Just before his fall as head of the Liberal Party in 2009, Malcolm Turnbull spoke with esteemed journalist Laurie Oakes in an interview that still surprises seasoned political observers today.
Firstly, it was straightforward – which is uncommon in politics. Secondly, it was quite unbelievable.
Turnbull's interview occurred during a tumultuous time for the Liberal Party, as he was being undermined by right-wing members like Senator Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott, and Kevin Andrews, who used climate change debates as a means to disrupt.
“There's a reckless and deliberate approach from these individuals that will endanger the Liberal Party,” Turnbull remarked in 2009.
He further warned that the party would face destruction if this issue remained unaddressed.
“If Nick Minchin prevails in this conflict, he dooms our party to obscurity because his stance on one of the most pressing issues of our time, which will impact the future of the planet and affect our children and their descendants, is simply to ‘do nothing’,” Turnbull stated.
In that same discussion came the striking point: “We risk becoming a marginal party of the extreme right. ”
Turnbull was removed from his position the following day, and the subsequent events are well-documented – Abbott replaced Turnbull, who later overcame Abbott and the faction that had openly disdained him since 2009, but ultimately lost the overall battle, leaving The Lodge with a rather limited legacy as the prime minister.
In reading Niki Savva’s latest (superb) book Earthquake, it becomes clear that not only was Turnbull correct sixteen years ago, but those he critiqued, along with those who have mirrored their actions, still have yet to reckon with the chaos they created. They seem utterly disoriented that their approach has failed, believing that pandering to their worst political tendencies, fueled by a devoted right-wing media, has cost them the country.
Turnbull faced backlash for his candidness in 2009. Later, when he was Prime Minister and did not rein in the conservative disruptors within his party, which led to diluted policies and ultimately failed to meet the expectations he created among voters who hoped for a fresh direction under his leadership, it was cited as evidence of his ineptitude in politics.
Turnbull indeed struggled with the political landscape, but the situation wasn’t entirely on him. By the time he appeared in that notorious leather jacket for his Q&A session months later to reflect on the missteps and explain his reasons for remaining, the Liberal Party was already on its last legs. Whether he realized it or not at that time, the party he headed as prime minister was like a zombie – lifeless yet not entirely gone, with the deterioration continuing to accelerate with each leadership transition.
Sean Kelly, the writer of the 100th Quarterly Essay titled “The Good Fight,” which discusses the Albanese administration, remarked during his launch in Canberra that the major misfortune of Turnbull was his correctness.
And he indeed was correct.
He accurately predicted the future of the Liberal Party. He foresaw that their denial of climate science would lead to their downfall and irrelevance. He was correct about Abbott, Scott Morrison, and Peter Dutton. His beliefs about AUKUS were also right. He anticipated that independents would challenge the secure positions of his colleagues.
Following the reveal of his official portrait as prime minister at Parliament on Thursday, where more Labor members and crossbenchers attended than his party representatives, Turnbull radiated a sense of validation.
“If I were to identify the main issue plaguing the Coalition currently, which has been a concern for some time and has now escalated significantly; there exists a faction – now seemingly the majority – that thinks the aim of politics is to gain favor with a limited group from the right-leaning media, such as Sky After Dark, social media allies, and radio hosts. Consequently, they are focusing on culture war narratives and denying reality, which is truly unfortunate,” he stated.
“Electoral outcomes and polling illustrate that this approach is ineffective, correct? ”
Sussan Ley, who was present but refrained from taking a seat, stood beside one of her few supporters in the party room, Angie Bell, along with Tasmanian senator Jono Duniam. She appeared cool when required to greet Turnbull.
However, if the Liberals intend to hold Turnbull accountable for their decline, they only reveal their inability to learn from past experiences. Turnbull suggested, without explicitly stating it, that he thinks the Liberal Party is finished.
Ley returned to the chamber to deliver what will likely be one of her final speeches as Liberal leader to the House, extending Christmas and holiday wishes to its members and the public. Barnaby Joyce’s shift to the crossbench reduced her party’s count to 42, while Labor continued its positive trajectory.
Labor was rejoicing over its end-of-year victories, having set a trap for Joyce’s departure and directed the Coalition on its path to demise by proposing Joyce’s private member’s bill to dismantle net zero for debate each week of Parliament, ensuring maximum discontent was ignited.
Anthony Albanese got what he wished for – a compliant caucus and a weakened opposition, still determined to perceive the world through their own lens rather than as it actually is.
Turnbull was indeed correct. Yet, it is the government that is pivotal, and we must extract these lessons and implement them where they truly matter.
The Liberals brought about their own downfall by remaining in a bubble. The barriers of this Labor government’s bubble are becoming more significant. To avoid a similar fate, it needs to listen to the voices of the disillusioned rather than merely viewing its parliamentary power as an indication that there are no further conflicts to address.
0 Comments