Turnbull tolls own death knell

HAD William Shakespeare come across Malcolm Turnbull right now, the bard may have rephrased that famous line: "I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." Despite the gloating of those who detested or were suspicious of Turnbull as soon as he arrived in Canberra, there is plenty to say in praise of the man. Alas, there is also plenty about the man that explains why he buried himself yesterday and lost the leadership of the Liberal Party.

Politics rarely attracts the likes of Turnbull. There is no great tradition in Australia of successful men of Turnbull's calibre turning to public service. Most reach their 50s, wind down, enjoy the spoils of their success and limit their interest in politics to bleating from the outside. Not Turnbull.

The man who has a demonstrated track record of drive, ambition, passion and accomplishment in law and business entered parliament full of promise. True to form, he was outstanding when making the economic case against the Rudd government's debt and deficit. But from the outset Turnbull was met with a level of poisonous jealously from within and without the Liberal Party. Those less brilliant are inevitably intimidated by men such as Turnbull. He confronted haters within the Liberal Party too threatened by their own mediocrity to accept him as leader.

Still pining for a John Howard-like leader, Turnbull was anathema to them. Sadly, Turnbull also did himself no favours on several fronts. When it came to climate change, as opposition leader he gave the internal Liberal Party haters every reason to bring him down. Turnbull's early policy mid-last year was entirely sensible. He said it was economic madness for Australia -- a country responsible for 1.4 per cent of global emissions -- to commit to carbon cuts unless the rest of the polluting world followed. Here was a policy steeped in pragmatism and caution that could have allowed the Liberal Party to argue the case against the Rudd government's rush to enact an emissions trading scheme ahead of the rest of the world in a way that would damage the Australian economy.

Turnbull's fatal mistake was to rejig his policy. He hitched his star to Kevin Rudd's need for early glory on the global stage by enacting an ETS in time for the climate change conference in Copenhagen without taking his party with him. In recent days, Turnbull's plea for Australia to act now on climate change has been far more passionate than anything we have seen or heard from the Prime Minister or Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. While Turnbull may deserve praise for articulating his genuine conviction on this issue, his position was increasingly out of kilter with most within his party.

Many now realise that the debate on climate change is changing fast. The Climategate fiasco of leaked emails reflects poorly on the scientific establishment and more and more people are beginning to understand the enormous personal and broader economic costs of an ETS. This is no sure-fire winner for the Rudd government. Yet no one in the Liberal Party has prosecuted the case for caution in a way that gets traction with the public.

Indeed, last week Turnbull sounded more like Peter Garrett before the previous election. Recall when, in late October 2007, Garrett told ABC political reporter Chris Uhlmann that a Labor government would sign a global deal on climate change even if developing countries were not part of that deal. Then prime minister John Howard immediately rang ABC radio's AM program, pointing out the folly of signing an agreement that did not include the developing countries, countries that would account for two-thirds of the world's emissions by 2030. Garrett was duly punished for his political naivety by his leader.

And Turnbull has been similarly punished by his party.

The demise of Turnbull is the starkest and fastest lesson that brilliance is not always transferable. Even the most extraordinary acumen in business does not necessarily translate into political nous. The smart politicians who do the hard yards in parliament for many years learn the dynamics of politics and the inner workings of their party. They learn the art of winning arguments by cajoling and persuading their colleagues, treating even their opponents with respect. And they learn how to lose arguments with grace. Those years of political experience build connections and hone skills most needed in times of political tumult.

For all his past brilliance, Turnbull was a political neophyte. Skills that worked for him elsewhere failed in Canberra. When he treated disagreement from within his party as ignorance and failed to show others the respect due to them, Turnbull lost people; good Liberals such as Andrew Robb he never should have lost.

Likewise, by lumping together every critic as a "denier" Turnbull nailed the last nail in his coffin. His "delay is denial" line was neither fair nor accurate.

There are plenty of people who understand that Australia will have to be part of a global agreement on climate change. Advocating caution is not denial. Refusing to rush through an ETS, one that will punish our economy when big emitters in the developed and developing world have yet to do anything, is not recklessness. It is the essence of political responsibility.

Too often, Turnbull directed his immeasurable charm at the wrong people, the Canberra press gallery. Accordingly, the left-wing flank of the press gallery no doubt will make Turnbull out as a martyr, brought down by a party out of touch with climate change. But those journalists bedded down in Canberra invariably live in inner-city seats, with jobs immune from the consequences of an ETS that will cost many Australians dearly.

While Turnbull wears a great deal of the blame for his own demise, others cannot escape so easily either. Howard's greatest failing was mismanaging the succession of his beloved Liberal Party, a responsibility that came with the power and privilege of leadership. To his credit, Turnbull did the right thing by stepping up to the tough plate of opposition leader when Brendan Nelson's leadership was terminal.

Blame also rests with the man who could have been and should have been Howard's successor. Peter Costello, who could have prosecuted a strident case against Rudd's ETS, opted out when he was most needed. And those "rebels" so desperate to bring down Turnbull in public in recent months have not served the party well either. Many were as driven by personal animosity towards Turnbull as they were by policy differences with their leader. No one comes of out this saga looking good. For now, the curtain is drawn on the Shakespearean-like tragedy that was Turnbull. The question is what will a defiant Turnbull do next?

[e-mail]