tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/liberal-leadership-crisis-14792/articlesLiberal leadership crisis – The Conversation2019-06-27T09:46:30Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1195492019-06-27T09:46:30Z2019-06-27T09:46:30ZTurnbull slams Porter for “nonsense” advice<p>Malcolm Turnbull has accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of providing advice to him that was constitutional “nonsense”, as the divisive events around the former prime minister’s removal are revisited.</p>
<p>Turnbull launched his acerbic Twitter attack following reports that the day before he was deposed last August, he clashed with Porter over trying to involve Governor-General Peter Cosgrove in the leadership crisis. Turnbull was seeking to ensure Peter Dutton did not become prime minister if he won the leadership.</p>
<p>Meantime, Dutton has revealed that before the May election he removed himself from involvement in a family trust – an involvement that last term had raised doubts about his eligibility to sit in parliament. The trust received money from his wife’s child care business, and child care receives government subsidy.</p>
<p>Dutton always maintained he was on safe constitutional ground and his spokeswoman on Thursday reaffirmed that he had had legal opinions saying he was not in breach of section 44. During the leadership crisis the Solicitor-General provided advice, taking the view Dutton was eligible, though he left some doubt.</p>
<p>“Nonetheless, to silence those who are politically motivated and continue to raise this; prior to the minister’s nomination at the May election, he formally renounced any interest in the trust in question,” she said.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-is-peter-dutton-ineligible-to-sit-in-parliament-101840">Explainer: is Peter Dutton ineligible to sit in parliament?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Accounts of the contretemps between Turnbull and Porter were published in Thursday’s Australian and by Nine newspapers.</p>
<p>Turnbull argued Cosgrove should refuse to commission Dutton, if he won the leadership, on the grounds he might be constitutionally ineligible to sit in parliament.</p>
<p>Porter insisted Turnbull’s suggested course would be “wrong in law” - that the eligibility issue was not a matter for the governor-general - and threatened to repudiate Turnbull’s position if he advanced it publicly at an imminent news conference.</p>
<p>The Attorney-General had a letter of resignation with him, in case he needed to provide it.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/solicitor-general-supports-duttons-eligibility-for-parliament-but-with-caveats-102097">Solicitor-General supports Dutton's eligibility for parliament, but with caveats</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The events of last year will be extensively raked over in coming weeks in books by journalists Niki Savva and David Crowe. They featured in a Sky documentary this week.</p>
<p>Turnbull refought his battle with Porter on Thursday, tweeting: “The discretion to swear in a person as PM is vested in the Governor General. The proposition advanced by Mr Porter that it is none of the GG’s business whether the would be PM is constitutionally eligible is nonsense. The GG is not a constitutional cypher.</p>
<p>"During the week of 24 August 2018 there was advice from leading constitutional lawyers Bret Walker that Dutton was ineligible to sit in the Parliament and thus ineligible to be a Minister, let alone Prime Minister. I ensured we sought the advice of the Solicitor General.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1144104135576322048"}"></div></p>
<p>"I took the responsible course of action, obtained the necessary advice, published it and the Party Room was informed when it made its decision to elect Mr Morrison, rather than Mr Dutton, as leader.”</p>
<p>Porter, speaking on radio on Thursday, confirmed the accuracy of the media reports, including the tense nature of the meeting. “Sometimes meetings in government aren’t all potpourri and roses,” he said.</p>
<p>Porter said an attorney-general’s role was to provide advice they considered accurate and legally correct.</p>
<p>“Sometimes that advice is not always what people want to hear. But I’ve always taken very seriously the role and the fact that the role requires to give advice to the best of your legal knowledge and ability you think is accurate and correct.</p>
<p>"And that’s what I’ve always tried to do, that’s what I did during the course of that very difficult week.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119549/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull clashes with Attorney-General Christian Porter.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/388392015-04-07T02:24:21Z2015-04-07T02:24:21ZThe real leadership challenge: only six Liberals are suitable to be PM<p>With the topic of leadership de rigueur in Australia these days, it is important that we ponder not just the who but also the why and the how ought.</p>
<p>Attending to these other questions draws attention to the real leadership challenge. This is the challenge of finding a leader with the capacity to facilitate and guide change (or reform) in a world of no certain answers.</p>
<p>The US Army Staff College invented the acronym <a href="http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/col-leadership-vuca-world-volatility-uncertainty-complexity-ambiguity.html">VUCA</a> to describe the contemporary Volatile world of Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity. Issues and problems in such a world have been described as <a>wicked</a>, even <a href="http://chrisriedy.me/2013/05/29/climate-change-is-a-super-wicked-problem/">super-wicked</a>.</p>
<h2>Wicked problems are ultimate test</h2>
<p>Wicked problems cannot be solved by experts or by deferring to the judgement of an authority such as a government minister or a CEO. The diversity of perspectives and interests in wicked problems means that all the people involved in the problem need to be engaged and actively participating. </p>
<p>In particular, wicked problems are systemic; they are simultaneously social, economic, technical, environmental and legal problems. They require multi-faceted solutions, which are not always obvious. Where solutions are recognised, they often cannot be implemented simultaneously.</p>
<p>As a result, the easiest implemented solutions are often tried first. This very often then create new problems for which subsequent, more difficult-to-implement solutions may no longer be appropriate. That is, many preferred solutions to wicked problems often lead to unintended consequences, which demand totally new approaches. </p>
<p>Liz Skelton and Geoff Aigner argue in <a href="http://leadership.benevolent.org.au/publications/australian-leadership-paradox">The Australian Leadership Paradox</a> that European Australia’s history and culture have not prepared us well for the kind of <a href="http://leadershipforchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Keith-Grint-Wicked-Problems-handout.pdf">leadership needed to work through wicked problems</a> together. We are more used to command-and-control or technocratic <a href="http://theconversation.com/leadership-what-it-is-and-isnt-27019">types of leaders</a> – think Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd, respectively!</p>
<p>From this perspective, the real leadership challenge is the mismatch between the leadership approach we’re familiar with and ethical mindsets that prize open-heartedness, the virtue of collaboration and the two-way communication needed for leadership in a VUCA World. Only by replacing the current leadership paradigm will there be any prospect of reaching a deep understanding of problems, alternative visions of the future, and consensus on decisions.</p>
<h2>What sort of leaders are there?</h2>
<p>In partnership with psychologist <a href="http://www.cook-greuter.com">Susanne Cook-Greuter</a>, a 30-year research <a href="https://hbr.org/2005/04/seven-transformations-of-leadership">program at Harvard</a> provides advice on the mindsets and approaches needed for such leadership. The Harvard team integrates mindsets and will to action into the concept of action logic: each of us has a particular action logic that determines how we see the world and, therefore, how we will think and act.</p>
<p>Analysing responses from a data set of many thousand senior leaders across all sectors on all continents (including Antarctica), they have identified seven broad categories of action logic among leaders:</p>
<p><strong>Opportunists</strong> who focus on their own immediate interests. They are often manipulative and believe that “might makes right” and “ends justify means”.
Source of power: coercion. How they influence others: control and authority.</p>
<p><strong>Diplomats</strong> who focus on being approved by everyone and avoiding conflict.
Source of power: persuasion. How they influence others: use conformity with existing norms to get others to follow.</p>
<p><strong>Experts</strong> who focus on their own expertise and prioritise proven technical competence. They seek rationality and efficiency. Source of power: logical argument. How they influence others: give personal attention to detail and seek perfection.</p>
<p><strong>Achievers</strong> who focus on the delivery of results, efficiency and success within the system. Source of power: Coordinating the sources of power of previous three action logics. How they influence others: provide logical argument, data and experiences; make task-oriented contractual agreements.</p>
<p><strong>Individualists</strong> who focus on their own abilities to offer original and creative solutions; they take more systemic and broader positions on issues than opportunists. Source of power: Confronting, often deconstructing other positions.
How they influence others: adapt (ignore) rules when needed or invent new ones.</p>
<p><strong>Strategists</strong> who focus on the interactions in systems and anticipate long-term trends. They believe in cultivating a shared vision and culture as first steps in a proactive approach to issues. Source of power: Integrative; consciously transformative. How they influence others: lead in reframing situation so that decisions support overall principles and strategy.</p>
<p><strong>Alchemists</strong> who focus on the interplay of awareness, thought, action and effects, and on transforming self and others. They value social transformation, environmental responsibility, equity and support for global humanitarian causes.
Source of power: authentic, values-driven leadership. How they influence others: reframe issues; hold up mirror to society; often entails working behind the scenes.</p>
<p>The leadership challenge is to elect a government capable of forming a cabinet composed of achievers, individualists, strategists and alchemists – and a prime minister who is, preferably, a strategist or alchemist. Opportunists, diplomats and experts do not make for effective leaders in a VUCA World of wicked problems.</p>
<h2>What are the odds of getting the right leader?</h2>
<p>The Harvard research indicates that 52.1% of leaders can be categorised as opportunists, diplomats or experts. So, leaving them out: of a combined House of Representatives and Senate membership of 226 people, that leaves 108 who could make decent cabinet ministers, at least if we had cross-party governments.</p>
<p>However, only 6.9% of leaders are strategists and alchemists. This severely limits the choice of prime minister to a pool of 16. But, as a senator cannot become prime minister and we do not have a tradition of cross-party cabinets, this translates to a prime minister chosen from possibly eight of the 90 Coalition MPs – or, more accurately, six as the Coalition always awards the top job to a member of the senior party – that is, the Liberals. </p>
<p>On this basis, we potentially have six members of parliament in Canberra capable – on the statistics – of being a good prime minister.</p>
<p>Overcoming the intra-party politics so that we get the best one of these is the real leadership challenge.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>John will be on hand for an Author Q&A session between 3 and 4pm AEST on Wednesday April 8. Post your questions about the article in the comments section below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38839/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Fien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Analysis of the mindsets and responses of thousands of senior leaders tells us only about 7% are likely to have the right stuff to lead effective government responses to wicked problems.John Fien, Professor and Executive Director, Swinburne Leadership Institute, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/387192015-03-12T19:15:44Z2015-03-12T19:15:44ZGrattan on Friday: Abbott government suffers self-inflicted pain in an untidy week<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74647/original/image-20150312-13499-y10o3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Tony Abbott has had yet another bad week.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Nikki Short</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Abbott government has followed one step forward by a couple back. After an improved performance became the media story of last week, it’s been slipping and sliding all over the place.</p>
<p>Tony Abbott had another bad word day. Treasurer Joe Hockey sat awkwardly aboard a hobby horse. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane tripped during a policy retreat. Leadership aspirant Malcolm Turnbull <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-lays-down-way-to-sell-budget-challenges-38663">reminded colleagues</a> they’d been hopeless.</p>
<p>There’s general agreement among Liberals that Abbott’s struggling leadership is to be given “more time”. But what about the “clear air” they said the prime minister needed?</p>
<p>As he used the non-sitting week to travel around “trying to ensure that the government and the people are all on the same page” (his words to Alan Jones), Abbott produced his own fog.</p>
<p>Abbott invited a storm of criticism when he said, talking about a West Australian government plan to close many remote Indigenous communities, that “it’s not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise lifestyle choices”.</p>
<p>Indigenous friends and advisers Warren Mundine and Noel Pearson were among those laying into Abbott. The accusation from some that he is racist was nonsense. But his language and the way he framed the issue were badly judged and had implications beyond being politically harmful to him.</p>
<p>It also gave an unfortunate slant to what is a genuine dilemma: how to reconcile the desire of Indigenous people to live in remote places on traditional land, with the need to ensure that young people from these areas have access to the sort of opportunities most non-Indigenous children enjoy. Even if endless money were available (and there will always be limits), these children will be at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>One wonders if Abbott’s response partly reflects his frustration at making so little progress in Indigenous affairs. The latest Closing the Gap report was disappointing; the referendum for Indigenous recognition in the constitution won’t be held this term.</p>
<p>Hockey – leaving aside what people thought about the treasurer being tied up with his defamation case – has also managed to stymie his own battle to get himself back on track. After launching his Intergenerational Report (IGR) with much hype, he derailed the discussion by floating the possibility of giving young people access to their super to buy their first home.</p>
<p>Not only did this go against the thrust of the IGR on the population’s ageing, but also it would not effectively deal with the question of affordability, a point made sharply by Turnbull, who slapped down Hockey by declaring it “a thoroughly bad idea”.</p>
<p>The shambles around the dollars involved in the government’s announcement that it won’t go ahead with legislation cancelling car industry assistance – which wouldn’t pass the Senate anyway – again showed its poor, or tricky, management of communications.</p>
<p>The backdown itself was a barnacle-removal exercise, coming after its ditching of the Medicare co-payment.</p>
<p>It is a welcome gesture to South Australian Liberals who are in a desperate situation, with several seats likely to be lost as things stand. But the backflips are confusing the government’s policy signals, which now mix warnings about the fiscal problems with populist retreats.</p>
<p>The consensus is that, despite an untidy week – which <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll">included a poor Newspoll</a> – and barring some game-changer, Abbott’s leadership is safe until mid-year.</p>
<p>Turnbull’s frustration can only be imagined, after an early switch to him had recently seemed at least a possibility. Now not only is Abbott being granted more time, but he has been given a strategic advantage by Julie Bishop indicating she’d be a candidate in a contest.</p>
<p>In his Wednesday speech condemning the way last year’s budget was handled – notably the fiscal problem not properly explained – Turnbull wasn’t saying much new. That he chose to say it, and referred to what he had done in his own portfolio to illustrate how to undertake reform effectively, won’t endear him to some colleagues. That he included himself in the general failure would fool no-one.</p>
<p>The government has two weeks of parliament before the recess that leads into the budget.</p>
<p>NSW Premier Mike Baird will hope these weeks don’t bring more gales from Canberra. While the polls have the state government ahead and it has a massive majority, the electricity privatisation issue has been a gift for Labor.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten campaigned in the state on three days this week. Labor sources say that NSW is “eerily like Queensland” and approaching a hung parliament, although they still put Baird as favourite to remain premier. Alarm is high among federal Liberals from NSW.</p>
<p>The NSW result will be another big moment for Abbott. A bad outcome would send some of its tremors his way, while he could get some advantage from a good Liberal showing (there’d be debate over what’s “good”), which would help settle federal Liberals in marginal seats in that state.</p>
<p>What happens in NSW could feed into the federal budget, already a complicated exercise, with the need to balance the fiscal and the political. If the March 28 result strikes fear into the Canberra Liberals, that fear will flow into the budget brought down on May 12, as well as into the party’s thinking about its leadership.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38719/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Abbott government has followed one step forward by a couple back. After an improved performance became the media story of last week, it’s been slipping and sliding all over the place.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/384942015-03-06T01:01:37Z2015-03-06T01:01:37ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the Bali Nine executions<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P2laU859ofU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including impending execution of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia, the release of the intergenerational report and the ruling out of an early leadership spill.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraStephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/382482015-03-02T12:07:56Z2015-03-02T12:07:56ZLiving by the polls will be Abbott’s fate from now on<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73464/original/image-20150302-5271-1c8mmof.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Tony Abbott's fortunes from now on will swing from poll to poll.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The cameras were in the cabinet room on Monday, apparently so the TV stations could get footage of the new line-up after last year’s reshuffle. But Tony Abbott also wanted to get a message out – one he’s trying to turn into a prop for his leadership.</p>
