Grattan on Friday / Turnbull’s challenge is to avoid the Gillard trap

michelle grattan

IS Malcolm Turnbull at risk of finding himself in a similar situation to Julia Gillard, with a disillusioned public settling into a negative view that transcends achievements of the moment?

It came as a surprise that Turnbull, after a fortnight generally considered good for him, first in parliament and then abroad, was confronted with Tuesday’s dreadful Newspoll. The Coalition fell from a 50-50 two-party vote to 48-52% and his net satisfaction rating deteriorated to minus 23, which was four points worse than a fortnight before.

In this poll-driven age, when the public turn away from a leader the polls validate the view and then can reinforce it. Getting out of that sort of trough presents special difficulties. Gillard couldn’t do it; neither could Tony Abbott when prime minister. Whether Turnbull can will become clearer over the next year.

It’s the phenomenon of dogs and bad names. It is possible for leaders to change perceptions, but it can take some doing.

Bill Shorten’s strategy of relentless attack and the permanent campaign is exploiting people’s loss of faith in Turnbull.

Then there is the ubiquitous third man. Tony Abbott may not have Kevin Rudd’s chance of a resurrection, but his stalking presence has shades of Ruddism. When Turnbull was preparing for last week’s high level conferences on refugees in New York, Abbott turned up in Prague a couple of days ahead opining on the subject.

Never mind that the former prime minister proclaims his ambitions “dead, buried and cremated”. The fact Abbott is quizzed regularly about his future, most recently on Melbourne radio this week, draws attention to the dissatisfaction with Turnbull.

Gillard had a hung parliament; Turnbull faces one that’s all but hung. She juggled the crossbenchers in the House of Representatives; he is confronted with a determined and forceful backbench, as well as a challenging Senate crossbench. She faced entrenched attacks from sections of the media. Conservative commentators were feral about her. Some of these commentators are feral about Turnbull.

Gillard got quite a lot through parliament, but couldn’t turn that into public plaudits. Turnbull is hoping to win back support by putting policy runs on the board – and to get credit. We’ll see.

He is also trying to cast the necessity of pragmatism in dealing with this parliament as a virtue.

Compromise is sensible, but there are inevitable downsides, even beyond the “backflip” headlines. For example, removing the backpacker tax barnacle this week came with an increase in the departure tax to help offset the revenue loss. The tourist industry was instantly outraged.

The backpacker issue highlighted that much of the compromising is with the government’s own troops, even before any deals with opposition or crossbenchers.

The finely balanced parliament combined with the stark ideological split within the government and, in the 24 hour news cycle, the easy access of dissidents to media exposure, has empowered rebels in Turnbull’s ranks. Backbenchers such as Nationals George Christensen and Liberal Cory Bernardi, not to mention former minister Eric Abetz, have muscled up in the post-election environment, when Turnbull is vulnerable.

Usually one never hears from backbenchers who get the three-month junket to the United Nations. But Bernardi this week was chiming into the domestic debate from New York, advocating that the Liberals should be singing some similar tunes to One Nation, including on migration and culture, “with a bit more nuance”, and using less of “the more flamboyant rhetoric like ‘innovation’”.

Christensen and Bernardi are now pressing to exempt cake makers, photographers and the like from having to provide services for the weddings in the event of same-sex marriage.

As a weakened and fractured Turnbull government faces the imperatives of dealing with budget repair, future school and university funding, and welfare reform, it will confront resistance when it comes to hard decisions. Monday’s suggestion from Education Minister Simon Birmingham that some schools could be worse off under new arrangements had critics quickly mobilised and signs of backbench stirring.

This week Shorten reaped some tangible success from his relentless campaign against the same-sex marriage plebiscite, as Newspoll showed support for a parliamentary vote on same sex marriage higher than for a plebiscite (48-39%) despite earlier solid backing for a popular vote.

In a political judgement, Shorten has decided to string out Labor’s formal rejection of the plebiscite legislation. It’s brought him some criticism but that’s the way of it – Abbott’s negative tactics came with costs but yielded net benefits for him.

On same-sex marriage, Turnbull is now cornered between the election promise for a plebiscite, which is backed for expediency’s sake by Coalition conservatives, and what the poll suggests is changing public opinion on the desirable path to follow.

From Turnbull’s point of view the sooner the parliament votes on – and presumably votes down – the plebiscite legislation the better. But the question then becomes, can Shorten keep the issue on the agenda to maintain pressure on Turnbull or will it recede?

In the months ahead, Turnbull will have to decide where he tries to draw the line on the demands that will come from the hardliners on his backbench.

Give in too much to the squeaky wheels and these backbenchers will simply increase their ask. They will become ever more outspoken, balkanise the government, and lose it the centre ground in the electorate.

On the other hand, seek to call their bluff and Turnbull enters a high risk game, in which he could face rebuffs, problems with the Nationals and other unpleasant consequences. It’s true the rightwingers have nowhere to go but they do have the power to beat up on the Prime Minister.

There is no fail-safe strategy for Turnbull, given his diminished authority in his party and the electorate.

The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

One Response to “Grattan on Friday / Turnbull’s challenge is to avoid the Gillard trap”

  1. Neil Aitchison
    September 30, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

    Of course, we can avoid the cost of a same sex marriage plebiscite in Australia by simply leaving the Marriage Act as it is – no cost there (ie. we are a fiat currency, so the government issues the money therefore it will not cost anything), plus the $160 million doesn’t just disappear – it goes into the pockets and communities of casual AEC workers…….and Parliament has already voted on the Marriage Act when John Howard was Prime Minister (to reflect the Common Law) and it passed with the support of Labor politicians, so that is what we have today and the matter should be done and dusted. Labor wants a conscience vote in Parliament but they themselves have a binding “yes” policy on all Labor MPs in the coming election, so there is no conscience vote on their side. Plus, there have already been about 18 attempts in Parliament to pass a same sex marriage bill and ALL have failed – so it already has been put to parliament. If there is a concern that a plebiscite is the “majority voting on the rights of the minority” (as we hear the same sex proponents claim), then a parliamentary vote is also a form of majority deciding on the rights of the minority (ie. a majority of MPs need to pass the bill to make it Law). However, the same sex marriage people want the homosexual marriage Law and are facilitating such an intense push that it requires an expensive solution to resolve. They are continually trying to game the political system (and create the allusion of public support) to get the result they want without the public supporting it. If they are so confident of public support, then why reject a plebiscite? They are doing the same tactics with “gender fluidity” to try and create a intermixed, gender-irrelevant society. They cause the problems and then claim to be part of the solutions. They claim that suicides and depression will occur which, by putting such ideas into people’s heads, facilitates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.