This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Malcolm Turnbull on Q&A: leadership plotters 'effectively blew up the government' – politics live
Malcolm Turnbull on Q&A: leadership plotters 'effectively blew up the government' – politics live
(35 minutes later)
Bronwyn Bishop is on Sky, but there is a limit to how much punishment anyone can take in one night.
I am sure it is along the lines of; “something, something socialists, something socialists”.
And finally, Craig Kelly doesn’t believe that women have a hard time of it in the Liberal party or that it has a “blokey culture”. Because, something something social media.
I wouldn’t agree with that point either.
... Well, politics is a tough game. On the ground, a lot of the comments that were made, by various members of parliament were not only from the Liberal side, but also from the opposite side, the abuse we all cop on social media is sometimes very hard to take.
There’s a more polarisation of the electorate, there’s a lot of vitriol coming from both sides which I think is disappointing. I can see how people can take that as being hard to take.”
Except that women in the Liberal party have said they felt intimidated. But I guess Kelly would know better.
Except … there is a way to track that stuff – postal votes. And while the first postal votes were quite good for Dave Sharma, the last week of postal votes was terminal. Absolutely terminal.
What happened in that last week? Oh that’s right – the discussion about moving the Israeli embassy, Barnaby Joyce said he might have a crack at the Nationals leadership again, if it was offered, and then also talked down Snowy Hydro 2.0 in favour of coal fired power stations, and the government accidentally voted for a white supremist saying in the parliament.
But no. I am sure that had NOTHING to do with it.
Craig Kelly doesn’t believe Turnbull was right about the final week of the Wentworth campaign either:
No, I would go the exact opposite. It was one that internal polls were informed about.The week before, we were looking at a very significant loss. In the last week, Scott Morrison and especiallyJohn Howard being out on the hustings increased the vote significantly.
Again, these are something you can never measure with any certainty, but the polling a week before was showing a lot worse, our internal polling, than what the final result was.”
But, Craig Kelly, you actually have lost an election since the leadership change, so was this the right move?
Time will tell. The next election is probably May of next year, it’s up to the Prime Minister to call, this is something there’s still many, many months to go. And we’ll keep arguing up until every day of the damage that a Bill Shorten Labor government would do, what they were planning to do on negative gearing, how that would affect housing prices and rents, the good record on job creation and growth, how that is at risk of a Bill Shorten government.
These polls will tighten and this next election will be very close and I’m confident we can win the next election.”
Craig Kelly on why polls matter and then, on why polls don’t matter:
There was an Essential poll that had us down significantly as well. It was a KPI, a key performance indicator, set by Mr Turnbull himself, of 30 Newspoll losses. That was a KPI he was unable to achieve. It counts when people walk into the ballot box, we had the Longman by-election, as a coalition, we thought we were a good chance of winning.
We lost it at the last election because One Nation preferences flowed to the Labor party, rather than Wyatt Roy. We were only able to poll 29% in that seat.
Stan Grant:
You point to the KPI and you say 30 opinion polls, but it was very obvious the destabilisation from elements of the conservatives in the Liberal Party began well before that.
Craig Kelly: “I couldn’t concede that point at all.”
Grant: “That Tony Abbott and others were working against Malcolm Turnbull, they wanted him out of the job before that.”
Kelly: “Not at all. I wouldn’t concede that at all. The original leadership ballot on the Tuesday was something that Malcolm called upon himself. There was no organised coup or people going around counting the numbers. It was the former prime minister who actually called the spill upon himself on that Tuesday.”
A short time later....
Grant: “... Given where you are at now, given what the polls are showing post the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull, given the result in Wentworth, where you lost a seat that had a 17.5% margin, is he now right the move was self-destructive?
Kelly: “We’ll have the judge on that when the federal election is held, and what the final results are. In the meantime, we’re going to continue to concentrate ...”
Grant:
Sorry, Craig, you mention polling all the way through this. You said that was the KPI you judged Malcolm Turnbull on. And after the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull, you have gone backwards in those polls, and lost one of the safest seats in the country. I know you’re saying we can wait until the next election, but if you’re going to use polls, the polls are telling you, you have gone backwards.
Kelly:
It was a key performance indicator that Mr Turnbull had set when he argued he should take over from Mr Abbott. That was the key performance indicator of himself.
I’m not one that believes you should look at polls every single day, and see how close you are, but that was his own.
That was one he was unable to achieve. Yes, Malcolm achieved some great things in government.
There’s many things we can boast about, a strong economy, the trade deals, the great levels of jobs growth, those are things we achieve and we should be able to celebrate as Liberals.
I think that Malcolm has a good legacy and record to stand on. But the reality is, as many of my colleagues saw, as we got to the next election next year, we would stand a better chance with a change of leader.”
Sigh.
Craig Kelly on why Malcolm Turnbull was removed as prime minister:
The answer is simple. When he took over from Tony Abbott, he set himself a KPI of 30 Newspoll losses.
