Comment

COMMENT
Save
Print

Not the retiring type: Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd can't let go

517 reading now
Show comments

Last week The Economist published a special report on an emerging class of older worker, the generation "between work and decrepitude", people who still have a great deal of energy and aptitude, but whose existence is posing troublesome economic and social questions because society hasn't worked out how to harness their energies.

Possible labels for these in-betweeners include Nyppies (Not yet past it) and Owls (Older, working less, still earning).

Up Next

Hidden from the light for 65,000 years

null
Video duration
02:21

More National News Videos

No more radio silence from Abbott

Tony Abbott is back from his holiday and didn't take long to hit the airwaves, questioning a Malcolm Turnbull decision.

The author writes that "longevity is one of humanity's great accomplishments" but says this aging generation is nonetheless seen as one of society's "great headaches".

Admittedly The Economist piece is talking about plus-65 year olds, and our two most recent former prime ministers are sub-60 by a whisker – Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are both 59.

But the yawning social problem of what exactly to do with these men – energetic, not yet past their prime, and still eager to contribute to political debate, as evidenced this week by pronouncements on refugee policy and security, respectively – is the very same.  

Former US president George W Bush has his paintings – which, contrary to his presidency, have been praised by critics for their empathy. Barack Obama seems to be spending his retirement working his way through islands (and some of the minor cayes) owned by Richard Branson, as he pens notes for his forthcoming memoir. Former British prime minister David Cameron is on the speaking circuit, but is otherwise reportedly having a hard time with retirement.

Advertisement

Cameron was recently snapped on an iPhone in a supermarket by an ungrateful member of his former public, as he did the weekly shop.

"The problem is that David can't really fill his day," an un-named source close to Cameron told The Spectator in March.

Another friend revealed Cameron's attempts to paper over his unemployment in the most British way possible.

"He would ring up mates and suggest a game of lunchtime tennis," the pal said.

"I'm afraid he'd get the answer: 'Sorry, can't make it; I have a job'."

According to the same article, a gig at NATO was a possibility for Cameron, but, as the man who triggered the break-up of the European Union, he is an unpopular candidate among its European members.

Which brings us to Kevin Rudd, who is also unable to get a nomination for an international gig from people who used to be his homeboys.

This week the former Labor prime minister engaged in what some called rank revisionism, when he claimed his 2013 refugee offshore processing agreement with Papua New Guinea was only supposed to last a year.

"Refugees should've been resettled in Oz by Abbott/Turnbull 3 yrs ago," the former Prime Minister tweeted, apparently contradicting his 2013 promise that asylum-seekers arriving by boat would "never be resettled in Australia".

In a testy follow-up interview with on ABC radio, Rudd defended his claim that the deal was only meant to be temporary.

He said the "poor folk" languishing in third-world, concentration camp-esque conditions on Manus Island should be given a permanent place to live.

However cynical you are about his motives, at least Rudd is using his platform to argue (however belatedly) for greater humanity towards the people rotting in despair in the cursed refugee camps successive governments have parked them in. But he won't be thanked for it by Bill Shorten. Labor already struggles to look "credible" (read: sufficiently harsh) on border security.

Meanwhile, Tony Abbott used his weekly 2GB spot to exercise what he declared is his duty as former prime minister to speak out on important issues. To what did this duty extend this week? The marginalia of the circumstances in which Malcolm Turnbull created a new expanded Home Affairs agency, to be headed by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. The creation of such an agency has been publicly discussed for several years, including the years of Abbott's prime ministership.

"The advice back then was that we didn't need the kind of massive bureaucratic change which it seems the Prime Minister has in mind. I can only assume the advice has changed since then," Abbott told 2GB's Ben Fordham.

Note, Abbott didn't discuss the merit or otherwise of the super-agency, which has been criticised by some as a terrifying land-grab that concentrates too much power in the hands of one minister.

The former PM only discussed the advice, suggesting but not actually saying he received advice not to proceed with the super-agency. He endorsed Dutton for the new role, but threw some shade on Turnbull for keeping the Immigration Minister waiting too long before he assumes the job, sniffing: "It seems [Dutton]'s going to have to wait many months to actually be the minister."

Such is the hyper-partisanship of our times – it is not enough for there to be inter-party warfare, or even intra-party warfare. Abbott is now threshing the new ground of intra-policy warfare.

Faced with the doleful realisation that Turnbull had encroached on his brand by making a strong-arm national security announcement, Abbott did the best he could - he threw doubt on the advice preceding it, and the timing of the minister's appointment.

We really have jumped through the looking glass, where political consensus is not so much splintered as it is atomised.

What to call this generation of un-retired political operatives? "Nyppies" doesn't quite capture it, and "Owls" sounds too cuddly.

"Pests" will do just as well – no acronym required.

Follow Jacqueline Maley on Facebook

Twitter: @JacquelineMaley

0 comments