<p>The message is – as Kevin Rudd might say – that Abbott and the team have their sleeves rolled up.</p>
<p>The government was “working hard for the people of Australia”, who wanted “people in Canberra” to be “worried about them” rather than worried about themselves (“ourselves”, Abbott means).</p>
<p>Abbott reeled off the last week’s work, relating to national security, welfare reform, child care, food labelling, foreign investment. Much of this, of course, involved first steps, but the important thing was the list.</p>
<p>Then, for this week, Abbott pointed to metadata retention legislation coming before parliament and the release of the 2015 Intergenerational Report.</p>
<p>Abbott might have added the commitment of more troops to Iraq, about to be announced after going to Tuesday’s party meeting, and the lancing (after earlier failed attempts) of the Medicare co-payment boil.</p>
<p>The revised Medicare plan prepared for cabinet by new Health Minister Sussan Ley was understood to drop the A$5 cut in the Medicare patient rebate, reduce the length of the freeze on the rebate (having it end July next year rather than in 2018) and scrap the $5 co-payment. In place of the co-payment, the government was looking at the Medicare schedule to see where it could send a price signal.</p>
<p>With the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-thrown-lifeline-in-fairfaxipsos-poll-20150302-13ryao.html">Fairfax-Ipsos poll</a> giving him a buffer for the moment and the leadership moves against him at an impasse, Abbott is stepping up the approach he’s adopted after his “near-death experience” of the February spill motion that was defeated by only a modest margin.</p>
<p>This involves a cascade of announcements to send positive messages to the public and considerable internal consultation with MPs to convince backbenchers that Abbott should be given adequate time to repair.</p>
<p>The strategy also includes dashes around the country when Abbott’s not in Canberra for parliament. It’s about being seen to do a lot, listen a lot. His hope is this will push up the polls and keep the backbench in the tent.</p>
<p>The result is to reinforce the image of modern politics as a permanent election campaign, with announcements and re-announcements piling on top of each other, and trash being dumped.</p>
<p>Last week the line from those wanting a leadership change was that the backbench felt the task was now up to the ministers. But they aren’t taking it up at the moment.</p>
<p>Trade Minister Andrew Robb on Monday declared the dissidents should “pull their heads in” and, in the absence of much alternative, that’s what they are doing for now. “We are at the mercy of events,” said one.</p>
<p>That’s true for all the players – Abbott and those with aspirations. Abbott’s fortunes from now on will swing from poll to poll. While the latest Fairfax poll is helping him, future bad polls will have the opposite effect, throwing him off balance. It’s no way for a prime minister to have to live, as Julia Gillard can tell him.</p>
<p>A big question is what impact this poll-to-poll, event-to-event existence will have on the formulation of the May budget. Last year the crazy brave budget message seemed to be “to hell with the polls”. This year the polls will be well to the fore in Abbott’s thinking during budget discussions.</p>
<p>And there is a contradiction here. Thursday’s Intergenerational Report is all about the long term, which should mean making hard choices. But there is no way that Abbott – as he indicated some time ago – will allow too many tough decisions. Notably, he said on Monday that while the IGR “shows the scale of the budget problem, it also shows the extent of the progress we’ve already made”.</p>
<p>Assuming he is still leader by then, Abbott needs a budget that does not push down the polls or upset the Senate too much.</p>
<p>Which brings us to Clive Palmer. Just to rattle the government’s cage, Palmer announced on Monday that the two Palmer United Party senators would not vote on any legislation until the government “chaos” ended.</p>
<p>“The government’s proposals seem to change daily. The policies are not consistent, party in-fighting and conflict is ongoing and as a result our party has decided as a bloc in the Senate to abstain from voting on any legislation proposals.”</p>
<p>Palmer, just to stir a bit more, also pointed to the Liberals’ internal argument over financial transparency and accountability, which will be before Friday’s federal executive meeting.</p>
<p>“For the Palmer United Party to vote on any proposals, the chaos needs to be resolved or we will abstain until the next election,” Palmer said.</p>
<p>Just what throwing this small grenade will mean for the government’s program is unclear. Especially as, after Palmer’s mid-morning statement, his senators in the afternoon voted to oppose the legislation dealing with union governance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38248/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The cameras were in the cabinet room on Monday, apparently so the TV stations could get footage of the new line-up after last year’s reshuffle. But Tony Abbott also wanted to get a message out – one he’s…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/382112015-03-01T10:16:38Z2015-03-01T10:16:38ZAbbott gets poll help as Bishop complicates leadership question<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73375/original/image-20150301-16188-1eqv4g6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Having Julie Bishop potentially in a leadership field imposes a restraint because of the uncertainty of the result.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Ross Setford</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Liberal MPs gather for more testing days in parliament, a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-thrown-lifeline-in-fairfaxipsos-poll-20150301-13ryao.html">Fairfax/Ipsos poll</a> showing improvement in the ratings of both the Coalition and the prime minister should help Tony Abbott fireproof himself for the moment.</p>
<p>The two-party vote has the Coalition up three points since January – it now trails Labor 49-51%. The Coalition’s primary vote is 42%, up four points, with Labor falling four points to 36%.</p>
<p>Abbott’s disapproval has fallen five points to 62%; his approval has climbed three points to 32%.</p>
<p>Bill Shorten’s approval is down and his disapproval up; while he leads as preferred prime minister, 44-39%, the gap has narrowed with Abbott rising five points and Shorten falling by six points.</p>
<p>The trend of the poll (of 1406 voters and taken Thursday to Saturday) is similar to that of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/newspoll-tony-abbott-rallies-coalition-at-four-month-high/story-fn59nqld-1227236213786">last week’s Newspoll</a>, enabling Abbott backers to argue that the latter was not just a one-off correction and the prime minister should be given a reasonable time to show he can improve.</p>
<p>A push last Thursday by some Turnbull supporters to get a vote this week – based on the argument it should be before the NSW election and the budget – appears to have receded, as the situation has become more complex with signals from Julie Bishop that she would be a candidate if the race came on. The Bishop view is that the party would want a genuine contest, rather than a stitched-up deal, if there was to be a leadership change. </p>
<p>Having Bishop potentially in the field imposes a restraint because of the uncertainty of the result, strengthening the argument for waiting-and-seeing. The caveat is that the Liberal Party at the moment is highly unpredictable, making people reluctant to totally rule out anything.</p>
<p>In a three way contest – Turnbull, Bishop and Abbott – anything could happen.</p>
<p>Around the time of the unsuccessful spill motion it seemed Bishop would not run if the leadership were opened.</p>
<p>If the leadership uncertainty continued for a considerable time, Social Services Minister Scott Morrison could also come into contention as a candidate favoured by the right and pushed by conservative commentators.</p>
<p>Turnbull said on Sunday that Abbott had his “absolute support. People should assume, everyone should assume, Tony Abbott will lead the Liberal party from now right through to the election”. Campaigning for the Baird government, Turnbull said the key focus for the next four weeks was the NSW election on March 28.</p>
<p>In the Fairfax poll Turnbull remains the preferred Liberal leader, on 39%, up four points since November.</p>
<p>Bishop’s support has increased by four points to 24%; Abbott has fallen one point to 19%.</p>
<p>Among Coalition voters Abbott leads Turnbull 38-30%, with Bishop on 21%. But Abbott’s rating has fallen three points among these voters since November while Turnbull’s support has risen by six points and Bishop’s by two points. One of the challenges for Turnbull is that he is consistently more popular with Labor than conservative voters.</p>
<p>Bishop gets more support from women voters (30%) than from men (19%).</p>
<p>When people were asked to compare the attributes of Abbott and Turnbull, the prime minister came off poorly across the board.</p>
<p>Abbott lagged behind Turnbull on the ability to make things happen (43-56%); having a clear vision of Australia’s future (42-58%); competence (39-74%); having a firm grasp of economic policy (38-70%); trustworthiness (36-55%); openness to ideas (35-69%); being a strong leader (33-60%); having a firm grasp of social policy (29-64%); and having the confidence of his party (21-52%). Abbott was seen as more inclined than Turnbull to be easily influenced by minority groups (30-23%).</p>
<p>Abbott’s rating has fallen generally on the attributes since the question was last asked in December. He has tumbled 32 points on having the confidence of his party, and 11 points on competence.</p>
<p>Cabinet meets on Monday, when it is expected to review the general political situation as well as dealing with specific items as Abbott seeks to shore up his position with policy initiatives.</p>
<p>Abbott is set to make an announcement soon on the fate of the unpopular Medicare co-payment, with speculation that it will be ditched. Consultations have been underway with the medical profession. He said at the weekend: “Those consultations are continuing, but at some point in time I’d certainly expect to have more to say.” Dumping the co-payment is complicated because of the revenue forfeited and that proceeds were supposed to go into a new medical research fund.</p>
<p>A new commitment to Iraq, initially foreshadowed by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, is due to be announced this week. On Thursday, the Intergenerational Report, underlining the budgetary challenge over several decades, will be released.</p>
<p>On Sunday, appearing for Clean Up Australia Day, Abbott was again bombarded with leadership questions. Asked whether it would not be in the country’s best interests for him to just stand down, he said: “This is just recycled rubbish and on a day like Clean Up Australia Day, let’s put it in the bag and get rid of it”.</p>
<p>Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, asked on the ABC whether there was any prospect of the leadership coming to a head again this week, said: “I hope not. Look, there’s certainly going to be members of my own side who want to see a change in leader.</p>
<p>"But I don’t think anything the prime minister does will convince them that he should stay in the role.</p>
<p>"If he delivered the Gettysburg address, if he won a Nobel Prize, they’d still take the position that they want a change in leader.” But Frydenberg said he believed “that is a minority view”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38211/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
As Liberal MPs gather for more testing days in parliament, a Fairfax/Ipsos poll showing improvement in the ratings of both the Coalition and the prime minister should help Tony Abbott fireproof himself…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/381572015-02-27T00:47:35Z2015-02-27T00:47:35ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Abbott’s leadership<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pfoq0mtcmuQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including the New South Wales state election, if Tony Abbott is likely to be replaced and who would gain from a leadership transition to Malcolm Turnbull.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38157/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including the New South Wales state election, if Tony Abbott is likely to be replaced and who would gain from a leadership transition to Malcolm Turnbull.Stephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of CanberraMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/380382015-02-27T00:00:13Z2015-02-27T00:00:13ZWhy Credlin is seen to have gone too far as PM’s right-hand woman<p>Criticism of Peta Credlin, the prime minister’s chief of staff, has been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/tony-abbott-in-command-but-is-peta-credlin-in-control/story-e6frg6z6-1227233035933">making headlines</a>. Is she acting as a lightning rod for Prime Minister Tony Abbott, providing a safer way to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-angers-backbench-with-dismissive-slapdown-20150225-13nchd.html">vent frustrations</a> with him and the Coalition government? Or is it her behaviour that is problematic?</p>
<p>The more interesting question is what the public criticism says about our attitudes to women and political power. Traditionally, leadership roles have been gendered male. This is particularly the case with political leadership roles.</p>
<p>We associate political leaders with the “agentic” qualities of ambition, dominance, assertiveness and confidence, qualities that map onto the traditional gender norm for male behaviour. The traditional gender norms for women are “communal” qualities such as helpfulness, concern for others, warmth or collaboration. These <a href="https://hbr.org/2007/09/women-and-the-labyrinth-of-leadership">do not readily align</a> with our notion of what a political leader should be.</p>
<p>Women in political leadership roles face a “double bind”: if they behave according to what we expect of a political leader, they transgress the norms or qualities a woman should exhibit. <a href="http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/%7Esearch1/pdf/Eagley_Role_Conguity_Theory.pdf">Studies</a> <a href="https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/courses/PSYC-309-clwilkins/week4/Heilman.%20et%20al.2004.pdf">show</a> that when female political leaders are strong, assertive and dominant, we do not see them as “likeable”, but if they are collaborative, helpful or emotional we do not see them as “leaderly”. This is especially true in adversarial Westminster political systems.</p>
<h2>Deputy’s fine, but not in charge</h2>
<p>Australians seem to be more comfortable with women in subsidiary political roles. Julie Bishop has <a href="http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/12/10/star-performer-julie-bishop-tops-poll/">received much praise</a> for being a competent and sensible deputy Liberal leader. This was also the case for Julia Gillard, who was <a href="http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated/">liked and widely admired</a> as Labor’s deputy leader. </p>
<p>It appears that we can accept and respect women who occupy a deputy role as they are subordinate to the ultimate position of power.</p>
<p>It is interesting to remember the respect and approbation Gillard received as deputy leader, which vanished when she assumed the role of prime minister. As prime minister, she <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/why-should-we-bail-julia-gillard-out/story-e6frfhqf-1226633372151">was criticised</a> as lacking the competence and qualities necessary for successful political leadership. By moving to the top leadership role, she challenged our notions of gender and power and transgressed our expectations.</p>
<p>Credlin’s position as chief of staff is ancillary to, or assisting, the ultimately powerful leader, a traditionally acceptable position for women in politics. Not only are we comfortable with women as assistants or deputies, but this is a role in which they are seen as being able to wield power effectively. </p>
<p>In The Australian, John Lyons <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/when-peta-credlin-stole-joe-hockeys-budget-thunder/story-fn59nsif-1227233169678">concludes</a> that Credlin “may well be the most powerful woman ever seen in Australian public life”. That Credlin would be seen as more powerful than Gillard had been as prime minister reinforces the idea that women are most effective in subsidiary roles, and are less competent when exercising power in their own right.</p>
<p>The criticism of Credlin appears to be that she has been too controlling of her principal and has acted autonomously, wielding power in her own right rather than as the agent of her prime minister. This suggests she has transgressed the role of assistant and has moved, uncomfortably for us, into a position of political leadership.</p>
<p>Much of this discomfort is also about transgressing the role of political adviser, an unelected position close to leaders but without any legitimate power except as the agent of a minister or prime minister. The conduct and influence of political advisers, largely unseen by the public, causes <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-25/moran-digging-ministerial-advisors-accountability/4650306">considerable anxiety</a> within our polity.</p>
<p>However, there is clearly also a gender dimension to the criticism of Credlin. We still have a deep ambivalence about women occupying political leadership positions. It is something that Julie Bishop needs to think carefully about, should she <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/julie-bishop-reportedly-refused-to-rule-out-challenging-tony-abbott/story-fncynjr2-1227205864761">aim for the top job</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38038/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Maley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Peta Credlin is in the classic “double bind” of all women in power: if they take charge, they transgress the gendered expectations that “female qualities” are best suited to a supporting role.Maria Maley, Lecturer in Politics, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/380882015-02-26T19:30:25Z2015-02-26T19:30:25ZGrattan on Friday: Liberals sweat over timing of next tilt against Abbott<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73175/original/image-20150226-1765-24wuan.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Tony Abbott is facing further threats of a leadership spill. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Canberra, thanks to politics being its main industry and the politicians being non-residents, is the quintessential fishbowl. When a leadership change is contemplated, people watch keenly to see who dines out with whom.</p>
<p>So it was duly noted when Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt were together on Wednesday at a restaurant on the Kingston foreshore.</p>
<p>Turnbull is the alternative to Abbott. Morrison, the new social services minister, would be treasurer in a Turnbull government.</p>
<p>And Hunt? Remember he and Malcolm were hand in glove on emissions trading all those years ago.</p>
<p>“Maybe they were discussing the impact of climate change on social security,” quipped one sceptic.</p>
