Federal election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull opts not to use arsenal of negative attack ads

EXCLUSIVE: Malcolm Turnbull had an arsenal of attack advertisements and scare campaigns at his disposal and they could have won him the election, but there’s a reason he didn’t use them.

• LIVE COVERAGE: Federal Election vote counting starts again today
• Credlin tells Bolt: Malcolm Turnbull ‘broke the Liberal Party’s heart’
• Likely NSW One Nation senator calls Islam a ‘religion of hate’
• Liberals begin to point the finger in Western Sydney as loss hits home

MALCOLM Turnbull had an arsenal of negative attack advertisements and scare campaigns at his disposal but chose not to use them because the party’s federal base believed it could win without them.

The revelations came as Attorney-General George Brandis today warned colleagues that sniping at Mr Turnbull threatens to undermine the prime minister’s ability to bargain with independents.

“Stability is always better than instability, discipline is always better than indiscipline, playing a team game is always better than self-indulgence,” he told ABC radio on Tuesday.

Furious NSW Liberals say the federal officials relied too heavily on the Prime Minister’s personality cult and didn’t do enough to promote its brand or local candidates.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has come under fire for not using ready to go arsenal attack advertisements which could have affected the outcome of the election. Picture: Jason Edwards

The party didn’t activate scare campaigns over a potential new carbon tax, Bill Shorten’s involvement at the royal commission into union corruption, the prospect of house prices plunging under Labor’s negative gearing policy, or border protection.

Instead, Mr Turnbull preferred to stick to his futuristic vision of Australia as a science and innovation hub focused on increasing opportunities for students.

He also focused on selling the Government’s national economic plan, including unpopular corporate tax cuts.

There are some within the Liberal Party who believe Mr Turnbull’s highbrow approach went over the heads of battling Australians, who bought Labor’s Medicare scare campaign.

Fellow cabinet minister Simon Birmingham acknowledged there was disappointment at the election result.

“But we have held onto government, which it didn’t look like we would do 12 months ago,” he told ABC TV.

Bill Shorten and the Labor Party anticipated a much harder campaign from the Coalition. Picture: Scott Barbour/Getty Images

The Coalition also had the capacity to run more television attack advertisements but chose not to. Senior Liberal Party figures yesterday suggested it was “madness” not to have put more emphasis on Mr Shorten’s role as a witness at the royal commission.

The Daily Telegraph understands Mr Shorten had braced himself for an “onslaught” from the Liberal Party over his trade union background.

Liberal figures say it was “madness” not to have put more emphasis on Mr Shorten’s role as a witness at the royal commission.

Labor strategists have indicated they were surprised the Government “didn’t go harder” on the issue.

It was also suggested that former prime minister Tony Abbott would have run a strong scare campaign on Labor’s emissions trading scheme.

The LNP funded its own signs for use on election day that featured the phrase “Labor lies”, in a bid to counter what they feared was an effective Medicare scare campaign.

Senior LNP sources complained Mr Turnbull left it too late to respond to Labor’s attacks and missed opportunities to mount scare campaigns on terrorism, asylum-seekers, the carbon tax and debt.

“We should have flicked the switch to negative,” one senior LNP MP said.

Another LNP source said Mr Turnbull found campaigning on national security or border protection “distasteful”, but added Mr Abbott would have ruthlessly used these issues if he were still PM.

Originally published as Federal election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull opts not to use arsenal of negative attack ads