Dear Mr Turnbull,
I am a member of the
ALP, but I would like your government to do some urgently
necessary things a Shorten government will not do. I don’t
think you will do them either except as part of a general
“reset” motivated by a desire to win the next election. I am
writing to suggest such a reset. [Written in March 2018,
revised August.]
I suggest you meet
your cabinet and speak along the following lines:
--------------
I think we must face
the fact that our election prospects are not good. We may
scrape back in, but we really want and need a decisive
victory. I recognise that my leadership is in question: I have
lost a lot of the support in the electorate that I had at
first. Some of you may think I should retire and go to the
back bench. But I don’t intend to do that. I want to put up a
fight, and that requires a ‘reset’, starting with the
framework within which the government operates.
I am no longer willing
to have my hands tied by any secret agreements, such as the
L-NP Coalition agreement. I am exiting from that agreement, as
of now; I want to negotiate a new agreement. My exit from the
existing agreement means that the National Party is entitled
to withdraw from the coalition, in which case I will continue
with a Liberal minority government. But I hope that won’t
happen. I hope we can make a new agreement, determining which
ministries will be allocated to National Party members and
perhaps other matters: but an essential condition is that the
new agreement must be published. I’m not willing to be
constrained by an agreement the public hasn’t seen. Both
parties to the agreement must take public responsibility for
the constraints it imposes on the government.
Also, I want it understood
from now on, if I continue as Prime Minister, that the
policies of the government are not determined by majority vote
in Cabinet, still less by vote in the party room. I’m a good
listener, but it’s up to the Prime Minister to decide how much
discussion is enough and what the outcome is. I recognise that
if I abuse this prerogative, the party, or the Parliament,
will replace me.
So much for framework.
I also want a reset on a number of policies. This is in effect
the program I want to take to the coming election.
Manus and Nauru: The
government will announce a date in the not-too-distant future,
by early 2019, by which the people who have been detained on
Manus and Nauru will have left those places, coming to
Australia if no third-country settlement can be found before
that date. Meanwhile we will ameliorate their living
conditions.
Australia will quit
the 1951 Refugee Convention (quitting requires a year’s
notice) and we will negotiate a new agreement on refugees,
asylum-seekers and migrants with the other countries in this
region, including Indonesia.
Company tax: We will
abandon attempts to legislate future company tax reductions at
least for the remainder of this parliamentary term and for the
next.
Instead of “trickle
down” we will practice “filter up”—a rising tide lifts all
boats. We will make a generous improvement to the NewStart
allowance and other support for people who find it difficult
to make a decent living. Increasing their purchasing power
will drive jobs and growth.
We will revisit
“robot-debt” and make refunds and apologies. We will legislate
to provide that no one will be asked to produce documents they
had not been told beforehand they might need to produce.
Our political system
needs improvements. We will establish the body called for in
the Uluru “Statement from the Heart”. But we will not do this
through a referendum to change the constitution; we will
establish the body by legislation, with the possibility of
constitutional entrenchment later.
We need a federal
ICAC. We need to enforce more rigorous standards of probity in
public life. In particular we need to make sure that
politicians are not influenced by expectations of lucrative
employment after retirement from politics. We need new rules
for the real-time disclosure of political donations. There
must be proper procedures for appointing political staffers.
We must meet our
commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change. The
NEG must not only reduce electricity prices but also reduce
greenhouse emissions. There will be no attempt to prolong the
use of coal.
We need urgent action
to protect the profession of journalism from the inroads of
Google, Facebook and the like: We may need to direct some
government resources to the support of quality journalism. We
need to find a suitable way of doing that.
In foreign affairs we
should make renewed efforts to end the conflict between Israel
and Palestine. We should say we will recognise a state of
Palestine if the Palestinians meet the requirements of Art.4
of the UN Charter (essentially that they be in control of
their territory and at peace with other countries, including
Israel). That will need a lot of work on their part, and we
should encourage them by promising that if they meet the
requirements of the Charter we will recognise their state.
We need to disengage
Australian military forces from conflicts in the Middle East
and avoid being drawn into conflicts in Asia. We should
legislate to provide that Parliamentary approval is needed for
any overseas deployment that may result in armed conflict.
The atmosphere and
style of politics in this country needs to change. Opponents,
critics, citizens, should be treated with courtesy and
respect. We should not make personal attacks on opponents. At
present the public does not have much respect for politics and
politicians. We must change our ways.
