The history of Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership might have been very different were it not for an extraordinary blind spot that he claims prevented him from seeing the threat of Peter Dutton.
Turnbull is, famously, a man of remarkable intelligence. In his autobiography A Bigger Picture, which includes his account of his time, and eventual downfall, as prime minister, he acknowledges an extraordinary failure of judgement around Dutton.
Dutton was the cloddish Queenslander who, during the Coalition’s time in government, blundered through the health portfolio and then repeated the underperformance in Immigration/Home Affairs — the portfolio that has emerged as by far the most incompetent and scandal-prone department in the Commonwealth.
Turnbull writes:
I’ve always assumed people have a reasonable amount of self- awareness and Dutton had never struck me as being so self-delusional and narcissistic as to imagine that he could successfully lead the Liberal Party. More relevantly, it had never occurred to me that others would think he could either.
Turnbull, it seems, can’t quite believe everyone else doesn’t understand how disastrous Dutton would be as leader — a view Turnbull says Kerry Stokes shared when they discussed the News Corp campaign undermining his leadership.
But others don’t share his view. Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop warn Turnbull that Dutton is stalking him. So too does George Brandis, who after Turnbull’s ouster writes to him:
Your fatal mistake was, of course, to trust Dutton. If I may say so, I, and others, warned you many times that he was stalking you, and that his ‘support’ for you would be rescinded the moment he saw the opportunity to seize the leadership … Malcolm, you trusted the wrong people.
There are multiple ironies in Brandis’ observations (and Turnbull says he can’t recall Brandis warning him about Dutton).
Brandis as attorney-general was almost as much of a dud as Dutton, although it is to his credit that, unlike his wretched successor Christian Porter, he resisted the vexatious prosecutions of Witness K and Bernard Collaery.
But most of all, Brandis was the chief victim of Turnbull’s promotion of Dutton. It was Brandis who lost key parts of his portfolio, including ASIO and the AFP, to the creation of the Home Affairs “super portfolio” for Dutton, an act that merely gave Dutton and his functionaries a bigger stage on which to stumble and blunder.
What’s all the more remarkable about Turnbull’s blind spot about Dutton is that it was hardly for want of public commentary about the ambitions of the Queenslander. That Dutton was interested in the leadership was a staple of political commentary in the Turnbull years, whether at Fairfax, News Corp, the ABC, or doyenne.
Many even interpreted Turnbull’s promotion of Dutton to Home Affairs minister — at the expense of humiliating a fellow moderate in Brandis — as an effort to keep Dutton on side and in check.
It’s thus more than a little implausible for Turnbull to claim the idea that Dutton really did fancy himself as PM material hadn’t occurred to him, though his judgement that his party colleagues — men and women paid to live and breathe politics and stay in touch with their constituents — were smart enough to realise he wasn’t does ring a little truer.
Some of the funnier moments in the book involve the efforts of Kevin Rudd to get Turnbull’s endorsement for his run as UN Secretary-General. Julie Bishop thinks the government should be bipartisan and back Rudd, but Turnbull and half his cabinet think the former PM is wildly unsuited to such a job given his temperament.
When Turnbull informs him of his definitive no, Rudd — as has already been reported and confirmed by the man himself — erupts into a stream of obscenity-laden invective.
“Don’t you see this is just confirming what I’ve said to you,” Turnbull replies. “You don’t get what you want and immediately you are screaming at me, swearing at me, threatening me. Don’t you think this is a bit unedifying you doing this, an ex-PM to the current PM?”
Particularly funny is that Turnbull is — correctly — accusing Rudd of a character flaw that he himself long possessed in spades.
Rudd and Turnbull are remarkably similar: brilliant minds, unbounded ambition and a raging fury for those who disagreed with them.
Except, within Turnbull you always sensed there was an actual human being, however flawed and prone to misjudgment.
A bit snide Bernard. I’m sure there’s a human inside of Rudd almost as fully formed as the one inside of Malcolm, maybe with a little less humility. Who knows….
Seriouly, Malcolm was quite correct to consider that no one could seriously mistake Lord Voldepotato for leadership material. The man wasn’t even good enoughfor the Queensland coppers, that should been evidence enough for any sentient being. If we compare intellectual horsepower with that of powered vehicles, Dutton is right up there along side the Victa lawn mower. It’s a sad indictment on the modern Liberal party that some of them did (and probably still do) think of him as a potential PM.
Poor analogy. The Victa lawnmower is a superbly effective machine, however noisy and limited in its scope. Furthermore, no Victa lawnmower has ever aspired to become a tractor.
Though there was a Victa aircraft, now I think of it.
Dear Bernard Keane,
Very much enjoyed the article. As a failed Engineer whose working life was spent mainly working blue collar, I saw a plethora of “too stupid to realise how ignornant.” I learnt quickly, treating such people with a benign tolerance let alone respect was dangerous. On this issue Malcolm Turnbull was unusually for him, a slow learner.
Regards
Steve Gomory
I think you hit on the head when you said “noisy and limited in its scope”. That analogy fits extremely well.
The Victa lawnmower has a superb advantage over potato-head Dutton. It is an efficient machine which works.
Peter Dutton, however, resembles the orange coloured, scowling little Smiley which appears on our computer/smartphone screens. Neither the Smiley, nor Peter Dutton, perform any useful task.
