The Liberals have a Malcolm problem. It’s not their first

When I was a staffer with the Howard government – many moons, hair follicles and pants sizes ago – the government had a bit of a “Malcolm” problem. It bears a striking resemblance to the same “Malcolm” problem facing the Coalition today.

In the late ’90s and early 2000s, former prime minister Malcolm Fraser was still kicking around the political landscape. He was often interviewed, and his comments took on a life of their own within the news cycle. However, rather than criticise his former Labor opponents, Fraser set his sights squarely on his old party and in particular, his former treasurer and now-successful prime minister, John Howard.

Malcolms Turnbull (left) and Fraser.Credit: Michael Howard

In 1999, Fraser was highly critical of the Howard government’s handling of the independence struggle in East Timor. Fraser believed the government should have immediately taken unilateral action to put boots on the ground to prevent insurgency operations by the pro-Indonesia Aitarak militia forces. Howard refused to act until officially asked by the East Timor leadership and his patience proved successful, with an official request for assistance forthcoming from East Timor and an Australia-led coalition of UN forces securing peace.

Fraser’s criticism of Howard’s leadership on the issue did not abate, which was ironic given the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia took place during Fraser’s time as PM in 1975.

In his 2021 book, researcher Peter Job found that: “During the years of the most violent subjection of the Timorese people, the Fraser government protected the Suharto regime from scrutiny … propagating a false narrative of the events leading to the invasion and denying evidence of atrocities.”

Fraser’s criticism of Howard and the Coalition government between 1996 and 2007 was not limited to East Timor. His censure included the republic referendum, environmental policy and economic management. It was hard to tell if Fraser’s ire sprang from some kind of evolved conscience or rank bitterness that his former treasurer had become a more successful prime minister.

Two decades on and the Coalition finds itself in the crosshairs of another former PM Malcolm.

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull was not backward in his criticism of the policies of the Morrison government and has pulled no punches in his disdain for the current leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton.

Turnbull has regularly injected himself into public discourse, labelling the opposition leader a “thug” and claiming he couldn’t think of anyone less suited to be prime minister.

Last year, Turnbull said the Coalition’s push for nuclear power to be considered as part of Australia’s energy mix was “bonkers”. It’s unclear whether Turnbull was criticising Dutton’s nuclear plans from his perspective as former prime minister or president of the International Hydropower Association.

Malcolm Turnbull criticised the Coalition’s push for nuclear power to be considered as part of Australia’s energy mix.Credit: Louise Kennerley

Turnbull popped up in Parliament House in March to criticise the Morrison government’s AUKUS deal to provide Australia with nuclear submarines, including Dutton’s support for the deal.

On Tuesday, Turnbull again pressed the doomsday scenario button on AUKUS in a speech to the National Press Club.

Further stoking a US/Australia diplomatic headache for whomever forms government, Turnbull declared that it was “unlikely” Australia would get a single submarine under the AUKUS agreement. He also declared that the US under Trump does not share the values Australia has shared with US presidents for the last 80 years.

Of course, he couldn’t help using the platform to lob a few mud pies at Dutton. Turnbull took aim at Dutton’s commitment to purchase new F35 fighter jets from the US; claimed Dutton was too dependent on the US during his time as defence minister; and backed Albanese’s comments on sending Australian peacekeepers to Ukraine, claiming Dutton’s position would be seen as Australia “washing our hands of Ukraine”.

It’s hard to tell what is driving this. Is Turnbull trying to remain relevant as he pursues opportunities post-politics? Is this is bitterness driving a determination to do whatever it takes to undermine the prime ministerial chances of a former rival? Or is Turnbull genuinely seeking to engage in robust public debate?

Regardless of his motivations, it’s highly unlikely that Turnbull will shed any tears if Dutton isn’t victorious at the upcoming federal election.

The optics of Turnbull slinging mud on an ad hoc basis during an election campaign is questionable at best for one who once held the highest office in the land.

However, like the Fraser and Howard, Turnbull’s carping at Dutton from the sidelines may embolden the opposition leader’s resolve.

And given Turnbull’s legacy was to see the Coalition’s electoral position whittled away from holding 90 seats in 2013 to a mere one-seat majority in 2016, his apparent lack of popularity with key voters may swing more support behind the current opposition leader.

If Turnbull would truly like to see Dutton miss out on the top job, perhaps he should seek a quiet corner out of the limelight until the election is done and dusted.

Brad Emery is a freelance writer and former staffer in the Howard government.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.