I’m willing to
reconsider all these proposals, if there are good objections,
or better alternatives. But I believe we must make this reset,
or something very much like it. If you back me in this, I
believe we can win the next election—not just scrape in, but
win decisively. If you won’t back me, then I must consider my
position. I am not willing to continue as we have been going.
--------------
(What does “consider
my position” mean? It means either resigning as PM, or calling
an election. Better not to say which.)
The arithmetic of
winning the next election is obvious. You need to attract the votes of
many people who currently intend to vote Labor, without
losing too many votes of people who currently intend to vote
for the Coalition.
The key point is
this. When preferences are allocated, voters to your right
will vote for you even if you move somewhat to the left, just
as voters to the left of Labor will still vote Labor even if
it moves somewhat to the right. Greens voters don’t like Labor
much and like Mr Shorten even less, but in almost all House of
Representatives seats they
will in the end preference Labor over Liberal, because
if they don’t fill out the preferences their vote is informal.
Similarly, voters at the right end of the spectrum will in the
end vote for LNP candidates, however much they don’t like you.
You will not be replaced as leader between now and the next
election (especially since opponents in your party know that
you can call an election at any time) [Turned out to be wrong:
the Liberals went mad, Turnbull did not threaten an election].
Your side of politics cannot
retain government except by supporting the positions you
take. You can rely on their support, even if it is
reluctant, while you seek support from electors who currently
intend to vote Labor.
In the United States
parties need to do divisive things to “mobilise the base”
because many people eligible to vote don’t bother. For US
parties galvanising supporters who might not have turned out
to vote may well be a more cost-effective tactic than trying
to switch votes away from the other party. But in this country
mobilising the base is not an effective tactic. Most of the
people who could ever be motivated to vote will turn out
anyway. So you need to adopt policies that will persuade
people currently intending to vote Labor to switch to the
Coalition instead. Members of the coalition parties must
accept this, if they want your side to win the next election.
SOME ISSUES
(1) Manus and Nauru
(a) Give the
detainees (or former detainees) a definite
end-date, i.e. make a public promise now that by a certain
date in the not too distant future they will no longer be in
PNG or Nauru (unless they freely choose to stay), but in some
country where they can make a living and live safely with
their human rights respected. Setting an end-date will give
your Government a limited time to find third-country
settlements. Maybe New Zealand will take a few, perhaps some
other countries may (it might be worth trying to negotiate
with European countries for a swap), but when the time runs
out the rest will be brought to Australia. Giving them an
end-date means that their detention is no longer indefinite.
It gives them hope.
(b) “Denounce” the 1951 Refugee
Convention (see art.45) and announce
your intention to enter into a new agreement with
countries in our region on refugees, asylum-seekers and
migrants. Denouncing the convention will please voters to your
right, but it will also please voters to your left. Anyone who
has thought much about people-flow believes that the problems
require regional solutions. The Fraser government participated
in a comprehensive
plan regarding Vietnamese boat people.
A new agreement must
secure the right to
work, which according to the UN
Declaration is a human right, art. 23(1).
Denial of this right compels displaced people to move on, as Malaysian
experience illustrates.
It is obviously better for refugees/migrants to work for their
living than to depend on other people.
People in refugee
camps feel insecure because their support may be cut off;
that’s why they move. A World Food Program announcement that
it did not have enough food to support Syrian refugees
triggered the 2015 stampede to Europe (remember Alan
Kurdi): see here.
Many of the
contortions of Australian policy under Howard and since seem
to be an attempt to evade the 1951 convention while pretending
to observe it. It would be better to exit from it and deal
with the problems in an honest way. (One contortion has
recently been invalidated.)
“Turning back the
boats” is like putting bars across windows to prevent people
from jumping out because they don’t want to burn to death.
People take to boats because their circumstances are
intolerable. They know what risk they take. The flow is not
the result of marketing by “people smugglers”. See here,
here.
The “drownings”
argument that Liberal and Labor politicians use to justify the
ill-treatment of boat people is a disgraceful travesty of
ethical reasoning. See my comments on the remarks you made at
Wayside Chapel, December 2016, here.
The boat
journey is dangerous because Australian government policy
makes it so. Confiscation of boats means that the boats are
decrepit, imprisonment of crew (except juveniles) means that
the crew are juveniles.
