Kevin Rudd’s unpopularity in his own party – not the mining industry – forced him out as Australian prime minister

Kevin Rudd’s unpopularity in his own party – not the mining industry – forced him out as Australian prime ministerThe narrative for Australia’s responsible business industry is easy and persuasive: a prime minister who is an advocate for the environment is brought down by a malevolent mining industry on which he had planned to impose a super-tax.

Easy and persuasive, but is it true?

Let’s look at the facts. Kevin Rudd became Australian prime minister in what became known as the “Ruddslide” general election of December 2007. Apparently a commanding figure in his Australian Labour party, he was widely expected to be a premier in the job for a decade or more. In fact, following the subsequent general election, it was looking like the party itself had lost power.

Rudd was a staunch environmentalist, calling climate change “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”. His first act as prime minister was to sign the Kyoto protocol. In an interview at the 2009 Copenhagen summit he declared: “We’re from Australia, we’re here to help.”

Apparently in pursuit of this environmental agenda, Rudd announced in May this year that the government would be levying a super-tax on the mining sector. The move provoked a furious response from extractive companies, which said the move would hinder investment in the sector. Mining analysts forecast that it would raise the tax burden for large firms from about 43% to 57%.

It was therefore those mining companies that many in the environment lobby blamed for Rudd’s shock ousting as prime minister barely a month after the super-tax announcement. In late June Rudd lost the leadership to his deputy, Julia Gillard. Suspicion of the hand of the mining sector in Rudd’s demise was strengthened when Gillard announced shortly after her accession to the top job that the mining tax was to be watered down.

However, much though conspiracy theorists would love to be able to blame extractive companies for Rudd’s “assassination”, a look at the wider picture tells a different story.

Rudd was extremely unpopular in his own party, where he had gained a reputation for not listening to colleagues and being aggressive. On winning the 2007 election he appointed his own cabinet, breaking the century-long practice that the Labour front-bench is chosen by the party, with the prime minister responsible for dividing up the portfolios. This action, and a reputation for intellectual arrogance, alienated key constituencies in the party, including unions and activists.

Unpopular and rude

Rudd also could be rude to those who incurred his ire. At Copenhagen he famously launched a four-letter tirade against the Chinese government, claiming that Beijing was uninterested in tackling environmental challenges.

The result was that, even before the mining super-tax episode, Rudd was on very thin ice. When a challenge from Gillard seemed likely, his chief-of-staff’s own testing of the waters demonstrated that he did not even have enough support in the party to be able to contest a leadership election. Doubtless, the super-tax debacle played a role in his demise, but only as the catalyst to oust him, not the cause.

While mining firms may or may not have been briefing against him, the simple truth is this: Rudd’s party disliked him intensely, and wanted him out.

And what now for the environment? Both main party leaders said during the recent election that climate change is a key issue. But it is unclear how much the economy and border control – the other main areas of public debate – will squeeze the environment out, at least for the coming months.