<p>In Canberra, the question on Liberals’ lips is not if Abbott will be replaced, but when.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73176/original/image-20150226-1795-82c1q9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A poster of Abbott parodying Barack Obama’s 2008 ‘Hope’ campaign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Thursday, the pressure grew with Turnbull supporters saying that leaving it until after the budget will be too late and action should be taken next week, which would also be helpful for the New South Wales election. Those putting the delay argument are worried about getting in front of opinion in the party’s rank and file outside parliament.</p>
<p>After he headed off the spill motion earlier this month, the balance of opinion was that Abbott wouldn’t be able to regroup. That’s proved the case.</p>
<p>Abbott is being undermined by strategic leaks and, in the brutal way of these things, they’ll continue unremittingly.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/former-liberal-president-tells-partys-executive-to-settle-down-38054">Leaked emails</a> written by the party’s federal treasurer Philip Higginson – who claimed to be so frustrated by its direction he’s resigning his position – dramatically highlighted the conflict of interest in having Peta Credlin and her husband Brian Loughnane running the Prime Minister’s Office and the Liberal secretariat respectively.</p>
<p>Abbott’s aggressive handling of the government’s battle with Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs – object of his vitriol because of the “Forgotten Children” report – was pitched at his conservative base inside and outside the party.</p>
<p>But it looked appalling to be bullying a woman who holds a statutory position and is standing up for children. Turnbull pointedly distanced himself from the tactics.</p>
<p>On the policy front, there was blowback from a proposal to charge foreign homebuyers an impost. A new Australian troop commitment to Iraq was effectively announced by the New Zealand prime minister, John Key, rather than by Abbott – who apparently wants to take it to the party room in his new consultative style.</p>
<p>The unsuccessful spill motion was driven by a rag tag crew of backbenchers, who mustered a hefty 40% of the party room.</p>
<p>The focus is moving up the chain. “This is now up to the generals, as in cabinet ministers,” says one MP. “If there is a problem they think needs fixing, they’ll have to step up.”</p>
<p>The ministers are in the “talking” stage. Some will see opportunities, others find themselves caught in the middle, and there’ll be those filled with fear.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73178/original/image-20150226-1765-och7wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julie Bishop answering a question by impersonating an emoji on Channel Nine’s Today program.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Channel Nine</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop is awkwardly placed. She’s faded as an alternative to Abbott, and had a bad parliamentary week, stumbling on questions about the Triggs affair. But she appears to keep her options open, and is much in the public eye, one minute the serious, measured voice on foreign affairs, the next doing what BuzzFeed Australia <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/emoji-plomacy#.mpEY0BYBOx">described</a> as the “world’s first political emoji interview”.</p>
<p>Morrison’s leadership ambitions are manifest, and he’s using his new portfolio to parade his talents and completely remodel the harsh face of his border control days. His support in the party is increasing but his time is not yet; becoming Turnbull’s treasurer should suit the 46-year-old just fine.</p>
<p>Turnbull has some useful associations among his senior colleagues. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane was his negotiator with the Rudd government over the emissions trading legislation in 2009 before it all ended with Turnbull’s demise and Abbott’s elevation.</p>
<p>Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, indefatigably spruiking for Abbott before the spill motion, also has links with Turnbull, to whom he turned for help with Clive Palmer in some Senate bargaining. Cormann could expect to move up the Senate hierarchy under a shakeup.</p>
<p>Those wanting leadership change think Education Minister Christopher Pyne is ready for it, and believe Immigration Minister Peter Dutton would assess the situation pragmatically.</p>
<p>But there’d be losers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/73179/original/image-20150226-1799-2jledc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Joe Hockey on Thursday.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Joe Hockey prepares to release next week a snapshot of nation’s long term future, half his mind will be on a more immediate and personal timeframe. Under a leadership switch, he’d be out of Treasury. Would he get a ministry? Would he storm off to the backbench if he were offered one? On any scenario, his outlook would be bleak.</p>
<p>That of Defence Minister Kevin Andrews would likely be even bleaker.</p>
<p>The less-than-impressive Senate leadership team, Eric Abetz and George Brandis – it was <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/a-fatal-perception-of-bias-george-brandis-admits-he-asked-gillian-triggs-to-resign-20150224-13n59y.html">another bad week for Brandis</a> – would be fretting just now.</p>
<p>And Andrew Robb, regardless of performing well as trade minister, would be apprehensive at the thought of a return to Turnbull, to whom he delivered a lethal blow in the struggle of 2009.</p>
<p>When MPs come back next week, the high level “conversations” will intensify. Their end point we don’t know, but one thing is clear – the command-and-control regime run by Credlin, Abbott’s chief of staff, will not be able to contain them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38088/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When a leadership change is contemplated, people watch keenly to see who dines out with whom. So it was duly noted when Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and Greg Hunt were together on Wednesday.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/379382015-02-23T12:34:22Z2015-02-23T12:34:22ZCredlin crisis escalates with an outburst by the Liberal Party’s treasurer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72776/original/image-20150223-32223-wjqzbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief of staff Peta Credlin has once again come under fire.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Karlis Salna</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tony Abbott’s leadership is now so fragile that he seems nearly beyond being able to rebalance himself.</p>
<p>Abbott is the victim of leaks and general destabilisation, and the continued miscalculations by himself and his office.</p>
<p>The Liberals’ crisis over Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin, escalates by the day. You wonder how it can go on without exploding at some point.</p>
<p>The most recent leak is of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-24/leaked-emails-expose-split-in-liberal-party-executive/6232812">Sunday correspondence</a> from the party’s federal treasurer Philip Higginson to Liberal federal executive members, demanding something be done about the conflict in having Credlin in her position and her husband Brian Loughnane the party’s federal director.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72777/original/image-20150223-32247-369fuz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liberal Party federal treasurer Philip Higginson.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Liberal.org.au</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Higginson wrote: “Conflict of interest is a serious problem between the federal secretariat (responsible to the organisational wing) and the PMO (responsible to the parliamentary wing who is governing) and I find the situation if it weren’t so serious almost amusing.</p>
<p>"How this party ever let a husband and wife team into those two key roles, where collegiate competitive tension is mandatory and private consultations between colleagues to see that each side is served well, is a complete mystery … The persons in our party’s history that allowed it to occur should hang their collective heads in shame.”</p>
<p>Higginson is also highly critical of the difficulty he had in getting senior party figures to give him the details and authorities to enable him to sign off on large amounts of party expenditure.</p>
<p>Higginson is described by Liberal sources as a straight shooter, an expert on corporate governance who puts store on proper processes, and someone who is “blindly committed” to Abbott.</p>
<p>So one would think his outburst is likely to have a significant impact.</p>
<p>Abbott is hoping the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politics-news/newspoll-tony-abbott-rallies-coalition-at-four-month-high/story-fn59nqld-1227236213786">latest Newspoll</a>, published in Tuesday’s Australian, might bring a touch of relief. Surprisingly, given what’s been happening, the Coalition primary vote rose three points, while the ALP fell three points.</p>
<p>The government trails 47-53% in two-party terms – compared with 43-57% a fortnight ago. Dissatisfaction with Bill Shorten has increased sharply, although he is still well ahead of Abbott as better prime minister. Some 77% believe Abbott arrogant and only one-third of people believe he’s in touch with voters.</p>
<p>The trouble for Abbott is that these days he never knows what will turn up next to throw him off course.</p>
<p>Consider the strange story of his alleged thought bubble about Australia unilaterally invading Iraq.</p>
<p>John Lyons in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/tony-abbott-sought-military-advice-on-go-it-alone-invasion-of-iraq/story-fnpdbcmu-1227233174095">The Weekend Australian</a> reported that Abbott “suggested a unilateral invasion of Iraq, with 3500 Australian ground troops to confront the Islamic State terrorist group”.</p>
<p>Lyons said Abbott put this during a meeting in Canberra on November 25, where he was flanked by Credlin.</p>
<p>“After receiving no resistance from Ms Credlin or his other staff in the room, Mr Abbott then raised the idea with Australia’s leading military planners,” the story said. “The military officials were stunned, telling Mr Abbott that sending 3500 Australian soldiers without any US or NATO cover would be disastrous for the Australians.”</p>
<p>All very specific, and highly damaging. There is much irony in some of the heftiest recent blows to Abbott being delivered by The Australian, from which previously he had so much enthusiastic support.</p>
<p>At the weekend, Abbott repeatedly described the report as fanciful and false, though he appeared to leave himself a let out when he said: “I have lots of conversations with lots of people at lots of different times but the idea there was a meeting in late November where I formally asked for advice and formally suggested that a large Australian force should go unilaterally to Iraq is wrong – just wrong”.</p>
<p>The Saturday story had come as a bolt from the blue to Defence Department secretary Dennis Richardson and chief of the Australian Defence Force Mark Binskin.</p>
<p>They talked to each other, scratched their heads, and consulted colleagues – anyone who might be seen as a “leading military planner”. Both rejected the report, with Richardson at the weekend describing it as “piffle”.</p>
<p>By Monday the story was being carpet bombed. Richardson and Binskin issued a joint statement, saying that “at no point has the Prime Minister raised that idea with the ADF and/or the Department of Defence, formally or informally, directly or indirectly”.</p>
<p>In parliament, Shorten’s first question to Abbott asked whether he had “ever participated in any discussions where a unilateral deployment of Australian troops to Iraq was considered”.</p>
<p>Abbott was unequivocal. “No, I have not,” he declared, before reading the Binskin/Richardson statement to the House.</p>
<p>Lyons stood by his account. He told Sky most of those who’d said the story wasn’t true – and specifically Binskin – weren’t at the November meeting, which he described as informal.</p>
<p>But Defence sources insist if the suggestion had been made to military people, Binkson and Richardson would have heard about it.</p>
<p>Lyons said Abbott was playing “a dangerous game” – it was “unwise of him” to be making such an outright denial in parliament.</p>
<p>It certainly would be unwise if his denial was not watertight – which his office insists it is.</p>
<p>Parliamentary conventions might not be what they once were, but if the prime minister were caught misleading parliament, he’d be in a political crisis of massive proportions. It would be a resigning offence.</p>
<p>The focus of Lyons’ series was Abbott’s office, especially Credlin, with whom he spent more than two hours.</p>
<p>Just why Credlin – who has recently been keeping out of the limelight in an effort to reduce backbench and ministerial criticism of her – agreed to such an extensive session is a mystery, especially if her memory stretched back to Lyons’ scathing report on Kevin Rudd’s dysfunctional office.</p>
<p>Supposedly Credlin wanted to get the facts straight – one of which is that she insists she is staying put. Perhaps the Lyons articles would have been even worse if she hadn’t co-operated. But the result will be to further anger her critics.</p>
<p>Meanwhile Abbott continues to score own goals. His Monday security statement was supposed to play to one area of strength for him.</p>
<p>Yet Abbott included the lines: “I’ve often heard Western leaders describe Islam as a ‘religion of peace’. I wish more Muslim leaders would say that more often, and mean it.” The reaction from Muslim leaders was predictable.</p>
<p>The worst interpretation is that Abbott was seeking to tap into anti-Muslim feeling in the general community. The more benign one is that he and his office are unable to get anything right.</p>
<p>After all, ASIO and the police are regularly going out of their way to be positive about the assistance that has come from the Muslim community in the fight against terrorism.</p>
<p>Abbott could have easily praised what Muslim leaders had done so far and expressed the hope that, in a climate of increasing threat, such help would continue and grow.</p>
<p>So easy. Well, for Abbott and his advisers, apparently not so easy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37938/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Tony Abbott’s leadership is now so fragile that he seems nearly beyond being able to rebalance himself. Abbott is the victim of leaks and general destabilisation, and the continued miscalculations by himself…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378022015-02-19T19:36:41Z2015-02-19T19:36:41ZGrattan on Friday: Hockey wants a conversation – can he get the public to listen?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72463/original/image-20150219-24252-ac5dmr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With the intergenerational report, Joe Hockey is asking the Australian public to lift their eyes from the here-and-now and look a few decades on. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dean Lewins</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As it prepares to release the Intergenerational Report and put together its second budget, the Abbott government is headed into a perfect storm.</p>
<p>It has minimal political capital. The futures of the prime minister and treasurer hang by a thread. The <a href="essentialvision.com.au/category/essentialreport">polls are bad</a> and the backbench skittish. A politically smelly bundle of baggage remains from the 2014 budget. And the economy is somewhat worse than might have been expected.</p>
<p>Joe Hockey is asking the Australian public to lift their eyes from the here-and-now and look a few decades on. But, in light of the politics, he and Tony Abbott will have to be thinking about a very short timeframe.</p>
<p>Hockey <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/spiralling-debt-no-legacy-for-your-children-warns-joe-hockey/story-fn59niix-1227225344810&memtype=anonymous">said on Thursday</a> that the Intergenerational Report (IGR) – “a compact between the generations” – is different from previous ones.</p>
<p>“It is a very genuine attempt by the Treasury, in an unprecedented way, to launch a conversation about Australia’s future,” Hockey told the NSW Business Chamber.</p>
<p>“It will be a genuine community conversation about actions that not only protect our current way of life, but protect it for the next generation, and the next, and the next.”</p>
<p>Let’s not dispute that good policy needs to look to the future. Let’s not deny that an ageing population, economic and fiscal trends, and past spending and revenue decisions present serious challenges. But let’s also have a reality check on the treasurer’s rhetoric.</p>
<p>The government proposes an interactive advertising campaign to get public feedback after the IGR’s release, expected in the first week of March.</p>
<p>Asked about the detail, the treasurer’s office said there will be “an information campaign to ensure everyone has access [to the IGR material]”. It will “call for the community to give us their views on how to address the challenges we face”. </p>
<p>Is this a mini-version of what Campbell Newman had around his “Queensland plan”? That didn’t do him much good.</p>
<p>The trouble is the government has poisoned the well. People may just view the “conversation” as a stunt, apart from the predictable controversy about spending public money on it. Having exaggerated both the extent of the fiscal crisis and its ability to chart a credible path to surplus, the government is likely to find suspicion of whatever it says.</p>
<p>The other difficulty is that while people do think about the future for their children, they also apply a discount the further they gaze down the time tunnel. For example, when they’re confronted with a co-payment, backed by the argument that a price signal will help make Medicare sustainable, they think about the current pain rather than a later problem.</p>
<p>And politics increasingly plays to the present not the future. That’s certainly the case with the Senate crossbench, which has left the government with hard decisions to make within weeks on items it can’t get through parliament.</p>
<p>These include the Medicare price signal, a welfare crackdown for young people and future pension changes. If it abandons these, the government won’t just be denying the message of the IGR but, more to the immediate point, taking billions of “savings” (albeit notional) out of its budget forward estimates. No wonder Hockey wants to keep the measures in play.</p>
<p>Abbott has reassured the public the 2015 budget won’t be hard on households, like the last one was. He knows that politically it can’t afford to be, while economically a fragile economy must be treated with care.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Abbott will try to make the government more voter-friendly with a childcare package set to cost money rather than save it.</p>
<p>Even this contains a test for the government. The Productivity Commission has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/19/abbott-government-considers-childcare-benefits-shake-up-favouring-low-earners">recommended</a> childcare benefits be combined into a single, means-tested payment, which would reduce – though not eliminate – the current subsidy for higher-income families.</p>
<p>The government is damned either way. Cutting the subsidy for wealthier people would be politically unpopular with many voters. The government could justify rejecting that by saying it wanted to encourage, not discourage, female participation in the workforce – but this would open it to the criticism it wasn’t fair dinkum about containing big spending programs.</p>