(2) A Federal ICAC
Set up a federal ICAC
to enforce the rules and to suggest better rules. The current
rules are too lax; too many objectionable things are legal.
Here are two instances. Mr Robb had a job lined up with a
Chinese firm before he finished as a minister; under the
existing rules he cannot lobby on certain matters, but this
does not mean that he was not influenced in his behaviour
while a minister by the prospect of a job. The job may be a sinecure. Another example
involves Eric
Roozendaal and other ALP
politicians in NSW: they gave a position in the NSW Parliament
to a Chinese firm’s nominee in exchange for employment with
the firm for Mr Roozendaal. Something similar could happen in
the Senate. Another example.
We need a rule that
politicians (and members of their family and other associates)
cannot accept jobs with firms they have had dealings with
while in office for at least (say) 5 years afterwards. The
rule will have to be refined in the light of experience of
attempts to get around it.
Mr Joyce, Mr Abbott,
Mr Sukkar and others will say (here and here) that a federal ICAC
is not needed because existing safeguards are enough. But
despite whatever safeguards there are, it is widely (and I
think rightly) believed that there is a lot of corruption. The
suspicion of political corruption alienates many citizens.
Sir Humphry will tell
you that you must work out all the details before you do
anything, i.e. do nothing. I say: Set up a federal ICAC
immediately, make simple and obvious rule changes first, then
deal with the evasions as they come to light, with the ICAC’s
advice. Don’t spend too much time deciding which is the best
version of an ICAC; it can be modified later as experience
suggests. (But start it off without the power, except with the
Attorney-General’s approval, to hold public hearings.)
(3) Political
Staffers
Abolish, or at least
greatly reduce, politicians’ power to appoint political staff
paid for by the tax-payer. See here.
There was a time when politicians’ offices were staffed by
public servants. These days politicians have considerable
patronage, which is one of the bases of factionalism. If they
want political staffers the parties should pay their salaries.
(4) Political
Donations
See here, “The truth about
political donations: what we don’t know”. See Ann Twomey’s criticism of your government’s
legislation on foreign donations. Foreign donations are not
the only problem. Donations should be from individuals only
(not organisations or companies), using their own money,
declared in real time. This would set the ALP free from
unions, which would be good for the unions (they would not be
used by people to further their political ambitions), for the
ALP (it would not be controlled by union officials and the
factions that form round them), and for the country.
Prohibition of corporate donations would also set the Liberal
and National Parties free from big business. Liberal and,
especially, National Party policy-making often looks like
trawling for donations. Their love of coal-fired generation is
a case in point. Joe Hockey used to suffer acute aesthetic
pain when he saw a wind-turbine.
Money that can’t be
donated to political parties will go to other campaigning
organisations. Perhaps the same rules should apply to all
organisations that accept donations. But it may not be much of
a problem. If the ACTU campaigns for the Labor Party or the
Mining Council campaigns for the Nationals, voters know where
they are coming from and can make allowance for bias. The
problem is the hidden bias in political parties due to hidden
donations, or the desire to elicit such donations.
In my view, it is not
necessary to limit the size of political donations, or to
block foreign donations, as long as there is transparency.
This will require continuous vigilance to counter
work-arounds.
In place of large
private donations, public money should be made available to
facilitate a more deliberative democracy—town hall meetings,
deliberative polling, etc. It would be good if less money were
spent on short TV advertisements, robocalls, Facebook,
Twitter, etc. There should be more opportunities for real
discussion and debate. See my submission to the Joint
Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 2004 election.
--------
There are other
things you could do to improve the workings of our political
system that would appeal to the very large number
disillusioned voters. Here are a few:
(5) Parliamentary
representation
Acknowledge the
virtual disfranchisement in House of Representatives elections
of people who live in safe seats. During the last election you
tried to persuade voters that every
vote would count. “This is going to be
a very close election. Every seat matters, every vote matters.
And I say to every Australian... that every vote counts and
they should treat their vote, regardless of what seat they are
in, as though it was the vote, the single vote that decides
the next government. Every vote counts.” This statement was
simply false, as I’m sure you knew, because everyone knows.
See comment by Barrie
Cassidy. Political parties
run “marginal seat campaigns”; governments on both sides have
“pork barrelled” shamelessly in marginal seats (here and here); factions struggle
to appropriate safe seats.
We need multi-member
constituencies in the House of Representatives, maybe 7
members in dense population areas, 5 and 3 members in less
dense, retaining single member constituencies for regions of
low population density. Again see my submission. The ACT electoral
system is a good model.