He had those and more. We had the Longman by-election, that the former Prime Minister set up as a contest between himself and Bill Shorten. We only polled a primary vote of in the 20s, about 29% in that Longman byelection. We were getting close to six months of the next election, and many of my colleagues, especially those colleagues in Queensland, thought that we would stand a better chance at this coming election with a change of prime minister.”
So Q&A ends.
But Matter of Fact with Stan Grant begins over on ABC24 and …
Craig Kelly is up to explain why Malcolm Turnbull is wrong. On most things, it would see.
But Tony Jones is still Tony Jones, so he squeezes in one last Tony Jones question:
Last one from me - should those very difficult questions that you raised tonight - the unanswered questions about why you were sacked - should they resonate throughout the campaign up until the next election?
Turnbull:
Well, whether they should or not...
Jones:
Would you like them to?
Turnbull:
I won’t be drawn on that, but I think there’s a fair prospect that they might. You know, it is a question I get asked all the time.
This is one of the good things, by the way, about being out of the country for six or seven weeks -being in New York - because people would say, “Oh, right. So you were prime minister of Australia? That’s great. Good. So, what are you doing next?”
Whereas here, everyone wanted to talk endlessly about the coup, and it’s actually quite painful to talk about - particularly when you don’t have the answers.
Will it be an issue? Will it be the biggest issue? Will it be a big issue or a medium-sized issue? I don’t know.
But I think Australians are entitled to know the answer.
And they are - I think every member of parliament should be accountable for what they do, and that’s what parliament is all about - accountability.
That’s why, when you vote, you vote publicly, and it’s written down in Hansard. So I think those people who are responsible for taking a successful, competitive government and literally blowing it up need to have an explanation.
But it’s not one that I can provide, because I cannot - I can’t give an explanation other than to say, as far as I could see, it was madness.
But, clearly, that’s pretty inadequate.”
Last audience question is from Alison:
My sort of question is – what sort of ex-prime minister do you want to be? A Julia, a Kevin, or a Tony? But you must choose.
More lols.
Turnbull: “Well, one of the good things about being an ex-prime minister is that I don’t have to choose.”
Alison: “No, you have to!”
Turnbull:
Look, I think the – I don’t – I’m not going to be, ah, you know, running a commentary on my, ah, successor.
I’m not going to be – I’m obviously not in the parliament seeking to undermine and overthrow him like Kevin and Tony Abbott have done.
I’m out of partisan politics. I remain a member of the Liberal party, a party I joined in 1973. I believe that, for all of its, you know, faults and foibles, the Liberal party offers the best prospect for continued, strong economic growth in Australia.
But, you know, my days as an active political participant have come to an end, and so I will return to the business sector and I’ll return to the company of my wife and children and grandchildren, which I’m looking forward to.”
Audience Tony has the second last question and it is on … the ABC
Considering the responsibility of ABC is holding the government accountable, why were you so hostile towards the ABC?
Lots of claps
Turnbull:
Well, thanks, Tony... I’m a great friend of the ABC.
I have a - in fact, my grandfather, Oscar Lansbury, worked for the ABC at the time it was founded.
In fact, he used to work for 2FC, which is now what’s called Radio National, in the days before it actually became part of the ABC.
So I’ve got a long - my mother worked here - a long connection with the ABC.
My criticism of the ABC in recent years has been about only one thing - I have been very concerned about what I believe has been a deterioration in the quality of the journalism here in the sense that there has been not enough accuracy and balance in the work of journalists here.
So it’s not - I haven’t complained about, you know, bias - a lot of politicians do - I’d given up on that years ago, you’ve got to be realistic..but I do think that, now, more than ever, the ABC needs to adhere to its charter and its statutory obligation in its own Act of delivering news and current affairs which is accurate and objective consistent with the standards of objective journalism.
Tony Jones: “Did you make phone calls or did you have meetings with the chairman, Justin Milne, and encourage or urge him in any way to sack certain journalists?”
Turnbull: “Never, no,absolutely not.”
Jones: “So you were shocked when you found him saying that - not that you had said it, but that the government was so angry with certain journalists, they should sack them?”
Turnbull: “Well, I mean, the... ..all I can say - again, I don’t want to run a commentary on Justin Milne, who...
Jones: “Could you have given him that impression in conversations?”
Turnbull:
No, absolutely not!
There is nothing I’ve said to Justin Milne or to anybody else at the ABC that I haven’t said publicly, right? So my concern was about particular examples of really inaccurate reporting. And so, my affection for and respect for the ABC is so great that I want it to be its best self and to get its journalism right. So that’s my concern. I tell you what ...”
Jones: “So funding is contingent on that, under you?”
Turnbull:
I think what the ABC needs to separate the role of managing director and editor-in-chief. I’ve suggested this publicly for years.
