Remember prior to Turnbulls ascension to the top job, the estimation of those on the left in the Liberal and Labor Party thought that he would be a a genius PM.
As usual they were wrong…Malcolm Turnbull’s pinball politics and power without glory
“…. Almost a year on, too may people are still asking: what is the purpose of the Turnbull government? Consider the causes for this confusion. First and foremost, Turnbull took the leadership from Tony Abbott in September last year because “the prime minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs”. Turnbull said we needed a new style of leadership that “respects the people’s intelligence” and explained the complex challenges and opportunities, “then sets out the course of action we believe we should take, and makes a case for it”.
So far there is still no course of action, let alone a prime minister and a treasurer making a case for it. The great big conversation about tax reform was a fizzer. Everything was on the table and then it wasn’t. Turnbull is there to lead, not to have a perpetual conversation with voters about what on earth to do about the GST or what Scott Morrison called the “excesses” in negative gearing or state income tax or other tax reforms. Asking voters about a higher GST is about as useful as asking a vegetarian how they want their steak cooked. Most are naturally opposed to hikes that hit them. Ergo, tax reform demands leadership and salesmanship. The former is risky and, alas, the latter is a hard slog. But that’s what comes with the mantle of prime minister.
Since the election, it’s been a case of more random decisions that fail to chart a discernible course. Turnbull’s rushed announcement of a royal commission into the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre reeked of reactive politics. The government’s appointment of Brian Martin was equally ill-conceived……
Then came the unnecessarily laboured decision about Kevin Rudd. Turnbull’s endless faffing around turned this into a bigger story than it ever deserved to be. Surely as leader Turnbull ought to have been capable of convincing his cabinet that if Rudd behaved half as badly as UN secretary-general as he did as prime minister, it would reflect very poorly on Australia. That being the test, there would be no nomination for Rudd. End of matter. Move on…..Then, last week, there was Turnbull’s ridiculous populist pandering over banks. His decision to require major banks to front an annual show trial at the house economics committee is nothing but a reaction to Labor’s call for a banking royal commission…….
What’s next? Will the house economics committee hear from Coles and Woolworths about milk prices? Or the major oil companies about the price of petrol?
That Turnbull has succumbed to pinball politics absent any sense of direction is curious. After all, he has harboured an ambition to be Prime Minister for decades, some say since he was in high school…..almost a year in office, with voters still wondering what Turnbull wants to do with his power, it would be devastating for the country to endure another prime minister enjoying power for power’s sake….”
FULL COLUMN BELOW
Remember learning about P (A and B) = P (A) x P (B) during a maths lesson in high school?
Watching the Turnbull government is a refresher course in this equation about how one independent event provides no information about another event and how the probability of A happening bears no relationship to B happening. Malcolm Turnbull has been Prime Minister for almost a year and still his government operates like a series of random, unconnected events.
Almost a year on, too may people are still asking: what is the purpose of the Turnbull government? Consider the causes for this confusion. First and foremost, Turnbull took the leadership from Tony Abbott in September last year because “the prime minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs”. Turnbull said we needed a new style of leadership that “respects the people’s intelligence” and explained the complex challenges and opportunities, “then sets out the course of action we believe we should take, and makes a case for it”.
So far there is still no course of action, let alone a prime minister and a treasurer making a case for it. The great big conversation about tax reform was a fizzer. Everything was on the table and then it wasn’t. Turnbull is there to lead, not to have a perpetual conversation with voters about what on earth to do about the GST or what Scott Morrison called the “excesses” in negative gearing or state income tax or other tax reforms. Asking voters about a higher GST is about as useful as asking a vegetarian how they want their steak cooked. Most are naturally opposed to hikes that hit them. Ergo, tax reform demands leadership and salesmanship. The former is risky and, alas, the latter is a hard slog. But that’s what comes with the mantle of prime minister.
