The Killing Season Uncut

I was the person who coined the phrase ‘the killing season’. There’s a time for every purpose under heaven, or under Kevin. If there was to be a challenge it would have to be in that sitting fortnight.

We went straight to Google. ‘The Killing Season’ had been used once before for a movie about veterans of the Balkan War (appropriately enough) played by Robert De Niro and John Travolta. The film was terrible and disappeared from view; the title was ours.

None of our colleagues liked it. The executive producer, Sue Spencer, said it was provocative; the ABC wouldn’t approve. ‘Go ahead and make the title sequence’, she said. ‘Just don’t tell anyone.’

When we finally made it public, we got a one-line email from Kevin Rudd’s staff: ‘“The Killing Season”? Wow’.

It wasn’t a compliment.

Long before it became The Killing Season, the series was the story of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. It couldn’t exist without them. When they are next to each other onscreen, the tension crackles. But when the project began, neither former leader was a willing participant.

Work had begun on the series in mid 2013 when Labor was still in government, following the pattern of Labor in Power, the ABC’s landmark 1993 series. The difference was Bob Hawke was an enthusiastic participant; he provided a letter for potential interviewees with his strong endorsement of the project. Paul Keating was Prime Minister when that series was made. Producer Sue Spencer remembered how much Keating liked the series’ writer, Phil Chubb. Keating’s interviews were done over a day and a half at The Lodge and at Parliament House (hard to imagine that happening now). Spencer and Deb Masters went on to make The Howard Years in 2008 with the encouragement of its subject. John Howard placed no conditions on his involvement except access to his transcripts to help him write his memoir. He trusted the ABC to tell his story. Newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd gave the ABC generous access to the PM’s offices to film Howard’s story.

The Killing Season, by contrast, had few supporters. Researchers Anne Worthington and Trish Drum were in Canberra in late June 2013, the week Kevin Rudd was returned as Prime Minister, and few significant players would commit to on-camera interviews. Rudd was a non-starter, Gillard was willing to take part, but both refused to be interviewed by the journalist who started the series. The project drifted. After the election loss to Tony Abbott’s Coalition, the Labor Party withdrew further into itself, morose and incredulous at the collapse of everything their election victory in 2007 had promised.

The Abbott government faltered early. Their first Budget was a disaster. Labor began to think the unthinkable, that Abbott might be a one-term Prime Minister. The prospect of a series laying out Labor’s immediate ugly past became even less appealing. By mid 2014 the project had stalled.

I arrived at the cramped, airless office where the Labor doco was housed. Shelves along one wall were crammed with yellow boxes of taped archive material, and above them in rows, the first round of books, manifestations of the history war already underway. Downfall, Shitstorm, Sideshow, Power Failure, The Stalking of Julia Gillard—the tone of the period was loud and divisive. Greg Combet, Wayne Swan, Paul Kelly and Julia Gillard all had books to come.

How do you find a truthful history when almost every event is disputed? Do you look for a single truth or accept there are many? Most facts in political reporting are elusive, like apparitions that take flesh and then fade away.

I was sure of only one thing: the series had to be built around the Labor leadership change in 2010. Everything flowed towards and away from that cataclysmic event. Before it happened to Tony Abbott in September 2015, it had seemed like a once-in-a-generation phenomenon—a bloody regicide according to Rudd’s supporters which, unlike the Liberals’ version, came without notice. How and when did it start? Was Gillard pushed or did she jump? Was it folly or a rational response to a dysfunctional government?

Setting out on the narrative, we trod a path through no-man’s-land, talking to Rudd and Gillard’s supporters: some messianic in their devotion, most convinced their version of the story was the only truth. Rudd and his supporters called the main event ‘the coup’. Gillard and her allies called it ‘the leadership change’, which sounded more orderly, less brutal. We learnt to let go of certainties, sometimes swinging wildly between the different versions, usually determined by the last person we’d interviewed.

The division at the top of the party spread all the way down to the most junior backbenchers and most of the staffers. Kevin Rudd inspired intense loyalty and intense hatred. What was true about him and what was recollected in bitterness? Julia Gillard, on the other hand, was opaque. I had learnt how she slides off a question, giving an answer to something you have not asked. We had to start from the beginning with every event they were involved in.

We also shut the door on the opinions of the outside world. People seemed to be obsessed with trivia: did Rudd really have a tantrum over a hairdryer on an overseas trip? They were also fixed in their views. I wondered where they got their certainty from. In the worst cases, they urged me to look at Rudd and Gillard’s private lives. I met those suggestions with a blank stare.

