Accusations by Russell Galt, a former Liberal Federal Electorate Committee Chairman that Senator George Brandis called the Prime Minister a “lying rodent” over the children overboard affair shed more light on Howard’s problems with the Queensland Liberal Party than they do on what he knew and when he knew it.
The accusations don’t prove that Howard knew the children overboard accusation was wrong, just suggest that Brandis may have implied he did. Brandis denies them, but then it is his statutory declaration against Galt’s. There are good reasons for believing neither of them.
Brandis is from the “whatever it takes” school of politics, and a supporter of the leadership ambitions of Peter Costello. He has been agitating for Howard to stand aside for Costello, including frequent briefings of the media, and part of his stock in trade has been to criticise the Prime Minister. “Rodent” is a word that Brandis uses, as is “lying”.
But Galt’s credibility is not particularly good either. He has been criticised for sharp practice as lieutenant to branch stacking MHR for Ryan Michael Johnson. In his legal challenge to the Moggill preselection he partly relied on at least one member of the preselection council voting when she wasn’t entitled to. The presiding judge was not impressed when evidence showed that the offending preselector had been signed up by Galt supporters and cast her vote for him!
For me the more interesting question is why Galt should be doing this at all. Plenty of people lose preselections, but few of them turn on their party so strategically. The answer seems to lie in the machinations of the Queensland Liberal Party, and Howard is probably responsible himself in two ways.
The first is that he has slighted Galt directly. When Galt challenged it was with the explicit approval of the powerbrokers who control the Queensland Liberal Party. The Prime Minister tried to intervene to stop the challenge. He failed.
Then there appears to have been an understanding that the Liberals would underwrite Galt’s costs. That underwriting is likely to have influenced his decision to challenge.
After the court case Moreton MHR Gary Hardgrave offered to use a fundraiser featuring the Prime Minister to help pay Galt’s costs. Howard objected and told the Queensland Liberals that he only raised funds for election campaigns. I am reliably informed that Galt has still to receive any money for his legal expenses from Liberal Party sources. If so he has another reason for ambushing the Prime Minister.
The second is that Howard has failed to control the Queensland Liberal Party, which has allowed the internecine fighting, of which Galt is but one symptom, to continue. After the 2001 state election debacle, where the state team was reduced to only three members, the federal organisation intervened and took control. The intervention should have led to reform of the preselection system and marginalisation of those behind the debacle, principally the Santoro forces, and those allied with them, including people like George Brandis, and Michael Johnson.
Instead, Howard put Senator John Herron in control. Herron was a long-standing friend of Howard’s, but he was beholden in many ways to Santoro and also to Brandis, and he was also angry with Howard because he thought Howard had reneged on the promise of an overseas posting. As a result, little changed in the party, warfare broke out between the party hierarchy and reforming state leader Bob Quinn, and the feds eventually upped stakes leaving the previous disastrous status quo more or less in place.
If Howard had reformed the party when he could have, Michael Johnson would never have become the member for Ryan, and Galt would still be an aspiring party official rather than a wounded has-been. Michael Johnson only became the member because it suited the personal ambitions of both George Brandis and Santo Santoro who appear to run on the maxim that “if you can’t run it, wreck it”.
From Howard’s point of view, the consequence of his failure to control the state branch when he could have is that the organisation has deteriorated to the stage where it is now endangering his reelection chances. Galt’s accusations are likely to mean little to voters – most I talk to, unless they are dedicated Howard haters, are tired of hearing about an issue that is three years old and which had no influence on their votes at the time anyway. What will damage Howard is that they reinforce perceptions that the local Liberals are weak while diverting branch resources to damage control and faction fighting.
When you look at an electoral pendulum there are 5 Liberal held seats with a margin less than 4%, and a redistributed Bowman, which is notionally Liberal, makes 6. On top of that, as this is likely to be an election of uneven swings, the Liberals have good chances of winning Brisbane and Bonner, and may need to so as to offset possible losses.
While Howard is portraying himself as tough on terror and national security he has not been tough on his own party. He also not been tough on “friends” even when they have been acting against his interests. The Liberal Party has a lot riding on this federal election. If they lose power federally, then it is likely that there will be many more Russell Galts and that the whole non-Labor framework in Queensland may tear apart under the pressure, then they will all be overboard.