<p>Saul Eslake, chief economist with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, says that given the weaknesses in economic growth, it is right for the government in the coming budget to allow the deficit to blow out somewhat in the short term.</p>
<p>But Eslake says the government needs to chart a longer-term path back to surplus and if it is to avoid “unfairness” (the charge levelled against the 2014 budget) that requires knocking out some concessions and loopholes enjoyed by higher-income earners.</p>
<p>“The long-term problem with the budget is arguably more on the revenue side than on the spending side,” Eslake says. “Government spending is 1% of GDP above the average for the Howard years. Revenue is 2.25% of GDP below the average of the Howard years.”</p>
<p>Eslake nominates among areas that should be looked at superannuation tax breaks, negative gearing, the capital gains tax discount and the use of trusts. Inclusion of the family home in the assets tests for the pension (prospectively, not for current pensioners) also should be considered, he says.</p>
<p>The government’s sensitivity was obvious this week from its response to a report that the latter measure was being discussed. Social Services Minister Scott Morrison blitzed the media to rule out any such move. </p>
<p>Apart from anything else, speculation about including the family home in the pension assets test would have been highly damaging in the run-up to the late-March NSW election.</p>
<p>The result in that state will be another factor potentially feeding into the budget preparation. A hefty swing against the Baird government – which is running partly on the unpopular issue of privatising poles and wires – would further destabilise Abbott.</p>
<p>By the way, in Canberra they’re looking at some privatisation too. They are thinking of selling the Treasury building. No, that is not a joke.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37802/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As it prepares to release the Intergenerational Report and put together its second budget, the government is facing a perfect storm.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/376682015-02-16T13:38:52Z2015-02-16T13:38:52ZTurnbull isn’t challenging – just inviting the Liberals to make the comparison<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72130/original/image-20150216-18456-y2dcw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull showed off his leadership skill set on Q&A. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ABC</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Malcolm Turnbull walked the high wire in a masterful Q&A performance on Monday night, as he displayed his credentials for leadership.</p>
<p>Turnbull was neither loyal nor disloyal to Tony Abbott. He ran the government’s case but managed to stand apart from the prime minister. He made his dissent on certain matters crystal clear by simply digging in and refusing to be drawn. He didn’t need to be overtly critical. It was all in the tone, the comparison.</p>
<p>It was a risky decision to appear on the program, where trapping politicians is the name of the game. The fact that Turnbull chose to do so – a week after the spill motion against Abbott was headed off but with the prime minister still floundering – told a story in itself.</p>
<p>Turnbull won’t declare his mission, but the message is, I’m available, and I’m showing you my leader’s skill set. </p>
<p>At the start of the program, Turnbull sounded prime ministerial when speaking about the two men facing execution in Indonesia. </p>
<p>“If I can address this to the Indonesian government – it is not a sign of weakness to spare the lives of these men. Yes, they have committed very terrible crimes. Yes, they knew that the death penalty was there if they were caught and found guilty. But it is not weak to spare their lives. It is a sign of the strongest love, the greatest mercy when you extend it to those who least deserve it.”</p>
<p>Brought back to domestic politics, Turnbull spoke for many in the Liberal Party with his paean of praise for sacked whip Philip Ruddock.</p>
<p>Abbott, Turnbull said, “is entitled to appoint and replace the chief whip as and when he wishes.</p>
<p>"It was Tony’s call … he is the one who has to explain it but I just want to say I think Philip Ruddock is a great Liberal, a great parliamentarian and it was a very sad day for all of us when we learnt his services as chief whip had been terminated by the prime minister.”</p>
<p>And then the killer line: “[Tony] is the captain – he can make a captain’s call”.</p>
<p>On the Human Rights Commission report about children in detention, Turnbull was armed with figures to strongly press the government’s argument – how the numbers incarcerated have dropped dramatically.</p>
<p>But Turnbull wasn’t signing up to the vitriolic attack by Abbott and ministers on the commission and its president Gillian Triggs for being “blatantly partisan”.</p>
<p>“The real issue is the children … I’m not going to run a commentary on my colleagues.”</p>
<p>Abbott boasted last week he was good at fighting Labor. Turnbull, by his challenges to fellow panellist Labor’s Catherine King to state Labor’s stand on the general budgetary problem, sent the message that he too can take the battle up to the opposition.</p>
<p>Besides, in turning on King, Turnbull neatly avoided the questioning about the thorny subject of Abbott’s chief of staff, Peta Credlin.</p>
<p>Pushed on the government’s budget failures, Turnbull admitted the key point – and then soared into a moment of extravagant Malcolmesque indulgence.</p>
<p>“The fact that we haven’t been able to get a lot of this through means that mistakes have been made.” Turnbull invoked “the great lawmaker Solon who wrote the first laws of Athens”, who was apparently a pragmatist about having laws accepted.</p>
<p>“You have to get your laws through, you have to get the public to accept them, the parliament to accept them. We just have to do a better job of advocacy,” Turnbull said.</p>
<p>The ideal dorothy dixer came at the end: how do you restore faith in the political process?</p>
<p>Set out a vision, said Turnbull, describe where you want to go.</p>
<p>“What is your goal? You have to explain that. That’s absolutely critical.</p>
<p>"Then you’ve got to explain honestly, not dumbing it down, honestly, the problems that we face. What is the problem with the budget? What is the problem with dealing with the NBN … pick a topic but explain it and lay it out factually and then lay out what the options are.”</p>
<p>“I think government and opposition should be prepared to put their cards on the table, and actually have a debate about the measures. You never know, out of that debate, you might come up with a third solution that is better than either of those that are originally proposed.”</p>
<p>Ramming home (to viewers) his reasonableness and (to colleagues) his potential electoral appeal, Turnbull observed that “Australian political contests are won or lost at the sensible centre”.</p>
<p>Politicians had to “treat the people with respect”. Not throw slogans at them or pretend problems didn’t exist.</p>
<p>“The challenge for us as political communicators is to take complex problems and explain them in a clear way, not in a simplistic way. We have got to be much better at explaining the problems, because once you’ve explained the problem, people will accept the need for a solution and then you’ll have a competition about what the right solution is.”</p>
<p>Turnbull made the political fight sound almost civilised.</p>
<p>Earlier on Monday, a radio interviewer asked Abbott: </p>
<p>“What are you going to do with Malcolm Turnbull? It’s like, you are the captain and you have got a bloke who has his eyes on your job and he has always had his eyes on the prime ministership. Do you resent his open ambition?”</p>
<p>To which the prime minister gave the rather extraordinary reply: “Well, no, I encourage it. I encourage it.”</p>
<p><strong>Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast with guest, Nobel laureate and a council member of the Australian Academy of Science <a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/e/brian-schmidt/">Brian Schmidt, here</a>.</strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/icjt3-53d50c/initByJs/1/auto/1" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37668/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Malcolm Turnbull walked the high wire in a masterful Q&A performance on Monday night, as he displayed his credentials for leadership. Turnbull was neither loyal nor disloyal to Tony Abbott. He ran…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/376212015-02-15T11:08:47Z2015-02-15T11:08:47ZAbbott set to ramp up national security armoury<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72042/original/image-20150215-13203-n2t1iv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tony Abbott still seems to be going backwards after heading off last week's backbench attempt to get a spill.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Nikki Short</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Embattled on most fronts, Tony Abbott is switching attention to national security, with a statement on Monday week foreshadowing tougher measures.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV6MGCNEsDA">Sunday’s weekly video</a>, the prime minister stepped up the rhetoric, declaring that “it’s clear to me that for too long we have given those who might be a threat to our country the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>"There’s been the benefit of the doubt at our borders, the benefit of the doubt for residency, the benefit of the doubt for citizenship and the benefit of the doubt at Centrelink,” Abbott said. “And in the courts, there has been bail, when clearly there should have been jail.”</p>
<p>Australia was a free and fair nation but “that doesn’t mean we should let bad people play us for mugs, and all too often they have. Well, that’s going to stop.”</p>
<p>The government has two reports. After the Lindt cafe siege, Abbott ordered an inquiry; previously, he commissioned a review of the governance and co-ordination of security agencies.</p>
<p>The idea of an over-arching homeland security department has long disappeared; the co-ordination review is believed to reaffirm the existing structures with fairly minor tinkering.</p>
<p>Changes following the siege are expected to be in the areas of immigration, social security and the legal system.</p>
<p>Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the government had been looking at tightening procedures and processes and how stories presented to authorities could be better checked out.</p>
<p>The gunman in the Martin Place siege, Man Haron Monis, slipped through various nets, including being on bail despite having been charged with serious offences.</p>
<p>Last week, Abbott highlighted the security issue after two men were arrested for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack. Abbott quoted from a video recording about the plan, in which one of the men said: “I swear to almighty Allah, we will carry out the first operation for the soldiers of the caliphate in Australia”.</p>
<p>While the security issue is regarded as strong ground for him, more generally Abbott still seems to be going backwards after heading off last week’s backbench attempt to get a spill.</p>
<p>Abbott’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-dumps-ruddock-as-chief-whip-37590">decision to sack party veteran</a> Philip Ruddock from the position of chief government whip has shocked many Liberals.</p>
<p>On the Bolt Report, Abbott blamed the whip’s office under Ruddock for not flagging the backbench revolt to him.</p>
<p>Abbott said that last year he was so focused on economic and national security issues he didn’t have enough time to talk to his colleagues. This had been “a terrible mistake”; “a terrible failing”.</p>
<p>“It’s not something that I’m ever going to repeat. And one of the reasons why I’ve made some changes to the whip’s office is because I do want a much stronger relationship with the backbench in the future than I’ve had in the recent past,” Abbott said.</p>
<p>“Plainly, I wasn’t as aware as I should have been of all of this. I never want to find myself in this position ever again.”</p>
<p>Abbott said that with the revamped whips’ team – including new chief whip Scott Buchholz, who was promoted, and Abbott loyalist Andrew Nikolic, appointed to the team – he was confident “I will be very much aware of what’s going on inside the party”.</p>
<p>But critics point out it hardly needed Ruddock to tell Abbott there was discontent on the backbench. And anyway, even if he was unhappy with Ruddock, why would Abbott go out of his way to publicly humiliate the veteran “Father of the House” at a time when his prime ministership is hanging by a thread?</p>
<p>Ruddock made Abbott look worse when he said on Sunday that the whip’s position “is the prime minister’s choice and if he had any concerns I would expect him to raise them with me”.</p>
<p>Bishop told Sky that Abbott “has many avenues to engage with the backbench”, of which the whip’s office was one.</p>
<p>There is some division on the backbench about Abbott’s move on Ruddock.</p>
<p>West Australian Liberal MP Ken Wyatt said he was disappointed at the decision and it was “strange” that it came so soon after the spill motion. “Philip is straight down the line. Everybody I know had confidence in going to him.”</p>
<p>Queenslander Andrew Laming said that “it looked more like recrimination than renewal because of the timing”.</p>
<p>But Warren Entsch, who was whip in opposition, said it was a very good move on Abbott’s part. Ruddock had been a square peg in a round hole, he said. “[The whip] has to be very pastoral and bring the team together – Philip didn’t do that.”</p>
<p>Now “you will find the [whip’s] office will come alive again. People need to be comfortable to go in there and share their confidences,” Entsch said, noting in passing that Ruddock is a teetotaller. The whip “has got to be able to encourage people to come in and chat”.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Abbott’s lashing out at the Human Rights Commission after its critical report on children in detention has received a sharp reaction from lawyers.</p>
<p>An open letter signed by more than 50 academic lawyers in support of commission president Gillian Triggs says that a well-functioning democracy requires that the executive respect the work of independent public institutions established by parliament even if it does not agree with the specific positions adopted by them.</p>
<p>“Where this independence is threatened by politicised attacks on the office holder, our democratic system is jeopardised.”</p>
<p>Triggs, who has resisted pressure from the government to quit, received backing from independent senator Jacqui Lambie, who said “the good that the Liberals did for Australia’s border protection and national security is about to be overshadowed by the vindictive, personal attacks” launched on Triggs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37621/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Embattled on most fronts, Tony Abbott is switching attention to national security, with a statement on Monday week foreshadowing tougher measures. In Sunday’s weekly video, the prime minister stepped up…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/375852015-02-13T02:04:28Z2015-02-13T02:04:28ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Abbott’s bad week<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BjwtUmDkzLw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s bad week, the Human Rights Commission’s report on children in detention and interest rates.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Stephen Parker and Michelle Grattan discuss the week in politics including Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s bad week, the Human Rights Commission’s report on children…Stephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor, University of CanberraMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374072015-02-12T20:45:12Z2015-02-12T20:45:12ZCalls for clear political narratives ultimately demand greater honesty<p>Whenever an Australian government runs into trouble we hear calls for a clearer narrative. The latest contribution comes in a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/coalition-needs-a-heart-transplant-not-a-facelift-20150205-136hjx.html">thoughtful article</a> from Waleed Aly.</p>
<p>Aly points to the similar undermining of our last three prime ministers, all of whom seemed unable to combine public trust with the respect of their colleagues. And all of whom, he argues, sacrificed principles for short-term expediency.</p>
<p>Tony Abbott won office because of the seeming dysfunction of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, having held his party together through the repetition of simplistic slogans and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/abbott-promises-no-cuts-to-education-health/5436224">promises to maintain government programs</a>, which are now under threat.</p>
<p>This tactic has paid off handsomely for oppositions across the country. The exception is the South Australian Liberals, who failed to unseat the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-lives-to-fight-another-day-in-south-australia-24222">Labor government</a> last year. It follows the pattern across Western democracies; the only major political survivor is German Chancellor <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/ten-reasons-angela-merkel-germany-chancellor-world-most-powerful-woman">Angela Merkel</a>, who has held office since 2005.</p>
<p>Such longevity now seems almost an aberration; maybe many Australians support the monarchy from a sense that it survives the short-term nature of the political process. Calls for a convincing narrative are common across the Western world, as traditional political parties struggle to reposition themselves in a rapidly changing environment.</p>
<h2>Parties struggle for consistency</h2>
<p>Australian political parties emerged as essentially class-based. Labor, centred in the unionised workforce, faced a series of conservative parties representing business, which were able to appeal to those who identified as middle class and maintain an alliance with the rural-based Nationals. Since the Second World War no minor parties have been able to break the dominant story of politics as built around class and the role of the state, though the Greens have come closest.</p>
<p>As the workforce has changed radically – more women, fewer blue-collar workers, an expansion of service jobs and small businesses – so too has the nature of political discourse. An increasingly complex society demands more of the state while the dominant language of neoliberalism means constant pressure to reduce taxes and the ability of governments to deliver.</p>
<p>The Hawke-Keating Labor governments introduced a number of neoliberal measures, but with some concern to maintain safety nets and keep the union movement on side. The Howard Coalition government was able to introduce a GST, one of the most far-reaching tax reforms of the past few decades. But it <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/09/21/south-korea-versus-australia-our-pathetic-savings-record/?wpmp_switcher=mobile">squandered much of the gain</a> from the minerals boom in unnecessary perks for well-off voters.</p>
<p>The call for new narratives is in effect a call for greater honesty about the role of the state. Treasurer Joe Hockey touched on this when <a href="https://theconversation.com/hockeys-first-budget-redefines-the-role-of-government-in-australia-26573">he declared</a> the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-end-of-the-age-of-entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html">“age of entitlement”</a> over. Yet he then failed to acknowledge that a balanced budget requires far greater cuts to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-cut-fairly-commission-of-audit-should-look-at-tax-expenditures-23769">benefits built into our tax system</a> – for example, superannuation tax breaks and negative gearing – than his constituency would wear.</p>
