RUDD'S SUMMER TREATISE

Kevin Rudd used 7000 words to tell us how we got into this crisis and how transformative it will be. Apart from heralding a return to activist government, he didn't tell us anything about the future he would like to create from the wreckage.

I'm not sure how many other Australians did their penance but last week I took some time out to read Kevin Rudd's essay in The Monthly magazine entitled The Global Financial Crisis.

When I heard that the Prime Minister had given up much of his Christmas break to pen the piece, I was keen to read it. I read with interest his previous Brutopia piece in The Monthly back in 2007 and I looked forward to some special insights and vision in this latest piece. I did not get either.

The Prime Minister provided Australians with an account of the history that led us to our present crisis. Anyone who has spent anytime reading the work of American economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (both of whom are referenced in the piece) and many others would have found nothing new in Rudd's history.

And Rudd's attempt to pin the whole crisis on an ideology embodied solely by the Liberal Party here in Australia is nonsensical. The entire political establishment jumped on the small government, low regulation bandwagon. John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Costello have all been quick to point out the warm embrace that Australian Labor federal and state governments, alongside the centrist Blair and Clinton administrations have given to the ideology that created the crisis. The Liberals might be closer than Labor ideologically to the thinking that created the crisis - but if so, the margin is far far slimmer than the Prime Minister suggests.

The most egregious failure in the piece however was not its account of the past, it was the absence of any vision for the future. Historians have the prerogative of writing about the past. In a time of crisis, Prime Ministers are surely compelled to give us a substantial vision of how we should and will respond to the crisis. The only clues the essay provides to the Prime Minister's vision for the future is a return to late 70s early 80s social democracy.

Rudd convinces us of the "truly seismic significance" of the crisis only to take us back to pre Neighbours Australia for the policy solution. What a let down.

I really didn't need Kevin Rudd to provide an historical account of the crisis. There are plenty of these already. What I hoped for was a well argued case for change - not just a statement of the macro obvious about the need for more activist government. Kevin Rudd should have given Australians a sense of how he would like Australia to look after the crisis - the tax system, the health system, the education system, the pension system, business regulation, economic priorities etc etc and how his vision might might come to be. This would have made for interesting reading. But it would have required imagination, courage and policy specifics.

If the Prime Minister succeeded in persuading us that we really are at a "turning point between one epoch and the next", he did nothing to convince us that he has the vision to lead us into the new epoch.

His focus on the macro issues and his refusal to meaningfully address any of the specific challenges thrown up by the crisis - apart from the obvious issue of financial regulation - was cowardly. I have an increasing sense that many of his prescriptions for economic recovery are the same.

Kev probably should have focused on his tan.

COSTELLO CHANNELS DOWNER

Peter Costello's throwaway reference to Kevin Rudd's fluency in Chinese is more revealing than his empty contribution to the Chinalco - Rio discussion.

Peter Costello's piece in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald on Chinalco's bid for a substantial stake in Rio Tinto raised some interesting points.

Strangely, he avoided what many regard as the biggest issue of the bid - whether Chinalco, as an enterprise wholly owned by the Chinese government will be a conventional investor seeking conventional returns, or a stooge serving the Chinese hunger for secure and well priced resources.

It's a classic oversight from a man with a history of blindspots. Costello managed to serve at the top of John Howard's government for more than a decade without a plainly argued analysis on issues like the Iraq War, children overboard, mandatory detention etc etc. It's like certain parts of the man's brain have been removed. Paul Keating's description of Costello as "all tip and no iceberg" nailed him.

I found something else in the article more objectionable than this omission though. Costello writes, "The ultimate decision on whether this proposal will be allowed under Australia's foreign ownership laws must be made by the Treasurer. Our Chinese-speaking Prime Minister will undoubtedly favour the proposal."

The Liberal Party's disgust at Kevin Rudd's fluency in Mandarin has been festering since Rudd was the Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman. Downer could not disguise his contempt for the idea that his opposite could converse with the Chinese in their language. Now, once again, perhaps one of the most truly impressive things about Rudd is turned against him in an appeal to the most shameful of Australian failures - our monolingual and monocultural superstructure in a raucous multilingual and multicultural nation and region.

The implication of Costello's line is that Kevin Rudd's Chinese language skill distinguishes him from the rest Australia's monolingual white mass and somehow compromises his capacity to make decisions in Australia's best interests when engaging China. It's a line that would have flowed smoothly from the mouth of Pauline Hansen and her cohorts.

Kevin Rudd's knowledge of China and the Chinese language are great assets to Australia and a great example to future generations. Impugning him for this special talent is the work of the most base political operatives.

Also see - If you don't speak English, don't speak at all