For the series to proceed, I needed to secure full cooperation from Rudd and Gillard. In this I had one advantage, shared with Deb Masters: I didn’t work in the Canberra Press Gallery. Neither of us had reported on Rudd and Gillard. We were cleanskins.

The business of persuasion is a fraught one for journalists. Persuasiveness is one thing, bullshit is another. You have to understand your subject intimately and what their purpose is in speaking on camera. I prefer candour but it’s not enough by itself. And you are not friends, although it can appear that way. The line you shouldn’t cross is usually only visible when it’s behind you.

I barely knew Kevin Rudd. We had met once when he was Prime Minister. All I remembered was a lively argument about the political contest in Reformation England. It was an event at Kirribilli House, the Prime Minister’s home in Sydney. On a sloping grass lawn overlooking the harbour, Rudd mimicked training a pair of binoculars on the home of then Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, across the water in Point Piper. Rudd laughed at his joke.

I had two preliminary phone calls with Rudd before I joined the series, in my garden because the mobile reception inside my house is patchy. My dog followed me around, barking. The small pool in the yard had a broken pump: as it reached the surface, it made a gurgling noise like an animal being slaughtered. I pushed the pump underwater with my foot, trying not to drop the phone.

In these conversations, Rudd frequently returned to the theme of his mistreatment by the media, especially the ABC. He was wary of our intentions. I was careful, not promising much beyond an open mind. Where Gillard is reserved, Rudd is labile. The temptation is to adjust to his mood. It was safer to be blunt. I told him this was his best, maybe his only chance of getting a fair hearing and he should seize it.

Our third conversation was short. He agreed to the interviews. Afterwards I sent a short, hubristic email to my colleagues: ‘Rudd’s in’. Our long on again, off again relationship had started.

At the time we were talking to Rudd, we were also talking to Gillard. Someone recently suggested that making The Killing Season was like being Switzerland during World War II.

We met Julia Gillard for the first time at the Hilton Sydney. A small bedroom had been booked for us, which would’ve been awkward, perched on the edge of the bed together. We found a meeting room and waited. Gillard arrived on time with her right-hand man, amanuensis and bag carrier Bruce Wolpe. She walked into the room immaculate and hostile—‘bristling’ was the word Deb Masters used later. We were taken aback. She sat opposite us, erect in her chair, hands crossed on the table. Young hands, I noticed, manicured and with bright-red nail polish.

I had seen Gillard in person once before, from a distance in the House of Representatives when she was Deputy Prime Minister and Rudd was overseas. She faced the new Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, across the dispatch box. I watched from the public gallery, impressed by how she dominated the vast space; she provoked Turnbull into making a mistake, and he left the chamber followed by laughter.

At the Hilton, Gillard’s first question was how we proposed to examine the role of the media. She told us we couldn’t make the series without an analysis of the Press Gallery during her prime ministership. She was contemptuous of the media’s role in pushing Rudd’s case, naming individuals whom she said had been coopted by Rudd.

We listened, using the time to scan her face, close up for the first time, with its astonishing creamy complexion. Her eyes are narrow and give little away, whereas Rudd’s face is easier to read. Months later we watched the archive of a scene at the National Press Club where political journalist Laurie Oakes asked a bombshell question about Gillard’s actions on the night of the leadership change. On the podium, Gillard’s face was immobile but her eyes flickered. By that time we were expert at watching her and Rudd for small gestures that revealed truths; for now, we were novices.

Early on in the conversation Gillard raised the topic of Rudd’s mental state, though her friends, she said, had told her not to. ‘I’m no medical person’, she said, before questioning Rudd’s mental capacity when he was Prime Minister. I thought it was a misjudgement, the act of someone trying to justify their actions. I wanted to lean over and say so.

Gillard’s other focus was the book which she was bringing out later that year. She wanted to protect its exclusivity. Unlike Rudd, she had already begun shaping the perception of her story. It seemed to me that in the contest to define the history of the era, she had the upper hand.

I was struck by how different Rudd and Gillard’s approaches were in those early meetings. Their engagement with the series mirrored their styles in politics. Gillard was punctual, efficient, precise—the word most often used to describe her by her peers is transactional. Rudd was usually late, less efficient, but also given to more engagement. Gillard was private; Rudd wore his heart on his sleeve.