<h2>Reducing the big issues to individual impact</h2>
<p>Thirty years of neoliberal rhetoric has poisoned political discussion, by reducing major issues to immediate impact on individual incomes. Abbott’s sustained <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbotts-big-victory-on-carbon-tax-has-a-tart-taste-29327">attack on the carbon tax</a>, which was designed to help combat climate change, drowned out sensible discussion of the bigger issues. </p>
<p>Labor is following suit in not acknowledging that to maintain and improve government programs will require a major overhaul of taxation. While the Gillard government took some important steps towards shifting the balance, particularly through the national disability scheme and greater funding for schools, she failed to explain clearly that this would require greater government revenue.</p>
<p>The current Coalition government has sought to spell out the costs, but its solutions are so clearly short term and biased in favour of the well-off that they have backfired.</p>
<p>Menzies and Howard benefited from a growing economy, which allowed them to satisfy their supporters without inflicting too much pain. With an ageing population and a slowing global economy, it is less clear how a party deeply connected with the interests of business can retract some of its most unpopular promises and pay for increasing demands on government.</p>
<p>A Labor narrative would involve a coherent defence of the continuing role of the state. This would be, in effect, a return to the ALP’s social democratic roots (as Andrew Scott <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-can-learn-a-lot-about-public-policy-from-the-nordic-nations-32204">has argued</a> in his book <a href="http://www.challengemagazine.com.au/northern_lights_the_positive_policy_example_of_sweden_finland_denmark_and_norway">Northern Lights</a>). Not only has the ALP ceded important moral ground to the Greens – especially in the case of asylum seekers – but the party has failed to construct a meaningful story about creating a better society which voters might trust.</p>
<p>For both sides a better narrative means more than a set of specific policies and promises of government savings and reform. It means restoring trust in the ability of government to deliver what we cannot deliver for ourselves. And that requires a defence of the public sphere, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-price-the-public-good-when-governing-parties-bow-to-markets-37046">neither side seems able to articulate</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Other articles in The Conversation’s ongoing series, “New Politics”, can be read <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/new-politics">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37407/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whenever an Australian government runs into trouble we hear calls for a clearer narrative. The latest contribution comes in a thoughtful article from Waleed Aly. Aly points to the similar undermining of…Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/375342015-02-12T20:45:08Z2015-02-12T20:45:08ZGrattan on Friday: Abbott’s ‘good government’ gets lost in another bad week<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71842/original/image-20150212-13219-1o9r9fe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been unable to turn his fortunes around this week.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If, as Tony Abbott declared, good government started on Monday then, to borrow a Gillardism, it “lost its way” well before the week’s end.</p>
<p>The days after Abbott’s “near death” experience provided no evidence he can revive a leadership now put on a warning.</p>
<p>The public muddle over submarine policy; Abbott’s continued refusal to face up to the problem of his personal office; mixed policy signals from him and Treasurer Joe Hockey; and his shrill tone in attacking the Human Rights Commission over its report on children in detention all sent bad messages.</p>
<p>On top of that, a sharp jump in unemployment – with the jobless rate rising from 6.1% to 6.4% – underlined that it will be a difficult economic year. And the instability within the government will just further harm business confidence.</p>
<p>If there was a single symbol of how out of touch Abbott seems about his precarious position, it might be his <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/12/impertinent-credlin-question-angers-pm">reply to Neil Mitchell</a> asking on Thursday whether he was going to change his controversial chief of staff Peta Credlin.</p>
<p>“That’s an impertinent question. I don’t ask you about the internal workings of your station,” Abbott said. He maintained he had a “great office”. Given how many of his MPs are feral over Credlin, if this is what he really thinks it suggests he’s in la-la land.</p>
<p>The submarine stuff-up is a complicated tale that comes down to a very simple explanation – the quest for votes. Votes in South Australia at the 2013 election. Votes against Monday’s spill motion in the party room.</p>
<p>Then-defence spokesman David Johnston went for broke before the election, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-11/shipyard-workers-warn--against-breaking-submarine-promise/6084494">declaring the Coalition was</a> “committed to building 12 new submarines here in Adelaide”. The official policy promised to ensure that the “work on the replacement of the current submarine fleet will centre around the South Australian shipyards”.</p>
<p>In government, it became clear the Coalition was looking overseas, especially to Japan, for the subs. It’s not known how far Abbott went in his discussions with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, but the Japanese believed they have the inside running.That didn’t mean there wouldn’t be considerable work for South Australia, especially maintenance. It did mean the pre-election pledge had become disposable.</p>
<p>South Australian Liberal Sean Edwards revived the issue when, in the run-up to the spill vote, he demanded an assurance that the Australian Submarine Corporation could compete for the contract. He and Abbott had different versions of what Abbott had said. </p>
<p>Later, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews gave an incomprehensible shocker of a news conference on the subject – an illustration of why Abbott should never have put him in the portfolio in the December reshuffle.</p>
<p>After Monday’s humble I’ll-be-better language in the wake of a substantial minority of Liberals indicating they wanted to see the back of him, Abbott quickly moved into macho-aggressive mode. This sometimes works for him but often leads him to go over the top.</p>
<p>In parliament on Wednesday Abbott conjured up the image of former North Korean leader Kim Jong-il bidding for the subs contract, apparently forgetting the dictator was dead; on Thursday he referred to Labor causing a “holocaust of jobs in defence industries”, for which he had to apologise.</p>
<p>Abbott also made an extravagant attack on the Human Right Commission, headed by Gillian Triggs, whose report The Forgotten Children, tabled this week, presents a damning indictment of incarceration.</p>
<p>The government held back the tabling, which should have been done late last year, and has been generally trying to besmirch Triggs.</p>
<p>The Coalition might have an issue with why the commission did not do the inquiry when Labor had many more children in detention. But for Abbott to claim a “stitch up” and say “this is a blatantly partisan, politicised exercise and the Human Rights Commission ought to be ashamed of itself” is, apart from being wrong, just political folly. Taking on a respected articulate woman speaking out for children makes him look a bully.</p>
<p>It was also unfortunate for him that on the same day there was an account of his outburst last year against his youngest backbencher.</p>
<p>Niki Savva, in her column in The Australian, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/down-periscope-abbott-torpedoes-himself/story-fnahw9xv-1227216468664">recounted how</a> Abbott, at a dinner with marginal seat holders on May 25, rounded on Wyatt Roy, member for the Queensland seat of Longman. When the MPs were invited to make comments Roy had said broken promises were the fundamental cause of the government’s problems, and suggested Abbott apologise to the people.</p>
<p>Abbott, according to Savva, yelled at Roy, “then directed his remarks to all of them that there were no effing broken promises and no one should concede there had been”.</p>
<p>Asked about this in question time, Abbott did not contest the account but said that “when I gave the answer in question to the Member for Longman, it was absolutely true. But there were subsequent developments.”</p>
<p>Such an incident recalls how Kevin Rudd shouted at backbenchers. There are also parallels between the complaints about the Rudd office and the current attacks on the Abbott one, not to mention a similar damaging failure of self-awareness by both prime ministers.</p>
<p>If “good government” was derailed this week, the punch drunk Abbott camp might be putting its hopes in next week. So long as they don’t fear the atmospherics could be affected by Malcolm Turnbull’s appearance on Monday’s ABC’s Q&A.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37534/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If, as Tony Abbott declared, good government started on Monday then, to borrow a Gillardism, it “lost its way” well before the week’s end. The days after Abbott’s “near death” experience provided no evidence…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374152015-02-12T03:04:06Z2015-02-12T03:04:06ZThe prime ministerial promise to change: can it work?<p>“Is it me?” That was the question John Howard <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/07/18/if-not-howard-then-who/">reportedly asked</a> his cabinet colleagues as his government remained stubbornly behind in the polls in 2007. One of those colleagues, Tony Abbott, now confronts the same question as he attempts to recover from a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-admits-he-may-lose-prime-ministership-20150208-13967o.html">“chastening”</a> leadership <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-left-deeply-wounded-by-narrow-victory-37339">spill motion</a> on Monday.</p>
<p>Politics is a difficult business. It’s hard to please all of the people all of the time. Occasionally, it seems hard to please any of the people any of the time. That’s why leaders in a democracy devote so much energy to looking for the formula that will keep them connected with voters.</p>
<p>Like former lovers trying to rekindle the flames of a relationship, political leaders reach out when things go wrong, seeking to rebuild the affection that once connected them with their constituents and colleagues. </p>
<p>Abbott tried to wipe the slate clean last week with a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/tony-abbott-press-club-speech-key-points-and-full-transcript/story-e6frg6n6-1227205021408">speech</a> at the National Press Club, followed by what he termed <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-03/tony-abbott-declares-today-back-to-work-tuesday/6065596">“back to work Tuesday”</a>. Now, after a ballot in which nearly 40% of his colleagues voted to declare the leadership vacant, he’s rebooting his reboot, with an expressed determination to listen more and embrace a more consensus-based style of governing. </p>
<p>Abbott knows he has to at least try to shift gears because democratic politics is all about persuasion. </p>
<h2>Three rhetorical tools at PM’s disposal</h2>
<p>So how do you do it – what tools are available? The answer, as <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#means">provided by Aristotle</a> more than two millennia ago, is to use rhetoric to change the minds of an audience.
Aristotle defined the elements of rhetoric as consisting of three things: logos, pathos and ethos. </p>
<p>Logos is all about the content of the argument; the logical presentation of evidence to draw the listener into agreement. It’s an appeal to reason. </p>
<p>Pathos is all about emotion; the ability to push the emotional buttons that convince people to support you. Think of Churchill’s invocation of the need to “fight on the beaches”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5IHadByMvXk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Ethos is about the speaker themselves. They require trust and authority to make their message believable.</p>
<p>This breakdown of rhetoric helps explain why achieving a successful “reboot” is so hard.</p>
<h2>So how does Abbott’s message break down?</h2>
<p>Abbott’s Press Club speech would have seemed to him to hit all the right notes. It offered a logical explanation for why some policy positions had to be adopted and others jettisoned. It drew on evidence such as budgetary pressures, debt figures, the Productivity Commission and feedback from a range of stakeholders about what needs to be done.</p>
<p>Sure there are counter-arguments, but that doesn’t make the Abbott’s arguments illogical. So on the logos front, all seems well. </p>
<p>On the pathos front, Abbott’s recent rhetoric has offered much to sooth the feelings of voters and colleagues. There have been elements of contrition, appeals to keep Australia “safe” and exhortations to work together to serve the Australian people. </p>
<p>So there’s been no shortage of emotional appeals – from the patriotic overtones of <a href="https://theconversation.com/team-australia-a-nationalism-framed-in-terms-of-external-threats-31630">“Team Australia”</a> to the empathetic undertones of a prime minister determined to let everyone know he understands that he needs to change.</p>
<p>But the final element – ethos – cannot be manufactured through the crafting of a particular speech, or through changing day-to-day messages. That is because it is about the nature of the speaker themselves. All the logical arguments in the world, and the well-crafted emotional appeals that underpin them, are of little use if people simply won’t believe the speaker.</p>
<p>It is often said of struggling political leaders that voters have “just stopped listening” to them. Ethos is the factor that explains this. </p>
<p>Well-resourced leaders can always keep making arguments, producing evidence and offering emotional appeals, but they can’t change who they are perceived by others to be.</p>
<h2>Once authenticity is lost, it’s hard to recover</h2>
<p>In modern politics, ethos is closely related to the idea of authenticity. Following the 2007 election, Kevin Rudd was enjoying <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/25/how-does-rudds-popularity-stack-up/">70% approval ratings</a> as prime minister. A self-confessed policy wonk, whose use of language could sometimes seem incredibly opaque, he was nonetheless embraced by voters.</p>
<p>Once that authenticity was replaced by seemingly “forced” choices of words (remember “fair shake of the sauce bottle”?) and an apparent willingness to walk away from tackling climate change, having described it as the “greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”, Rudd’s ethos took a hit.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2LjE9I3Cp-U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Julia Gillard, who made her political name in part as a great communicator, became so heavily scripted in office that it damaged her ethos. People no longer believed she was who she said she was – leading her to declare in the 2010 election campaign that she would go back to being the “real” Julia. Ironically, this simply <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/03/julia-gets-real-but-what-does-that-even-mean/">reinforced the perception</a> that she hadn’t been authentic and re-emphasised the very ethos problem she was trying to address. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CN8VMBrMH7I?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Which brings us back to Tony Abbott. He was one of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/prime-minister-abbott-the-master-of-opposition-gets-his-chance-17855">most effective opposition leaders</a> in modern times. His ability to time and again criticise the government and explain his own policies in simple, clear language left voters in no doubt about what he stood for. It defined him in the public mind.</p>
<p>Those clear messages of opposition have been replaced in government by rapid rhetorical shifts as the government searches in vain for a message that will resonate with voters.</p>
<p>Abbott’s ethos has been dented. Hence the need for a re-boot. He is attempting to redefine himself as someone who can be trusted because he listens. </p>
<p>For example, Abbott says he has heard the feedback on the paid parental leave scheme and responded. The irony is that he has chosen to demonstrate his trustworthiness by abandoning a “signature” policy that he repeatedly said would define him and his leadership. </p>
<p>While seeking to re-capture public confidence, Abbott is saying to voters that you can trust him to abandon even his most dearly held policies if things aren’t going well. It might make logical sense, but it doesn’t do much for his ethos.</p>
<p>Abbott hasn’t quite said he will go back to being the “real Tony”, but would people believe him if he did? Therein lies his problem.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37415/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Grube receives funding from the Australian Research Council's DECRA scheme.</span></em></p>“Is it me?” That was the question John Howard reportedly asked his cabinet colleagues as his government remained stubbornly behind in the polls in 2007. One of those colleagues, Tony Abbott, now confronts…Dennis C Grube, Principal Research Fellow, Institute for the Study of Social Change, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374732015-02-11T11:46:30Z2015-02-11T11:46:30ZHockey on the ropes: ‘I am doing the heavy lifting for my country’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71703/original/image-20150211-25684-1jt0kqn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In the battles within the government between now and May, Treasurer Joe Hockey will lack the degree of authority he could deploy a year ago.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Liberals have drawn a line under the leadership issue for the moment, but this week’s unsuccessful spill motion has changed fundamentally the dynamics within the government and the party.</p>
<p>Malcolm Turnbull is now seen as the clear prime ministerial alternative, never mind that his candidacy was never declared. This means his every move will be watched and forensically analysed by colleagues and media.</p>
<p>Turnbull doesn’t have to be disloyal to Tony Abbott. He has been thrust centre stage, and, assuming the polls stay bad, his mere presence becomes destabilising.</p>
<p>But the spectre of Turnbull is also hovering over the embattled Joe Hockey, with stories that some senior Liberals would like Abbott to put him in Joe’s job. One report said colleagues sounded Turnbull out before Christmas on whether he would accept Treasury.</p>
<p>The provenance of the reports is hard to track. At no stage has there been an Abbott offer, and Abbott has made it clear he is not intending to reshuffle his treasurer. Having Turnbull, about whom the Abbott office has always been somewhat paranoid, so close would be nearly unthinkable for Abbott.</p>
<p>But the speculation is damaging for a treasurer who’s struggling to get back onto his feet.</p>
<p>Hockey’s interview with 3AW’s Neil Mitchell on Wednesday told the painful story. A large slab of it was taken up with his position.</p>
