Turnbull’s long road to stability

THE AUSTRALIAN 12:00AM JULY 6, 2016 Paul Kelly, Editor-At-Large, Sydney http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paul-kelly/federal-election-2016-turnbulls- long-road-to-stability/news-story/62872dc95f1f600d85618c2222ed5447

Illustration: Eric Lobbecke The Liberal Party is facing a potential crisis — perhaps one of the most dangerous in its history — that will determine whether the Abbott-Turnbull era of government can be salvaged or will collapse in ruin with a litany of destructive consequences. Provided the Liberals can form a government, the test is simple — whether they have the discipline to give governing another shot or prefer to blow up their party. The omens are mixed. There has been a bizarre mood since the election, caused by the dashing of expectations. Labor, helped by some Liberals, has been brilliant at selling the idea that Malcolm Turnbull is finished. Yet Turnbull, though gravely diminished, has probably won the election. Whether Turnbull can stabilise a re-elected Liberal Party for an entire term is another issue — but a win is a win is a win. While Bill Shorten’s performance is a catalyst, the potential crisis is essentially internal. It penetrates to Turnbull’s leadership, his ability to hold his party together, and whether the liberals and conservatives can reconcile in a new parliament. The immediate test is whether Turnbull, though weakened, has the numbers in parliament to survive, probably as a minority government PM. It is true minority government may be a poisoned chalice leading to a slow political death, with Shorten punching away until the next poll delivers a landslide ALP majority. Assuming he prevails, Turnbull, as he signalled in the campaign, will not recall Tony Abbott to cabinet. His plan is to promote young conservatives. His message to the conservatives is think generational change. He will not recall the veteran conservatives, former Senate leader Eric Abetz or Kevin Andrews. There is little support, at present, for Abbott to return to the cabinet. Most senior ministers see that as a mistake. They believe it would risk a fracture in the cabinet. This is not just Turnbull’s view; it is the view of previous Abbott leadership backers. In addition, the Turnbull-Abbott relationship is badly damaged and may be beyond repair. Majority party sentiment is that the Turnbull-Abbott struggle must not be reopened. Turnbull’s immediate position is safe. Talk that his leadership is in trouble is nonsense. Deputy Julie Bishop is with Turnbull — indeed she will stand or fall with him. Treasurer Scott Morrison is with Turnbull. Morrison has leadership aspirations but they are down the track. In short, there is no alternative leader in the wings. Bishop and Morrison are firm on this. Prominent conservatives such as Peter Dutton are publicly pledged to Turnbull. Media demands that Turnbull quit now or be eliminated are sheer folly. Their impact would be to wreck the government. What would executing yet another PM solve? The idea this would help or unify the party is misconceived. Turnbull’s responsibility is to save his government. This is true despite all his campaign blunders. His job is to methodically deal with the crossbenchers and restart the process of governing. The conservatives in the Liberal Party and in the country face a critical decision: are they indulgent wreckers or disciplined realists? The issue is whether the conservatives stick with a Turnbull-led government or turn feral, insist Turnbull has no legitimacy and exploit the poor result to destroy Turnbull (as payback for what Turnbull did in 2015). Many backbenchers who have worked their guts out to be re-elected — and are deeply aware of the mistakes in the campaign — have no interest whatsoever in converting a serious setback into a full catastrophe. Self- destruction rarely appeals to the rational mind. But Turnbull has a responsibility here. He must offer conservatives more weight and influence in his government. He must govern like John Howard and see the party as an embodiment of its liberal and conservative traditions. The key to Howard’s success as PM was internal party stability, giving equal weight to both wings. Hailing from the conservative wing, Howard promoted a long line of progressives — Robert Hill, Joe Hockey, Turnbull, Brendan Nelson, Philip Ruddock, Amanda Vanstone and Michael Wooldridge. Turnbull must follow Howard and mean it. There is, however, one big message Turnbull should take from Abbott — that minority government is a lever to impose extra discipline on the party. It is conducted on a permanent edge. Abbott used the 2010-13 Gillard minority government to impose impressive discipline on the Liberal Party and Turnbull should aspire to replicate that technique. Turnbull’s future depends upon his ability to draw the