rudd blamed his staff and ‘counselled’ them. Rudd soon ditched his regular segment on the show.

Nicholas does his best to balance the good with the bad in Rudd’s character. There’s a very telling quote from ANU professor Hugh White, about how good Rudd is with his family.

‘The relationship they had was very impressive. You really learn something about a person when you see them with their family. He related to his children, always dragging them into the discussion as active participants. Considering that our discussion was probably about strategic affairs – not one of the most interesting subject-areas for many people – it was fantastic to watch him challenging and encouraging them in conversation. He wasn’t condescending at all.’

And on Rudd’s knowledge of foreign affairs White had nothing but glowing praise: ‘His intellectual engagement was unparalleled.’

On the other hand, Queensland academic Scott Prasser is highly critical of Rudd’s time as key adviser to Wayne Goss, Queensland Premier. After explaining that Rudd was the Mr Fix-It of the Goss government, the de-facto power behind the throne, Prasser notes ‘Executive government control, secrecy, and manipulation of appointment processes remained embedded during this time.’

There’s a fair amount of background noise in this biography by people who are not overly fond of Rudd. The general criticism is that he is an amoral hypocrite who treats people shabbily.

Over all I found Nicholas Stuart’s biography to be an intelligent, balanced and well researched portrait. There’s no rancour from Stuart at having to deal with such an obstructive subject, no opportunities taken to launch pot shots. The tone of Stuart’s biography is a search for understanding of a complex subject.

The Robert Macklin biography

Robert Macklin is a journalist, novelist and former press secretary for Sir John McEwen, leader of the Country Party and Australian prime minister for 23 days. Macklin was fortunate in getting full access to Rudd, his family and colleagues. The list of big names that co-operated with Macklin is quite impressive.

This is for the most part a sympathetic biography, with very little shading. There are large swathes of quotation, with Rudd giving fireside like chats. A lot of the book reads like a Sunday supplement profile. The interview material from Rudd’s siblings provide a kind of Norman Rockwell-like picture of Rudd growing up. The quotes from famous diplomats and politicians appear like testimonials.

For example, there’s a quote from his wife Therese about how many Play School videos they watched: ‘We watched more tapes of Play School than you can imagine. Kevin can sing in tune and I can sing out of tune every Play School song from the 1980s.’ You get the picture.

The book ends with another quote from Therese, in the same cute vein: ‘After twenty-five years, I still can’t get him to put his socks in the basket.’

That’s not to say any of this is bad. Much of its interest lies in how Rudd wants to present himself, and with Macklin, Rudd gives much interesting interview material that is more personal in nature. It’s a relief to read Rudd talk away from the confrontational style that is usual in political discourse.

This biography is also worth reading for the extra detail that the Nicholas Stuart bio doesn’t have, even though it is information that has not been dug up by the author, but rather handed over by his interviewees.

There’s a fabulous quote from Jason Koutsoukis from The Age about how John Howard rings his pollster Mark Textor every day for an update. Apparently there are 63 topics that Howard tracks. This material is then developed and then Howard sends out his front line lieutenants onto the attack. You wonder what all this stupid talk of leadership is about when modern day pollies live and die by opinion polls.

In light of the recent controversy over foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland's speech on the death penalty (McClelland received 'counseling' from Rudd over the matter), it was interesting to read the following:

‘I believe the death penalty is repugnant at every level and we have a responsibility not just to speak out against it when it applies to Australians, but to argue uncompromisingly that the time has come for the world to put an end to this medieval practice.’

I found this to be quite a seductive biography. It’s nicely written, and has a jovial, avuncular feel to it. Yet it is only one side of the story. It’s Rudd in his Sunday best. If you want to travel to the dark side, then read Nicholas Stuart’s book.

Stuart was the outsider looking in, whereas Robert Macklin is an insider, almost a court writer. If he isn’t one already, I feel he’s probably soon on the way to becoming the official writer of the Rudd years.

I can’t really favour one book over the other. Strangely enough, I think they should be read pretty much together.


What’s the take away from all of this? Rudd as a young boy was clearly traumatised by the poverty and bad times of his upbringing. The state virtually killed his father through the incompetent running of its hospitals (according to the Rudd version of events). The social safety net wasn’t broad enough to catch his widowed mother, and she found herself cast aside, forced to survive on the ‘bleak charity of the time’.

