Sharri Markson: Malcolm Turnbull’s stuck exactly where he doesn’t want to be — the middle

THE climate of outrage seems to grow by the day but consider this — anger mobilises people to action and can be a very effective political weapon, writes Sharri Markson.

PM Malcolm Turnbull.

• Sharri Markson: Malcolm’s next crew on the good ship Turnbull
• Sharri Markson: Two-faced Shorten on track to be PM?

HOW can Malcolm Turnbull run a centrist government in a climate of outrage?

We are living in a time of peace and prosperity. We have a strong economy, freedom of speech and a lively press. Yet it’s conceivable to spend an entire day feeling outrage and a sense of injustice.

As you drive to work, you turn on the radio to learn of Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg’s clandestine move to slap an emissions penalty on cars.

You get heart palpitations as you hear how they’re going to push up the price of cars and electricity with their misguided focus on renewables.

Why is Australia still committed to the Paris agreement anyway? You may nod.

Turnbull, with his millions of dollars and servants and living in a Harbourside mansion, what does he know about electricity bills? And what about his Budget? It was meant to be lower-taxing with spending restraint, but it’s the opposite. Did you know he was once part of the Labor Party? He should be Labor leader. It’s time for him to go. He doesn’t even understand Menzies’ vision for the Liberal Party. Resign, Prime Minister!

PM Malcolm Turnbull — facing a sea of outrage.

Then you arrive at work, maybe you open Twitter. There’s a flood of tweets about a graphic on page 12 of The Daily Telegraph that, according to people with comprehension issues, lists sexuality among a list of what is unhealthy for young people. The Telegraph must hate gay people! The twitterati roll into a storm of outrage, with plenty of incitement from Buzzfeed. The editor should resign! (He’s “worse than Hitler and Pol Pot and Stalin”). Sign this petition! Protest outside his office!

Three hours later, a fresh scandal — Prue MacSween has flippantly said in a radio interview with Chris Smith that she’d have run over Yassmin Abdel-Magied if she came across her. How dare she condone violence against someone she doesn’t agree with. It must be because Yassmin is Muslim. She is refusing to apologise. How dare she! Smith should resign!

Maybe Mamamia then writes a story encouraging outrage at the Yassmin haters. Maybe the SMH writes a story on how Mia Freedman is not really a feminist. The outrage cycle ensues. It is endless.

Before I’m accused of gross hypocrisy, I admit, I’m not immune from a very occasional bout of utter outrage. Show me an ALP resolution on Palestine and my blood boils.

Perhaps consider this: People enjoy feeling angry. They want to be outraged about something. Preferably something they think is very important and care about.

Anger gives people meaning in their lives. It makes people feel like they are on a mission to achieve something purposeful, instead of following the same routine, paying bills, going to work, day in, day out, like ants. Anger is an empowering emotion. But it goes beyond that.

Western Sydney University’s Professor of psychology, Craig McGarty said “anger is an action-oriented emotion”.

In other words, anger mobilises people to action. And thus, can be a very effective political weapon.

McGarty conducted research in the wake of September 11 into the language of political leaders, Bush, Howard and Blair. He was examining claims by left-wing critics that the leaders were “scare-mongering”.

Contrary to the conspiracy theorists, he found that the leaders did not use language that evoked fear.

“We found there was more anger than fear, and especially anger at the point when those leaders were seeking to mobilise political support,” he said.

“It’s an action-relevant motion. It’s the best thing to inspire or encourage an audience.” Tony Abbott used anger effectively when in opposition against Julia Gillard and her policies.

Pauline Hanson harnesses anger against immigrants and Muslims, as Donald Trump does. Not to mention the Greens and militant unions.

Senator Pauline Hanson.

Bill Shorten’s use of anger at the government over cuts to Medicare, education, pay and healthcare was also highly effective. Even where it has been blatantly untrue, like the Mediscare campaign ahead of the last election, his use of anger made people believe it was an important issue.

“If you’re going to convey a response, there’s not much point saying you’re uncertain, no one is going to be interested, but if you say you’re angry or outraged and this is dangerous and risky and going to have terrible repercussions and affect your kids at school, it’s a more compelling argument,” Prof McGarty said.

“Any politician would seek to mobilise those sorts of argument if they want to be successful.”

Turnbull this week advocated governing from the “sensible centre” but he’s learned it’s a harder proposition than it should be in our increasingly polarised culture, where disproportionate outrage is levelled daily from the left and right extremes among the public and in Parliament.

(It has also detracted from his remarks that he made them amid meetings with the Queen and global leaders on the world stage. Indeed, Cabinet Ministers have been privately critical of his timing.)

Labor leader Bill Shorten.

We can acknowledge that in no previous modern era would Trump have been elected President of the United States. It is inconceivable that someone could have come from such an extreme position, and from so far outside the political spectrum, to win the Oval Office.

Trump is a creature of outrage; a product of the climate of anger.

But he is an exception.

While the outraged extremes are making it difficult to govern, and weakening the electoral results of centrist politicians, they are not ultimately prevailing. This is a crucial point to remember for Turnbull as he fights the noise, anger and objections at the extremes.

Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Turnbull have all won elections. Theresa May, despite being severely weakened by Jeremy Corbyn, who mobilised outrage between the generations, is still governing.

If Turnbull can withstand the outrage and, with a steady hand, continue to introduce legislation that voters care about, in education, national security and health, he may yet prevail,

Time to demolish these property developer laws

If the electoral laws that ban donations to politicians from property developers are not serving their intended purpose, then Gladys Berejiklian should scrap them.

The Electoral Commission examined donations from seven property figures paid to Ray Williams after The Daily Telegraph was leaked the cheques and internal financial records from Williams’ electoral ­office.

After a thorough investigation, the commission determined that only three were property developers according to the technical definition of a property developer under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act.

This is despite the fact that many of the others call themselves ­developers.

As The Daily Telegraph pointed out at the time, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Ray Williams.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian. Picture: AAP

The Electoral Commission has such a complicated definition of a property developer, you have to wonder whether even Harry Triguboff would qualify.

Of the three donors who the commission did determine were property developers under the Act, the commission had already acted in one instance to seize the donation, the Liberal Party repaid the money in the second instance and the third donation was made more than three years ago, so it was outside the statute of limitations.

This means the commission no longer has the power to take any action against the Liberal Party or Mr Williams.

So Mr Williams received donations from three property developers, but will get off scot-free.

He sent a press release yesterday welcoming the outcome, pleased that his name has been cleared.

It’s time the NSW Premier overturned the ban on donations from developers.

It’s a law that isn’t working.

It was used to sweep 11 mostly Right-faction MPs from office.

Senior Liberals are bewildered at the soft touch on Mr Williams, while former police minister Michael Gallacher, along with MPs such as Chris Spence, Bart Bassett, Darren Webber and others, were not given the benefit of the doubt.

There was no evidence that Mr Gallacher broke any law, yet he was called corrupt and swiftly asked to step aside.

Three years later ICAC eventually claimed that the upstanding former police officer had an intention to take donations from property deve­lopers.

There was no evidence to show that he did.

Mr Williams categorically received donations from three property developers, but he faces no sanction or penalty.

Liberal MPs from the Right faction are fuming at the different approaches.

“It’s funny how people in different factions are treated differently,” one MP said.