Kevin Rudd provided plenty of fodder for cartoonists who poked fun at him last week after he objected to media questions by resorting to archaic slang — "Fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate!" This blokey response so obviously lacked authenticity that Rudd deserved every barb he copped. The next day he had the grace to laugh at himself in a speech in which he used a string of outdated ockerisms. All that was missing was "Stone the crows".
A couple of weeks ago, he tried to prove that he’s a mate of the NSW Labor Premier Nathan Rees by claiming they share a love of Rugby League. No sensible person believes for moment that he appreciates the first thing about the game. He is not the first politician to pretend otherwise when to comes to sport. But Rudd is far more assiduous than any of his predecessors in trying to show he is attuned to celebrity culture.
Soon after becoming PM, he made room in a packed schedule to meet Russell Crowe in New York. Instead of going to funeral of an admired Labor figure John Button, he chose to visit Cate Blanchett in hospital with a teddy bear for her new baby. When given the chance last week to share the public's outrage at a celebrity who trades on obnoxiousness, Rudd leapt into the fray, even though it has nothing to do with his job as prime minister. Rudd was quick to denounce celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay as a "new form of low-life", after he unleashed a strange verbal assault on a Nine Network "star" Tracy Grimshaw. Ramsay was unmoved by the prime ministerial rebuke.
It is much easier to understand the nerdish PM’s efforts to come across as a traditional Aussie bloke, or gain uncritical attention on the celebrity stage, than it is to work out who the "real" Rudd is. His latest Machiavellian manoeuvres on global warming, for example, are extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with his earlier declaration that climate change is the "greatest moral challenge facing the nation".
Before the last election, Rudd promised to make it mandatory for 20 percent of electricity production must come from renewable energy by 2020. The Howard government originally had a mandated target of 2 percent by 2010. In 2007, it announced a new target that was roughly equivalent to a 15 percent uses of renewables by 2020.
Had he wanted to, Rudd could easily have passed the necessary legislation last year with the Coalition's support. Drafting the new law would have been simple. All that was really needed was to change a couple of figures and dates in Howard's original law. But Rudd keeps delaying the legislation.
If the law were already in place, it would have given business the certainty it needs to invest in renewable technology and create thousands of new jobs in the wind, solar, geothermal and wave power industries. It would also have reinforced the government's attempts to stimulate the economy.
Earlier this year, however, Rudd softened the already gentle impact of the renewables target by announcing that compensation would now be given to "trade exposed" industries. But he again committed his government to implementing the renewables target, despite claims that it is not needed in addition to the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) that he also promised at the 2007 election.
Last week, Rudd effectively guaranteed further delays by telling the Opposition that, unless it passed the CPRS legislation first, no compensation will be paid for the impact of the mandated renewables target. This consequence will only occur because the government insists on using the CPRS law to specify how the compensation will be paid.
The demand that the Coalition first pass the CPRS legislation is widely seen as a blatant attempt at wedge politics, designed to shift the blame onto the opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull if the renewables target is not introduced. The government is well aware that Turnbull faces much stronger opposition within the Coalition on the CPRS legislation than the renewables target. As a result, the renewables target would pass with little trouble if the government didn't link the two bills.
This raises the question of whether Rudd is really committed to the renewables target, which is due to be gradually phased in after January 1, 2010. If Rudd wants to pass the necessary legislation in time, he can easily do so. The Coalition’s environment spokesman Greg Hunt said last Thursday that it would happily pass the bill now.
If the bill were passed now, any compensation — which will only be tiny in 2010 — could be paid be after the CPRS legislation is eventually passed. Turnbull has indicated this will occur early next year. If not, and compensation can't be paid without enabling legation, the law for the renewables target could be readily amended with the Coalition's support.
So why doesn't Rudd grab the chance to pass the necessary legislation in parliament this week so industry can get cracking on building the new plant and equipment needed to produce 20 percent of the nation's electricity from renewables by 2020? The most plausible answer is that he doesn't want to, because he hasn't really got his heart in tackling global warming as promised at the last election.