Through these transformative early experiences, Rudd’s political program was to follow. Intellectually, Rudd believes the state should use its powers to protect the weak and the vulnerable. The Howard years have shrunk and weakened the fabric of the social safety net. Rudd’s political program is to strengthen and broaden this social safety net, to pull government back from the right and more to centre.

As Rudd proclaimed himself in his Howard’s Brutopia essay, ‘The time has come to recapture the centre.’

Where that ‘centre’ will eventually balance itself out should a Rudd government be elected is anyone’s guess.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rudd will help improve our relationship with China.

In international relations, there is soft power and there is hard power. Exercising it is how governments get their way.

China's communist rulers are no different. They legitimately use soft power to win foreign friends and gain international influence. The tools of soft power are culture, education, public diplomacy, business links and people-to-people contacts.

Then there's hard power — overt pressure or threats. In China's case, its hard power carries more punch than most and, in relations with Australia, it's backed by lots of money.

Trade with China is essential to Australia's economic boom. China is set to overtake the US as our largest trading partner — our two-way trade with it is worth $50 billion, a 21 per cent increase on 2005-06.

Overseas students are now a key source of revenue for our universities and China is Australia's largest market for foreign enrolments. More than 90,000 Chinese students are studying here.

Other human links are expanding, too. Close to 310,000 Chinese tourists visit Australia every year. And the Chinese-Australian population is growing, with 690,000 Australians claiming Chinese ancestry, and people born in China forming the third-biggest migrant group.

Chinese authorities now have leverage they can exploit without overt pressure, according to Fraser Brindley, a Greens member of the Melbourne City Council.

As global power swings towards China our relationship with China will be extremely important. We will need the diplomatic and language skills of Kevin Rudd to steer us through this very tricky time.  

Now the Opposition Leader is having what is possibly the last laugh, with the prospect of a Mandarin-speaking prime minister of Australia raising interest from China's national broadcaster.

China Central Television (CCTV), China's largest TV network, yesterday recorded an interview with Mr Rudd via satellite from the Channel Seven studios in Sydney.

Conducted almost entirely in Mandarin and broadcast by the state-owned network last night, it covered the topics of Chinese-Australian relations, Mr Rudd's Chinese-born son-in-law, and his travels with his wife, Therese Rein, around the nation of 1.3 billion people.

The verdict from a CCTV executive was that Mr Rudd's accent in the notoriously hard to grasp language was "perfect".

We are now in the 21st Century a century that may well be China's:

China is poised to challenge the global dominance of the United States. It may do so either as an authoritarian, and potentially militarily aggressive state, or as an evolved, stable and rational player. The choice depends, Hutton argues, on whether it embraces economic and political pluralism - what he calls "genuine capitalism" and democracy.

In turn, that relies in good part on whether Western nations, particularly the US and Britain, can re-embrace these values themselves.

"Our prosperity and even global peace," he says, "depend on the answers."

 The question for Australian voters is will Mr Rudd or Mr Howard be the person you would want to represent you in China?

The Mandarin from the Public Service

Can't see Rudd helping us in Taiwan or Japan, John Pratt.

With all this global warming nonsense about, do you really want to pander to our "largest trading partner" simply by digging up all our coal and shipping it over?


Well, yes . . . and?

I think the time has come to build the alternative as the old dies.

We don't really know which new initiatives will survive.  So we simply have to try lots of different things.

I use some guidelines:

  • suburban sustainability (co-operating with your neighbours.  This seems to be the scale at which Australians are comfortable and feel capable of innovating).
  • light technology is preferred (in my field of health things like acupuncture and counselling, education (preventive medicine), and so on)
  • the biggest question is governance (sociocracy is one fairly simple attempt at a better way)
  • a little of something is better than a whole lot of nothing. 


Latham had a big go at both big parties in the Fin Review today in a piece called Merging into nothing, essentially a reprise of his 2005 speech Ten reasons why young idealistic people should forget about organised politics . Pity he chose a subscription only website, especially since he rails against big media. Why not publish it on an online media site, or an independent magazine like The Monthly, on condition the publisher makes it freely available online after a couple of days? And a big pity that he AGAIN made no mention of new parties like the Greens. Here's a taste:

As the major parties set about winning elections they spend large amounts of money on telephone polling and focus groups to find out what the public is thinking. Without exception, a core message comes out of this research: money, and how to put more of it into the pockets of middle-class voters in marginal seats. Hence the emphasis on campaign issues such as tax cuts, interest rates and penalty rates - the so-called financial pressures facing working families. Social democratic concerns such as community building, public participation, poverty alleviation and the redistribution of income and opportunity have fallen off the political agenda. Indeed, they are perceived as an obstacle to winning power.