As in the ACT,
federal elections need “Robson
rotation”, which enables voters
to weed out unsatisfactory Parliamentarians without having to
vote against their party. When a candidate is discredited on
the eve of an election (e.g. Trevor Ruthenberg) supporters can
simply switch their preference to one of the Party’s other
candidates. Robson Rotation distributes equally between a
party’s candidates the votes of voters who support the party
but don’t have a preference between its candidates. It
establishes an equivalent to a “primary” built into the
election itself.
Robson rotation also
checks attempts by ideological factions to win control. This
is a serious problem not only in the Labor Party but also in
the Liberal Party. See on Mormon
influence in the Liberal Party, factional
battles among NSW Liberals. With Robson
Rotation, if some faction puts up “extremist” candidates,
“moderate” voters can give their higher preference to other
candidates.
(6) The Uluru
statement
Establish the body
called for by the Uluru statement, not through a referendum
but by legislation, with the prospect of a constitutional
amendment after it has been tried for a while to assess its
value. Mr Joyce‘s claim, promptly
echoed by you, that the Uluru
statement calls for a “third
chamber of Parliament” was a falsehood. Joyce may
have believed it, but I’m sure you didn’t.
Here are your words in
Parliament, spoken passionately with every appearance of
sincere conviction: “We take the view that every one of our
national elected representative institutions should be open to
every Australian citizen. We believe that is a fundamental
part of our democracy and the rule of law….I hear the shouts
of indignation. This, clearly, will be a big election issue at
the next election. We stand for all of our national
representative institutions, including the House and the
Senate, being open to, filled by and voted for by every
Australian citizen.” You must have known that you were
speaking nonsense.
If it is a big
election issue, and if you argue for it in those terms, you
will deservedly lose many votes. An elected advisory body is
obviously not inconsistent with democracy, the rule of law,
equal voting rights and other principles, since it would only
give advice.
(7) Shorten’s
constitutional proposals
Come out clearly
against fixed four-year
Parliamentary terms and against a directly elected Head of
State. Some people whose votes you want favour these things,
but voters will respect you if you take a stand and give good
reasons. Voters will also understand that proper discussion of
these matters must come before any move toward a republic. The
idea of a vote “in
principle” on a republic to be followed later by a decision on
how the head of state is to be selected is a stupid tactic:
voters will vote No in the first round if they think it likely
that a model they don’t support will be chosen in the second
round. The model has to have wide support before there is any
point in a referendum, so the first step is to discuss the
model. You could
introduce now, without needing a referendum, legislation
to establish a Parliamentary process for nominating future
Governors-General.
It is most important
to reject fixed terms.
A government must be able to appeal to the electorate to
resolve a Parliamentary deadlock. There will be situations in
which no party or coalition has a secure majority. Our
parliamentary system can cope with “minority governments”,
including minority governments that have no guarantee of
supply or confidence. (See here, and note “jumping
majorities”, and here.) Completely
abolishing the Prime Minister’s right to appeal to the
electorate would be a step in the direction of the US system
in which Congress and the President may be at loggerheads with
no way of resolving their disagreements. This is one of the
most serious weaknesses of the US political system. This
should be obvious to anyone who follows US politics.
Another unusual
situation that should be provided for is that a party may win
government under one leader but then drop that leader and
substitute another. Replacement of a leader may be perfectly
legitimate: there is and should be no rule that a Prime
Minister cannot be replaced except by losing an election. But
it is essential that a Prime Minister threatened with
replacement should be able to appeal to the electorate if he
or she believes that electors still support their government.
(This is what Mr Rudd should have said he would do when Ms
Gillard came back into the room and reneged on their earlier
agreement.) On fixed terms see my submission to JSCEM.
There is a case,
however, for restricting the power of a Prime Minister to call
an election just whenever it is politically advantageous. I
suggest that the government reject Mr Shorten’s proposal for a referendum to
amend the constitution to provide four year fixed terms and
instead introduce legislation modelled on 24B of the NSW
constitution. This would not be a constitutional amendment, it
would be ordinary legislation.
(8) Support
professional journalism
Re-read your 2011 speech. It should be
possible to find some way citizens can select which
professional journalists should be supported by public money
(through fellowships or the like).
Another improvement
to the political system that many disillusioned voters would
be interested in relates to the profession of journalism. The
work of professional journalists is important in sorting fact
from fiction.
