Liberals cannot afford to lose Turnbull

JOHN Howard recognised that the merchant banker had something special to offer.

JOHN Howard's success at encouraging Malcolm Turnbull to reverse his decision to retire from politics, revealed exclusively in The Australian on Thursday, highlights that the former prime minister continues to have the Liberal Party's best interests at heart, even if pride came before the fall because Howard wouldn't stand aside for Peter Costello ahead of the 2007 election.

Whatever Turnbull's faults as a politician, he is the sort of talented individual a party should encourage to prolong their political career. But the benefits of having Turnbull in parliament do come with considerable risks.

He certainly didn't have Joe Hockey's best interests on his mind when he failed to give the opposition Treasury spokesman support on ABC radio following Hockey's (admittedly ill-considered) threat to punish banks that raise interest rates. Turnbull continues to find party solidarity hard to do.

Howard would well understand the dangers in plumbing for Turnbull to stay in the political race. Few believe he has ambitions only to be the communications minister in an Abbott government, for example. Turnbull has a reputation for putting ambition ahead of loyalty.

He has confessed that even his wife Lucy regards him as a model of indiscretion. Costello in his memoirs wrote that Howard's cabinet only started leaking after Turnbull joined it: a deliberately biting description.

As the climate change debate at the end of last year so brutally highlighted, Turnbull also has sympathy for causes that aren't always to the liking of the Liberal Party's conservative membership, which makes Howard's support for him particularly interesting.

Intervening to prolong Turnbull's involvement in the Liberal Party before the last election wasn't the first time Howard has taken a keen interest in Turnbull's political career. He did so when Turnbull was seeking preselection for the 2004 election.

The former merchant banker was looking to oust one-term Liberal MP Peter King. Howard, who traditionally as prime minister protected sitting MPs, wrote the incumbent a deliberately pro forma reference, and said publicly that he saw no reason to oppose Turnbull challenging King.

When researching my co-written biography of Howard, I also discovered that the PM used the final days of the preselection campaign to telephone delegates to urge a vote for Turnbull, to ensure a close race wasn't too close for comfort.

It's instructive for the cynical among us: the fact Howard continued to support Turnbull's political ambitions well after Costello announced his retirement shows that earlier support wasn't all about blocking Costello.

Turnbull's presence in Canberra is a threat to Tony Abbott's leadership, yet Abbott is someone to whom Howard has always been close. For Howard, party loyalty is more important than loyalty to a fellow ideological traveller.

Howard knows that had Turnbull left politics in ignominy, it would have damaged the Liberals in the eyes of business, in party fundraising and when recruiting future talent. And Turnbull wouldn't have gone quietly, one suspects. Yet determining what actions are in the Liberal Party's best interests is always subjective.

Turnbull is a moderate; does that mean he should do what he can to unseat Abbott, a conservative leader, thereby helping shift his party to the political centre?

Turmbull is a passionate advocate for putting a price on carbon and he is a believer in the impact man-made climate change is having on the environment. Does that mean he should spend his spare time persuading colleagues of his position?

It has been reported that Turnbull doesn't think Hockey is up to the job of Treasury spokesman. Does Turnbull therefore believe he should press for promotion to the key economic portfolio to bolster the Coalition's credentials for managing the economy? Complicating this question is Hockey's unofficial status as leader of the moderates.

Or should Turnbull accept that instability is in no one's best interests, certainly not for a Coalition on the cusp of power with a leader who united a rabble (indeed Turnbull's rabble)?

That would leave the member for Wentworth to focus solely on dismantling the government's $43 billion National Broadband Network, the task his leader set for him, and one he should be pretty good at.

We know Turnbull isn't short on confidence, and we know the NBN was central to the rural independents' decision to side with Labor.

If Turnbull, a tech head from way back, can convince those same independents and the wider public that the NBN rollout is another example of waste and mismanagement - just like the home roof insulation scheme and the Building the Education Revolution program - he will assist Abbott's chances of winning the prime ministership and perhaps even rehabilitate his own leadership ambitions in the process.

How Turnbull uses his renewed opportunity at a political future will play a significant role in the opposition's fortunes during Labor's second term.

Interestingly enough, Turnbull's interests as well as Abbott's and the Liberal Party's are best served by Turnbull avoiding shaking the leadership tree (at least for the moment) and instead working as an effective frontbencher.

But impatience has always been Turnbull's best asset as well as his worst vice.

He could do worse than learn from the man who persuaded him to continue his political career in the first place.

Turnbull should work his way around the party rebuilding relationships, as Howard did after he lost the leadership in 1989.

And he should buckle down and show that he can crush the government in one policy area - communications - as Howard did in the industrial relations field for years as an opposition frontbencher. Perhaps the best thing Turnbull could do is buy a copy of Howard's autobiography, released next week, and treat it as a political manual. Patience and unbridled ambition were the hallmarks of Howard's political career. One out of two ain't bad.

AS a postscript to last weekend's column, Abbott was asked by Laurie Oakes last Sunday why he didn't stand up for chief military prosecutor Lyn McDade during an interview with Alan Jones when the shock jock started vilifying her (remembering that Abbott was a cabinet minister in the government that appointed McDade).

Abbott responded: "It's not always easy to get a word in with Alan." Never has a truer phrase been uttered. Abbott went on: "My role, I think, as the opposition is to hold the government to account and, if necessary, to speak up for people who may not be getting a fair go."

That obviously doesn't include McDade, who as a member of the armed forces is limited in what she can say publicly to defend her reputation against Jones's ranting.

Despite a parliamentary week devoted to debating the war in Afghanistan, Abbott still hasn't clarified whether McDade has his support. He seems to be deliberately avoiding doing so.

Maybe Abbott is worried saying she does would result in him losing Jones's support?