Moving on Bishop is a dangerous game

ANY Liberal MP thinking about challenging Julie Bishop for the deputy leadership should back off. The time for that was when Tony Abbott became leader in late 2009, or immediately after the narrow election defeat last year.

Now is not the right time and it is unlikely anytime between now and the next election will be.

We got a glimpse this week of what happens when opposition instability becomes the issue, as the government dominated the first parliamentary sitting period of the year.

The chain of events that would ensue from a leadership showdown for the deputy position would damage Abbott and it would certainly damage the party. It would also start an internal war between moderates and conservatives, partly because of the flow-on effects of such a move. But more on that in a moment.

Removing Bishop as deputy would mean installing opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb in that position. No other contender is credible, interested in, or strategically placed for the job. Let's go through the alternatives to Robb. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey and immigration spokesman Scott Morrison are both based in NSW, from where Abbott hails. The Liberal Party wouldn't consider the leader and deputy both residing in the one state, even the biggest state in the commonwealth. The Coalition's education spokesman Christopher Pyne has surprised many by how well he has performed as manager of opposition business in the house. But he isn't suitable as deputy leader, at least not yet.

Opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton has long been touted as a future leader, and he hails from the important state of Queensland. But Dutton needs to work on his media performances and is young enough to bide his time.

Greg Hunt, the Coalition's climate change and environment spokesman, and Malcolm Turnbull (communications and broadband) are the only other realistic contenders, but neither is acceptable at present. Hunt needs a stint in a different portfolio to demonstrate he has breadth, and it will be some time before colleagues would dare move Turnbull into a job that requires the utmost of loyalty to the leader.

From Abbott's perspective, Bishop as deputy and Hockey as shadow treasurer is a combination not worth shifting.

Bishop is the most senior Liberal in the best performing state for the Coalition: Western Australia. The Liberals and Nationals hold 12 of 15 lower house seats in WA. They disproportionately fundraise from the west. The campaign against the mining tax, which also resonates in Queensland, is driven out of WA. The most successful state Liberal regime, Colin Barnett's, hails from across the Nullarbor. Removing Bishop might also cause tensions inside the WA Liberal Party, and it could affect fundraising and the party's standing in WA electorates.

While the west is a stronghold for the conservatives, there is a lot to be lost by flicking a West Australian out of the leadership group, especially considering WA's rising star, the member for Stirling, Michael Keenan, was dumped from the shadow cabinet by Abbott after he won the leadership solely because Keenan was close to Turnbull.

Back to the flow-on effects of moving on Bishop. If Robb took Bishop's deputy position, he would immediately lay claim to the shadow treasurer's role. It is the deputy's right to pick their portfolio. That would of course enrage Hockey, and he would either move to the backbench in disgust or be shuffled down the pecking order. Either way it would end Hockey's show of loyalty to Abbott.

The moderates, of which Hockey is the unofficial factional leader, would arc up and start doing to the conservatives and Abbott what the conservatives did to Turnbull before he was ousted. Instability in opposition would reign supreme and the pressure would be taken off the government.

Elements within the parliamentary Liberal Party are trying to claim Bishop leaked the story about her disagreements with Abbott over the Indonesian education cuts of $500m to pay for the Coalition's alternative to the flood levy. Some are suggesting she also leaked her defence in shadow cabinet of existing African aid.

I find it hard to believe Bishop would be foolish enough to do so given she is the political loser from such leaking. Yes, it makes her look stronger to her portfolio stakeholders - the reason detractors say she leaked - but far more important to Bishop is retaining the deputy leadership, which becomes less certain when tensions she might have with the leader are publicly aired.

Any suggestion Bishop leaked Abbott's thought bubble to cut African aid flies in the face of her argument in shadow cabinet that doing so was foolish. Last June Abbott signed a pledge that a Coalition government would achieve a target of 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product going into foreign aid by 2015.

To strip aid after such a commitment would be damaging, Bishop argued. She also pointed out that British Prime Minister David Cameron managed to cut the budget dramatically without walking away from a commitment to 0.7 per cent of GDP going into foreign aid. Shadow cabinet has 20 members. Surprise, surprise: it leaks, as just demonstrated. But targeting Bishop as the leaker is misguided.

The late-night disagreement between Abbott and Bishop, which was reported in The Australian on Thursday, could have come from only one of a small group of people in the room. Those present were Abbott, a handful of his staffers, Bishop and Robb, who is the only viable candidate who stands to benefit from Bishop falling on her sword. I, of course, have no idea if Robb was the leaker.

More likely, one of his supporters told about the discussion is leaking without authorisation (Peter Costello was poorly served by such "supporters" for years).

At nearly 60 years of age, Robb doesn't have time on his side if he wants promotion; those pushing his case are as aware of that as he would be. But personal goals shouldn't get in the way of political realities: Bishop's loyalty to Abbott as his deputy is unquestioned. They may disagree from time to time, but so what? That's healthy as long as the clashes stay private and don't destabilise.

Bishop is not a leadership contender, so Abbott doesn't have to watch his back with her. She represents the party moderates on some issues, which conservatives need to understand is an important balance, lest moderates feel disengaged from the policy settings of the opposition. And as a senior WA MP, she gives the Coalition's most successful state a seat at the leadership table.

Throw in that Liberal women are thin on the ground, and having one in the leadership team is a bonus when the leader is believed to have difficulties appealing to women, and there's two more reasons to keep Bishop.

But most important, retaining Bishop as deputy wards off the destruction of tumbling dominoes that would undermine Abbott's chances of attaining government.

Anyone who has read my previous writings on Bishop would hardly suggest I am in her corner. If Liberals want to give Abbott the best chance of becoming PM, she should be left alone. The time to dump her has come and gone.