In late 2010 when Tony Abbott had risen to the leadership of the Coalition, as leader of the Opposition, I wrote a piece in Eureka Street questioning his moral core. I compared him to a high school debater whose commitment is only to the present argument, and what he needs to say in order to win. Put into a different situation, he is more than happy to argue the opposite position if it suits his then objectives.
The article concluded with the following observation:
Much is made of Abbott's Catholic faith, but it seems to me that the rule book he plays from has more in common with Machiavelli. Machiavelli famously concluded: 'Therefore it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it according to the necessity of the case.' In the end everything can be sacrificed to gain and maintain power.
Now with the formulation of the budget strategy clearly in the public domain, we have a direct indication of the rule book Abbott is following.
Abbott's election strategy in 2013 was based on two sets of claims. The first was that the Gillard Government had broken the people's trust through the introduction of a carbon tax. There could be no mitigating circumstances, not excuses, no forgiveness for this breach. Abbott's unremitting attack on Gillard was taken up with gusto by various shock jocks — recall Allan Jones' comment that Gillard's father 'died of shame'.
The second was that his government would be a government of no surprises, that there would be no cuts in areas such as health, education, pensions and public broadcasting, no new taxes, and that he would fix the so-called 'budget emergency' created by Labor. The promises on no cuts in vital areas and no new taxes were repeated with the regularity of water dripping on stone, burrowing into our political consciousness.
That these goals of no cuts, no taxes and bringing down the budget deficit were mutually contradictory seemed to escape everyone's attention. But they were what people wanted to hear, and Abbott was more than happy to give it to them. It matched the 'necessity of the case' in order to get elected.
Abbott must surely have been aware that the promises he was making could not be delivered. In fact in government he and Joe Hockey have made several decisions — abolishing the carbon and mining tax, repealing Labor's decision to wind back tax provisions for superannuation contributions for high income earners, putting billions into the Reserve Bank beyond its current needs — in order to heighten the sense of emergency.
All this to justify the cuts and new taxes. A concocted emergency is now being used to justify broken promises.
Of course what is most disturbing is the way the cuts and taxes are being targeted. While the deficit levy will be temporary, the cuts will be permanent.
The targets are two-fold: firstly, the most vulnerable members of society, the unemployed, the unwell needing medical attention, people with disabilities; secondly are the government's ideological targets, the ABC, the CSIRO for harping on about climate change, the renewable energy sector, foreign aid.
The first of these rubs against the grain of Catholic social teaching, with its strong commitment to the common good, particularly the most vulnerable — but it plays well to those looking for scapegoats in times of social anxiety. The second plays well with the think tanks and business interests who have the Government's ear.
Prior to the election Abbott spoke of the 'trust deficit' created by Gillard's broken promise. He has now presented the electorate with a swag of broken promises and seems to expect to escape unscathed.
In fact this will leave a significant part of the electorate more than a little disillusioned with the political process. It will play into the hands of small populist groups such as the Palmer United Party who will attract support simply because they are neither the Coalition nor Labor.
In the long run it will contribute to the destabilisation of the Australian political system. We can already expect such destabilisation when the Senate begins to reject many of the proposals in the current Budget.
It took John Howard until his third term before he let his personal leanings completely off the leash and attempted to introduce Work Choices to the applause of his ideological cheer squads. It led to his electoral demise, the second prime minister in Australian history to lose his own seat.
Abbott is doing much the same in his first term. He is over-reaching, thinking himself invulnerable to a political backlash. Whereas Machiavelli's prince could rule through force, Abbott must face an electorate whose trust in political promises has been completely eroded. Our political system as a whole, our trust in the poloitical process, will take a long time to recover.
Neil Ormerod is Professor of Theology at Australian Catholic University, a member of ACU's Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry and a Fellow of the Australian Catholic Theological Association.