--------
Suggestions (2) – (8)
are about machinery and process. You could adopt any of them
without departing from Liberal principles. Here are some
similarly non-partisan suggestions on policy.
(9) Robodebt
This has done a lot
of damage to many vulnerable people and a lot of damage to the
government’s standing with people whose votes you need. People
who have been unfairly badgered should be given an apology and
refunds. The principle should be adopted that no one will be asked to
produce documentation unless they have been told beforehand
that they might need to produce it (cf. the limit on the
time for which tax documents need to be kept). The onus must
be on the government to prove indebetness, not on the citizen
to prove they do not owe anything. The fact that money has
been recovered and someone jailed does nothing to justify the
stress put upon many honest people. On the probable illegality
of the scheme see here
and here.
In its hostility
toward the poor, your party has become, like the UK Conservatives,
“the nasty party”.
(10) Address the
issues that especially affect young people
Housing affordability
(including affordability of rental accommodation) and job
security (see the recent British report on the “gig
economy“) should be high
priorities. Like Centrelink payments and robodebt, these are
issues that especially young people regard as urgent. Another
thing they, especially, regard as urgent is—
(11) Climate change
Re-read your
2011 speech.
What is needed is a
“cap and trade” system; nothing else will actually reduce
emissions in a cost-effective way to the extent required. You
should consult Mark Butler and the Greens and commit to a new
consensus policy well before the next election.
You should rule out
any attempt to use the NEG to “lock in” meaningless targets;
see here
and here.
Failures of
successive governments to deal with this issue may well
account for much of the disillusion with politics among
younger people, e.g. the parents of young children, or young
people who have decided not to have children. Children now
alive in Australia—my grandchildren! and yours—may die
prematurely and in very unpleasant circumstances if climate
change happens as predicted. See here and here. The government must
stop campaigning for coal and against renewables. (What a
stupid campaign! The only sense I can make of it is that the
Liberal and National parties want donations from coal
companies.)
For attempts of mine
to get the Labor party to take effective action on climate
change see here.
(12) Jobs and
Growth
Your present policy
of tax cuts for large companies faces strong criticism, to the
effect that much of the revenue sacrificed will not go to
increase employment. Even if you were right about the
economics, it would be difficult to sell the policy against a
lot of apparently expert opinion (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.)
Your treasurer’s
attempted explanations are incoherent. He seems to think
that the normal rules on supply and demand were suspended
during the GFC! He should find out a bit about macroeconomics.
Increased demand for labour leading to increased wages may
provoke a rise in interest
rates which may cause a
set-back.
The company tax
proposal will not be a vote-winner at the next election, quite
the opposite, and it will not get through the next Senate. It
is a zombie measure. The revenue that would be sacrificed in
giving tax cuts to large companies and wealthy individuals
would be better spent on improving the support
given to the unemployed and others who live in poverty.
Poorer people will spend the money, they will spend much of it
locally (including in depressed regions), they will spend much
of it with small businesses, they may set up their own small
businesses in their locality.
(13) Tax reform
Tax reform should be a high
priority. I don’t mean just tax cuts. The aim should be to
raise more revenue from wealthier people. In particular,
government should tax the various forms of economic rent;
Liberal economists have been recommending this since David
Ricardo. Taxes on rent do not reduce incentives, do not reduce
reward for enterprise and hard work, because economic rent is
not a reward for effort of any kind. Rent is a component of
higher incomes, which justifies progressive taxation.
“Living within our
means” is a misleading slogan: our “means” are not fixed but
can be increased by wise government spending, including on
improving the lot of the poorest people.
(14) Car industry,
defence industry
Submarines and
defence industry expansion are not an adequate substitute for
car making. Messrs. Abbott and Hockey deliberately drove the
car makers out because they relied on subsidies. Tariffs are
better than subsidies (both are contrary to free trade),
because the cost of tariffs falls on the buyers of the
protected product whereas the cost of subsidies falls on the
general taxpayer and subsidises the buyers. Establish an
electric-car-making industry protected (temporarily) by
tariffs. Buy submarines and other defence equipment on the
world market.
(15) Free trade
agreements
Promise there will be
no more so-called “free trade” deals without independent
critical examination and proper
Parliamentary debate. The proposed TPP should be discussed
properly.