In one of the earliest interviews for the series, Kevin Rudd’s press secretary, Lachlan Harris, reflected on how those different personalities had created such a successful combination in 2006.

Rudd was all energy and emotion and Gillard was all discipline and delivery, and together they were an incredibly formidable force … He was incredibly good in the media; he was likeable, he had the kind of big picture stuff. Gillard was much more straight down the line, much more disciplined, in the weeds of the hard draft of policy.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. The interviews with Rudd and Gillard had been agreed to in principle but were still many weeks away; the negotiation with Rudd over the location of his interview hadn’t even begun.

On the day I began working on the series, I picked up the episode briefs and read a scathing assessment of Kevin Rudd, provided off the record by a backbencher. I knew we couldn’t accept as final judgements the views of unknown backbenchers. They had a role, but we needed Rudd and Gillard’s Cabinet peers to tell their stories, and many of them were still saying no. I was also uncomfortable about the number of off-the-record interviews. This series would have no unsourced material. Anyone who wanted to shape the narrative had to appear in it, in full view where their colleagues could judge them and the truth of what they were saying.

We created detailed files on the ‘hold-outs’; we wrote new, more frank letters. I went from office to office in Parliament House. I got myself invited to book launches so I could bail up the recalcitrants. The pitch to everyone was the same. We had three episodes to tell the story of almost seven years. It would be told only by firsthand accounts, by people who were in the room. Tone was important too. This would be no hatchet job: if Labor had a good story to tell beyond the infighting, then they should tell it. (The pitch to Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib was more bespoke but I’ll get to that later.) I also believed they owed the public an explanation; the audience was entitled to understand what happened to the government they elected in 2007—the pollsters had observed that the public’s interest in politics had been reignited by the arrival of Kevin Rudd. Moving on might be politically desirable for Labor, but in my view, not before they had explained themselves. It seemed extraordinary to me that many of the key players thought the subject could be avoided.

Bill Shorten was in a category of his own. By the time we started filming, he’d become the leader of the Labor Party. Shorten told us he was reluctant to take part but agreed to a meeting. We went to dinner at a restaurant in Canberra. In a private dining room, a screen hid us from a curious public—a perfect metaphor for Shorten’s desire to avoid scrutiny. Every time the conversation turned to the Rudd–Gillard period, he would pivot to asking me questions about myself, my childhood, anything but politics. The technique, while charming, was also transparent. I’m a journalist; that’s what I do.

Shorten had been in federal Parliament for less than three years when he moved against the Prime Minister. He had never fully explained why he’d done it, perhaps in the hope there would be little trace of his involvement on the record. It seemed to me there was another layer to his reluctance. Because he’d never told the complete story on camera, with the exception of a few shots of him in a restaurant on the night of the challenge, the archive was clean. He wanted to keep it that way.

Gillard and many of Shorten’s colleagues chose to protect him, forming a phalanx around the leader. When his name came up, their memories suddenly became hazy. But there were enough exceptions to place Shorten at the heart of the drama.

And what truths were contained in the boxes of archive material that lined the shelves of our office? Led by Deb Masters, the team was on its way to logging, almost shot by shot, more than 1500 hours of archive—there are physiotherapy bills to prove the hours spent hunched over tape decks.

The Killing Season was told as a drama. There were scenes, moments, tiny gestures in those pictures that we needed to tell the story visually. Our drama began in the first moments of the Rudd–Gillard partnership. The Labor story had turned so dark that revisiting those scenes surprised us. The archive shows a bright, energetic pair. We found a Lateline story about a fundraiser on the day Rudd asked Beazley for a leadership ballot; miraculously, the raw footage had been kept. At twilight in a vineyard outside Melbourne, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd step out of a white Comcar into the glare of the media spotlight, their freshness unmistakeable. Gillard is sweet, untutored even.

Gillard recalled the feeling that was so evident on the screen.

The media interest’s so much more intense, the reaction if there was an error so much more profound, so you want to make sure everything’s right. So yes, the whiteness, the brightness of the spotlight did strike me very, very strongly.

As series producer, Masters realised that the archive alone would not be enough to drive this story, and traditional reconstructions wouldn’t produce the energy the drama required. She envisaged a seamless combination of the two. So at the same vineyard near Melbourne, cinematographer Louie Eroglu, perched in a cherry picker, filmed sweeping shots of a white Holden with number plates made by the ABC props department, driving up in the late afternoon. These shots were edited in with the archive.