And it should have a dedicated editor-in-chief - a senior position who reports to the board and who is responsible for ensuring that the highest standards of journalism are maintained. Because I think now, more than ever- in an age of fake news and the Twitterverse and all of that - we need the ABC to live up to its statutory charter of being accurate and objective.”
He does not mention the budget cuts the Coalition has put the ABC through, or that some of the reports complained about, were also reported by other media outlets at the time – such as the super Saturday byelection date kerfuffle – only the ABC received complaints.
Natasha wants to know about Trump:
Natasha wants to know about Trump:
The US mid-term election results have just come out. It looks like the Democrats have taken the House, which means President Trump’s power has been reduced. I’m aware that you were able to establish a working relationship with the US, despite all the hardships, difficulties and controversies. However, would these results - and the further difficulty for Trump to pass laws and bills - what do you think that will mean for Australia?
The US mid-term election results have just come out. It looks like the Democrats have taken the House, which means President Trump’s power has been reduced. I’m aware that you were able to establish a working relationship with the US, despite all the hardships, difficulties and controversies. However, would these results - and the further difficulty for Trump to pass laws and bills - what do you think that will mean for Australia?
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
Well, look, I think the Australian relationship with the US is very, very strong. Presidents and, indeed, prime ministers - particularly prime ministers - come and go. (lols)
Well, look, I think the Australian relationship with the US is very, very strong. Presidents and, indeed, prime ministers - particularly prime ministers - come and go. (lols)
Perhaps a little more often than we’d like, in the case of prime ministers...! But the relationship is very, very strong.
Perhaps a little more often than we’d like, in the case of prime ministers...! But the relationship is very, very strong.
You know, President Trump and I had some... ..ah, tough moments. But I was able to achieve the outcomes for Australia that I needed to achieve, and that was - you know, that’s my job. I mean, when you’re dealing with foreign governments - as the Australian prime minister - you are the advocate for Australia. You’ve only got one client - that’s Australia.
You know, President Trump and I had some... ..ah, tough moments. But I was able to achieve the outcomes for Australia that I needed to achieve, and that was - you know, that’s my job. I mean, when you’re dealing with foreign governments - as the Australian prime minister - you are the advocate for Australia. You’ve only got one client - that’s Australia.
And...
And...
Tony Jones:
Tony Jones:
Are you relieved that Trump’s power has been reined in somewhat due to these mid-term results?
Are you relieved that Trump’s power has been reined in somewhat due to these mid-term results?
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
I’ve made a practice - certainly when I was prime minister, and I think I’ll maintain it for a while yet - of, ah, not running a commentary on the politics of other countries. So, you know, the Americans have got their own democratic processes. I think some of our institutions are better than theirs.
I’ve made a practice - certainly when I was prime minister, and I think I’ll maintain it for a while yet - of, ah, not running a commentary on the politics of other countries. So, you know, the Americans have got their own democratic processes. I think some of our institutions are better than theirs.
But they’ve made a decision, and you’re right - the whole US Constitution is based on checks and balances, and it is very common in mid-term elections for the House to flip away from the governing party.
But they’ve made a decision, and you’re right - the whole US Constitution is based on checks and balances, and it is very common in mid-term elections for the House to flip away from the governing party.
Kavi is up next on right wing and populist politics:
Kavi is up next on right ing and populist politics:
My question is - do you have any regrets about bringing in the double-dissolution, which emboldened the extreme minority in the LiberalParty, as I think? It just took a handful of extreme elements in the Liberal Party to wreak so much havoc. In your opinion, how do you think we - as a country - should curb or stop this right-wing populism that seems to be growing in the rest of the world? How do you think we should - what should we be doing to stop and curb it right away?
My question is – do you have any regrets about bringing in the double-dissolution, which emboldened the extreme minority in the Liberal party, as I think? It just took a handful of extreme elements in the Liberal party to wreak so much havoc. In your opinion, how do you think we – as a country – should curb or stop this rightwing populism that seems to be growing in the rest of the world? How do you think we should – what should we be doing to stop and curb it right away?
More applause:
More applause.
Turnbull: It’s a good question, Kavi. I think the most important thing is to respect each other. The challenge within the Liberal Party is that the increasingly - you know, the right-wing and, of course, where you draw the line there - I think we know who you’re talking about -
More laughter
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
..are not prepared to accept the consensus. You see, the fundamental premise of a political party is that you have a group of people with different backgrounds and different points of view and they meet, and they debate issues, and then they reach a consensus and they say, “Alright, we’ll go along with it.” “It’s not exactly what I want or I don’t entirely agree with it, or I disagree, but I’ll go along with it.”
It’s a good question, Kavi. I think the most important thing is to respect each other. The challenge within the Liberal party is that the increasingly – you know, the right wing and, of course, where you draw the line there – I think we know who you’re talking about –
What you’ve seen increasingly from the right, even if they’re not in the majority, they’ll say, “If you don’t give us what we want, we’ll blow the show up.” That is intimidating and that is bullying, and that was at the heart of the coup back in August.
