Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

We know that Walletgate sparked instability and a leadership crisis, and then there was the patch-up job. But Walletgate was followed by more. It was followed by Biographygate. When the Prime Minister’s most recent biography came out, there it was on display for all to see—what the Treasurer actually thinks about the Prime Minister’s ability to govern finances, about his ability to add up money and work hard at government finances and about the Prime Minister’s tawdry track record as Treasurer of this nation, delivering 22 per cent interest rates.

If Biographygate and Walletgate were not bad enough, there has been more. There has been Waters Edgegate—the scandal that beset the government very recently when a conversation between the Treasurer and a number of journalists was revealed for all to see. Let us remember that at the Waters Edge restaurant the Treasurer said that, in relation to this parliamentary term, he had set a mid-term deadline for the Prime Minister to hand over the leadership and that he was prepared to go to the backbench and carp at the Prime Minister’s leadership from the backbench and destroy it until he won the leadership. And he had said that the Prime Minister could not win but he could.

When these things were revealed for all to see in the newspapers and on television screens, the Treasurer did not come to the dispatch box and deny that he had said these things; he engaged in an arcane debate about whether these matters were on or off the record. He was not able to say that they were not said; he just had to try to hide behind a fudge as to whether they were on or off the record. How absurd is this that he could plot and plan to destroy and tear down the Prime Minister and when confronted with the allegations publicly just say, ‘I thought that was off the record.’ That was the defence.

Then of course we see patched together a new leadership round at the end of the week that was. This is the granddaddy of them all when it comes to leadership instability in the Howard government, and perhaps it is very relevant that it all happened in the Quay Grand Hotel inner suite. What we know about this round of leadership instability is its difference from earlier rounds. Earlier rounds were caused by a restless Treasurer getting out there and saying, ‘Look at me; pick me.’ He was a restless Treasurer who would start it but never have the gumption to finish it. This time, this leadership instability, this round, has been caused differently. It has been caused because a majority of the cabinet walked away from the Prime Minister. Let us look at how the meeting in the Quay Grand Hotel suite came about, and its implications for Australian politics.

On 7 September—last Friday—there were statements in the newspapers to the following effect. This from a government backbencher: ‘It’s getting to the point where it would be better if he’—the Prime Minister—’stepped aside.’ This from a minister: ‘The public thinks that we have been here too long and that John Howard is too old.’ A Liberal source: ‘No-one believes in the party that he’—the Prime Minister—’can turn it around.’ Of course, when these things happened and they were in the newspapers, the Treasurer was silent.

Then we know that last Friday the Minister for Foreign Affairs advised Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, of the outcome of a meeting he had held in Sydney the night before to canvass the views of senior ministers. He met with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—the list went on. They were the most senior people in the government and he met them in a hotel suite trying to cast around and work out what to say back to the Prime Minister about his future. The message went back that the majority wanted him gone. That message was received by the Prime Minister last Friday following the meeting in the hotel suite on the Thursday.

And then by Saturday in the newspapers we were reading things like these. There is the statement by an unnamed minister who said in respect of a colleague’s observation that the Prime Minister was, like Hitler in 1945, in a state of delusion, trying to deny the Russians were on the outskirts of Berlin, ‘On the outskirts? They are already at the Reichstag!’ And then another unnamed minister said that the view was crystallising inside the party that he has to go—the Prime Minister has to go. As this instability is in the newspapers, the Treasurer is silent.

It goes on. We know that on 9 September a senior minister said—because it was recorded in the Sydney Morning Herald the next day—that from a personal standpoint it would be better for the Prime Minister to leave now in a dignified fashion to spare himself a defeat. But he said that from the party’s perspective maybe the Prime Minister should stay because the government would only do worse under Costello. Then of course the Treasurer remained silent.

Then on Monday we had the Prime Minister do an interview saying that he expected to lead the party to the next election. We had the Minister for Health and Ageing at the table today and then appearing on Lateline trying desperately to shore up the leadership of the Prime Minister—one of the last remaining loyalists as the majority walk away from the Prime Minister. We know that on 10 September the Treasurer, through a source close to him, let it be known that he was willing to accept the leadership should the Prime Minister resign, but he had no intention of forcing the issue. We know that Mr Howard was letting it be known that he thought that he was the only person who could win. We know that one of the Prime Minister’s supporters said that the problem for Mr Costello was that he and his supporters did not have the guts to grab the leadership now. We know that supporters of the Treasurer were there saying that it was only the Treasurer who could take the party forward. We know there was a marginal seat MP who said: ‘If he did it and handed over to the Treasurer it could work but he has to do it now. I don’t think he will; we’ll all go down with him.’ As these things are in Australian newspapers for everybody to read, the Treasurer remains silent.

This government is asking you to believe that, after the crisis of Tuesday, when it was revealed through Sky News that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources have been saying to Howard that he has lost the support of the key others in the government, after a party room meeting on the Wednesday, it is now an episode of happy families—that they are all back together, that they are all members of the team, that all of these statements did not happen and that all of this disunity did not occur. Really! Watching this government as it turns inwards and cannibalises its own, we know that the following things remain true today: no matter what episode of happy families in the ongoing soap opera of this government it is trying to have us believe, the majority of the cabinet do not support the Prime Minister continuing. That is true. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources wants the leadership of the Liberal Party and he is biding his time in the hope that he can get it. That is true.

Last night the Prime Minister went on the 7.30 Reportnot with a grand plan about the future of his party and certainly not with a grand plan about the future of the nation, but with a cobbled together line about the Treasurer, to try and get him through the media cycle. And what does this cobbled together line about retirement mean? It means that, if the Prime Minister is re-elected, he will retire during the next period of the parliament. But it does not mean that the Treasurer will be the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made that absolutely clear at the dispatch box today. He has given the Treasurer his usual sword of commitment, which is no commitment at all. So it could be anybody. It could be the Minister for Health and Ageing. Stranger things have happened—not much stranger. So the Prime Minister is saying to the Australian people, ‘I’m going if I am re-elected. It suits me to pretend that it is going to be the Treasurer, but really it could be anyone.’ That is where we have got to.

We know from today’s newspapers that it is not really over because there are key members of this government who are waiting for the next poll results and they are letting it be known loud and clear that, if the poll is not good, it is all back on. This is not an episode of happy families; this is moving from being a soap opera to a horror movie. And the problem for the Prime Minister and this government is that it is ultimately not them who pay the price of this instability; it is Australian families. They cease to govern, they cease to deliver, they cease to develop plans for the future—and it is Australian working families who pay that price.

There was not a minister today who answered a question who had half a clue or half an idea about the future of this nation. They have their scare campaign and their horror show, pretending to be happy families—and that is all they have left. Now, of course, we will hear the usual negative tirade from the Minister for Health and Ageing, but we will not hear a future plan for this nation because he does not have one, the Prime Minister does not have one and this government does not have one. (Time expired)

See this speech in context