(16) A Bill of
Rights
You should resist
demands to legislate “religious freedom” except as part of a
wider “bill of rights”. A bill of rights should be
legislation, not a consitutional amendment. It could be
modelled on the Canadian
Bill of Rights (1960), later
entrenched in the constitution as a Charter
of Rights and Freedoms (1982). It makes no
attempt to spell out the rights but simply lists them in
general terms (e.g. “freedom of religion”), leaving it to the
courts to work out what the rights imply in particular cases.
The “notwithstanding“ clause gives
Parliament power in some circumstances to override the Bill of
Rights.
(17) Recognition of
Palestine
You should adopt my suggestions in relation to the
recognition of Palestine. Recognition of Palestine will be a
major issue at the next ALP National Conference. It will be a
big fight; Mr Shorten is out of step with many Labor voters.
Palestine should not
be recognised as a state now, as is, but Australia should
promise, and try to persuade the US and other countries to
promise, that Australia will recognise Palestine and support
its full admission to the United Nations as soon as, in our
government’s judgment, it meets the conditions of UN Charter Art.
4.
My suggestion is not
anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, but it does address the concern
of people who believe the Palestinians have been badly treated
and that this is bad for the Palestinians, bad for Israel, for
the Middle East, and for “the West”.
Supporters of Israel
have for a long time insisted that a “two state solution” can
come about only through bi-lateral negotation between Israel
and the Palestinians. This gives, and is intended to give, a
veto to the government of Israel, which no Israeli politician
could ever fail to exercise: the day will never come when
Israel’s Prime Minister announces that s/he is satisfied with
the concessions the Palestinian leaders have made--and no
Palestinian leader could ever offer anything that Israel could
accept as sufficient. No leader on either side could survive
making an agreement. A two-state solution can come about only
through the process for admitting new states that was laid
down when the UN was established, i.e. Art. 4.
Australian
politicians on both sides present themselves
as “friends of Israel”. You have been sycophantic toward
Netanyahu: here, here, here, here. (Note the Israeli flag in
the Beersheeba re-enactment; the battle had no connection
whatever with the Balfour Declaration, Australian forces were
not fighting for Israel.) True friends of Israel want the
Jewish-Muslim conflict settled.
(18) Overseas
military deployments
You should legislate
to require Parliamentary approval of overseas military
deployments. Many people for
many years have advocated this change because it is really
needed to protect Australia against rash
military involvements. There is a
significant asymmetry in US and Australian obligations under
ANZUS concealed in the phrase “in accordance with its
constitutional processes” (see my paper). The Australian
constitution does not need to be amended, but the Australian
“constitutional process” can be altered by ordinary
legislation to restrict the royal prerogative in the matter of
overseas force deployment.
--------
The above suggestions
relate to policy: they are things your government could do,
without any departure from the basic ideas of the Liberal
Party, that would appeal to people currently intending to vote
Labor; I’m suggesting them because I think they are things
that should be done.
There are also matters
of political style. You should give up personal attacks on
Bill Shorten. Focus on explaining your own proposals. Reject
his proposals, answer his arguments, but leave his character
alone. When one politician accuses another of lying, the
sceptical voter thinks, “Yes, they are all liars”. Don’t make
angry or contemptuous attacks on the Labor Party or the
unions. The question time performances MPs think are brilliant
the public regard with contempt. Government members should be
discouraged from asking point-scoring questions, ministers
from giving point-scoring answers. Maybe you should copy the
British “Prime ministers questions” and set a good example.
Some of your attacks
on Shorten have been not only disrespectful toward him but
also degrading to you. “I mean, Blackout Bill, fair dinkum, as
my old dad would have said, he is so hopeless he could not
find his backside with both hands”. My old dad would never
have said a thing like that. You have accused Shorten of
“sucking up” to billionaires: what image does that suggest?
You should enforce
proper standards of respectful speech on all your cabinet.
Google to “screaming LNP senator” and watch the youtube video.
Senator Cash is incorrigible. You made excuses for her recent
performance. No provocation could excuse her slur on the women
in Shorten’s office, no apology could make up for it. You
should have sacked her from your ministry.
Politicians seem to
think it’s clever to dodge questions. Interviewers try several
times, until it’s clear to listeners that the politician is
being evasive, and then move on. Kelly O’Dwyer’s famous performance
on Insiders is just one
illustration of the reflexive evasiveness of most politicians.