Rudd had his own recollection of the evening.

I think what we were both adjusting to was the fact that we were now a duo, the dynamic duo. That was kind of fun, because Julia had and has extraordinary attributes and she was out there going hard at it, full, strong.

I asked Julia Gillard if she liked Kevin Rudd then.

I was genuinely friendly with Kevin. Our friendship grew. I mean from 1998, coming into Parliament, I’d never met him, so off that start you did things together, a sense of connection grew. That sense of connection really moved into being a strong, personal friendship.

It was an obvious place to start: the moment in late 2006 the two came together on the leadership ticket. Simon Crean called the partnership ‘a marriage of convenience’. Kevin Rudd, a public servant and Christian, ostensibly from Queensland’s Right, had teamed up with Julia Gillard, a Labor lawyer and professed atheist from the Left, a woman who had fought her way through Victoria’s arcane factional system and survived.

They came to Parliament at the 1998 election and delivered their maiden speeches on the same day, 11 November, a date steeped in significance for the Labor faithful: the day Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was removed from office in 1975.

Kevin Rudd said he paid close attention to Gillard’s first speech.

Kevin Rudd (KR): Very much so. It’s your best opportunity to learn what makes a person tick and why they are there.

Sarah Ferguson (SF): Given that she was somebody else who’d been picked out as a future major player in the party, were you also wary of her ability?

KR: Not at all.

Gillard touched on gender in her maiden speech, but by her own admission the issue did not feature prominently in her early parliamentary career.

The impact of sexism and the gendered analysis really didn’t present itself to me until the days of being Prime Minister, so I would look at my political career, coming into Parliament being a backbencher, being a shadow minister, and I wouldn’t be running a gender prism over all of that.

Gillard and Rudd joined a deeply divided Caucus. The ALP was still recovering from the bruising it had received two years earlier when John Howard’s battlers had triumphed over Paul Keating’s true believers. Internally, Labor couldn’t agree on anything, including who should be their leader.

Over time, Rudd cultivated his national media profile with regular appearances on Channel Seven’s breakfast program Sunrise, and writing op-ed pieces for newspapers. In the early days of his leadership, New South Wales MP Tony Burke said Rudd’s ability to communicate was outstanding.

It was this capacity to move from simple, tight explanations of policy delivered in a fun, gentle way through to being able to analyse every scintilla of detail of complex areas of policy. It’s a rare skill.

Gillard, too, had been building her profile, taking on the controversial Shadow Immigration portfolio in 2001 and Health in 2003. She claimed her progress was stifled by the party’s powerbrokers.

I did it find it frustrating. Kim [Beazley] had this sort of set of confidants who were surrounding him. I was obviously the new girl on the block, but as I got more and more senior I felt like I wasn’t being given the kind of access that one would have wanted.

Rudd was more direct.

I think we both felt as if we’d been pretty brutalised by factional processes within the Labor Party, in particular some of the right-wing boyos of the Labor Party.

Rudd singled out the Australian Workers’ Union (AWU), accusing them of keeping him and Gillard out of leadership contention.

The AWU, they hated both of us in those days. Julia, she was, from the AWU’s perspective, way beyond the pale … they regarded her as this evil force from the Victorian socialist Left. She certainly knew that she was loathed by them.

Gillard denied she ever held that view. Rudd said it was what brought them together.

I think that’s where we genuinely bonded partly because of the experiences of being brutalised by the right-wing factional boyos of the AWU in the leadership contest after Mark Latham stepped down.

Former head of the AWU, Paul Howes, who played a role in the 2010 challenge, rejected Rudd’s description.

This notion that somehow having a view and being opposed to someone is brutalising someone is ridiculous … In terms of brutalisation and bully boy tactics, it’s not the way that the organisation has ever run. Frankly it’s laughable for him to categorise that union in that way considering his own behaviour.

One of the most powerful AWU-aligned members of Parliament at the time was Wayne Swan, a former friend and close colleague of Rudd. He was frank about his efforts to thwart Rudd’s rise.

I worked very hard during that period, when he [Rudd] was setting up his challenge against Kim Beazley, to try to convince people right across the party that this was going to be a difficult outcome …

I interviewed Swan for the series at the ABC studios in Brisbane in October 2014. The cameramen were setting up in a boardroom when I walked in to find Swan in his underpants, changing his trousers for the interview. He handled it more coolly than I did.

