Former Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull spoke in the House of Representatives today, in debate on the reintroduced CPRS bills. Bernard Keane has a full wrap at The Stump. From Keane’s coverage, it appears that Turnbull devoted most of his time to demolishing Tony Abbott’s plan:
Turnbull tore apart the proposed plan as economically inefficient, environmentally ineffective and unable to meet the task of reducing Australia’s emissions by 5% by 2020.
Update: Peter Martin reproduces the text of Turnbull’s speech.
Bernard Keane says: ‘The only downside for the Government was Turnbull effortlessly put the case for the CPRS far more eloquently and coherently than Kevin Rudd or any of his ministers has so far managed…’
Yes but nobody outside his electorate actually listens to Malcolm Turnbull. He may make a lot of sense sometimes, but the general consensus out there is that he is an irrelevant, out of touch toff.
But it has been a pattern that progressive Liberals put the case for CPRS far better than the Labor Party. I heard Petro Georgiou putting the case in the house of Reps last year, and he was far more convincing in his arguments than anything I’ve heard Kevin Rudd or Penny Wong say.
Reminds me of Radio National broadcasts of late wherein they extol “sending the wife out to work” or decry “people of colour” for causing the Global Financial Crisis.
Pay attention, people.
@2 – If that’s so, Terry, perhaps it’s because small l Liberals really are true market believers.
But the ALP has been a pro-market party since 1983 (Lenin would have said since 1902), and I see more unreconstructed statists in the upper echelons of the Shadow Cabinet these days, especially at the top.
Someone like Petro Georgiou has certainly been on the record on several occasions putting a position of genuine belief that goes against the position of his party. I also think Turnbull is genuine on this issue.
I heard Rudd in Parliament today, and frankly he was dreadful. Ir may be that they actually don’t have their heart in this issue.
The fact that ALP governments introduced market measures in the 1980s is not the same thing as Labor being a “pro-market party”, Terry. You might care to go back and read the first parliamentary speech of Wayne Swan, as well as take Rudd’s writings as more than cynical rhetoric. I think Rudd’s instincts are those of a state bureaucrat – statist planning and interventionism and his commitment to the whole free market package quite weak. In the instance of the ETS, it’s more probably the policy wonk in him, the fact that an ETS was proposed by the Howard government, and fit into the international scenario at the time. It’s also, of course, politics – it looked like good politics at the time.
I think that is correct Mark and it was interesting to see how much Turnbull focused on the CPRS’s consistency with a belief in market forces. This is of course the Liberals’ natural ground and Abbott’s policy is wildly at odds with it. Rather bizzarre to see the ALP dig in in its defence of a market mechanism and the Coalition propose a big government solution (as pointed out on this blog previously).
Turnbull is relentless but at least, leaving aside the issue of whether or not CPRS is a crock either way, in this case he is standing up for principle and one of those days he will able to claim he stayed true to the small-l liberal philosophy. Abbott is improvising / making it up as he goes along.
And indeed, there are certainly unreconstructed statists at the top of the Coalition.
I commented on that here: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/02/what-does-a-conservative-leader-of-the-liberal-party-look-like/
It’s no great surprise. I think the era of market ‘reform’ was a passing phase – most of it was always highly unpopular with the public – ie privatisations. Australia has always had a statist political culture, and it’s no great surprise to me to see things revert to type. The whole ‘economic rationalist’ project really was one driven by elements of elites – policy wonks, economists, academics, and institutionalised to some degree, but not deeply enough. The GFC killed off a lot of the ideological support for it, and a lot of its friends were only ever fairweather – most Australian business, small or large, is quite dirigiste in sentiment. The Howard government practice was key here – boondoggles, class war via WorkChoices, business welfare, etc.
C’mon, in 2008 Kevin Rudd was denouncing the baying neo-liberal wolves of the global financial markets. Now he wants the neo-liberal financial market wolves to set up their Asian HQs in Australia. The latter stance is entirely consistent with Federal Labor as Hawke and Keating reconstructed it in the 1980s.
Also, Craig Emerson sings the praises of the Scottish Enlightenment at the Centre for Independent Studies Consillium. I think that speeches by Tony Abbott or Barnaby Joyce on the Scottish Enlightenment would be pretty short ones.
@7 – Ilya, it was interesting to see Joe Hockey seated on the back benches near Turnbull when he made the speech.
When they lose the election, the Libs might regret having dealt themselves out of the ETS.