The election campaign didn’t fill in the economic leadership void either. “Jobs and growth” didn’t even contain a verb, so how could we work out what the government intended to do? There was plenty of happy talk of innovation, agility and flexibility that scared the bejesus out of many voters. Julie Bishop tried to defend the government’s lacklustre campaign: “We didn’t get into the gutter,” she said on ABC 7.30 a few days after the election. “We didn’t attack Bill Shorten and the unions in a way that we could have. We didn’t expose their record on border protection as we could have. And that was because we wanted to run a positive, optimistic campaign.” It’s not gutter politics to expose Shorten as a puppet of the union movement, or trashy to point out Labor’s lack of conviction about border protection. Nor would it have been nasty to point to South Australia’s sky-high electricity prices as a harbinger of federal Labor’s own damaging renewable energy targets.
Instead, the Turnbull government settled on a superannuation policy that burned the Liberal base and made a mockery of Morrison’s dozen or so promises not to touch superannuation. Single-handedly, Turnbull and Morrison’s super policy pointed to a government that had no predictable direction and no policy conviction. If they doubt the continuing anger and disappointment over this policy, they need to get closer to the grassroots of the party.
Since the election, it’s been a case of more random decisions that fail to chart a discernible course. Turnbull’s rushed announcement of a royal commission into the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre reeked of reactive politics. The government’s appointment of Brian Martin was equally ill-conceived. Was due diligence of Martin left to some hapless young staffer in the Attorney-General’s department?
After all, in 2005 Martin was responsible for sentencing an Aboriginal man to one month in jail for anally raping a 15-year-old Aboriginal girl and bashing her with a boomerang. The judge pointed to Aboriginal customary law and the fact the girl was promised to the man in marriage as justification for rape. When Martin resigned within days, the government was caught with it pants down and rushed to another appointment — again reactive. This time Turnbull appointed a white female judge and an Aboriginal man, Mick Gooda, an activist with no legal training who had already prejudged the guilt of the Northern Territory government.
Reactive politics rarely deliver good results. And Labor must be laughing at how it has managed to lead the Turnbull government around by the nose.
Then came the unnecessarily laboured decision about Kevin Rudd. Turnbull’s endless faffing around turned this into a bigger story than it ever deserved to be. Surely as leader Turnbull ought to have been capable of convincing his cabinet that if Rudd behaved half as badly as UN secretary-general as he did as prime minister, it would reflect very poorly on Australia. That being the test, there would be no nomination for Rudd. End of matter. Move on.
Then, last week, there was Turnbull’s ridiculous populist pandering over banks. His decision to require major banks to front an annual show trial at the house economics committee is nothing but a reaction to Labor’s call for a banking royal commission. Turnbull, more than anyone, ought to understand the pitfalls of this kind of cheap populism. What’s next? Will the house economics committee hear from Coles and Woolworths about milk prices? Or the major oil companies about the price of petrol?
That Turnbull has succumbed to pinball politics absent any sense of direction is curious. After all, he has harboured an ambition to be Prime Minister for decades, some say since he was in high school.
Recall how Turnbull stalked treasurer Peter Costello over tax reform. No wonder Costello was churlish: Turnbull was overtly challenging Howard’s presumptive heir. Turnbull stalked others too. Brendan Nelson. Abbott. Turnbull has had years to work out what he wanted to do with the PM’s gig. Now that it’s his, there’s little clue about a firm set of convictions directing his leadership. Instead, he is bouncing round from one decision to the next with a curious lack of confidence.
For a man who has been described as acting like a bull who takes his own china shop around with him, it’s worth asking why the brash, courageous Turnbull now looks so gun-shy? Could it be that, having lost the leadership in 2009, Turnbull is so afraid of losing the top job that he’s steering clear of difficult and risky but critically necessary economic reforms? The irony is that his cautious, reactive style of politics is slowly killing his and the government’s credibility, not just with voters but with the new line-up of senators he must convince to pass laws.
Two years ago, Wayne Swan’s book The Good Fight revealed that Rudd was such a poll-driven prime minister that he asked Labor’s head office to use poll-based research to determine what his “one core belief” should be. Rarely can a single vignette so comprehensively define a prime minister and what went wrong with his leadership. Swan’s story exposed Rudd’s addiction to power for power’s sake.
After almost a year in office, with voters still wondering what Turnbull wants to do with his power, it would be devastating for the country to endure another prime minister enjoying power for power’s sake.
janeta@bigpond.net.au