Swan was generous with his time throughout the making of the documentary but his antipathy towards Rudd suffused every aspect of the story he told. Rudd’s view that Swan betrayed him over the leadership challenge in 2010 produced some of the most intense drama of the series. Although it is a documentary, The Killing Season drew its inspiration from television drama, and drama thrives on ambition and betrayal. To understand the claim of treachery, you have to revisit the men’s original friendship.

Swan worked with Rudd in Queensland politics when Swan was a party official and Rudd was Premier Wayne Goss’ chief of staff, the three of them known as ‘the troika’. Their families were friends; Rudd was godfather to one of Swan’s children. They fell out in federal politics. Factional and personal loyalties, and the Labor leadership, were at the heart of it.

Swan maintained their friendship deteriorated as a result of Rudd’s ambition.

As time went on we grew distant, and I did come to form the view that he was putting his own personal interests ahead of the Labor cause. I formed that view particularly during the various leadership tussles that took place in the early 2000s … I can’t say at that stage I’d formed the view that his Labor values were as shallow as I subsequently found them to be, but I began to have grave doubts about him, about his approach.

Rudd said it was the assault on Labor leader Simon Crean in 2003 that drove a wedge between him and Swan.

When they went in my view outrageously over the top, he [Swan] and Stephen Smith and Stephen Conroy, to destroy Simon Crean’s leadership, they were at me to go out and make similar declarations and I just refused to do it. They regarded that as a breach of solidarity and I think that was a turning point in our relationship.

Rudd couldn’t rely on a media profile alone to drive his bid for the leadership. Lachlan Harris recalled that through those years in opposition, Rudd was everywhere.

This is a person who literally put their life aside in the pursuit of the prime ministership for a very long period of time. Even in opposition I can remember Rudd would be turning up to the opening of a branch meeting in Wangaratta, a fundraiser for the local councillor who was trying to get onto the Baulkham Hills Council, and you don’t do that unless you have energy levels like a superhero.

Bob Carr was the Labor Premier of New South Wales.

Others who might have been considered credible alternatives weren’t working that hard. They weren’t turning up, they weren’t knocking on your door. You ended up thinking he [Rudd] was an inevitability. He made himself inevitable as Labor Party leader.

Swan watched Rudd build support among the party’s powerbrokers.

He identifies very methodically the sort of people that he needs to have contact with, what influence they may have, and then works very hard night and day to cultivate all of those contacts. He is probably one of the most effective networkers I’ve ever encountered or seen in operation.

New South Wales state secretary Mark Arbib was one of the most influential people in the party. He would go on to play a decisive role in Rudd’s rise and fall. ALP strategist Bruce Hawker knew him well.

Mark was a very serious player inside the Labor Party … Kevin knew that he actually had to have a relationship with the biggest branch of the party in the country if he was ever going to be the leader, and so he worked meticulously at that. He worked hard to demonstrate that he had what it took … People like Mark—young, ambitious—needed somebody who was going to show that they were bigger than the party they led.

One of the puzzles of Rudd’s self-portrayal was the way he depicted himself as a political naif.

I think my critics would legitimately say there’s a level of naivety about me concerning the deep machinations of the factional system of the Australian Labor Party. I think that’s true because I tend to take people at face value until I have evidence that you cannot trust them.

Rudd suggested he was operating above the factional structure within the party.

SF: You couldn’t have built the support that you did build in Caucus without a perfectly good understanding of the factions and how they worked.

KR: The bottom line is the reason they chose in the end, that is the Caucus, was because they’d simply got tired of losing, and this guy, beyond faction land, had what they concluded to be a rapport with the Australian people.

SF: I’m taking issue with you saying you don’t understand the factions because I think you understood those power groups perfectly well …

KR: … The bottom line is, I think, most of these guys ultimately had doubts as to whether I was one of them. And what can I say? Their doubts were well founded.

There are different views about the importance of Labor’s factions in the leadership disputes. Wayne Swan said that by 2006, the operation of power had already become less rigid.

I don’t see this in factional terms. Anyone who tries to describe the jockeying in the parliamentary Labor Party through the 2000s and onwards purely in factional terms doesn’t understand what is going on. When Kevin challenged Kim Beazley, he won elements of all factions. Strict factional discipline had broken down well before these leadership battles came along.