correct lessons from this shattering result, decide what he retains as leader and what he needs to ditch. The start of this process was apparent yesterday — but just the start. Turnbull accepted responsibility for the campaign. He admitted the distrust of the major parties. He said lessons had to be learned. But the admission of personal mistakes will be deeply painful. On Medicare, Turnbull made the critical admission — there was “fertile ground” on which Labor’s “grotesque lie” could be sown. In short, we got it wrong. Turnbull was taken by surprise by the Medicare scare. Labor has won this debate — it may become the issue that consigns Turnbull to minority government and threatens his survival. Labor has not just won. It has used Medicare to damage Turnbull’s brand as PM. It will keep running the issue. This is where Turnbull needs to display some ruthlessness. He needs to hang the “lie” around Shorten’s neck. More important, he should upgrade health to the third most important portfolio in government. He needs a more senior minister in the job running a high-profile political strategy — price signals will need to be limited and the Liberals will need to claim Medicare as their own. The job will take a full three years. Unless it is done Turnbull invites defeat next time. Pauline Hanson constitutes a nightmare for Turnbull. She steals Coalition primary votes and she strikes at his vulnerabilities among low-income, regionally based conservative voters because of his perceived elitism, big city remoteness, progressive and multicultural values and “out of touch” Sydney harbourside wealth. Her return to parliament is a dismaying and ominous event. Hanson is political poison for the Coalition — it is known from her 1990s performance that Hanson is a vehicle for transferring votes from Coalition to Labor via preferences. It seems to have happened at this poll. Twenty years ago she came close to destroying the stability of the Howard government. Hanson thrives on publicity and conflict and she will be gifted with both. Her success with possibly two or three senators testifies to the risky fragmentation of conservative politics, focused in Queensland. Her visceral populism will be more dangerous than the short- lived Palmer United Party. Hanson defines others by how they respond to her — Howard was attacked because he tried appeasement and Turnbull’s response will excite immense scrutiny. Does he appease, contest or disengage? Incredibly, Hanson has become a quasi-celebrity and cult figure in our debased culture where she has featured for years on many TV shows. In this campaign she was the beneficiary of truckloads of soft free media time and interviews based on the fraudulent excuse that she says what many people think — and hence deserves uncritical publicity that helps her into the Senate and potential balance-of-power position in our parliament. If you want evidence our political system is in decline then Hanson — with her toxic social ideas and economic populism — is a prime exhibit. In rethinking his prime ministership — if he survives — Turnbull faces a range of choices and necessities. He remains too much the rationalist and businessman in politics. Politics is about ideology, values and moral positions — it must be more than a project in transactions that fail to engage the people. In this campaign Turnbull’s economic message and language did not cut through. His presentations were superb for up-market audiences but left down-market audiences cold. He seems a natural fit in the domains of technology, innovation and finance. But Turnbull lost votes in areas under economic strain and disruption or that prioritise the battler culture — regional Queensland, northern Tasmania, South Australia and Sydney’s west. The government needs to rethink how it projects its economic message, integrates economy and equity and how it combats the intrinsically false but irresistible choice Labor offered — better health and education or business tax cuts. Above all, Turnbull must change his style to draw, in a sharper and more combative fashion, the differences between Liberal and Labor. That is the essential art of leadership. Put crudely, he needs to be more ready to go negative. Shorten did and it worked. What, pray, is the lesson? Turnbull’s stress on the positive is worthy but in politics, like business, you modify methods that don’t succeed. That’s being rational. Shorten now believes he has Turnbull’s measure. Indeed, he radiates this elemental conviction. Shorten walks and talks like a winner. He senses Turnbull is badly wounded and Shorten wants to become the hunter-killer. Perhaps he is mistaken and has overreached, a Shorten flaw on frequent display. Turnbull, no slouch in the realm of business combat, will now reassess how he operates in political combat. That will determine his future.