After the leadership spill, the parliamentary theatre comes. The vanquished take their place on the backbench; the victor the chair at the Despatch Box, the opposition prepares to attack. And so it unfolded Tuesday afternoon after the morning’s Liberal leadership ballot. Peter Dutton took a position up at the far back; Malcolm Turnbull took his usual seat as Prime Minister, but one with the support of less than 60% of his colleagues.
Labor wasted little time in attacking, moving a motion of no confidence in Turnbull — the first of this near-hung parliament — after the first question, which the government, instead of rejecting, took on, “with relish” Christopher Pyne declared. It was an eccentric tactical choice by Labor, forgoing the opportunity to build momentum and pressure with questions aimed at ministers about their support for Turnbull. But at least, instead of the artificial and silly rules of engagement of question time, we would have the heavy hitters of both sides lining up to take their best shots.
Bill Shorten was first. His speech was Shorten-like — neither good nor bad, neither inspiring nor boring. Shorten started off poorly as a parliamentary orator a decade ago, and rarely gets beyond workmanlike even now; this was no different. But his job isn’t on the line, that of the man opposite was. Malcolm Turnbull’s response was poor. He began by targeting Shorten, then rapidly moved on to defending the government’s achievements, but in mind-numbing detail; numbers about participation rates and health investment tumbled from his mouth, not so much down the weeds as stuck in the roots.
The body language of his colleagues told the tale. They were silent, staring listlessly at their screens and papers, only occasionally finding their voices. On the frontbench, Julie Bishop watched and nodded. Christian Porter wrote furiously in his papers, pausing to wriggle his pen reflectively; Nationals leader Michael McCormack clapped the tips of his fingers together, perhaps considering his trainwreck of an interview with David Speers yesterday. All this time, 10 metres back, Peter Dutton furiously texted, head down.
Tanya Plibersek rose after Turnbull and kept the tone light, joking about Dutton sitting in Abbott’s lap as a creepy puppet, a 21st century Chucky doll. McCormack rose and didn’t even come close to using his allotted time, yelling about farmers. Labor’s Tony Burke gave the best speech, talking about the contrast between Turnbull, a man with no principles, and Dutton, a man of extremist principles.
The debate was an accurate summation of where politics currently is: a competent but uninspiring Opposition Leader who can deliver when it counts, backed by a strong frontbench, against a Prime Minister who struggles to deliver and can’t energise his own party, and a deputy from another party regarded as a particularly poor placeholder.
What about the strengths of what is left of Turnbull’s front bench Bernard? Are there any?
Bernard, is a little bit of bias showing, About Bill Shorten: “His speech was Shorten-like — neither good nor bad, neither inspiring nor boring.”
So what was it about then? They are noncommittal words that reflect on the writer. The word “neutral” does not fit the attack that unfolded.
You should compare Bill Shortens’ speech with Anthony Albanese’s tokenism. And it has been Anthony Albanese who has been waiting in the wings on the Labor side. It was Albanese who fell a big short. Bill Shorten rose to the occasion and lifted his game into prime ministerial material. Bill Shorten has renewed confidence and that is why he shifted gears and went into overdrive in a no-confidence motion
Watch, Bill Shorten’s favourtism is going to rise in the polls.
Agree,and Bernard needs to take a fresh look at Shorten, not his negative default position. While he is at it he also needs to reassess his position on the Real Turnbull values, not what he assumed years ago.
I agree, Margaret. Bernard is reflecting the general media bias against Shorten. Do we really need yet another
tokenistic narcissistic leader? Haven’t we had enough of them in both parties over the last couple of decades? As long as Shorten has the genuine support of talented frontbenchers like Plibersek and Wong I believe he would make a better prime minister than any of the alternatives.
Shorten gives the impression of being highly competent but unexciting. Just what Australia needs. Exciting usually means unstable.
I’d be steering well clear of providing any opinions for a little while Mr Keane….even your usual complaints about Shorten might be best kept close to your chest…most of us still remember this little gem from a couple of days ago “Malcolm Turnbull’s party room win on the NEG delivers a fatal blow to Tony Abbott’s lingering capacity to hurt his leader.”
Everybody makes a dud prediction every now and again. This is politics and nobody (or very very few) saw Trump getting over the line.
Still, its the bellyflops that sting the most.
To be fair, Trump didn’t get over the line. He fell several million votes short in the popular vote behind the weakest candidate the Democrats could put up against him. It was the Electoral College that elected him, not the people.
I must have listened to a different speech altogether. The one I heard from Shorten was pretty devastating. I am neither a ALP member nor supporter but let’s give the bloke his due.
I agree, on occasion Bill can get a bit pedestrian, and can stick too much on the zingers at door stop pressers, but yesterday he unfolded on Turnbull without repeating himself or any empty spaces.
If you want flossy and vacuous oration try the British Parliament during a Brexit speech.
Then Why is Turnbull folding and his Cabinet resigning?