Corruption, trawling
for donations, abuse of politicians’ entitlements, unregulated
appointment of political staffers, evasion of questions,
lying, etc. bring the politicians into disrepute.
Failure to deal with major policy issues such as climate
change weakens
support for our political
system. Your government’s treatment of vulnerable people, the
poor, job seekers, centrelink clients, asylum seekers etc. has
antagonised voters whose support you need. Your failure since
becoming Prime Minister to stand up for values people thought
you believed in has seriously damaged your credibility. What
will your political obituaries look like?
Yours faithfully,
John Kilcullen
--------------
Addendum: A
Political Obituary [2019]
When Turnbull replaced
Abbott there was an upsurge of hope on the part of people who
had followed his previous political career. We had noticed
things like the following:
https://theaimn.com/malcolm-turnbull-used-think-asylum-seekers/
https://www.wheelercentre.com/broadcasts/podcasts/the-wheeler-centre/malcolm-turnbull-at-the-deakins
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-08/turnbull-the-future-of-newspapers-the-end-of-journalism/3719482
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/april/1337744204/robert-manne/one-morning-malcolm
https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/issues/leadership-in-times-of-uncertainty-the-2013-sir-john-monash-oration-at-the
https://theconversation.com/can-malcolm-turnbull-be-a-liberal-leader-for-the-21st-century-47486
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/fragment/we-need-respect-intelligence-australian-people-turnbull (“A style
of leadership that respects the people's
intelligence, that explains these complex issues and
then sets out the course of action we believe we
should take and makes a case for it.”)
The failure of
Turnbull’s “cabinet government”
Mr Turnbull’s
fundamental mistake, I believe, was to misconceive
parliamentary government: “Australia claims to
have a cabinet system of government. By that we mean
decisions are taken collectively. [My italics] They are
taken by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister is the first among
equals.” https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/issues/leadership-in-times-of-uncertainty-the-2013-sir-john-monash-oration-at-the
In fact Mr Turnbull gave each cabinet member a veto over
matters in his/her portfolio; indeed in the end he gave a veto
to a back-bench minority—he abandoned the NEG
even though a party room majority had supported it. This was
the end of his authority.
The phrase “first
among equals” is self-contradictory: among equals none is
first, if one is first they are not equal. A contradictory
phrase that points to a truth is a “paradox”. In this case the
truth, stated non-paradoxically, is that although the prime
minister is in fact “first” (prime), he or she should as far
as possible treat cabinet colleagues as if they were
his/her equals. The Prime Minister’s leadership style should
be consultative, egalitarian and free from pride.
Modern
Westminster governments are not "cabinet government" but "prime ministerial government":
the PM, as long as he or she has the confidence of the lower
house, can and should give a firm lead.
Mr Turnbull gave the
speech quoted above before he became Prime Minister. Soon
after he became PM he applied his mistaken conception to the
treatment of the Manus and Nauru detainees: “Prime Minister
Malcolm Turnbull says he is concerned about asylum seekers
languishing in Australian-run detention centres on Nauru and
Manus Island and hinted the government may consider acting to
relieve their plight…. However Mr Turnbull said cabinet must
be consulted before the government changes its policies on
offshore processing… [Changes] will be made by the minister,
myself [and] the cabinet...
Mr Turnbull has repeatedly emphasised he will consult
colleagues and maintain the traditions of a true cabinet government
in his second stint as Liberal leader, after the party voted him
out of the job in 2009 when the Coalition was in
opposition.” Nicole Hasham, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/malcolm-turnbull-concerned-about-asylum-seekers-on-manus-island-and-nauru-20150923-gjsxt2.html (23 Sept. 2015, 8
days after Mr Turnbull became PM.)
Mr
Turnbull’s failure to act on his concern about asylum-seekers
was the beginning of his downfall. As more and more people
realised more and more clearly that Mr Turnbull was not going
to be the leader they had expected he would be, his
popularity, very high at first, dwindled rapidly (in just a
few months after 23/11/2015, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6081243/The-horror-graph-shows-went-wrong-Malcolm-Turnbull.html) until he was no
longer a likely election-winner and his party dumped him. Once
it came to be widely believed that he could not win, his power
to call an election was useless.
The lesson of the
Turnbull premiership is that a Prime Minister should be bold,
especially early in his term, and insist on good policies
acceptable to a majority of voters, even if many in the
cabinet or party room mainly want to “mobilise the base”.
Return to home
page