Malcolm Turnbull’s alleged comments on Iraq at the Bondi
community forum on Monday have got all the attention – but let’s have a look at
what he’s supposed to have said on campaign finance reform. That doesn’t seem to have been disputed.

Malcolm Turnbull, it seems, said that political donations from “trade unions and companies” should be banned.

He is, of course, the former federal treasurer of the Liberal Party –
and has supposedly made similar comments at Liberal Party forums – so
this is a topic he must know about.

There’s certainly logic to his argument. The Labor Party raises funds
at about a ratio of two to one to the Libs. Crikey readers know all
about the spectacular – and spectacularly expensive – functions PR whiz
Max Markson organises for the Sussex Street bruvvers to extract funds
from the top end of town, for example, and the equivalent productions
Michael Yabsley stages for the Libs.

This corporate money, however, splits about 1:1 each way. That’s where
Turnbull’s call comes in. It’s union money that gives Labor its
advantage. Ban corporate and union donations and you ensure fairly even
funding of both parties – and free the unions to actually vote on the
basis of their members’ advantage, not from factional allegiance.

New South Wales sources say some Libs thought the idea wasn’t bad – but
that Canberra got cold feet when Turnbull tried to push it further.

It’s a pity. If he wants to stand out in Wentworth, he’s chosen a pretty good issue.

Everyone agrees that politics is an increasingly mucky business – and that trust in politicians has never been lower.

Turnbull’s campaign finance comments could be just the starting point.
Here are a couple of other items he could throw in which would be
guaranteed vote winners.

The fact that he talked about Iraq shows he’s keeping his finger on the
pulse – like a good Reps candidate should. That means would have felt
the anger at the news that former communications minister Richard
Alston is taking up a job with Austereo for a six-figure sum, just 10
months after leaving the Cabinet.

Perhaps Turnbull should argue for a two-year ban on former ministers
working in their old portfolio areas – the sort of ban that applies in
the United States. He could demonstrate his commitment to ethics by
also calling for similar bans for senior public servants and
ministerial staff – like those former flunkeys of Alston’s at Optus and
PBL.

Turnbull should also demand the removal of the shameful provisions of
the Trade Practices Act that exempt political parties and politicians.
He should urge an end to the one rule for them, one rule for the rest
of us clauses. Pols should be just as accountable for false and
misleading statements and advertising as any other sector of the
community.

Indeed, he could call for the bar to be set that one bit higher for
political types. People who aspire to lead the community should earn
that right. Why not empower the Australian Electoral Commission to
intervene and set aside a result where it can be shown to have been
induced by false and misleading statements?

The race for Wentworth is getting tighter and tighter. Turnbull wants
to stand out – but made the wrong decision by choosing Iraq as the
issue to run on. Opinion is still divided over the war. It’s much
harder to argue against cleaning up politics at home.

You’ve made a start, Malcolm. Take our advice and finish it off. Claim
this ground as your own – before someone else stakes it out and gets
all the votes.
==========================

August 11 2004 – Christian Kerr on Malcolm Turnbull

Is the Wentworth candidate throwing sops to hostile audiences – or has he rediscovered a key principal of Australian Liberalism?

In the storm over Malcolm Turnbull’s alleged comments over Iraq,
reconciliation and political fundraising in Bondi on Monday night,
let’s not forget one vital fact – the Wentworth candidate is standing
up for the very best traditions of the Liberal Party.

Grab a copy of the Penguin Macquarie Dictionary of Australian Politics and look up “Pledge”. Here’s what you’ll find:

“The written undertaking made by a Labor member of
parliament not to vote in parliament as decided by a majority of
caucus… See also Party Discipline.”

Here’s an extract from that second entry:

“The Australian Labor Party enforces discipline by means of
a formal pledge, which includes the promise to carry out the principles
embodies in the party’s platform and on all questions before parliament
to vote as decided by the majority of caucus…” In comparison,
it points out how the Liberal Party’s equivalent “permits members not
to vote along the party line”.

Indeed. Labor introduced the pledge over 100 years ago, insisting
its members and candidates obey a party line. It split the
colonial Labor parties and became a crucial point of difference between
Labor and the Liberal’s predecessors. Many prominent figures of
the day resented the imposition and left their party. Many
sacrificed their careers.

The Liberals and their predecessors have made much about this
difference, about the freedom of conscience their parliamentarians have
enjoyed – until recently.

Robert Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Defence,
crossed the floor several times in his early days. Phillip
Ruddock did so in the eighties, too – over immigration, believe it or
not. They still ended up in key frontbench roles.

Now, as Cabinet Ministers, of course, they no longer have that
right. They are bound by Cabinet decisions. They are
morally obliged to resign if they disagree with Cabinet decisions –
although we know how much morality figures in Howard Government
decisions and how Hill, Ruddock, Amanda Vanstone, Joe Hockey, Chris
Pyne and the other hypocrites who once paraded themselves as the social
consciences of the Liberal Party have traded in their souls in exchange
from the magical – if ironical – title “Honourable” and jobs as
ministers or parliamentary secretaries.

The Howard Government has become infamous for its control freakery, for
its muzzling and manipulation just of its own MPs – contrary to a once
proud party tradition – but also for the political manipulation of the
supposedly independent Public Service and, even more disturbingly, the
defence forces that should be above day-to-day politicking. Kids
Overboard, anyone?

Still, some brave MPs buck this tradition. Petro Georgiou, the
Member for Kooyong, is a prime example. He has paid. He is
a former prime ministerial adviser and, as state director of the party
in Victoria, helped keep a leash on some of Jeff Kennett’s Jeffisms and
deliver him his whopping victory in 1992.

However, he is also a dissenter. More than two decades as a key
party strategist counts for nothing and Georgiou rots on the backbench.

Malcolm Turnbull’s comments on Monday may have been sops to a hostile and left leaning audience.

And yet – consciously or not – he was also standing up for the very best traditions of the Liberal Party.

Labor doesn’t understand them, so no wonder Tanya Plibersek went to town over his remarks on Iraq.

John Howard has forgotten or abandoned them in his obsessive pursuit of
power, so the toadies and timeservers that make up the majority of his
Government have decided to leave well alone. They ignore these
traditions too.

Malcolm Turnbull, however, seems to have remembered them. True,
he’s been doing his damnest to suppress the idea that Liberals are
Liberals because they have the right to speak their minds since he made
his remarks – but at least he did it. If only on Monday
night. Poor bloke.

Turnbull’s critics have claimed that he is a destroyer, an egocentric iconoclast, a man with no respect for institutions.

How funny, then, that somewhere in his subconscious you can find the fundamental faith of the Liberal Party.

May that faith one day have free expression once again.

Christian Kerr can be contacted at christian @crikey.com.au