March of the Malcontents

It is one thing to understand Turnbull’s disappointment; it is quite another to endorse blatant democratic sabotage.

Scott Morrison will ‘sleep with one eye open trying to second-guess the next leak, defection or preselection hit’. Picture Kym Smith

Make no mistake, there has never been a shortage of people eager to destroy the Coalition parties. It is just that they are not normally inside the Liberal Party.

What we are witnessing is a cohort of Liberals trying to bring down the government — the enemy is within. The ramifications are dire not only for Scott Morrison and his government but also for the country and the ­medium-term future of the ­Liberal Party.

The wreckers are Malcolm Turnbull and his supporters among the so-called Liberal moderates, with Julia Banks the most prominent among them for now. Turnbull quit parliament knowing it would jeopardise the government’s majority, then failed to support the Liberal candidate for his old seat, Dave Sharma. Banks betrayed voters by dumping her party and going to the crossbench. Honey, we shrank the government into minority.

Many political players and commentators blame these repercussions solely on those who ousted Turnbull. Incredibly many of these same people were critical of Tony Abbott’s policy interventions from the backbench after he was rolled as prime minister. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

It is one thing to understand Turnbull’s disappointment and the frustration of his supporters; it is quite another to endorse blatant democratic sabotage. It is one thing to say all political players should consider the consequences of their actions; and quite another to render blameless those who vandalise what they have been ­denied. And it is one thing to believe Turnbull was wronged; and quite another to pretend he didn’t seize the prime ministership the same way he lost it.

Those moderates intent on wreaking vengeance — the Malcontents — are being cheered along as they inflict damage. Banks and former junior minister Craig Laundy (all eyes are on him for the next stunt) have never managed to attract attention for policy advocacy or wounding Labor but they easily can attract applause from the opposition, crossbench and press gallery when they turn on their own.

The extent of the damage being done cannot be under­estimated. Morrison had started to improve the government’s poll standing before the Wentworth shambles killed momentum. The federal infighting clearly exacerbated the Liberal brand damage for the Victorian election.

The precarious numbers in parliament mean the government lives on tenterhooks and Morrison will sleep with one eye open trying to second-guess the next leak, defection or preselection hit. Many journalists and commentators work with the plotters — they laud Banks, for instance, rather than question her betrayal, and endorse her complaints rather than interrogate them.

In the short term the chaos is most debilitating because it prevents the government talking about its own agenda and turns off voters who see no sign of competence or purpose emanating from Canberra. Longer term, it establishes new blood feuds to be carried down the ages, deepens the schism in the party and robs it of talent in seats lost or not regained.

Away from the personalities, recriminations and politicking there are two fundamental questions for the Liberals to confront. One is to address a circular argument about what the party stands for; the other is to modernise and democratise its structure.

The argument about party ideology is a pretend debate in a fake news era. The Liberal Party’s “we believe” statement is a simple values statement, devoid of dogma and rooted in the commonsense right-of-centre values of “lean government … individual freedom and free enterprise”.

While the rhetorical and policy drift to the Left triggered Turnbull’s downfall — it was brought to a head by his insistence on the national energy guarantee, a climate and energy policy that Labor now trumpets — the achievements of more than five years of Coalition government clearly identify an ideological consistency.

There is a crucial contrast to keep in mind here, as the hysteria of the moment takes hold. While the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years were terrible on superficial politicking and scandal, they were also disastrous in policy terms — rampant and wasteful spending, budget blowouts instigating a debt crisis, diplomatic setbacks, mangled climate and energy policy, and tragedy and chaos conjured on our maritime borders.

While undercutting itself with similarly destructive rivalries and assassinations, the Coalition’s ­Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison achievements are much more substantial and reflective of longstanding values. It repealed the mining and carbon taxes; reduced reckless growth in government spending; adopted a more cautious position on climate action; stopped the illegal people-smuggling trade and restored the integrity of the immigration system; struck a series of major free trade agreements; delivered tax cuts for individuals and small business; and is on the cusp of delivering the first budget surplus in a decade.

Were it not for the parliamentary pyrotechnics, this record would be a strong foundation for a re-election campaign. Those who argue the party doesn’t know what it stands for need only look at that list to see how little of it has ever played into the factional feuds and personal acrimony that are tearing the party apart. Only climate policy has been caught up in these tensions; and the need for the Coalition to prioritise economic pragmatism over pointless gestures is as obvious as the 2013 carbon tax landslide.

The Liberals need to unite, renew their ranks and clarify policies, to be sure, but they hardly are in need of soul-searching to find their ideological place. It is found in the simplicity of the “we ­believe” statement and by resisting the identity obsessions and fashionable causes of the Left (even when moderates find them ­alluring).

Rather than a philosophical discussion the Liberals need leadership stability, an end to factionalism and an enlivened grassroots membership. Think about the absurdity of first-term backbenchers such as Peter Hendy, Fiona Scott and Laundy riding into parliament on Abbott’s coat-tails, then cutting him down as prime minister before even holding their seats at one election.

Think of the vulnerability of prime ministers such as Abbott and Turnbull (and Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard for that matter) trying to run a national government in turbulent times but having to walk into partyroom meetings wondering whether schemers had garnered the numbers to overthrow them. Think of Turnbull winning endorsement (albeit narrow) from the electorate, then not making it through a full term himself. Consider the instability of Turnbull and Banks taking revenge for a leadership coup by removing a government’s majority.

The rules must change because this should not be allowed to happen again. Rudd forced Labor to reform its leadership rules in a push that, admittedly, I under­estimated on the grounds of his self-interest and the fact a simple caucus vote could overturn it. In reality, Rudd rightly has ensured the ALP membership will have a say in the parliamentary party’s leadership forever.

There is a strong chance the Liberal Party could follow them down this path. In his book Make The Liberal Party Great Again, NSW party activist John Ruddick makes a detailed, well-researched and compelling case for this ­reform.

Invoking the “wisdom of the crowds”, Ruddick’s manifesto argues a membership vote is like­lier to arrive at the right decision, partly because it weakens the corrupting influence of promised preferment and factional arm-twisting. Yet regardless of whether the optimal leader is chosen, whoever leads would have a much greater chance, barring exceptional circumstances, of seeing out a term and providing the ­stability that is conducive to ­medium-term decision-making. With less leadership manoeuvring in the parliamentary corridors, leaders and their cabinets may deliver better day-to-day government and focus beyond the next Newspoll cycle.

Other aspects of Ruddick’s reformist push have been obvious for years — fast tracking the irresistible switch to full membership plebiscites for party preselections, a practice already in place in most states and resisted in NSW only because of the soulless factionalism that has made the branch such a poisonous influence. It should have happened a long time ago but that argument is won. The crucial reform now involves giving members a vote on the federal parliamentary leadership.

This is not a distortion of the Westminster system but a refinement — and it has been adopted by the Labour Party and Conservatives in Britain.

Ruddick’s arguments are persuasive because they are based on the practical experience in Britain and Canada, proving how easily this could work. But, more important, his case has been made by the vandalism and vacuity of this dismal decade — the circus we still endure is itself an emphatic demand for change.

Not a single prime minister since 2007 has lasted from one election to the next. Not one.

A proposal for direct election of the Liberal Party’s federal parliamentary leader is likely to go to the party’s next federal council meeting after the election. It can’t come soon enough.

* An earlier version of this story referred to “first-term backbencher” Wyatt Roy. Mr Roy was serving his second term when Tony Abbott was replaced.