More laughter.
That is a real threat to the Liberal Party. Whether it’s within the Liberal Party or within the nation, mutual respect is the foundation of ours - the most successful multicultural society in the world.
Turnbull:
Are not prepared to accept the consensus. You see, the fundamental premise of a political party is that you have a group of people with different backgrounds and different points of view and they meet, and they debate issues, and then they reach a consensus and they say, ‘Alright, we’ll go along with it. It’s not exactly what I want or I don’t entirely agree with it, or I disagree, but I’ll go along with it.’
What you’ve seen increasingly from the right, even if they’re not in the majority, they’ll say, ‘If you don’t give us what we want, we’ll blow the show up.’ That is intimidating and that is bullying, and that was at the heart of the coup back in August.
That is a real threat to the Liberal party. Whether it’s within the Liberal party or within the nation, mutual respect is the foundation of ours – the most successful multicultural society in the world.
Let me give you some good news, though, about why we are better off than the Americans in terms of politics.
Let me give you some good news, though, about why we are better off than the Americans in terms of politics.
Firstly, we have compulsory voting. It’s a very good thing. Because that means that you don’t have to run off to the extremes to energise, you know, your base. Everyone has to vote, and political debate is won and lost in the centre. And political parties that overlook that, as I said earlier, are at a real risk of losing. You win in the centre.
Firstly, we have compulsory voting. It’s a very good thing. Because that means that you don’t have to run off to the extremes to energise, you know, your base. Everyone has to vote, and political debate is won and lost in the centre. And political parties that overlook that, as I said earlier, are at a real risk of losing. You win in the centre.
Tony Jones:
Tony Jones: “So shouldn’t you have governed from the centre?”
So shouldn’t you have governed from the centre?
Turnbull: “But I did.
Turnbull:
Jones: “… And turned your back on these small group of conservatives whose seemed to dictate so much of what happened in terms of policy?”
But I did.
Jones:
..and earned your back on these small group of conservative whose seemed to dictate so much of what happened in terms of policy?
More applause
More applause
Turnbull:
Turnbull: “Well, I’m not sure what they - I don’t know what they dictated in terms of policy. I mean, ultimately you could say they dictated a leadership coup that saw me out of my job as PM.urnbull:
Well, I’m not sure what they - I don’t know what they dictated in terms of policy. I mean, ultimately you could say they dictated a leadership coup that saw me out of my job as PM.
Jones: “Well, that’s a pretty big one.”
Turnbull:
Turnbull: “Well, it is, but the policies – and I certainly did have a policy of remaining prime minister …”
Well, that’s a pretty big one.
Jones:
Well, it is, but the policies - and I certainly did have a policy of remaining prime minister...
Even more laughter!
Even more laughter!
Turnbull:
Turnbull:
...but my - in terms of the policies I delivered, they were consistent with what we took to the election.
... but my – in terms of the policies I delivered, they were consistent with what we took to the election.
No-one accused me of breaking an election promise. Literally. But can I just another point?
No one accused me of breaking an election promise. Literally. But can I just make another point?
Our House of Representatives electorates are determined independently by an Electoral Commission. So they’re not gerrymandered the way so many of them are in the United States, where so many of them are gerrymandered so they either can’t possibly be won by the opposite party - that means, in order to get the preselection to win the primary, again you’ve got to run off to the extreme. So I think, for those two institutional reasons alone, I think our democracy is more focused on the centre than it is in the US.
Our House of Representatives electorates are determined independently by an Electoral Commission. So they’re not gerrymandered the way so many of them are in the United States, where so many of them are gerrymandered so they either can’t possibly be won by the opposite party – that means, in order to get the preselection to win the primary, again you’ve got to run off to the extreme. So I think, for those two institutional reasons alone, I think our democracy is more focused on the centre than it is in the US.”
Andi is up next and she gets applause for her question:
Good evening. What would your young self make of your efforts as prime minister of Australia and your failure to stand up and do something to prevent the humanitarian disasters of Nauru and Manus?
Turnbull:
Well, given, Andy, that the young are always very critical of the old, I’m sure my young self would find plenty of shortcomings in my old self.
Tony Jones: Moral shortcomings?
Turnbull: Certainly not.
I’d just say this to you - what I was able - my goal as prime minister, with respect to the people that the Labor Party - Kevin Rudd - had put on Nauru and Manus - was to get them resettled, but in a way that did not get the people-smugglers back in business.
There was not one successful people-smuggling expedition to Australia during my time as prime minister. Not one. So on that score, I was successful. I was able to negotiate a deal with Barack Obama to resettle refugees from Nauru and Manus into the United States - rather controversially, and with some, ah, difficulty, I was able to hang onto that deal with President Trump - and, at this stage, between 400 and 500 people have been resettled.
