People, let's address the debate about my experience head on.
Brian Loughnane has come out attacking my experience, and this is clearly a leading edge for the conservatives' attack ads as we approach the election.
But let's get this straight, I have very strong public policy and administration experience. For example:
* 22 years public administration experience
* Experience in policy development at Assistant Secretary level in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and experience in missions in Stockholm and Beijing
* Chief of Staff for the Queensland Premier
* Director-General of the Cabinet Office in Queensland
* China Consultant with KPMG
* 9 years in Parliament
Inexperienced? I think not. Again the conservatives are running scared, looking for any perceived negative they can latch on to and hope they can convince the electorate of.
This is not Mark Latham. Scare campaigns on interest rates or lack of experience will not work this time.
After nearly 11 years, the Australian people understand how the Howard government works: They react to policy concerns (global warming, water management etc), they drive campaigns of fear (Tampa, interest rates etc) and offer so-called security and comfort while those who are the worst off in our community go backwards, while education of our children suffers, while the needs of our aging population are given scant attention, while our national infrastructure ages and does not meet the needs of the community or business.
Should I go on???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Mr Rudd
The rhetorical gambit taken by Mr Loughnane at the Young Liberal's conference is a species of what philosophers call "ad hominem". I noted from question time on February 7th that Mr Howard also took this line of argument in response to your question concerning Ian Macfarlane's comments on scepticism and emissions.
This rhetorical gambit taken by your political opponents is a form of character assassination. It is also logically fallacious and opens up some rather interesting historical cases to ponder too.
For example to follow the Loughnane and Howard line of argument we would have to pause and wonder how on earth did Edmund Barton cope with being the very first Australian Prime Minister -- no prior experience in running a nation.
Then we could consider Robert Menzies who entered federal parliament in 1934, and five years later assumed the office of prime Minister in the wake of Joseph Lyons' death. You at least have nine years under your belt in federal parliament.
Again there is the case of John Curtin. He never held a ministerial position in any government between 1928-41, and yet became the new Prime Minister after Menzies went.
Then if we come closer to the home of the Liberal Party in recent years one could argue that Tony Abbott was dreadfully lacking in experience. Elected in 1994 and two years later made minister for employment. How could one appoint Peter Costello as federal treasurer when he had not served in any ministerial capacity before 1996, and had only six years beforehand been elected to federal parliament?
The argument is of course utterly specious.
Post a Comment