Resurgent Turnbull’s audacious and unpredictable election plan

**FILE** A Monday, Sept. 14, 2015 file image of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (left) and Federal Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull at the conclusion of Question Time in the House of Representatives at Parliament House, in Canberra. Following weeks of speculation, former prime minister Tony Abbott has confirmed he will recontest the federal seat of Warringah at the next election. (AAP Image/Sam Mooy) NO ARCHIVING

The Turnbull resurgence has come with a bold strike for a July 2 double-dissolution election, a claim of evolving policy distinction from Tony Abbott and a command of his government that casts a shadow over Scott Morrison.

Malcolm Turnbull has verified that audacity is intrinsic to his character. He has put down the misleading reports that he was confused about the meaning of his prime ministership. Nobody, however, should have any doubts — Turnbull has chosen an unconventional and unpredictable path to the 2016 poll.

There is no more exciting time to be Malcolm Turnbull. The one certainty is lots more surprises. Consider the next 100 days: Turnbull will recall the parliament, put his industrial bills, face a quasi-circus with crossbenchers lurching into multiple stunts, finalise the budget and the tax reform package, watch the Treasurer bring down the budget a week earlier on May 3 and, if all goes to plan, call the election according to the May 11 deadline for July 2.

This is the plan of a confident leader willing to exert authority. Despite Turnbull’s stress on consultation, nobody doubts his command of the government. Have no doubt: the real issue of 2016 is the unfolding Turnbull prime ministerial project.

The crossbenchers, however, could derail the game plan. Having abused Turnbull as a bully for seeking to take the issue to the people, they might still abandon their so-called principles and seek to save their political necks by passing the industrial bills. There is little chance this Senate, unrepresentative and arrogant, will go quietly. But if the bills are passed, the blow is withheld: no double dissolution.

In this tactical adventurism on which he has embarked — a showdown with a hostile Senate, a double-dissolution poll and one of the longest campaigns in history — Turnbull’s greatest risk is the long campaign. Bob Hawke discovered that truth in 1984. A long campaign needs two core conditions — unity and discipline. And these are the government’s vulnerabilities. Witness events since late January when the government faltered, lost direction and began speaking with too many different voices. This is when Turnbull became dismayed with Morrison.

There is stacks of time for things to go wrong. The Labor Party and the media are fixated on the factors that could bring Turnbull undone: Turnbull-Abbott rivalry, tensions between the Prime Minister and his Treasurer, and Turnbull’s ability to bring down a coherent and ambitious election policy agenda on which to seek a mandate.

This week has seen a graphic display of Turnbull’s political essence. He is a national interest pragmatist, too complex to easily brand, cautious but audacious; having promised to negotiate with the Senate he has embraced the logic of confrontation; he moves closer to Abbott on industrial relations and national security yet further away on climate change, competition policy and the economy.

It is a reminder that Turnbull, above all, is his own man. He doesn’t define himself by Abbott. Indeed, such comparisons only serve the government’s enemies. It was a mistake for Abbott this week to say that “fundamentally the Turnbull government is seeking election on the record of the Abbott government”. That sound bite is a gift for Labor.

It is true that by making the two industrial bills the double-dissolution issue, Turnbull is running on Abbott’s policies. These are Abbott’s bills; the bills he took to the 2013 election. They have been core Coalition policy for years. Turnbull when he released the Dyson Heydon royal commission report late last year said: “We are willing to fight an election on this.”

Indeed, Turnbull pencilled in a possible July 2 poll before the end of 2015.

It is an insight into his style. Turnbull likes to keep issues on the table, keep his options open and then strike. It is hardly a surprise that Turnbull wants to make the election about the future: Turnbull’s vision is the future while Abbott’s record is the past. Turnbull, step by step, is putting his imprint on every policy, an inevitable process that will test Abbott’s nerve and discipline.

Turnbull’s statement there was continuity and change was accurate and a truism. Yet Turnbull is clueless about what Abbott may do in a campaign. “Tony is a national figure and I hope that he will be supportive,” Turnbull told Neil Mitchell on 3AW. “He is indicating that he will be and that is good.” Asked whether Abbott would be a plus or minus in the campaign, Turnbull said: “It depends what he says, frankly.” In short, Malcolm doesn’t know what Tony will do; he doesn’t control that.

