Liberal party making policy on the run

THE Liberal Party is now making policy on the run -- the direct result of Tony Abbott's "accidental" election as Liberal Party leader.

THE Liberal Party is now making policy on the run -- the direct result of Tony Abbott's "accidental" election as Liberal Party leader.

Abbott yesterday ruled out both a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme -- the main methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- at the 2010 poll.

He declared his plan was to run a "people's revolt" against Kevin Rudd, and his media appearances have ignited a powerful grassroots movement. Abbott said last night he was pledged to the Rudd government's emission reduction targets of 5, 15 and 25 per cent, depending upon global progress. But he will rely upon land management, biosequestration and energy efficiency to meet them, not market or tax mechanisms -- a stance sure to raise policy credibility problems. "It's difficult but I think it's doable," Abbott told The Australian last night. "I don't pretend it's cost-free but some will be self-financing." There was an open dispute yesterday between Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey over the strategic failure of the pro-ETS progressive forces that had an initial majority in the partyroom on Tuesday.

It was this failure that delivered Abbott the leadership.

"I have a very clear recollection that Malcolm told me on more than one occasion that if the spill was carried, then he would not be a candidate," Hockey told The Australian yesterday. He said Turnbull gave him this firm assurance on Monday, the day before the ballot. One of Hockey's backers said yesterday he was also given the same assurance by Turnbull on Monday night. Hockey entered the partyroom expecting to become leader and expecting Rudd's ETS to become law.

But Turnbull rejects this version of events. He confirms Hockey asked him to stand down if the spill was successful.

But Turnbull said: "I didn't give Joe an undertaking that I wouldn't run if the spill was carried. I came to the view that if there was only one other vote for me, I didn't want to deny that person the opportunity to vote for me."

Turnbull's camp believes Hockey convinced himself that Turnbull would step aside for him. But Hockey is emphatic that he got this assurance direct from Turnbull. The absence of an agreed strategy fatally split the progressive vote.

In the first ballot the combined Turnbull-Hockey vote was 49, compared with Abbott's 35 votes. But this majority was never converted into a winning position. Late on Monday, Hockey walked away from a consensus deal on the leadership: it involved Hockey as leader, Peter Dutton as deputy and Abbott as Treasury spokesman. The obstacle was Hockey's refusal to sell out on his pro-ETS stand.

The leadership was guaranteed for Hockey, if he embraced the right-wing anti-ETS line.

But Hockey felt this was untenable for him in both a personal and political sense.

Yet this led to Hockey's blunder -- his suggestion of a conscience vote on the ETS, a flawed effort to find a unity position for the party. This left Hockey looking weak on policy and it gave Abbott a fresh opportunity to run on his anti-ETS convictions. The key to Abbott's success was his decisive seizure of this opening. There is a view that if Hockey had outpolled Turnbull in the first ballot then he would have beaten Abbott in the second ballot. Yet it testifies to Hockey's weakness that he polled behind Turnbull in the first ballot. Ultimately, it was a contest of strength between Abbott as the anti-ETS candidate and Turnbull as the pro-ETS candidate.

The legacy is a new policy volatility. Abbott will need to think fast as he puts policy flesh on the party's new anti-ETS stance.