Malcolm Turnbull hoped to use this week to set the political agenda ahead of the commencement of the parliamentary year next Tuesday. Bill Shorten had spoken at the Press Club and offered a fairly timid vision, leaving the field open to the Prime Minister on Wednesday to use the power of his office to determine what issues would dominate the formal opening of the political year.
Donald Trump wrecked all that: Turnbull spent the first half of the week refusing to comment on Trump’s Muslim ban, despite the clear threat it posed to national security. Then yesterday happened. All of that was out of Turnbull’s control — for better or for worse, Turnbull had his strategy settled for Trump, and it didn’t work. Now he picks up the pieces.
But there were two moments in Wednesday’s Press Club address that in retrospect are alarming for those hoping Turnbull might lift his political game in 2017. Both are variants of the same problem.
The speech was scheduled on February 1, which everyone knows is the day the Australian Electoral Commission releases political donations data for the previous financial year. Even in a normal year, that would be likely to mean a political focus on donations — especially given there was an election on July 2 last year. But Turnbull has a particular issue of his own on donations — his own colossal contribution to the Liberal Party to prop up its election campaign. Moreover, that issue was going to be unresolved because Turnbull made the contribution after 30 June. Perhaps scheduling requirements meant there was no alternative day for the speech, but any sensible planner in the Prime Minister’s Office should have known the issue would come up on Wednesday. Perhaps one or more did, but Turnbull decided to keep silent about his donation — indeed, glibly dismissed a question about it despite minutes earlier talking about the importance of transparency. Within a few hours, he’d worked out what a shocking look this was, and went on 7.30 to try to fix it.
Apart from looking awful, Turnbull’s unrevealed donation has deprived the government of what should have been a killer line about Bill Shorten’s promise to improve political donations laws — that Shorten himself is the single most egregious violator of those laws of recent years (and that’s a pretty big call).
The second was on clean coal. Whatever you may think of the fiction that clean coal is a viable solution to either the broader challenge of decarbonisation or the government’s problem that it has no policies except the Renewable Energy Target to meet its Paris Agreement commitments, it’s now part of Turnbull’s agenda. He flagged that the government may be prepared to subsidise clean coal power plants, probably the one actually new element of his speech.
Except, again, either no one in his office had done the proper planning, or Turnbull pressed ahead in the face of it. Energy companies and energy industry bodies queued up to dismiss new coal-fired power investment out of hand; The Australian Financial Review ran not one but two articles on the industry’s rejection of the idea, sometimes in quite brutal terms.
Good planning would have involved getting Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg’s office to sound industry out about the level of interest in clean coal investment, perhaps even with the thought of teeing up support from industry in the wake of Turnbull’s announcement. If it happened, the answer would surely have come back negative and the PMO might have reconsidered going hard on it.
Apparently it didn’t happen. The only people welcoming it were the climate denialists at the Minerals Council.
Both bungles must frustrate Liberal insiders and old hands who know these are eminently avoidable problems. You can’t do much about a renegade US president. But you can do the basics in your own office properly, you can anticipate problems and questions and plan for them, you can make sure your agenda isn’t derailed the moment you reveal it because of foreseeable problems. Turnbull on Wednesday sought to make a virtue of his lack of political ideology and his pragmatism. Maybe that’s fine for a Prime Minister, maybe not — but his office should be intensely political, and politically astute. Turnbull’s recovery can’t start until that happens.
Might be a place for career politicians after all.
Nor was the interview with ABC’s Stan Grant Turnbull’s finest performance. This from the ABC weBsite transcript:
“I am not beholden to the CFMEU, like Bill Shorten is. I am not beholden to Left wing unions, who own Bill Shorten.
I put my money where my mouth is. I stand up for my values, with the money that I’ve made, the money I’ve paid tax on, and Bill Shorten wants to go after me all the time.
He says I’m Mr Harbourside Mansion. Let me tell you this, Stan, I do live with Lucy in a nice house on the water in Sydney. Yes, we do. And we paid for it. We pay the expenses on it. We pay- that’s our house.
Bill Shorten wants to live in a harbourside mansion for which every expense is paid for by the taxpayer.
That’s the big difference. So what he is doing, what he is doing, is trying to run an old-fashioned…
STAN GRANT: OK, you’ve had your criticism of Bill Shorten.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: …politics of envy campaign. ”
Turnbull’s point is somewhat confusing. Is he criticising Australian Prime Ministers in general for living harbourside at taxpayer’s expense – or only Shorten? Of course it’s Shorten who is under his skin. The point needs to be made that regardless of the Turnbulls living in their own home, Kirribilli House requires a full staff regardless so he’s not doing taxpayers any favours. Quite the contrary as I imagine the security detail at Point Piper has added substantially to the PM’s personal budget.
I mean the PM’s personal expenses budget paid for by taxpayers.
Even worse Zut. It has only been used as a Prime Minister’s residence when Howard was the PM. PM’s have always live in Canberra, some house the government owns there, can’t quite remember the name. Only Howard and now MT haven’t lived there. Perhaps he meant to say ‘there is only Sydney, everywhere else is camping out’. I think a previous PM said something like that.
‘Turnbull’ and ‘rattled’ seem to be synonymous terms atm.
I wonder how Chris Uhlmann’s feeling now, after his mitigating defence of Turnbull (Wednesday night’s ABC TV news)?
“Invasion of the Body Snatchers” was science fiction, wasn’t it…..?
Turnbull and his advisors have a tin ear, politically speaking.
As for the donations, the issue is (as you point out) not in its amount, but in its timing.
The purpose of making the donation on the day after declarations for this year expire was clearly to deceive the public (because the declaration would not be made public for another 12 months).
This is rank hypocrisy from a PM who thinks transparency is important.
In 2015 we collectively said “anyone but Abbott”. We should be more careful what we wish for next time.