So they are being resettled, so my track record, as far as Nauru and Manus is concerned, is - I kept the boats stopped, I did not put anybody on Nauru and Manus, but I ensured that hundreds were taken off and resettled without getting the boats started again.
But, obviously, now the job is Scott Morrison’s, and what Scott has to do now is manage it and continue that momentum. And I know he has the same commitment and the same goal that I did, because Scott has huge experience in this area - he was Immigration Minister - and he knows what needs to be done.
But the one thing you don’t want to do is get the people-smugglers back in business, because we know what happened under Labor, and it’ll happen again. You had 50,000 unauthorised arrivals, and you had at least 1,200 deaths at sea.
I don’t want that to happen again, and I don’t think anyone else really does. We’ve got to keep people safe, and we owe it to the people seeking to come to Australia to ensure that they come through the proper channels. We’re taking 15,000 or so refugees a year through proper channels. We took 12,000 additionally from the Syrian conflict zone. We have one of the most generous humanitarian programs in the world. But the only proviso is that the Australian government determines which refugees come into Australia - not thepeople-smugglers.
I think that’s what Australians expect.
This will be a long one, so bare with me.
Tony Jones: OK. One of the things that was encompassed in that deal was an agreement not to change climate change policy. We’ve got a question on climate change. We’ll go to that and talk about that in a minute. The next question is a video from Mike Cannon-Brookes, the co-founder and CEO of Atlassian.
Mike:
Our current prime minister, who once famously waved a lump of coal at the opposition in parliament, has defined “fair-dinkum power” as energy that turns on when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.” Thousands of Aussies - including me - are joining together to redefine “fair-dinkum power” to mean “renewable energy that is clean, cheap and reliable”. Our nation is blessed with renewable resources. We have more sun, wind and hydro than coal, gas and oil resources combined. Our vision is that Australia can get to 100% renewables and beyond, and that this transition to renewable energy is not only good for the planet, it presents one of the greatest economic opportunities for our country in terms of job creation and economic growth over the next 10 to 20 years.
So my question to you is: What’s your advice to get politicians onboard with our vision, and will you join us?
The audience applauds the video.
Malcolm Turnbull:
Well, thanks, Mike. I think you’ve got to have a technology-agnostic approach to energy. We all know where our energy future lies - it lies with renewable energy, backed up with storage - whether it is batteries or pumped hydro, which has been one of my great passions - and there are other technologies. But that’s where we’re going. We’re heading to a lower-cost, zero-emission energy future.
Now, the challenge is - how do you get there without energy becoming unaffordable or unreliable? Put it another way - how do you get there without going broke or the lights going out? So that’s why I’ve always said energy policy should be guided by engineering and economics, not ideology and idiocy. But the point Mike makes about our renewable endowment is absolutely right. I mean, you look at solar, for example - solar PV.
The central element in a photovoltake panel - the solar module, PV module - the cost of that has come down 10-fold since 2010. So the cost of generating solar power keeps on coming down. And by the way, thanks to technology developed at the University of New South Wales, it’s going to come down even more.
So we are going to - we are in a position, with this enormous solar endowment, where we will have a huge amount of energy opportunities. But here’s the thing - it’s very quick to build a solar farm.
If you have the planning permission and all the consents, if you have an allen key, a post-hole digger and a cement mixer, you can build your solar farm in less than 12 months, if you order all the panels and so forth. It’s all completely modularised. It is that straightforward. The challenge is, of course - how do you store it?
That’s why you need long-term vision and planning for projects like SnowyHydro 2.0. If you are going to have pumped hydro, and you are going to be pumping the water up the hill when the energy is cheap and then running it down the hill when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, you’re going to connect two huge damns 20km apart with a mountain inconveniently located between them, you’re going to have to do a lot of digging.
That requires planning and design. I set out a whole agenda for an engineering and economics-based approach to energy nearly two years ago, and I spoke at the Press Club in early 2017. That was the vision that I delivered on. So you have Snowy Hydro 2.0, the biggest renewable project in Australia’s history since Snowy 1 - that will be built, it’s got a great...
Jones: To bring you to a couple of things Mike said - 100% renewable baseload power, he’s talking about. Achievable?
Turnbull:
Theoretically, it is. The question is - is that going to be the right mix?
Jones:
But is it a question of government will to make that happen?
Turnbull:
No, it’s not. The economics is driving you there. There is no question - if you wanted to build a new dispatchable power station - if you said you wanted to deliver 1,000 megawatts of power continuously, and we wanted to do that from new sources, I do not believe that you would build, today, a coal-fired power station, regardless of issues about climate policy and carbon risk and all of those things. Putting those to one side, because the renewable generation is so cheap - as long as you’ve got the ability to back it up, you can deliver that dispatchable power or, as Scott Morrison would call it, “fair-dinkum power”.
This is exactly what Snowy Hydro is doing. They haven’t built Snowy 2 yet, but they are buying - and Paul Broad, the executive, has been open about this - plenty of renewable power at around $40 per renewable hour, and they deliver it at $70 per renewable hour at their existing pumped hydro. That is cheaper than...