Throughout 2006, the polls continued to suggest that victory for Labor with Kim Beazley as leader was uncertain. In the polls that year, Labor was close to the Coalition and sometimes ahead on the two-party-preferred vote. But on the preferred prime minister indicator, Beazley was consistently 20 or more points behind Howard.

Rudd believed he could be the difference.

I remember one day looking around the Caucus room and asking myself, ‘Who can take us to political victory?’ I couldn’t see anybody. I really couldn’t, for different reasons and different cases, and I couldn’t see it happening under Kim.

Rudd didn’t have strong historical ties to the union movement. The trade unions were Beazley’s largest support bloc and his staunchest allies. Critically, the AWU, headed by Queenslander Bill Ludwig and Victorian Bill Shorten, kept faith with the leader.

In the scramble for votes following the departure of Labor leader Mark Latham in January 2005, neither Rudd nor Gillard on their own could gain a sufficient number to take the leadership. Gillard described how she and Rudd came to form a joint ticket.

During the course of 2006 we individually, increasingly, became concerned that we weren’t going to make it in 2007. I and Kevin talked about those things conversationally and then those conversations became more structured. They started to involve [Victorian Left powerbroker] Kim Carr who was tick-tacking back and forth between me and Kevin, and that ultimately developed into a political accord that the best way forward for Labor was for us to form up as a team and to challenge Kim Beazley.

Gillard had visited Mark Arbib to sound him out about the leadership.

I went and spoke to Mark Arbib and within the first fifteen seconds after, you know, ‘Hello. How are you? Do you want a cup of coffee?’, Mark said, ‘Whatever you’re here for, you need to understand this. The New South Wales Right is not going to support you as leader. They’re going to support Kevin Rudd.

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) secretary Greg Combet, a Beazley loyalist, was deeply offended by the attempt to oust the Labor leader. Combet gave one of the most passionate interviews of the series: candid, outspoken and enriched by an earthy invective. He decried with more passion than anyone the culture that overtook the Labor Party during those years.

If anything, this tragedy of Labor in this period is about that, the humanity of it, the poor judgements that are made, the ambitions, the egos and the darker arts that some people are drawn to, the backgrounding, the leaking and the backstabbing. Awful things that I’d like to exterminate from Labor conduct.

We met Combet on the twenty-fourth floor of Sydney’s Chifley Tower. With its sweeping views of the CBD and the harbour receding into the distance, it felt a long way from the barricades. Just before we began, producer Justin Stevens recalled that I had told Combet that the series’ timeslot allowed some leniency in our use of language. Early in the interview Combet responded to the threat Rudd and Gillard posed to Beazley.

After the 2004 calamity where the Caucus saw fit to install Mark Latham and Labor lost both houses of Parliament, the Senate and the House of Reps, I thought, you know, fuck this, to be frank about it.

Combet was aware of the destabilisation campaign being run against Beazley.

I remember doing my block when I became aware that polling was being touted around Victorian union officials as an attempt to undermine Kim and install Kevin … It had become standard operating procedure in the Labor Party by that time.

I asked Julia Gillard if that was how leadership challenges worked.

Ah yes, you know, it is …

Gillard stopped, perhaps realising the implication of what she had said. She started again.

I can understand Greg’s perspective. He was leading the trade union movement and the movement was rolling out an incredibly sophisticated campaign about WorkChoices, so for there to be any moves and changes within the Labor Party was something that would cause Greg a great deal of anxiety.

Other key figures saw the political landscape differently to Combet. Then Shadow Minister for Finance Lindsay Tanner had supported Rudd’s leadership ambitions since Latham left the leadership.

Prior to Kevin Rudd being elected as leader there was a mood of trepidation. There was a lot of affection for Kim Beazley, including from me, but it was his third time around. He wasn’t getting the kind of traction that people would have liked, and once you’ve been in opposition for a long time it really eats away at you.

Lindsay Tanner was one of the few senior ministers in the Rudd and Gillard governments who was interviewed but did not appear in the series. Many reasonably assumed he had refused to participate. The author of Sideshow: Dumbing Down Democracy, a trenchant critique of the media, wasn’t inclined to provide answers that suited the tempo of the program.

In late November 2006, Labor leader Kim Beazley addressed a crowd of more than 40 000 at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Organised by the union movement, the rally was the last national protest against John Howard’s industrial relations reforms: WorkChoices. Rudd had given Combet his word that he wouldn’t move on the leadership until the union’s major mobilisation was over. Combet understood that with the Melbourne event out of the way, Rudd was now free to act.

