天堂.受难记

24/07/2007 12:00:00 AM

Buried treasurer

The Howard biographers reveal the truth about their Costello interviews, and how the treasurer's dummy-spit demonstrates exactly why he'll never be PM. By Wayne Errington and Peter Van Onselen.

The Liberal Party's best parliamentary performer had a whale of a time in September 2005 when Mark Latham's diaries rocked the Labor Party. Latham's unflattering descriptions of Beazley and his lieutenants gave Peter Costello the opportunity to do what he does best - ridicule his opponents. Costello knows full well, then, the impact that frank opinions about colleagues can have on the normally controlled national political environment. 

So when he sat down with us for two interviews for our book, John Winston Howard: The Biography, last year, the treasurer knew that books about politics are of much more than historical significance. Now, nearly two years after Latham provided Costello with weeks worth of Question Time fodder, Costello has returned the favour for the Labor Party. 

Tony Abbott was keen last week, in between the four-letter words, to defend Costello's criticism of Howard in our interviews with the treasurer in August and October last year as the words of a disappointed man speaking shortly after being rebuffed again on the leadership succession.

Yet our second interview with Costello came months after Howard spurned him. If he thought he had overstepped the mark in our first exchange in August, the intervening weeks gave him plenty of time to rethink his words. Costello's comments on the "deal" didn't come up until the second interview.

Further, the date of one of our interviews with Howard, on his birthday in July last year, was even closer to the revelations about the supposed deal between the two men in late 1994. Howard could have been forgiven for some hubris on his birthday, and he certainly could have been forgiven for expressions of frustration with a disgruntled treasurer, yet he was firmly in control throughout a marathon interview.

Costello wasn't the only Howard government minister to be less than discreet in their conversations with us. In the book, we describe Howard's strengths as a politician as self-discipline and perseverance. Sounds pretty simple until you compare Howard to, well, just about everybody else in the Liberal Party (and, for that matter, Labor MPs we spoke with).

Of all the quotes from our book floating around in the media in the past week, how many can you recall coming from Howard himself? Howard's ministers, advisers, and even his wife all provided us with quotable quotes that the media have lapped up. Journalists and Labor staffers will be unearthing nuggets from the book for some time yet. Alexander Downer couldn't resist a dig at Howard over the leadership change in 1995. In January that year, Howard gave a newspaper interview to  The Australian to clear the air over his anti-Asian immigration remarks in 1988. Downer told us: "I thought he was just doing that so he could knock me off as a leader." John Anderson "chose his words carefully" before calling Howard "clever" rather than "cunning", the same language to describe Howard's approach to politics that Rudd and his coterie of supporters are using against the prime minister now. Wilson Tuckey was his usual garrulous self: "There is a belief in the Liberal Party that [under Howard] the sensitivities of the National Party get too much attention." All of this on the record. We rarely needed to use the many prime ministerial character assessments given to us on condition of anonymity.

We interviewed Howard face-to-face on multiple occasions for hours, in addition to substantial email and telephone communication with him and his office. We could not be more grateful for the cooperation he gave us, not just in talking, but in releasing Howard loyalists to talk to us as well. No politician in memory has used words with as much calculation as Howard. That's not to say that our interviews with Howard weren't valuable; he was happy to talk about everything from his ancestry and his school days to his famous meeting with Keating at The Lodge after the 1996 election. His voice comes through strongly in the biography. He had no intention, however, of making headlines.

He was cautious in his responses, never sure to whom we had spoken and where the information behind our questions was coming from. The most controversial he got was in confirming (or, at least, not denying) some colourful stories from his past, such as his entry into the House of Representatives after one too many glasses of red at a farewell party for a colleague during his wilderness years, or some of his treachery against Peacock in the 1980s. We caught him off guard a couple of times: "Gee, where did you get that from?" he asked when we brought up the topic and address of his father's little-known second garage. And he agreed with his wife's observation that leadership contests should be treated as a "free for all". Although he did so in the joking context that he, of course, agrees with everything his wife says.

We gave Howard plenty of opportunities to tee off at Fraser, Peacock, Keating and Costello. He demurred every time, although he made a partial exception for Mark Latham. Howard learnt very early in his political career that there is nothing to be gained by publicly criticising his colleagues. He could have been forgiven for spurning Australian Republic Movement leader Malcolm Turnbull in 1999 when the latter claimed that Howard had "broken the nation's heart" by opposing the push towards a republic.

Soon after the referendum, Howard made his peace with Turnbull. It was a pragmatic political gesture much in the mode of Howard's second term as Liberal leader. A younger John Howard would have found that move much harder to make.

Making amends with Turnbull paid dividends when the merchant banker took on the role of Liberal Party organisational treasurer in 2003, raising more money for the Liberal Party outside an election year than ever before. Howard learnt the importance of fund-raising in modern politics the hard way. One of the reasons Howard lost his first election in 1987 was the ability of a modern, centrist Labor Party to outspend the conservative opposition during the campaign.

A disgruntled Turnbull could have caused Howard major headaches. So, when Turnbull turned his attention to the seat of Wentworth, Howard had a tough decision to make. Sitting MPs don't like seeing the precedent of the party hierarchy helping to prise one of their number out of their seat.

When we put it to Howard's colleagues that as prime minister he had neglected the Liberal Party organisation, particularly in his home state, the most common reply was that the national head of government can't be expected to micro-manage the affairs of six separate branches. Yet, Howard was prepared to play a role when it suited him.

The preselection for Wentworth was one of the higher profile contests in many years. Howard took the unusual step of personally calling a small number of preselectors, and sent his Mr Fixit in NSW party matters, Senator Bill Heffernan, to the eastern suburbs of Sydney to urge a vote for Turnbull.

The Wentworth preselection was an example of Howard's deft touch in managing the many conflicting demands on an Australian political leader, bringing much needed political talent into the parliamentary party without upsetting those who elected him leader in the first place. He needed to play his part, albeit small, in ensuring Turnbull's success without attracting too much attention to himself.

Sometimes it is better to use the telephone to send a message than the national media. None of Howard's likely successors as Liberal leader possesses his range of political talents, not least his capacity for sound judgment.

Mark Latham and Peter Costello don't share too many traits. They are both larger personalities than Howard. That has its costs and benefits. In the next few weeks, as Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan pour scorn on Costello in the parliament, we'll be reminded of why the past 11 years will be remembered as the Howard government, and not the Howard-Costello government, however important Costello's contribution might have been.

During the interview, we expressed the view to the treasurer that he seems more interested in the future than Howard does. "Well, I am planning to be around for a lot longer," he told us. Costello nominated 20 years. "In politics?" we asked. "Well, we will see how we go."

Fraser's government was his and his alone, as is Howard's. Howard was treasurer for six years yet needed to hang around in politics for another 13 years before getting his turn to make a strong mark. Costello will become Liberal leader when Howard departs - that much we know. Suggestions to the contrary are ridiculous. However, if he only does so from Opposition, he is unlikely to ever become prime minister. First-term Opposition leaders never do.