Jones:
Back to the original question - can a group of rich mates get together and do what governments won’t do?
Turnbull:
Well, I’m not sure what you mean by that.
Jones:
That’s what he’s saying - “Get together with us, and we can produce 100% renewable energy for this country.” That was his claim in that question.
Turnbull:
If Mike is inviting me to invest in a renewable energy project with, you know, storage or pumped hydro or whatever, then I would look at it on its merits, obviously. I’m back in business. I’m retired from politics!
I’m retired from politics. I... ..I’m back in business, and I will be, no doubt, Lucy and I will - well, Lucy is at the GSC, so she’ll continue being the planning tsar of Sydney, I guess, but for my own part, I’m out of politics, and I will return to the business world, and I love nothing more than technology, I love new projects, I like new technology, and I love creating jobs.
So, you know, I laid claim to creating, you know, 1million jobs when I was prime minister. Of course, the creation was all done by people in business. Now, having served Australia in the parliament and as PM, I will now go back to creating jobs at a more hands-on level, in terms of business and investment.”
PHEW
Tony Jones:
Here’s one for you – the Guardian, when you became prime minister said prophetically is “the compromises he has to make to achieve his resurrection” – that included a deal with the National party, and effectively a deal with the rightwing.
You talked about your consensus style, but did that kill off the real Malcolm Turnbull?
Turnbull:
Well, no. I got so much done. You know,the Labor Party used to say, “Oh, Malcolm used to be in favour of marriage equality – he’s no longerin favour of it.” Then I legislatedit, right? So I delivered it.
The audience does not like this. “No you didn’t” can be heard, which is no mean feat, given they don’t have a microphone.
Turnbull:
We did. We did. It’s legal: 5,000 people have been married – 5,000 same-sex couples have been married in Australia since it was legalised just about a year ago, and that was done under my government.
Now, you know, that is a fact. It might be a melancholy fact, from some people’s point of view – from the Labor -arty’s point of view, because they would have rather they did it – but it is a great Liberal achievement. A great Liberal achievement. And it was my government that delivered it.
Louise has a question about what went wrong and she is not mad, she is just disappointed.
Mr Turnbull, early on, I thought you had a vision for Australia. I saw you as a potentially great leader, intelligent, and economically wise. I was sadly disappointed with your time in office. You were ineffectual, not able to make the hard decisions, nor confront the media to argue your case. Unengaged with the public and biding your time towards the end. I would like you to take responsibility, and not blame anyone else for this. You had the opportunity, and you blew it. What do you say to the Australian public?”
The audience applauds.
Malcolm Turnbull:
I have to say to you that the achievements of the government speak for themselves. Record jobs growth. Strong economic growth. Reduced personal income tax. Reduced company tax. Record investments in infrastructure. Reformed schools funding. To have consistent, needs-based funding across the country. Reached record funding in health and pharmaceutical benefits.
Record funding and support for Australian Defence Industry. Was able to protect the Australian steel industry and the thousands of jobs from what would have been 25% tariffs to be imposed by Donald Trump – the only country at the time to get that exemption.
Ensured that the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and a huge trade deal that everyone thought was sunk when Trump pulled out, was maintained – protecting thousands of jobs. And legislated to legalise marriage equality.
Now, those are all achievements – most of which people said could not be done.
Most of them, I stood when they were being presented in the parliament – the press gallery said to me in the PM’s courtyard, “You’ll never get it through the Senate,” or “You won’t be able to do it.” Bill Shorten, who was no friend of free trade, said at the press club that my pursuit of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a delusion and a vanity project. Now, through sheer persistence and commitment to defending and advancing Australia’s interests, I got it done.
The bottom line is, that’s my record.
Tony Jones: “Can we just go back to the questioner – what was it that you were disappointed about, Louise?”
Louise:
Well, I felt that, with John Howard, for example, he was always arguing his point in the media. He could stand up and argue for whatever he was arguing for. But Malcolm – Mr Turnbull – I wish you’d been in the media more. I wish you’d come out and been arguing your point more. All those things that you just mentioned – I wish you’d been repeating them over and over so people could get a sense of what you had achieved. But you were missing in action towards the end. I don’t think I saw you very much in the media at all.
Turnbull:
Well, I … I can assure you, I spent a lot of time, ah, in the media and on the media – in fact, it is the lot of prime ministers to spend a huge amount of their time in the media and communicating.
So … but I’m sorry you missed it. I’m sorry you did. But you know what? There’s some old videos – you know, you can go back! Go back on some old showreels, to the archives!
Goodness me there is a lot to keep on top of when there are no dixers!
Will has a question that I think quite a few young Liberals have themselves:
Mr Turnbull, why did you fail to show support for fellow Liberal Dave Sharma in the Wentworth byelection, and do you acknowledge that this was instrumental not only in the Liberal party losing a crucial seat it has held for almost a century, but also losing the balance of power in parliament?