<p>“I am not responding to gossip,” Hockey said of the speculation that he wouldn’t be in the job long term.</p>
<p>No, he hadn’t asked Abbott for a guarantee of his position.</p>
<p>And what if Abbott wanted him to go? “I have got my job. I am doing my job. That’s not going to change.”</p>
<p>Mitchell persisted, insisting the question of Hockey’s future was important in economic terms because his role was to instill confidence and that went to stability.</p>
<p>“I am the treasurer, I will be the treasurer and I am going to continue to do the treasurer’s role.” Would he do it long term? “I hope to do it long term … but that’s in the hands of the Australian people.”</p>
<p>And in Abbott’s hands? “In the hands of many people. We are doing the job.”</p>
<p>The knife was twisted further when Hockey was reminded that he used to be popular but in the recent talk about leadership contenders, he didn’t make the cut. “I am doing my job. … You know, someone has to make the right calls for Australia. We are doing that.”</p>
<p>Hockey likes to say “it is not about me”, but of course it is – because, with Abbott, he has to get across the government’s economic story.</p>
<p>Hockey might have thought his first budget would be his most important, but now his second is shaping up as a make-or-break one – for Abbott’s leadership and thus his own future. If Turnbull became prime minister, Hockey would immediately be replaced.</p>
<p>Hockey’s utterances indicate he’s going into the budget discussions trying hard to keep his colleagues to a tough fiscal stance.</p>
<p>Hockey’s not making concessions to the changed political environment the government is now in. What sort of accommodation he and an apparently increasingly pragmatic Abbott come to in the budget framing will be an interesting test.</p>
<p>In the battles within the government between now and May, Hockey will lack the degree of authority he could deploy a year ago. Out in the community, he’ll face great difficulty making the case to a public that has already dismissed him.</p>
<p>Hockey is putting a good deal of weight on the intergenerational report he’ll soon release to help with his case. He sees this as a basis for the “deeper conversation with the Australian people” that he promises.</p>
<p>But remember, we’ve had these reports since Peter Costello’s day. The official description says they “focus on the implications of demographic change for economic growth and assess the financial implications of continuing current policies and trends over the next four decades”. The last was 2010; before that, they appeared in 2007 and 2002.</p>
<p>Of course policies change and so the assessments do too; even the demography can alter slightly. But basically we already know the broad picture – the demographics require very substantial budget repair – so it won’t be a great surprise. Hockey might be unwise to think the new report will be a big conversation changer.</p>
<p>At the end of a testing interview, Mitchell asked Hockey whether he was enjoying the job. “I am doing the heavy lifting for my country,” Hockey said. “I am going to keep going because that’s what people say to me on the streets, ‘keep going, Joe’, and I am keeping going.”</p>
<p><strong>Listen to the latest Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast with <a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/e/clive-palmer">Clive Palmer, here</a>.</strong></p>
<iframe id="audio_iframe" src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/gtv4q-53bb05/initByJs/1/auto/1" width="100%" height="100" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37473/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Liberals have drawn a line under the leadership issue for the moment, but this week’s unsuccessful spill motion has changed fundamentally the dynamics within the government and the party. Malcolm Turnbull…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374682015-02-11T05:21:32Z2015-02-11T05:21:32ZDon’t blame the media, Malcolm<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71672/original/image-20150211-24704-o09lwk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Nikki Short</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull earlier this week linked the Liberals’ leadership crisis to “bullying” by journalists covering Australian politics. He was not suggesting, I don’t think, that the media were directly to blame for Tony Abbott’s difficulties with his own party room. Rather, the government, and politicians in general, on all sides of politics have in his view become overly submissive before the Fourth Estate. </p>
<p>As reported by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/10/malcolm-turnbull-politicians-must-resist-being-bullied-by-likes-of-alan-jones">The Guardian</a>, Turnbull said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I must say that over the years the great mistake that politicians have made is to allow yourself [sic] to be bullied by the media. It’s vital to win the respect of the public and indeed of the media itself, to stand your ground and stand up for what you believe in and not be bullied into an echo chamber. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The implication of Turnbull’s remarks is that Australian politicians are conceding their integrity by gearing their statements and policy pronouncements to the excessive, “bullying” demands of the media. Turnbull’s was a general observation, but read as having particular relevance to Australian talk radio host Alan Jones, one of the country’s most vociferous and influential media figures who had rather aggressively interviewed Turnbull last year. </p>
<p>Prior to the leadership spill, Jones had dedicated two weeks of early morning radio to waging a campaign against the Queensland government of Campbell Newman, at that moment fighting a state election on the back of poor polling numbers. Although on the right of the political spectrum and thus perhaps the kind of journalist one would have expected to support Newman’s bid for re-election, Jones embarked on a campaign of denunciation of Newman’s “lies” around a proposed mining development. </p>
<p>Newman lost his seat of Ashgrove in Brisbane, and the Liberals as of this writing looked like losing power in Queensland to Labor. </p>
<p>So, if I might paraphrase the UK Sun when it claimed credit for the Conservative Party election victory of 1992, woz it Alan wot won it for Labor in Queensland? Even just a little bit? Are the men and women of the media bullies? And in any case, does it matter? Do they exert undue influence on the politicians, or the public for that matter? </p>
<p>The evidence on the latter point is unclear. The Courier-Mail is a steadfast supporter of the LNP in Queensland, but no matter how tendentious its coverage for the Liberals and against Labor, the state’s biggest newspaper could not prevent Newman and his colleagues haemorrhaging votes on January 31. </p>
<p>On the other hand, one might conjecture that without the impact of a major tabloid in the Newman camp, the defeat would have been even bigger. We may never know the precise relationship between media coverage of politics and electoral outcomes, even if we can be pretty sure that there is one. </p>
<p>With regards to Turnbull’s assertion of media “bullying”, I’m going to say “bullshit”, Malcolm. That a politician allows him or herself to be bounced into bad policy by a calculation of what the media wants to hear is hardly the journalists’ fault (that isn’t Abbott’s problem anyway – a knighthood, your majesty?). </p>
<p>If, rather than stand his or her ground, as Turnbull recommends – and he has himself been less than consistent on environmental policy since returning to government – a politician seeks to manipulate the media by saying what he or she perceives to be the right thing, that’s the pollies’ problem, not the journalists. </p>
<p>Journalists have a duty to the public to tell truth to power, exercising critical scrutiny over our elected representatives. Call it bullying if you like, but this is their fundamental democratic responsibility, and the only ethical justification for the freedoms they possess to attack and criticise individuals in the public domain. </p>
<p>Jones’ attacks on Newman were exceptional in their personal bitterness, as well as their use of unambiguous terms such as “lies”. He is being sued as a result, and will no doubt be able to substantiate his on-air accusations. Win or lose, however, the Australian media as a whole should not be put off engaging in the toughest possible questioning of the politicians who act and spend (and cut) in our name.</p>
<p>In that context, it has been interesting to observe The Australian turning on Abbott these last few weeks, thereby demonstrating that even they – hitherto so committed to the LNP’s program and philosophy – have reached some kind of threshold in the amount of elite incompetence they will stand, no matter how right-wing it is. </p>
<p>They are playing the man and not the party, hoping to influence the Coalition in such a way as to maximise its chances at the next election. For the rest of us, The Australian’s mounting criticism of the prime minister signals that the Liberals’ crisis is very real, and not the product of some mid-term blues. </p>
<p>But bullying? I think not. A bit more honest critique of this kind – applied to the LNP and not just the ALP – would go a long way to restoring The Australian’s reputation as the country’s leading, and best, broadsheet. </p>
<p>The ABC also performed well on the critical front this week. Chris Uhlmann on TV and Patricia Karvelas on radio in particular adopted low-key but devastatingly effective interview and commentary styles. They had excellent material to work with. </p>
<p>On the day Abbott declared that “good government starts”, Uhlmann on ABC News 24 had fun with a hapless pro-spill Liberal MP now pretending to be back on the team, fully behind the prime minister. Karvelas on RN Drive on Tuesday evening made mincemeat of the government’s inability to articulate its policy on submarines, albeit in a very polite way.</p>
<p>The great truism of political journalism is that one person’s bullying and harassment is another’s legitimate adversarialism. In the modern world of highly professional media management by parties (though Abbott’s has by common agreement been a disaster), and where being on message is mandatory for politicians in search of advancement, I veer towards the journalists who harry their prey and won’t let go until some kind of truth is revealed. </p>
<p>For sure, there can be hyper-adversarialism – gladiatorial journalism of the type that grandstands the journalist before it informs the citizen. In Australia, though, the balance is about right, it seems to me. Turnbull’s attempt to set the hare running on a diversionary debate about media bullying is unlikely to go anywhere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37468/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull earlier this week linked the Liberals’ leadership crisis to “bullying” by journalists covering Australian politics. He was not suggesting, I don’t think, that the…Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/371012015-02-11T02:23:04Z2015-02-11T02:23:04Z‘New politics’ announces itself in Queensland and beyond<p>The “new politics” of 21st-century Australia is much clearer after the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-queensland-election-but-lnp-refuses-to-concede-37329">extraordinary result</a> in the Queensland election on January 31. Australia’s new politics consists of three elements that they will re-write the textbooks. These elements are:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the franchise business model applied to political party processes;</p></li>
<li><p>the community development model applied to political and policy decisions; and</p></li>
<li><p>the central role of gender politics, replacing the class and interest-group politics of the past.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Practice is re-inventing theory in Australian politics today. Labor’s electoral success in Queensland, ousting a one-term LNP government with a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2012/">massive majority won only three years ago</a>, follows the ALP’s ousting of a Coalition government <a href="https://theconversation.com/victorian-election-labor-triumph-or-coalition-disaster-or-neither-34364">after one term in Victoria</a>. Attention has turned to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-ails-abbott-is-but-a-symptom-of-disease-of-government-today-37048">travails of the federal Coalition</a>, which is struggling to govern beyond a single term.</p>
<h2>Franchise model comes to politics</h2>
<p>The lessons are clear to all who follow politics closely. The old model of a centralised presidential-style campaign built around the party leader is finished. </p>
<p>Victorian Premier <a href="https://theconversation.com/victorians-look-set-to-elect-unlikely-premier-no-3-34431">Daniel Andrews</a> and Queensland ALP leader <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-is-annastacia-palaszczuk-queenslands-likely-next-premier-37023">Annastacia Palaszczuk</a> are the least likely leaders. Both acknowledge their inadequacies and express massive gratitude to their local and community supporters. </p>
<p>Andrews <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-29/daniel-andrews-delivers-victory-speech-to-party/5928494">emphasised</a> the key role of ambulance personnel and trade unionists in mobilising local people for effective local campaigns. Palaszczuk and her victorious colleagues talk of local contests, communities and issues.</p>
<p>This lesson will be hard to swallow in editorial offices and interest-group boardrooms, but the lesson is clear. The ALP has found a way to win in the 21st century that does not involve top-down party autocrats’ single-handedly running the campaign from head office.</p>
<p>Ironically, when the ink is barely dry on books by commentators like <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/items/149038">Paul Kelly</a> claiming the ALP brand is tarnished, Labor has won handsomely.</p>
<p>The key is that the ALP has found a new way to conduct party politics. It is a franchise model adopted by new successful (and some failed) companies in business in the last 40 years. The franchisor provides a framework, some branding, finance and logistical support, but the effort and the decisions are made locally by local candidates and local people. </p>
<p>The model does not require a presidential leader or self-appointed factional strongmen. The ALP has worked its way through the factional numbers men and come out the other side with a new form of party politics.</p>
<p>Ironically, it is the very relationship with the union movement, much criticised by Kelly and others, that has helped Labor find the franchise model. It started with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices#Political_reactions_and_consequences">campaign against “WorkChoices”</a>: the ALP and the union movement worked in their own separate spheres but with an agreed process and set of outcomes in mind.</p>
<p>The separate nature of the ALP and the union movement, along with the diminishing power of key unions (AWU, ETU etc) to dictate to parliamentarians at state branch level plus the complexity of the issues, has made franchising a natural and easy model for the ALP. The party has no alternative but to work collaboratively with the union movement. </p>
<p>Having pioneered it against WorkChoices, the ALP has now exported the franchise model to its local electoral divisions in the party structure. This is what we have seen in Victoria and Queensland; the franchise business model applied to political party processes.</p>
<h2>Local communities get a say again</h2>
<p>The community development model complements the franchising of party politics, because this model calls for grassroots decision-making. The model is one of radical local engagement and empowerment in the messages that are adopted and transmitted, shared ownership of decisions by all those impacted and consultation, consultation, consultation. </p>
<p>In Victoria and Queensland, Labor enlisted the support of local trade unionists to talk and engage with local community members and candidates. They conducted intensive talkfests to test the mood – a “people’s barometer” – before any local position was adopted. No more can campaign headquarters lay down three key messages and impose iron discipline to have these adopted across the party.</p>
<p>Community development does not support the great man theory of political leadership, nor does it privilege the economic or the technocrat expressed as somehow wiser than local people. Political leadership as exercised by John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Campbell Newman and probably Tony Abbott is incompatible with the engagement and empowerment of local communities.</p>
<p>No doubt community development in political and policy decisions reflects the revolution in our personal and social lives <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-tony-abbott-you-cant-dismiss-social-media-as-electronic-graffiti-36819">brought about by social media</a>. We need “friends” to share our personal and social experiences and we now need grassroots empowerment to make political and policy decisions.</p>
<h2>Gender revolution breaks down patriarchy</h2>
<p>The third change is even more substantial than the first two and perfectly compatible with them. This is the unstoppable gendering of our politics in the 21st century. Julia Gillard was the <a href="https://theconversation.com/julia-gillard-hits-back-at-a-long-history-of-sexism-in-parliament-10071">midwife of this change</a> and Palaszczuk is the beneficiary. </p>
<p>Again, the ALP has been the first to grasp this revolution. This is not because they thought it through, but simply because gendering is the underpinning of the franchise model of party politics and the community development model of political and policy decisions. This is because these two models break down patriarchal institutions – parties, public service departments, news media and interest groups - and empower the female half of the population.</p>
<p>The patriarchy knows what is happening but can do nothing about it. Kelly, in his updated introduction to his recent book, Triumph and Demise, calls Julia Gillard’s claims of being discriminated against in politics because she is a woman, “nonsense”. </p>
<p>But in the 21st century, the “nonsense” is the sweeping top-down institutional judgements of the political and interest-group establishment who have not found a way to maintain their own power in institutional form and embrace the empowerment and engagement of people on social media. The world has changed.</p>
<p>The Queensland and Victorian election results have created a new politics that leaves the party hierarchy, the top-down powerbrokers and many old men, especially in the Coalition, confused and disoriented. The ALP is the first political party in Australia to run the new models and the result is sensational electoral success.</p>
<p>A crucial question, however, is this: can the ALP govern, as opposed to campaigning, in a way that is compatible with the new politics?</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Other articles in The Conversation’s ongoing series, “New Politics”, can be read <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/new-politics">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Randal G Stewart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The “new politics” of 21st-century Australia is much clearer after the extraordinary result in the Queensland election on January 31. Australia’s new politics consists of three elements that they will…Randal G Stewart, Lecturer in Public Sector Management, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374162015-02-10T11:19:44Z2015-02-10T11:19:44ZAfter Monday’s leadership binge came Tuesday’s hangover<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71588/original/image-20150210-24660-1v43k4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Julie Bishop has sent a pretty clear public message about what should be done about Tony Abbott's controversial chief of staff Peta Credlin.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At Tuesday’s Coalition parties meeting, Julie Bishop declared, apparently rather theatrically: “That’s it! Leadership spills are so yesterday!”</p>