Turnbulls intelligence was not the problem, it was his political courage or lack of it that bought him undone, nobody respects a political coward and politics is all about respect or the lack of it, Turnbull had the opportunity to be the 21st century Robert Menzies of the Liberal party and voters sighed a sigh of relief when he was elected and Abbott was thrown into the political garbage bin, and with a political assassin in Shorten as an opposition leader, a man who was very unpopular because of his backstabbing of Rudd,then Gillard which made him unpopular even within labor voters should have been the beginning of a golden age for the Liberal Party ,but Turnbulls weakness was soon sniffed out and the mad dogs of the far right formed a pack, only a small pack, but big enough to bring down a sheep and the rest is history, meanwhile Scomo still believes he won the last election and does`nt understand that labor lost it, and labor then elected a decent man but a man who should have leader when Rudd was deposed not the leader for now, labor has many fine young aspirants for the leadership but as usual the factions put their choice in and not the party members choice and once again labor enters the political race with a 3 legged horse.
absolutely on the money.
even as lefty types my son and I were jumping for joy when turnbull replaced abbot – based on his previous positions on climate change, refugees, same sex marriage etc
he could have been the stand-out PM of the century, being prepared to lose the role for ‘principles’ – after all he doesn’t need the money.
instead he folded time and again
could have taken us all along with him instead we ended up feeling conned
All winners are backstabbers in pm takeovers, I don’t know why Shorten was any different to say Morrison, who hasn’t copped any flack at all.
The difference is that Shorten admitted that he’d done it, Morrison did it in a much more devious way and will never admit to it.
The difference between Rudd and Turnbull as human beings is that although they both displayed terrible political judgement and a failure to follow up grand ideas with actual sensible action, Turnbull is genuinely capable of empathy. Rudd has learned what empathy looks like but is unable to authentically replicate it for people other than himself.
What Turnbull & Rudd both have in common (other than the inflated egos which they share with almost all their colleagues) is that neither of them are machine men. Rudd was brought down by the ALP’s right wing machine & Turnbull was brought down by Liberal equivalent.
The way the leadership of both these men was squandered by both the knife welders & their own lack of political courage combined with a failure to see the knives until they were firmly embedded into their backs, was not just a personal tragedy for them, but for the country & the way it is governed.
I am less sure of that. Rudd did at least do the right thing during the GFC and many Australians should be grateful for that. Turnbull was too quick to agree to the conditions (never made public) demanded by the Nats as a condition for them to remain in the coalition – as if!! As a consequence Joyce’s egregious actions on water rorts, amongst other ministerial failings, were blatant and never reined in.
The list of Turnbull’s failings is long – a truly appalling NBN, a claim that renewables caused the power blackouts resulting from electricity pylons felled during a storm in SA, Snowy 2.0 which scientists claim will be an environmental disaster (see the Guardian Australia of 28 March 2020), in addition to aggrandising Dutton’s ministerial responsibilities and letting Joyce do as he wanted. And he was a terrible Mr Shouty in QT. Not much empathy in any of those matters.
Only on SSM did he get it right and show empathy. We would not have got that through while both Abbott and Morrison were PM. But even then Turnbull was hardly out waving the flag and urging support. Just “Lucy and I will be voting for it.”
To the list of Turnbull’s failings listed above, I would add his reluctance to initiate a royal commission into the banks, and his role in limiting its terms of reference. The private banks have been the major players in supporting a financial system that is parasitic on the real economy and drives inequality in Australia and elsewhere. His Cayman Island accounts don’t endear him to me either.
Thanks nullifidian for reminding me.
How well I remember the interview on the 7.30 report with Leigh Sales & how she attempted to draw him on commenting on his A/C in the Cayman Islands, as exposed by The Panama Papers. Predictably, as lawyer he warned Sales off.
Regardless of it not being illegal, what message did it send to the average tax payer ? Here is the Prime Minister of our country availing himself of a means of avoiding the taxation laws & requirements of the country he leads.
If only he had devoted his intellect, political nous & backbone to resuscitate, for example, the Henry Tax Reform & delivering a fairer taxation system this country is still crying out for.
Who remembers his “thought bubble” about devolving taxation back to the States ?
Quite frankly I have more interesting and creative books to read!
While Turnbull was one of our less competent PMs, supported to a degree by the fact that Turnbull couldn’t possibly say that, even though the NBN is his biggest monument, he does show some insight in his comments on his colleagues. On Dutton, he is perfectly correct to observe that he is not the sharpest knife in the ministerial drawer and that Dutton is a relentlessly political animal, prepared to step forward with lies to suck up to the Americans and to pursue his conservative agenda. His disbelief in Dutton’s ambition might be a pose to underline his dim view of Dutton’s abilities but he probably gives his colleagues more credit than they deserve in thinking they would always talk Dutton out of any move on him, because any perceptive person would share his view that Dutton would be too incompetent and, surely, infinitely less competent than Turnbull. That last assumption probably explains his bitter disappointment with Corman. I have always thought policies were the decisive thing and, although I agree with Turnbull’s assessment of Frydenberg as the best and most hardworking of a bad bunch, I am extremely uneasy about what “Work Choices Revisited” and keep poor to restore growth for capitalist firms policies Frydenberg and ruthless, hyper-self-confident Scotty from marketing will offer us down the track.
Freudenberg is a lawyer adept at keeping one foot each side of a barbed wire fence. He knows climate change is a monstrous thing yet squibs it with weasel words. The 50 lashes he received from Jay Wetherill in Adelaide,while he stood there grinning, sums him up.
While Turnbull definitely failed to notice the coming vicious attack from Dutton, his even bigger error was that he failed to see the plotter who climbed up on Dutton’s back to knife him at the same time as proclaiming his “ambition” for him.