Yet while running on Abbott’s industrial bills Turnbull made his most decisive break so far from Abbott’s climate change policies: he announced retention of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, both integral to the Gillard-Greens policy that Abbott detested. The upshot is that former Greens leader Bob Brown praised Turnbull.

In addition, Turnbull announced a new $1 billion Clean Energy Innovation Fund to invest each year $100 million in cutting-edge clean energy technologies and business, a classic Turnbull initiative. The idea is government will become a partner, provide finance but expect a return, though less than required by a private sector investment.

The extent of policy reversal is dramatic but expected: abolition of the CEFC was actually a double-dissolution bill. No showdown with the Senate here. It would have been the easiest thing in politics for Turnbull to add this bill to his list of double-dissolution bills and deliver on Abbott’s policy of abolition. The point, of course, is that Turnbull doesn’t believe in ­Abbott’s policy.

Note that Environment Minister Greg Hunt called these decisions “the signature of Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership with regard to climate change”.

The Brussels attack, however, showed Turnbull in full embrace of the Liberal Party tradition of ­national security guardianship. Turnbull has no intention of letting Labor steal this mantle.

In prepared comments when delivering the 2016 Lowy lecture, Turnbull issued dire warnings about the plight of Europe, its sustained failures in combating Islamist terrorism and the need for Australia to remain vigilant on every front.

“Violent Islamist extremism appears to have reached a crisis point in Europe,” Turnbull said. “European governments are confronted by a perfect storm of failed or neglected integration, foreign fighters returning from Iraq and Syria, porous borders, and intelligence and security apparatus struggling to keep pace with the scope and breadth of the threat. Recent intelligence indicates that ISIL is using the refugee crisis to send operatives into Europe.”

The latter is a statement of the obvious. But such remarks are anathema to many progressives who argue they turn public opinion against refugees.

The point, as Turnbull recognises, is that the task of political leaders in this crisis is to speak truth to the people. Anything less is irresponsible.

Turnbull’s comment reminds that he can take a hard line on security issues without provoking the outcry that ­Abbott generated, partly because of his general tenor of reasonableness.

Turnbull pointed out that with Islamic State, also known as ISIL, hurting in Iraq and Syria, losing 22 per cent of its territory and 40 per cent of its revenues, its tactic had become to demonstrate its operational reach. The objective, he said, was to ensure the so-called caliphate “is decisively defeated in the field”.

The lesson for Australia, Turnbull said, was the need to be vigilant at home, maintain border security, ensure our laws gave the security services the tools they required and “to support our allies in the battle against the terrorists of ISIL in Syria and Iraq”.

The next great policy test for Turnbull and Morrison will be the budget and tax package. The government is constrained by factors that many people — politicians, media and public — seem to overlook. In short, there is no easy money for tax relief. The budget is in deficit, growth is uncertain, revenues are weak and the grand tax mix switch (increasing the GST) has been removed from the table.

Morrison has signalled there will be reform of superannuation tax. Negative gearing and capital gains tax will not be touched, to enable Turnbull and Morrison to campaign against Labor’s agenda on these items.

It is likely there will be tax relief for business — probably staged cuts in the company tax rate with a timetable to be spelled out, legislated and implemented over a number of years.

Repeated claims there will be nothing on personal income relief in the budget make no sense apart from their recognition of the fiscal problem. The idea that Turnbull will offer corporate tax relief but not individual tax relief seems far-fetched in an election budget.

At every stage, the Turnbull-Morrison relationship will be under scrutiny. It needs to be effective not just for the budget but for the campaign.

The ultimate issue Turnbull is testing is whether the Liberal Party’s September 2015 leadership transition can succeed by contrast with Labor’s June 2010 transition that doomed the Rudd-Gillard era. Turnbull remains supremely confident about his own campaigning and policy ability. But the transaction costs of a late first-term leadership transition are high, subtle and often erupt unexpectedly.