<p>“People move on so quickly,” the Liberal deputy said.</p>
<p>Well, not so much, as the foreign minister well knows. The past few days have left further strains in her relationship with the prime minister.</p>
<p>After the Liberals’ leadership binge came the hangover.</p>
<p>At Monday night’s cabinet meeting, Tony Abbott, presumably feeling he’d had enough whipping for the moment, tried to start with a business-as-usual approach. But his ministers were having none of it.</p>
<p>One declared a few things needed to be discussed. Officials were asked to leave the room. The subsequent contributions from around the cabinet table were “very blunt”, according to a source.</p>
<p>Come Tuesday, the bluntness continued.</p>
<p>With ongoing pressure from some Liberals for the removal of Abbott’s controversial chief of staff Peta Credlin, Bishop sent a pretty clear public message about what should be done.</p>
<p>Bishop described Credlin as very powerful, strong, with a “lot of opinions” and “very protective of the prime minister”.</p>
<p>Pressed about MPs’ complaints about Credlin’s control of his office, Bishop – with all the proper provisos about Abbott’s staff being Abbott’s business – said: “The prime minister must respond to their concerns if they are valid concerns”.</p>
<p>Abbott knew he had to have “a functioning team that has trust with the whole party room and I’m sure he’ll do that”.</p>
<p>It is not just the backbenchers and ministers who are in revolt against the “command and control” approach of the PMO.</p>
<p>At a meeting of departmental secretaries last week, John Fraser, the new Treasury head, indicated he was appalled at the general increase in Canberra bureaucracy since he’d last been a public servant in the early 1990s and criticised the micro-management coming from the Hill.</p>
<p>Fraser was irked in particular by the requirement that international travel costing more than $50,000 for public service delegations (for example to trade negotiations) or individuals had to approved by the PMO (and when costing more than $20,000 by the minister).</p>
<p>Abbott issued this directive in late 2013 – a Fairfax report at the time said ministerial staff described the instructions as part of “the controlling tendencies of the Prime Minister’s Office”.</p>
<p>Fraser, formerly CEO of UBS Global Assets Management, also targeted the ban on bureaucrats accepting complimentary upgrades. This is said to have come from Abbott himself. Abbott famously refused an upgrade from economy on a private holiday trip to Europe for Christmas in 2013.</p>
<p>Abbott this week flagged that his office, as part of a less intrusive role, would be stepping back on public service travel.</p>
<p>At Tuesday’s party meeting, the PMO was in the sights of Don Randall, the backbencher who seconded the unsuccessful spill motion.</p>
<p>Randall asked Abbott whether he’d sack anyone from his office who backgrounded against colleagues. That was a sackable offence, Abbott replied.</p>
<p>Randall may have had his own gripe. But much further up the food chain, more than one frontbencher claims the PMO has on occasion briefed against them.</p>
<p>On the policy front, there has been fallout from the leadership crisis, blowing away Abbott’s insistence that good government started on Monday.</p>
<p>The process surrounding the multi-billion submarine project became mired in confusion, as did the government’s economic message.</p>
<p>On Sunday, Abbott clinched the vote of South Australian senator Sean Edwards by providing certain assurances about Australian participation in the submarine project. Edwards’ take was that Australian ship builders would be able to be involved in an “open, competitive tender”. But the undertaking is more limited – for a “competitive evaluation process”. We can’t know precisely how the Edwards-Abbott conversation went.</p>
<p>New Defence Minister Kevin Andrews, visiting the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide on Tuesday, made an irritable hash of explaining the situation.</p>
<p>It was many hours before he put out a clarifying statement in which he said decisions “will be based on a competitive evaluation process”, managed by the Defence Department, that would take into account “Australia’s unique capability requirements as well as considerations such as cost, schedule, technical risk and value for money”.</p>
<p>“Any Australian company that can credibly meet these requirements will be considered on merit, as will potential international partners.”</p>
<p>Andrews said his department wasn’t aware of any submarine project around the world that had been put out to open tender.</p>
<p>In the economic area, Treasurer Joe Hockey on Tuesday appeared out of sync with the softer policy approach Abbott put on Monday.</p>
<p>Abbott said that “with the wisdom of hindsight” the budget “was perhaps too bold and too ambitious”. In future “we will not buy fights with the Senate that we can’t win, unless we are absolutely determined that they are the fights that we really, really do need to have”.</p>
<p>But Hockey struck a different note at the party meeting, saying that “if we junk unimplemented savings measures we’ll never get back to surplus”.</p>
<p>Hockey said the assumption of getting back to surplus was based on implementing changes or savings to health, welfare and education, plus an assumption of 3.2% annual economic growth.</p>
<p>The current growth rate of 2.7% was below the necessary minimum to return to surplus. “If we don’t find savings we’ll never get back into surplus.”</p>
<p>Hockey told the ABC’S 7.30 the government was persisting with last year’s budget measures because “we have no choice. Economic growth is not going to deliver a surplus.”</p>
<p>Hockey agreed – with obvious reluctance – that “maybe” Abbott was right in saying the budget had been too bold and ambitious. “But at the time we had no choice,” though he said there was an argument that the measures should have been staggered through the year.</p>
<p>With some in the government reportedly wanting Abbott to remove Hockey – which Abbott says he won’t do – Hockey maintained he was the “best person to do the [Treasury] job and I am calling it as I see it”.</p>
<p>“There is no silver bullet.</p>
<p>"Either we reduce our spending in order to live within our means or we have to increase taxes.”</p>
<p>Hockey denied he and Abbott were at odds over whether to proceed with or dump the 2014 budget strategy.</p>
<p>But the reality is that Hockey is talking like a treasurer trying to hold the fiscal line; Abbott like an embattled leader. The message is very mixed, if not contradictory, which is hardly a good basis for trying to get a more persuasive sales pitch for the public.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37416/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
At Tuesday’s Coalition parties meeting, Julie Bishop declared, apparently rather theatrically: “That’s it! Leadership spills are so yesterday!” “People move on so quickly,” the Liberal deputy said. Well…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/373472015-02-10T03:22:41Z2015-02-10T03:22:41ZMaking Abbott invisible in NSW campaign will prove difficult<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71428/original/image-20150209-13725-q6l7tk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Unlike in Queensland, NSW Premier Mike Baird will not be able to keep Tony Abbott away from the campaign trail.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The major political parties are only days away from launching their campaigns for this year’s New South Wales state election, to be held on March 28. As state political issues that don’t involve the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) often fall below the radar, the formal election period is a key event in NSW. It is one of the few times that state issues can get more than a sidebar on the front page of the daily newspapers.</p>
<p>As a result, Monday’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-left-deeply-wounded-by-narrow-victory-37339">failed spill motion</a> for the federal Liberal leadership came at just the right time for the NSW government. It is neatly out of the way just before the campaigning can begin in earnest. Unfortunately for the Baird government, the outcome wasn’t so serendipitous.</p>
<p>Much to the pleasure of the lacklustre NSW Labor Party, the “Abbott factor” is going to be part of the NSW election narrative. Unlike in Queensland, where the LNP’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/queensland-election-2015-tony-abbott-will-not-campaign-for-lnp/6027202">Abbott-proof fence strategy</a> succeeded in keeping the prime minister out of the sunshine state, NSW Premier Mike Baird will not be able to keep Abbott away. </p>
<p>This is due to three reasons. First, Abbott lives in NSW. Second, Abbott’s clock is ticking down. Having reportedly given himself a deadline of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-pleads-with-colleagues-for-sixmonth-reprieve-20150209-139hma.html">six months</a> to demonstrate “Tony 2.0”, Abbott has to come out fighting. And campaigning is traditionally one of his great strengths. </p>
<p>Finally, Baird and Abbott have a good <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/premier-mike-baird-backs-his-mate-tony-abbott-in-leadership-battle-20150206-1385wh.html">personal relationship</a> with genuine shared policy interests upon which they can jointly campaign. These include the <a href="http://www.westconnex.com.au/">WestConnex motorway project</a>, the <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/western_sydney/">second Sydney airport</a> and, following the Martin Place siege, issues of terrorism and law and order.</p>
<p>While these policy concerns provide a basis to frame a narrative that positively draws Abbott into the election campaign, the negatives may still outweigh the positives. Monday’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/abbott-government-performance-driving-away-one-in-10-coalition-voters-in-nsw-20150208-138wvd.html">Fairfax/Ipsos</a> polling indicates that Abbott may be costing the NSW Coalition 8% of its voters. This is a sizable sacrifice to extend the career of a prime minister whose future remains uncertain.</p>
<p>However, the poll also suggests that a change of leadership would bring back only 34% of these defectors, demonstrating the limited bump the Coalition might have been able to engineer in its immediate levels of support through a potential shift to Malcolm Turnbull.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether we will nee a new leadership style and policy direction from Canberra in the next six weeks, some of the damage has already been done. Around 20% of Australian voters now cast <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-more-and-more-australians-are-voting-before-election-day-37159">pre-poll ballots</a>, meaning there is less than six weeks to draw back the underwhelmed.</p>
<p>Importantly, it should be kept in mind that Labor is not going to win the NSW election. While the results in <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-victorian-election-but-watch-for-upper-house-chaos-34796">Victoria</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-on-the-brink-of-a-shock-election-win-in-queensland-36983">Queensland</a> demonstrate a political instability that needs serious consideration by the academic and political classes, NSW remains a special case. Disgust with the ALP’s tolerance of corruption and closed-shop politics remains in voters’ minds. Court cases drag on, which continue to stoke New South Welshmen’s collective ire. </p>
<p>Only last week, popular hate figure and former Labor MP Eddie Obeid was back on the front pages after having been forced to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/eddie-obeid-forced-to-surrender-passport-by-supreme-court-20150205-136ocj.html">surrender his passport</a> in anticipation of criminal prosecution.</p>
<p>Dissenting voters are likely to head to any number of minor parties that will be contesting the election. However, one of the likely magnets for disgruntled LNP voters, the Palmer United Party (PUP), will be absent. Party founder Clive Palmer neglected to register PUP <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/clive-palmer-calls-for-candidates-in-newcastle-and-charlestown-byelections-20140819-105rb7.html">in NSW</a>. He’ll now likely be kicking himself, given the surprising 5% vote PUP achieved in the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/">Queensland election</a>. PUP would have been able to translate that into at least one Legislative Council quota. </p>
<p>The success of minor parties in the NSW upper house has been an enduring part of the story of NSW politics, much to the chagrin of state premiers.</p>
<p>The ALP will be eager to use its <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/victorian-labor-calls-in-experts-from-team-obama/story-e6frgczx-1227107646919">Barack Obama-inspired</a> local organising model of campaigning after its <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/victorian-state-election-how-labor-and-the-unions-blew-up-the-coalition-20141130-11x325.html">great success</a> in Victoria and Queensland. To motivate union members – who make up the core of volunteers needed for this strategy – the party will emphasise the state government’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/joe-hockey-keeps-dangling-privatisation-carrot-to-states/story-e6frgczx-1227211088368">federally encouraged</a> asset sales policy. </p>
<p>Asset sales, regardless of attempts to dress it up in 99-year leases or as “asset recycling”, is a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/support-falling-for-mike-bairds-electricity-privatisation-plan-despite-20-billion-infrastructure-promise-20150209-139iqh.html">highly unpopular policy</a> with voters. Similarly, the federal government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/history-of-ir-reviews-shows-re-run-reform-agenda-is-pure-politics-37044">potential resuscitation</a> of industrial relations changes to further move away from collective bargaining is a strong driver for unionists.</p>
<p>The ALP does run the risk of over-egging the Abbott issue, however. NSW Labor sent out its first Abbott-themed election email at 2pm looking to micro-fundraise off the spill story. While the left love hating on Abbott a lot more than the mild figure of Baird, it cannot be sustained for a six-week campaign. </p>
<p>Focusing on the federal dimension will be tempting, though. It allows Labor to shy away from its core problem in NSW: a lack of cut-through by its new leader, Luke Foley.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37347/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter John Chen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The major political parties are only days away from launching their campaigns for this year’s New South Wales state election, to be held on March 28. As state political issues that don’t involve the Independent…Peter John Chen, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/373712015-02-09T10:05:03Z2015-02-09T10:05:03ZAbbott’s attempt to regroup means new policy uncertainty<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71447/original/image-20150209-13707-hwg0tv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The cost of leaving Tony Abbott in the prime ministership is to consign the government to limbo while the Liberals wait to judge his performance.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tony Abbott is precariously perched on icy slopes – deeply unpopular both in the community and with his backbench.</p>
<p>More slips and/or continued disastrous polling would plunge him to political death, while the way to safer ground is difficult and there’s widespread doubt that he’s equipped to get there.</p>
<p>After a vote that clearly shook him (some 40% of his colleagues backed a spill) Abbott admitted to his party room he’d had a “near death experience”.</p>
<p>Cross-currents were at work in the vote. Critics, especially unnerved by the Queensland state result, had reached the end of patience with their out-of-touch leader. While the 35-member frontbench mostly (though not entirely) supported Abbott, the backbench was strongly in favour of a spill.</p>
<p>The counter-current was the pull of the “fair go” – the feeling Abbott should be given more time to attempt to revive.</p>
<p>The cost of leaving him in place is to invite a period of limbo while the Liberals judge his performance. In that, the prime metric will be the polls. The odds are against a leader as unpopular as Abbott remaking his image.</p>
<p>Speaking to his MPs, Abbott reiterated new arrangements for greater consultation with backbenchers and the full ministry and less interference by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in ministerial staffing and other matters. Policies would be better road-tested and a more pragmatic approach taken to the Senate, he told them.</p>
<p>On the vexed Medicare changes, Abbott later said while “obviously we have some proposals which are out there already”, he had told the party room “there would be no new proposals come forward without the broad backing of the medical profession”. The future of the scaled-back Medicare co-payment remains unclear.</p>
<p>It seems to have taken until now for Abbott to start to appreciate his parlous position, or the depth of backbench frustration. And what he said on Monday suggests he still doesn’t fully grasp the extent and implications of the rebuilding job.</p>
<p>Abbott told his news conference that last year’s budget was “too bold and too ambitious”, but he’d listened, learned and changed and “and the government will change with me”. In future, “we will not buy fights with the Senate that we can’t win, unless we are absolutely determined that they are the fights that we really, really do need to have”.</p>
<p>If the government’s policy approach is to be less harsh, more politically sensitive, how is that to be reconciled with the challenge of budget sustainability? What is to be the new story about its commitment to reform?</p>
<p>Ahead of a meeting with chairs of backbench committees, Abbott aired his new mantra – that “this is going to be a government which socialises decisions before they’re finalised”.</p>
<p>The risk is the government goes from one flawed approach to another. It consulted too little, but if it falls into a lowest common denominator approach to policy, it will be seeing off any meaningful reform agenda – assuming that was not stillborn already.</p>
<p>It could easily find itself caught between a poll-driven, muscled-up backbench and the tough demands of an uncompromising business constituency.</p>
<p>The Business Council of Australia after the vote called for “traction on increasingly urgent policy changes” including “a sensible, strategic approach to repairing the federal budget, a more competitive tax system, the removal of unnecessary, unwieldy red tape and a more flexible workplace relations system”. These causes are more likely to be rapidly losing traction, given Abbott’s changed political circumstances and an uncertain economy.</p>
<p>On another front, there remains the irritant of Abbott’s personal office; it has rankled ministers and backbenchers and been a factor in the swell of leadership discontent.</p>
<p>Chief of staff Peta Credlin has recently become less visible and intrusive, but is still in place.</p>
<p>Credlin’s defenders argue she’s done a good job; Abbott gives her huge credit for getting him where he is now.</p>