Turnbull:
Well, Will, I did support Dave Sharma, and did so publicly on every single day – and even on Twitter, Lucy and I gave him our blessing and our endorsement.
Every day, Dave and Scott Morrison and others repeated, and the media repeated, that he had our support.
So there was no question that he had our support. My judgment was that, given the circumstances, were I to be campaigning in or be particularly visible in any way in the Wentworth byelection, it would be unhelpful to David Sharma’s prospects.
It also, frankly, would not have been very helpful for me maintaining my own, ah, peace of mind, after an event like this – it’s very important to look after yourself and your family, and it was good and timely for us to step aside and step back at that time.
Now I assume people recognise I’m quite familiar with the electoral arithmetic of Wentworth, a seat I represented for 14 years.
My judgment is that Dave Sharma would have won the election – with a reduced majority, obviously, quite substantially reduced – had it been held on the Saturday before, on the 13th rather than the 20th.
I believe the byelection was lost in the last week.
It was a pretty messy week for the government, with announcements and, you know, the vote on the It’s OK To Be White Pauline Hanson resolution in theSenate.
We talked about Barnaby Joyce. There are a number of other things – the announcement of a review as to the location of the Australian embassy in Israel.
All of those things created a very messy week and, if you look at the pattern of the postal votes – which is very interesting – the postal votes that were received by polling day – most of which were posted, naturally, in weeks beforehand – favoured Dave Sharma about 65%.
Now, when I was the MP, the slice of the last postal share I had was 76%. So that was a big swing, but not enough to lose the seat. Every package of postal votes that followed, Sharma’s share diminished. And the last 1,400 postal votes actually were won by Kerryn Phelps.
So you can see that what happened in that last week was the swing against the Liberal party was accentuated and accelerated to the point where Sharma lost the seat by, you know, 1,800 votes or thereabouts.”
Tony Jones: “Briefly, you’re saying Morrison government’s killed itself off in Wentworth?”
Turnbull: “You may very well say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.”
Magnus wants to know (after thanking him for being there tonight) about Barnaby Joyce:
He’s described as, in some circles, “Australia’s greatest retail politician”. Given the question marks that hang over his head in relation to misconduct and mismanagement – to cite two quick examples, the Murray-Darling scheme and a more obvious catastrophe might be something like putting his toe in the water for a leadership tilt in the leadup to the Wentworth byelection – is he really one of Australia’s great retail politicians, or perhaps maybe more of a liability to himself, his party and, more broadly, the Coalition?
Turnbull: “I think I should take that as a comment.”
There is laughter and applause. But there is more.
Magnus:
I respect the response...To draw to you Scott Morrison’s remarks about the Australian parliament resembling a Muppet Show at the time of you being deposed -if we were to talk about Barnaby being in the cast, would he be Gonzo or Becker?
Turnbull: “Look, I’m sure Scott regrets that analogy.”
(More laughter)
Turnbull puts on his serious voice to continue though.
The Australian parliament is at the centre of our government. It’s where our governments are formed. It’s where our laws are made. And those who go into the Australian parliament should do so solely with the interests of the Australian people in mind.
And when they take actions - whether it is voting on a bill or voting in a ballot - they should be prepared to justify it. And I’ve always done that.
Tony Jones: “Should Barnaby Joyce have any possibility of coming back as deputy prime minister, in your opinion?”
Turnbull: “Well … I’m not a member of the National party, so that’s a matter for them.”
Jones: “But would it be a logical thing?”
Turnbull:
Well, it’s a matter for the National party to choose their own leader. And the Coalition – if we’re in government, the leader of the National Party is the Deputy Prime Minister.
So if you’re asking me the question were Barnaby to be re-elected leader of the National party, would he become deputy prime minister? The answer is yes. As to whether he would ever be re-elected leader of the National party, that’s a matter for the Nationals.
But coming to the point you made about Wentworth – in a hard-fought byelection in which the government was arguing that you should vote for the Liberal party to ensure the maintenance of stability and climate change was a key issue, I’d have to say that, in the last week, Barnaby foreshadowing his own leadership challenge to Michael McCormack and calling for Snowy Hydro 2.0 to be abandoned and replaced by a coal-fired power station was hardly calculated … to advance Dave Sharma’s prospects.”
Jones: “I think you have your answer!”
Jason’s question is basically – given how you became prime minister, did you deserve to lose the prime ministership in the same way.
Malcolm Turnbull basically starts off by giving Labor one of its election campaign ads.
Turnbull:
Well, I think the move to remove me in August was crazy. I think it was self-destructive. No one’s explained it. It was pointless. And nobody’s actually set out what the reason was for it. I mean, Scott Morrison can’t explain it. He’s the new prime minister.
