The Rhetorical Framing of Policy Intervention

Abstract

When prime ministers speak, the nation usually listens. In the Australian federation, prime ministers have consistently used the power of their political pulpit to launch policy interventions into areas of traditional State responsibility. This article suggests that there is an emerging rhetorical pattern to the way these policy interventions are presented. Prime ministers of both major parties have used rhetoric to portray the Commonwealth as acting on behalf of the legitimate interests of constituents who have been ignored by State governments. Occurring in close proximity to federal elections, policy interventions are shown to be weapons which favour incumbent prime ministers in their battles with State governments and federal oppositions alike.

Notes

¹These interactions must be seen within the context of broader power-relations between the Commonwealth and the States. There is widespread agreement amongst scholars who have studied the progress of federalism in Australia that the past century has been characterised by a slow but inexorable power shift towards the Commonwealth at the expense of the States. For a small sample of the large body of scholarship in this area, see Brown and Bellamy (2007); Federalism Symposium (2007); Hollander (2010); Parkin and Anderson (2007); Summers and Lowe (2010).

²For a small sample of the large and developing scholarship in this area, see for example: Adams (2009); Atkinson (1984); Bennister (2008); Benoit, Blaney and Pier (2000); Corcoran (1979; 1994; 1995); Felton (1995); Jones and Rowland (2000); Kane (2001); Laracey (2007); Paine (1981); Peake and Eshbaugh-Soha (2008); Rottinghaus (2009); Tulis (1987).

³Change in styles and content of political speech over time have been considered, as well as their role in defining national identity. See for example: Corcoran (1998); Curran (2004); Johnson (2007); McAllister and Moore (1991); Uhr (2002); Young (2007b). There has been some work done on the link between political rhetoric and policy implementation in the American context – see Cummins (2008); Eshbaugh-Soha (2008). For a broader discussion of the changing role of political communication in democracies, see Crozier (2007; 2008).

⁴For a discussion on the way rhetorical choices can frame perceptions in policy debates, see Lakoff (2004).

⁵For one conception of a ‘policy cycle’ and how it applies in Australia, see: Althaus, Bridgeman and Davis (2007). For a broader discussion of theories of policy development and analysis, see: Considine (2005); Crozier (2008); Howlett and Ramesh (2003); Kay (2006); Kingdon (2003); Pal (2001); Parsons (2004); Wildavsky (1979).

⁶For a discussion of the change to ‘Shared Responsibility Agreements’, see: McCausland and Levy (2006).

⁷There is an intense and growing scholarly interest in the Northern Territory Intervention. See for example: Howard-Wagner (2007); Hunter (2008);O'Dowd (2009); Pounder (2008); Vivian and Schokman (2009); 't Hart (2008); Thill (2009).

⁸For a useful summary of the various measures involved in the intervention, see Gordon (2008).

⁹For a brief discussion of the context and detail of the intervention, see Leveratt (2007).

¹⁰On the topic of political campaigns and the internet, see: Porter (2007). In the UK context, see Ward and Vedel (2006).

¹¹This was consistent with the pledge Rudd had made during the 2007 election campaign – that he would seek to takeover hospitals policy via a referendum if his attempts at working with the States cooperatively to ‘fix’ chronic problems in the system were to prove unsuccessful.

¹²See Govt Rejects Criticism Of Indigenous Plans (2007); Howard (2007c).

¹³It mirrored a tactic that scholars like David Runciman have argued was used by Tony Blair in justifying the British position in the ‘war and terror’ and the invasion of Iraq (Runciman 2006).

¹⁴For an introduction, see McNair (1999); Young (2007a).

¹⁵I use the term ‘rhetorical prime ministership’ to refer to the rhetorical power of the office in its institutional sense, used to reach out directly to the public in the way envisaged by Jeffrey Tulis in his 1987 work, The Rhetorical Presidency. For a discussion of how the concept has developed in the literature on the US presidency see Ellis (1998); Medhurst (1996); Stuckey (2010).

¹⁶Newspoll conducted 6–8 July, 2007. Results viewed on URL: http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0703%20NT%20intervention.pdf>. Consulted 3 July 2010.

¹⁷For an understanding of the three kinds of political ‘time’ indentified by Runciman –‘news time’, ‘election-time’ and ‘historical time’, see Runciman (2006, 120).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dennis Grube

Dr Dennis Grube is a Lecturer in Politics and Public Policy at Griffith University, and his current research interests centre on political rhetoric and its impact on the making of public policy in Westminster-system jurisdictions. The author would like to acknowledge the funding support for this research provided by Griffith University's Centre for Governance and Public Policy. The author would like to thank his departmental colleagues and the two anonymous reviewers for their many useful comments and suggestions