<p>But staff must be judged by outcomes: if your actions have helped put your boss’s future on the line, you’ve flunked the test. The PMO should make a fresh start, minus Credlin, but that seems a step too far for Abbott.</p>
<p>Abbott was asked at his news conference whether he retained confidence in Treasurer Joe Hockey. He dodged, saying that “all of us are determined to lift our game”. Later, under Labor questioning in parliament, he said: “I stand by my treasurer”.</p>
<p>Hockey has failed on substance (the budget’s content) and salesmanship (including his confrontational language – “lifters and leaners”, the “age of entitlement”).</p>
<p>But Abbott and Hockey are conjoined – the prime minister, particularly but not only by his cavalier attitude to trust, shares ownership of the budget debacle.</p>
<p>Decoupling from Hockey would likely only worsen Abbott’s problems. It would be a refusal to accept joint responsibility.</p>
<p>Unless, however, Abbott can make sure Hockey becomes a better “lifter” in the common cause – less bluster, more understanding of middle Australia – Abbott’s leadership will be further endangered.</p>
<p>If he wants motivation to improve, Hockey only has to look over his shoulder, where he’ll see the ambitious Scott Morrison, who’d be treasurer in a Malcolm Turnbull government.</p>
<p>In his attempt to regroup, Abbott needs as well to rebuild his relationship with his deputy Julie Bishop. Tensions between the two have mounted over Credlin’s role and other things. Bishop stood with him against the spill. But she made it clear she was just doing her duty as deputy.</p>
<p>In the time ahead, he needs her more than she needs him. For Bishop, the grass would be as green on the other side of the leadership divide.</p>
<p>Abbott said on Monday night that he’d been telling colleagues: “I am a fighter. I know how to beat Labor Party leaders. I beat Kevin Rudd. I beat Julia Gillard. I can beat Bill Shorten as well. What I’m not good at is fighting the Liberal Party.”</p>
<p>What Abbott is also not good at is governing – and it is an art hard to acquire quickly when you’re being buffeted on those icy slopes.</p>
<p><strong>Listen to the latest politics with Michelle Grattan podcast, talking the leadership spill with Federal Director of Barton Deakin Government Relations, <a href="http://michellegrattan.podbean.com/e/grahame-morris/">Grahame Morris, here</a>.</strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Tony Abbott is precariously perched on icy slopes – deeply unpopular both in the community and with his backbench. More slips and/or continued disastrous polling would plunge him to political death, while…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/373332015-02-09T05:23:35Z2015-02-09T05:23:35ZWhat can governments and leaders do when trust evaporates?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/71416/original/image-20150208-28618-mfpi0p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Recent surveys have highlighted a deeper malaise in the public’s faith in its core institutions and leaders.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/">2015 Edelman Trust Barometer</a> points to an “evaporation of trust” in institutions and leaders worldwide. The annual survey finds a decline in trust overall, with more countries classified as distrusting than trusting. </p>
<p>Globally, trust in business, media and NGOs is at its lowest level since the 2008 financial crisis. While Australia is not yet among the 48% of countries regarded as distrusters, the public’s trust in government, business and the media has declined. Unusually, so has their trust in NGOs.</p>
<p>This survey was run late in 2014, well before the federal <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/liberal-leadership-crisis">Liberal leadership crisis</a> and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-on-the-brink-of-a-shock-election-win-in-queensland-36983">electoral backlash</a> against the governing LNP in Queensland. But the February 3 <a href="http://essentialvision.com.au/documents/essential_report_150203.pdf">Essential poll</a> found just 27% of those surveyed agreed that Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-left-deeply-wounded-by-narrow-victory-37339">survived</a> a leadership spill motion on Monday, was “trustworthy”.</p>
<p>What the Edelman survey highlights is a deeper malaise in the public’s faith in its core institutions and leaders.</p>
<p>One finding encapsulates the paradox of trust facing Australian governments and leaders – at all levels. The public has lost trust in government mainly because they do not believe that it “contributes to the greater good”. More than 50% do not believe that the government helps them to live a fulfilling and healthy life.</p>
<p>This would appear to provide government with an opportunity to act, to demonstrate it can support people in their desire to live better lives and to intervene where citizens lack confidence in business regulation. However, the lack of trust in government to act seems to match the lack of confidence in government’s capacity to act.</p>
<h2>Rise of individualism erodes idea of public good</h2>
<p>This paradox can be explained by transformative changes in state-society relations in many countries. Globalisation and the associated range of economic, technological, social and political developments have supported the rise of individualism. </p>
<p>People appear freer to access our own sources of expertise; to exercise choice in a range of services; to occupy multiple identities that reflect our various personal and professional interests; and to engage with others in temporary and often virtual networks for political and social purposes.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, perhaps, this has fractured the idea of a public interest or public good. One result is scepticism about the ability of large institutions to respond to people’s diverse needs and aspirations, so reducing their faith in government.</p>
<p>Underlying this change is a pervasive doubt about governments’ capacity to deal with the huge challenges of our time, such as climate change and inequality. The public has the uneasy feeling that, in a globalised, networked world, no-one is really in charge. </p>
<p>In response, the public is refocusing on family-like relationships, based on intimacy, familiarity and proximity. The Edelman findings suggest that in Australia family-owned businesses have a “trust premium” over state-owned firms or “big business”. </p>
<p>Among governments – at least those in “developed democracies” – the doubt generated by the failure of big government programs since the mid-20th century to transform societies prompted a shift to <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/content/tpp/pap/2011/00000039/00000004/art00005">“evidence-based policymaking”</a>. This included a preference for technical experts and arm’s-length governing organisations rather than political argument.</p>
<p>Consequently, governments face multiple dilemmas in their relations with citizens. As governments and public servants grow more modest in what they might be able to achieve, the public grows more demanding. As individuals, we want freedom to act in support of our desires but also want to feel secure.</p>
<p>As service users and customers, we want government to regulate private sector excesses but lack confidence in its capacity to do this. As voters, we want government to do more to support our well-being but won’t vote for it if it’s going to cost us anything.</p>
<h2>Our quest for innovation requires trust</h2>
<p>Recent public policy innovations provide evidence of these dilemmas and show clearly the importance of trust to <a href="http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/trust-and-innovation-edelman-trust-barometer/">innovation</a>. </p>
<p>Public policy and services are increasingly delivered through innovative hybrid arrangements – public, private and non-governmental organisations working together. These can be simple, such as a contract between a public service organisation and a private or not-for-profit organisation to deliver a service. But they can also be very complex, comprising innovative organisational forms and/or legal and financial arrangements. </p>
<p>However, these partnership arrangements raise important questions. There are questions about the government’s identity. How can it be both a commissioner and a regulator of partnerships? What about transparency, particularly where commercial confidentiality denies the public access to data? </p>
<p>And there are questions about <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12104/abstract">accountability</a>. How can government hold providers to account when multiple partners are involved, all with some measure of responsibility?</p>
<p>The internet is another area of collision between innovation and trust in government. The <a href="http://internetofeverything.cisco.com/learn">“internet of everything”</a> points to the value that can be created through the interconnections of people, objects, data and processes. From the personalisation of services to the management of cities and even ensuring access to water, advocates in business, government and the non-government sector are exploring the internet’s innovative potential. </p>
<p>However, as Edelman’s data illustrates, citizens are growing distrustful. We wonder to what extent we are our own curators of information and knowledge. Who ultimately “owns” the internet of everything? What do these developments mean for privacy? </p>
<h2>What does rebuilding trust entail for government?</h2>
<p>Work at the <a href="http://www.government.unimelb.edu.au">Melbourne School of Government</a> suggests ways in which governments can create the conditions for rebuilding trust.</p>
<p>Government needs to lead open and transparent debate with all its communities about policy challenges and options. Expertise comes in many forms – technical, political, professional, lived and user expertise. All need to be included in policy debates, particularly in an era of budget constraint.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lipse.org/userfiles/uploads/LIPSE%20WP1%20Policy%20Brief_11.2014_ENG.pdf">Innovation</a> remains the holy grail in public service reform. Public servants continue to draw from non-governmental sectors in their efforts to improve services and outcomes. Trusted innovation relies, however, on accessible and transparent information to users, clear evidence of its operability and participation in development. </p>
<p>As governments contemplate operating more as enablers of policy and services rather than providers, it becomes hugely important to get the <a href="http://www.themandarin.com.au/18604-commissioning-public-services-definition-aims-matter/#">commissioning</a> right. Commissioning is not just another form of contracting or procurement. It requires a comprehensive framework for decision-making and resource allocation.</p>
<p>Clear accountability relationships are essential to secure public trust in the process and outcomes. This suggests building accountability into the lifecycle of commissioning.</p>
<p>To rebuild trust in a changed environment, governments need to have the appropriate workforce in place. When trust in leaders – political and organisational – is declining, citizens and users look to others including frontline staff for trust signals.</p>
<p>In our work on the <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/msog-production/assets/files/000/000/259/original/MSoG-21c-Draft2_2_.pdf?1415916853">21st-century public service workforce</a> we identified that, in addition to the expected analytical, professional or technical expertise, much closer attention must be paid to developing a workforce with broader skills. These include commercial skills, design thinking and softer skills such as relationship building, communication, negotiation and brokering.</p>
<p>These skills will be essential for the depth of engagement public servants will be expected to have with external partners, citizens and communities.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Other articles in The Conversation’s ongoing series, “New Politics”, can be read <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/new-politics">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37333/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This article is based on an address by the author at the Melbourne launch of the 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer survey.</span></em></p>The 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer points to an “evaporation of trust” in institutions and leaders worldwide. The annual survey finds a decline in trust overall, with more countries classified as distrusting…Helen Sullivan, Director of the Melbourne School of Government, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/373432015-02-09T05:05:45Z2015-02-09T05:05:45ZIs it time for Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull?<p>In the wake of Monday’s attempted Liberal leadership spill, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott clearly needs to do something to shore up support. He’s been offered all manner of unsolicited advice: <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/tony-abbott-needs-more-worknbspin-getting-contrite-right/story-e6frg75f-1227200105734">show contrition</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-09/barnes-abbott-fights-on-but-must-change-his-ways/6079066">play nicer with others</a>, <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-desperate-defence-of-credlin-is-humiliating/story-fni0cwl5-1227203618369?nk=658e7a6f41a3abe53296f88eec165deb">sack his chief of staff</a> Peta Credlin, explain his policies better.</p>
<p>But perhaps the most interesting idea – <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/government-in-the-vortex-economy-in-ominous-drift/story-e6frg71x-1227211023171">pushed</a> to a large extent by News Limited papers – is to replace Joe Hockey as treasurer with Malcolm Turnbull. It’s far from clear that Abbott will make such an offer, and we’re certainly not sure why Turnbull would accept, but it’s interesting to speculate about what it would mean.</p>
<p>The leadership implications seem easy to understand if Turnbull became treasurer. He’d be less likely to challenge Abbott after accepting such a deal, and so the main threat to Abbott’s leadership in the medium term would disappear.</p>
<p>What about the economic implications? What would it mean for the budget, economic policy, and the deficit? First of all, changing treasurer does not change the fundamental, structural budget challenges faced by the government. Government revenues are forecast to grow at a much lower rate than government expenditures. We already have a large deficit and, left unchecked, it will only get larger over time. Indeed, it’s only bracket creep – the unsavoury fact that marginal tax rate thresholds are fixed in nominal terms and hence more people shift into higher tax brackets over time – that keeps matters from getting even worse.</p>
<p>Changing personnel doesn’t do anything about that. Or does it?</p>
<p>Well, not directly. But it’s probably fair to say that Turnbull has a more sophisticated grasp of economics than Hockey. More importantly, however, he’s definitely a better salesperson. Anyone who has met Malcolm knows that he has a healthy regard for his own abilities. Yet it’s hard to imagine him lecturing us on how <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-15/joe-hockey-poor-people-cars-claim-misleading/5671168">poor people don’t really drive cars</a>, or <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-joe-hockey-and-finance-minister-mathias-cormann-pictured-smoking-cigars-ahead-of-tough-budget-20140509-zr8i3.html">lighting up a stogie</a> just before delivering a budget that ripped benefits away from a big chunk of Australians. He would likely be more successful at selling economic change.</p>
<p>Indeed at a conference in Canada, (where Kevin Rudd was the keynote speaker) Turnbull gave the final speech, about the future of China. It was so good some Labor staffers were heard to say: “Gee he’s good…he explains it so well…oh hang on we are not meant to say that are we?”</p>
<p>But even a great salesperson needs product. And that’s a bit of an issue. The gap between government revenues and receipts is big and growing. To bridge that gap requires some big changes.</p>
<p>On the revenue side it could involve: raising the rate of the GST (to say 15%) and broadening the base to include things like fresh food; ending or scaling back negative gearing; or cutting down on tax breaks on superannuation. Those things may or may not be good ideas, but they’re all a tough sell. The GST hits poorer people hardest and probably requires some significant kind of compensation to have any chance of passing. Ending negative gearing could obliterate the housing market, and at a minimum would hurt those invested in rental properties. Raising taxes on anything is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/fact-file-what-tony-abbott-promised-on-tax/5420226">not exactly the Liberal way</a> – and raising it on retirement savings of wealthy people would play terribly with their base.</p>
<p>On the expenditure side measures could involve: cutting back the growth of and accessibility to the age pension; further cutting family benefits; or introducing significant co-payments in the health system. All of these things are profoundly unpopular with the electorate.</p>
<p>Just ask poor old Joe Hockey how easy it is to sell some combination of this stuff.</p>
<h2>Change for change’s sake?</h2>
<p>The key benefit of Turnbull as treasurer would be the change itself. This government is stuck in the muck economically. It needs to do something to start gaining traction on policies that will bridge the structural deficit gap. Turnbull would represent a shift toward a person well versed in matters economic and good at getting things done.</p>
<p>He might even be able to preside over some kind of “grand bargain” on taxes and spending – bringing the ALP on board. That would be a great thing for the country. But it would require every bit of his charm, as well as his intellect.</p>
<p>But whether bargains are grand or modest, the treasurer needs to be a good negotiator and persuader. Especially when the PM is not. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/hockey-abbott-partnership-looks-shaky-against-treasurers-past-36589">great PM-treasurer combinations</a> in Australian history: Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello had one key thing in common. The PM built political capital, and the treasurer spent it on economic reform. But they did so by jointly persuading the voters of the benefits of change.</p>
<p>So would Turnbull make a good treasurer, or even a great one? We may never know as a technically good potential treasurer on paper may be a flop in practice. While a self-made man like Keating, who had little formal economics education, turned out well.</p>
<p>We don’t know the answer to that question. But perhaps the most compelling reason for Abbott to appoint him is that, with all the challenges is entails, it would keep Turnbull busy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Holden is an ARC Future Fellow.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Harcourt is the JW Nevile Fellow in Economics.
He was previously ACTU Research Office and was appointed Chief Economist of Austrade during the Howard Government. He also was an economist at the RBA in Glenn Stevens' department. </span></em></p>In the wake of Monday’s attempted Liberal leadership spill, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott clearly needs to do something to shore up support. He’s been offered all manner of unsolicited advice…Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW SydneyTim Harcourt, J.W. Nevile Fellow in Economics, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.