It was very sad when I was at the MCG that day watching Kim Beazley because I pretty much knew that within days he’d be replaced, and I felt that was a loss for the country actually.

Television writers are always listening for lines that tell a visual story. Kevin Rudd delivered the first scene of Episode 1 with such a line.

Rudd was trying to describe the moment he left his office in Parliament House to tell Kim Beazley he was challenging him for the Labor leadership. At his first attempt, he used the word ‘toddle’. I told him that wouldn’t work and asked him to tell us again.

It’s a very very sobering and lonely walk as you walk down the corridor in Parliament House, those stark hospital-like walls, down the carpet towards the leader’s office. Then you walk in the door and Kim had this marvellous personal assistant sitting at the desk to the right as you walk into the leader’s office. Now she had tears streaming down her face because she’d been in politics a long time and she knew what this meant.

To make this scene work, we needed a shot of Rudd early in his career walking alone in Parliament House. Eventually one was found but it was shot on the Senate side of the building where the carpet is red. The aficionados would never have let us get away with that, so the carpet was coloured green in post-production.

I asked Rudd if this scene had come back to him when Julia Gillard challenged him for the leadership in June 2010. I sensed the cameramen leaning in.

SF: Did it flash through your mind all those years later?

KR: Of course not. No no no, because Julia was my loyal deputy. And I didn’t believe she would do that until that point.

He had just given us the episode’s title: ‘The Prime Minister and His Loyal Deputy’.

By the morning of the ballot, Deputy Leader Jenny Macklin knew Beazley’s leadership was finished, but she believed there was enough support among her Caucus colleagues for her to hang on as Deputy.

People had indicated to me that they were going to vote for Kevin but that they would vote for me [as deputy], so I had a difficult decision to make. Would I continue to stand, or would I accept the verdict of the Caucus that Kevin and Julia were on a joint ticket? And so I’d spoken to some very close colleagues and decided that if, as we expected, Kevin would win, then I wouldn’t stand against Julia.

Macklin recognised Julia’s determination.

I knew Julia wasn’t going to stop, she would continue until she won, and I didn’t think that was good for the Labor Party.

Greg Combet recalled his dissatisfaction.

Here were two people coming along to displace someone of that standing and experience and maturity, with two who’d never been in a leadership role of any description, who were pretty unproven, fairly inexperienced at a number of levels. Obviously very intelligent, bright, capable and committed people, but you know, how did it work out again?

After their win in Caucus, Rudd said Gillard wanted to change the traditional seating in Question Time.

Julia came to me and said could she sit with me during Question Time at the table, at the dispatch box. She said, ‘This is a joint leadership ticket’.

This was how Gillard put it.

We had a discussion about the best way of presenting that dynamic in the Parliament, whether to shake it up from the usual look of an opposition leader at a table, I would sit alongside him at the table. The view was it was better to have the more traditional pattern.

Gillard has often said she would have been content to finish her career never reaching beyond the position of Deputy. Some of her colleagues, like Leader of the House Anthony Albanese, saw it differently.

I think Julia always wanted to be the leader of the Labor Party. So did Kevin. There’s nothing wrong with that and certainly it meant that they were very strong, when they were working together.

In her 2014 book My Story, Julia Gillard wrote for the first time about an incident that took place between her and Rudd when they were still in opposition. She claimed that when she was running the ALP’s parliamentary tactics committee, Rudd lost his temper with her. I asked her about that scene and she recounted it in detail, to the fascination of the media writing about the series.

After the tactics meeting broke up he very physically stepped into my space and it was quite a bullying encounter … I mean I was never thinking he was going to physically hurt me. It wasn’t that, but it was a menacing angry performance, and caused me to assess the character I was dealing with.

In spite of that, Gillard formed a joint leadership ticket with Rudd, endorsing him as a future prime minister. The decision to publicly revisit the incident more than a decade later seemed very deliberate.

Towards the end of the interview with Kevin Rudd in Boston, I read out Gillard’s account of the ‘bullying encounter’. I wanted to shock him to ensure he returned for the second interview. It was a risky strategy. His response to the allegation was emphatic.

That is utterly false. Utterly, utterly false.

After the interview, Rudd left Boston for Saudi Arabia. He called me twenty-four hours later from a hotel in Riyadh, troubled by the assertion I had put to him. He wanted to know, was there more of that to come?

CHAPTER 1

THE PITCH