Some people, of course, still argue that Australia is a generous and egalitarian nation. At election time the truth is brutally exposed. Through their polling, the two major parties have identified the values and fears of middle-class Australia. Consequently in this campaign, neither party has been willing to embrace social justice or redistributive strategies.
Is anyone saying that Australia's grossly overfunded elite private schools should shed some of their resources to assist struggling students and schools in poor neighbourhoods? Is anyone arguing for billions of dollars to be spent on a great national effort to overcome poverty? Is anyone prepared to reverse decades of underinvestment in public housing and the entrenched social problems of public housing estates?

Labor and Liberal are simply following their polling and public opinion: more money for private schools, more money for private housing and more money for private spending through tax cuts and middle-class welfare. The dominant ethos is greed, not generosity.

A period of policy convergence poses new challenges for the political system. The major parties need to develop new arguments to convince their supporters that differences still remain between them and their opponents. The major media outlets, with their reliance on conflict-based reporting and "infotainment", need to create new issues and controversies to maintain their commercial viability. It is difficult to fill the news bulletins each night with the same old story about policy consensus. The nation state has less work to do, but the political class needs to keep itself in work.

When no issues exist, politicians have an interest in manufacturing them, creating an artificial sense of crisis. All public representatives and candidates do it. I certainly did. It is the nature of the system. The media, with its propensity for exaggeration and hysteria, is happy to play along. Indeed, the most overused term in modern election campaigning is "crisis".

...   If politicians and media commentators are worried about higher prices for first home buyers, the worst thing they can do is put more money into the market: increasing demand, extending the boom and pushing prices even higher. Putting fat on the fire is not a sensible way of taking heat out of the system. This is the paradox of government intervention in private housing. When politicians follow their polling and offer handouts to home buyers, the market becomes less affordable in the medium term.

...  For many decades left-wing politics expected capitalism to fall over because of its labour exploitation and economic inequality. We were, in fact, barking up the wrong tree. The greatest threat to the corporate world is from its culture of consumerism and its corrosive impact on nature. Capitalism is eating itself alive. And no truly global institution or policy tool has been developed in response. The nation state, the dominant political institution of the past two centuries, is ill-equipped to deal with the problem. My judgement is that global warming will worsen considerably before decisive action is taken. By necessity, this will involve rethinking the West's materialistic values and developing a new economic and social order.

One of the few lively aspects of the election campaign has involved speculation about the true intentions of a future ALP government. Undoubtedly many people in the Labor movement are expecting Labor in power to be far more progressive than its stated election promises. Behind the scenes, they are reassuring each other that once Howard has gone a radical reform program can begin. I think the reverse is true. I expect a Labor administration to be even more timid, more conservative.

This has certainly been the pattern at a state level. The first challenge for an Australian Labor government is to establish its legitimacy, to be accepted by the political establishment of corporate leaders, media elites and bureaucratic bosses. This is precisely what a new Labor ministry will do: pandering to conservative interest groups, enjoying the comforts of office and, over the long term, trying to establish itself as the natural party of government. Any attachment to radicalism and progressive reform in the ALP ended a long time ago. If people vote for a change in government on November 24 they will be replacing one conservative administration with another.

No matter which party wins, Australia will still have a conservative economic policy and a decentralised, productivity-based industrial relations system. No matter which party wins, Australia will still have a conservative foreign policy dominated by the United States and its mismanagement of the so-called "war on terror". No matter which party wins, Australia will still have conservative social policies: overfunded elite private schools, huge subsidies for private health insurance and bucket loads of middle-class welfare.

Nothing of any note is going to change. We have reached the zenith of policy convergence in Australian public life. Everything else is just play- acting, a bit of media melodrama to keep the public entertained. Australia is having a Seinfeld election, a show about nothing.

Nicholas Stuart

I don't understand his position, if Rudd didn't want him to write a biography that was his business and not Stuart's so what is he complaining about.

Rudd is still right of me as well but Howard is far right of Ghenghis Khan so a drover's dog or house brick would be an improvement and apparently his electorate think so too because he cannot get a preference deal with anyone.

Rudd's Centre

I think Rudd's 'centre' is a very long way to the right of mine.  This centre seems to consist of massive tax cuts to the weatlhy being delayed by a year.

This is the world where Phillip Adams (pretty much an old line liberal) is regarded as dangerously left wing! 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 1 day ago