Extract from The Guardian
The prime minister finds himself stuck between his public image based
on moderate, modern views on issues such as gay marriage, and his
Liberal party colleagues, whose support was based on no policy changes in the same area.
Peter Dutton, Barnaby Joyce and Joe Hockey look on as Malcolm Turnbull faces his first question time as prime minister. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian.
Peter Dutton, Barnaby Joyce and Joe Hockey look on as Malcolm Turnbull faces his first question time as prime minister. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian.
Malcolm Turnbull’s great dilemma was on full display within half an hour of his swearing in.
Turnbull became prime minister because of his public popularity – based on an understanding that he had different views to Tony Abbott, moderate, modern views on things such as marriage equality and climate change. But he also became prime minister via the votes of his colleagues who he has promised that some of these same key policies won’t change. The public liked him because he seemed different, his colleagues voted for him because he promised to be pretty much the same.
If he can’t begin to resolve this dilemma quickly, Turnbull’s perceived authenticity – the view that he is a man true to his convictions, a different kind of politician – could quickly turn into a perception that he is an opportunistic fake, just more of the same.
Minutes after taking the oath of office, Turnbull strode into parliament for the first time as prime minister, and straight into a barrage of questions about these deeply conflicting expectations.
The first was on climate change, the issue that brought Turnbull’s first stint as opposition leader unstuck because he refused to budge from his support for Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme. In 2011 Turnbull described Abbott’s alternative “Direct Action” plan as a prohibitively expensive way to “pick winners”, which would only appeal to those expecting that the science of climate change would be disproven because it could be easily terminated. In question time, he described exactly those same critiques (made by business groups and analysts as well as conservationists) as “ideological” and showered praise on the policy’s efficiency. As I have written, it is possible to “dial up” Direct Action so that it becomes more effective, but Turnbull wasn’t mentioning that, even if it is his intention. It is also possible to reduce emissions in other ways, but he wasn’t talking about that, yet, either.
The second was on marriage equality. Turnbull is strong support of marriage equality and was unimpressed by Abbott’s snap party room meeting and the former leader’s after-the-fact interpretation that the “people’s vote” decided upon would be held sometime after the next general election. Marriage equality supporters saw it as a tricky recipe for delay. On Tuesday, Turnbull confirmed the timing of the plebiscite would stay the same – and that this was part of a Coalition deal he had signed with the Nationals.
The third was water policy: a portfolio that has always been held by a Liberal, a portfolio Turnbull himself held – with grand plans and enthusiasm – as a minister in John Howard’s government. This has also been ceded to the Nationals, something that will alarm conservationists given the central policy tension in the portfolio is between the water available for the environment and that available for farm irrigation.
Despite the promise of a return to Cabinet government, all of these calls have been made before he chooses a Cabinet. The National party is also trying to exert influence over competition policy - crossing the floor in the senate to support a Greens motion in favour of changes that would help small business. Turnbull is strongly of the view the changes should not occur. He has promised that issue will return to Cabinet.
Every leader must compromise, and it is possible to shift policy positions over time, by degrees, rather than with big upfront declarations.
But if Turnbull can’t start to resolve the gap between the promise that many voters saw in him, and the promises he has made his colleagues, he will erode faith in the central quality that got him elected.
Turnbull became prime minister because of his public popularity – based on an understanding that he had different views to Tony Abbott, moderate, modern views on things such as marriage equality and climate change. But he also became prime minister via the votes of his colleagues who he has promised that some of these same key policies won’t change. The public liked him because he seemed different, his colleagues voted for him because he promised to be pretty much the same.
If he can’t begin to resolve this dilemma quickly, Turnbull’s perceived authenticity – the view that he is a man true to his convictions, a different kind of politician – could quickly turn into a perception that he is an opportunistic fake, just more of the same.
Minutes after taking the oath of office, Turnbull strode into parliament for the first time as prime minister, and straight into a barrage of questions about these deeply conflicting expectations.
The first was on climate change, the issue that brought Turnbull’s first stint as opposition leader unstuck because he refused to budge from his support for Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme. In 2011 Turnbull described Abbott’s alternative “Direct Action” plan as a prohibitively expensive way to “pick winners”, which would only appeal to those expecting that the science of climate change would be disproven because it could be easily terminated. In question time, he described exactly those same critiques (made by business groups and analysts as well as conservationists) as “ideological” and showered praise on the policy’s efficiency. As I have written, it is possible to “dial up” Direct Action so that it becomes more effective, but Turnbull wasn’t mentioning that, even if it is his intention. It is also possible to reduce emissions in other ways, but he wasn’t talking about that, yet, either.
The second was on marriage equality. Turnbull is strong support of marriage equality and was unimpressed by Abbott’s snap party room meeting and the former leader’s after-the-fact interpretation that the “people’s vote” decided upon would be held sometime after the next general election. Marriage equality supporters saw it as a tricky recipe for delay. On Tuesday, Turnbull confirmed the timing of the plebiscite would stay the same – and that this was part of a Coalition deal he had signed with the Nationals.
The third was water policy: a portfolio that has always been held by a Liberal, a portfolio Turnbull himself held – with grand plans and enthusiasm – as a minister in John Howard’s government. This has also been ceded to the Nationals, something that will alarm conservationists given the central policy tension in the portfolio is between the water available for the environment and that available for farm irrigation.
Despite the promise of a return to Cabinet government, all of these calls have been made before he chooses a Cabinet. The National party is also trying to exert influence over competition policy - crossing the floor in the senate to support a Greens motion in favour of changes that would help small business. Turnbull is strongly of the view the changes should not occur. He has promised that issue will return to Cabinet.
Every leader must compromise, and it is possible to shift policy positions over time, by degrees, rather than with big upfront declarations.
But if Turnbull can’t start to resolve the gap between the promise that many voters saw in him, and the promises he has made his colleagues, he will erode faith in the central quality that got him elected.
No comments:
Post a Comment