I’m the outgoing prime minister. I can’t explain it. And the people that were responsible choose not to do so. So, you know, there’s some issues there. But in terms of what the question is - as you measure your own performance as prime minister, you’ve got to ask yourself, ‘What did I do in the time that I had?’”
Tony Jones: “No, actually, that’s not what the question was about. I’m going to bring you to the point of it. What’s the difference between the Dutton challenge against you and your challenge against Tony Abbott?”
Turnbull:
Well, with Tony Abbott, I set out exactly why I sought to challenge him. I explained what my reasons were – very openly – laid out my agenda, won the ballot, and then set out to deliver that agenda. And it was very, very warmly welcomed by the Australian people. I mean, we won the next election and we got enormous support. And we got a lot done. So, from my point of view, I had a justification which I was open about, an agenda, an economic agenda – and taking a more positive approach to our society – a more inclusive approach – a number of other things that I changed.
But the bottom line is – I delivered on it. And I’m pleased and proud that I did.
Jones points out that Peter Dutton had a plan to take the GST off power bills. Turnbull is having NONE OF IT.
Jones: “Peter Dutton would say he had an agenda and, among other things, he wanted to take the GST off power prices. So he would argue, I guess...”
Turnbull: “You can say he ‘would’ argue. He hasn’t.”
Jones: “He did at the time.”
Turnbull: “He said he wanted to take the GST off power prices. That might be a justification for bringing a submission to cabinet. It’s hardly a justification for overthrowing the government.”
Just a note – most of the government appears to be very, very quiet on social media right now.
Millie is next up:
Politics is an aggressive and competitive environment, and numerous women have survived it. However, behaviour such as that exhibited during the recent leadership spill emphasised the challenges that women in politics still face. What is your perspective on the treatment of women in federal politics – specifically the treatment of Julia Banks and Julie Bishop during the leadership spill – and how do you propose it improves for future female politicians?
Turnbull:
Well, Millie, thank you very much. I believe the culture in parliament is not sufficiently respectful of women. It is – as someone who came into parliament from the corporate sector – I’d say it is decades out of date.
It is like stepping into, you know, a business, an office, in the 80s.
It is very, very blokey, and there is insufficient respect for women, in my judgment. And just about every woman in parliament will confirm that one way or another – and you’ve mentioned a few of them who’ve made that point. You have to lead by example.
I sought to do so. I have done so. And you have to speak up for respect for women. And one of the points that Lucy made very succinctly – which I’ve always quoted, again and again – in fact, it formed part of a government advertising campaign in respect of violence against women and children – is to say that not all disrespecting women leads to violence against women, but that is where all violence against women begins.
At the foundation in workplaces – this is why I introduced the so-called “bonking ban” – you would think you wouldn’t need to do it, wouldn’t you?
(laughter)
Really, you’d think it would be pretty obvious. But what I set out to do was to ensure that parliament, as a workplace, was respecting women in the way that a modern workplace is expected to do.
And I think there’s still work to do, but I think that – you know, I can say this to you – that Scott Morrison absolutely shares my values on this. Scott and I talked about the …
Jones: “Sorry, I’ve got to bring you to …”
Turnbull: “The code, and he absolutely endorsed it.”
Jones: “I’m going to bring you to the end of the question, which is about the way women – you talked about this at the beginning a little bit – about the way women were bullied during the spill lobbying, during the coup, effectively.
“Of course, we don’t know the details of what happened, because most of the investigation of that happened secretly. Should it be out there in the open?”
Turnbull:
Well, you know ... Everything in parliament should be accountable, right? I mean, everyone is there, elected by the people. They’re paid by the taxpayer. Just as people are entitled to know why those who voted for the spill – particularly those who led it, particularly the cabinet ministers – they’re entitled to know why they did it, so people are entitled to know what happened in the course of these events. I mean, you can’t just dismiss it as, you know, something to be brushed under the carpet. But can I just make this point?
I know that, naturally, there is a huge focus on this. I understand that. So many people have asked me the question – they’ve asked me a question I can’t answer, right?
‘Why did it happen?’ But I just want to say to you that leading Australia for nearly three years as prime minister was an enormous privilege, and I celebrate – and am proud of – the achievements I was able to make.
So I’m – I’m not, you know, miserable or bitter or resentful at all. I’m joyful that I had the opportunity to take on that role and do as much as I did in the time that I had. I think right at the outset, the first questioner said, “When you become prime minister, you’re one day closer to the time you cease to be prime minister.” Well, that’s true regardless of how you leave office, obvious!
So you’ve got to do the best you can in the time you have. And I got an enormous amount done. You know, think of the big social reforms – legalising same-sex marriage – I mean, what a gigantic reform that was – I was able to do that.
Jones: “Malcolm, we’ll come to that in a future question.”
Turnbull ignores him.
… and trade. I’m very positive about my time in office. It ended sooner than I would like it to have ended, and it ended in circumstances that remain unexplained. But nonetheless, it was a time of great achievement