Agreed all round. I think it also just sounds more impressive when someone is attacking their own side on a point of principle. Perhaps it awakens the inner muse.
I noticed Hockey at the back of the room with Turnbull and Georgiou and wondered what on earth he was doing there. Had he been sent to the “naughty corner” after his bizarre Sunday night TV appearance?
@8, yes, and it is worth keeping in mind that big business is not naturally a friend of free markets: it is inherently rent/monopoly-seeking. Business support for the ETS should make one suspicious, if anything.
Well, he wouldn’t want vision of that in ALP election ads, that’s for sure…
But I think he may have some regrets at the part he played in Turnbull’s downfall, and also possibly not be all that comfortable with the populist nonsense he’s asked to spruik by the Abbott and Barnaby show.
Which is a difficult position for a Shadow Treasurer.
A the height of the leadership tussles last year, Minchin’s apparats were calling Hockey “a fatter, stupider version of Turnbull.” If i heard that, i’m sure he did as well.
All the talk about whether Abbott should ditch Joyce obscures the more realistic question of how safe the co-opted Turnbullites and/or moderates are on the frontbench. I see Milne had a thing about Minchin’s shock troops who didn’t get promoted – the ‘real Right’ as opposed to the temporarily Abbottised or something. I wouldn’t make the assumption that the facade of unity in the Coalition means their internal backbiting is over with.
Tony Abbott is finding time to intervene in NSW Liberal factional politics on behalf of the “religious Right”.
Linked text
Hardly the behaviour of a “healing figure”, when Turnbull only lost the leadership ballot by one vote, with one spoiled ballot paper (probably Jule Bishop’s), Fran Bailey away sick, who would have voted for Turnbull, and two new MPs not yet seated of whom at least one (Paul Fletcher) would most likely have supported Turnbull, given the recent history of NSW Liberal factional politics.
Why is it that whatever happens in the Liberals’ internal politics, Julie Bishop always comes out a winner?
@9 – Craig Emerson is a bit of a true believer, I’ll grant you. But then, he has a PhD in economics, doesn’t he? Incidentally, I don’t think the concept of the “Scottish Enlightenment” makes a lot of sense historically.
And like I said, Rudd is a bit of a bower bird when it comes to the means of policy. That’s not inconsistent with a broad political stance which is statist/interventionist.
I think you’re falling into the trap, Terry, of looking for Rudd to be ideologically consistent. As I’ve often argued, there’s little benefit for politicians in being so, and that’s the difference between economic liberalism and most political ideologies – the former is in many ways anti-political, and closely related to neo-classical economics (which I would argue *is* political, but it marks an art of disavowing that…) Conservatives, like Abbott, are also going to be much more interested in the making of political decisions rather than leaving things to the market, particularly those with the sorts of personas that he has, which seem to thrive on constant movement and action.
The ALP locked itself into the ETS for the following reasons:
a) it was a supporter of the Kyoto Protocol which was predicated on Annex 1 countries setting up some sort of emissions trading scheme
b) it was existing policy when Rudd took over from Beasley (and was strongly supported by Albanese, the previous environment shadow)
c) the Labour states had already commissioned work (long before Howard’s task group) and set out a plan to institute an ETS)
Essentially, putting in place a cap and trade scheme was never questioned when Rudd became leader. From the get-go the emphasis was put on justifying the existing policy and developing the political messaging surrounding it.
Please keep in mind that many green groups were originally highly supportive of putting in place an ETS because of its place within kyoto, the fact that Europe had commenced one, and because they liked the idea of a mechanism that capped emissions.
The difficulties were always going to come over selling a particular version of an ETS with all the attendant compromises (compensation, size of cap, exclusions, etc). The politics looked like it was going okay until the coalition got rid of Turnbull and then decided to run a scare campaign on the ETS. The ALP leadership were never prepared for this and I doubt that more than 2 ministers could clearly explain the detail of the plan they have signed themselves up to. They have made the mistake of treating the ETS as a technocratic policy decision rather than something they had to persuade an only occasionally interested electorate was the right approach.
On market philosophies and political parties, the ALP’s committment to markets was only ever skin deep and was indeed temporary. Most of the reforms instituted in the 80s and 90s were put through because a small number of cabinet ministers was convinced they were necessary to put the economy back on a sustainable footing, because the reforms suited the intellectual times, and because the then opposition gave bipartisan support to most of them. When the ALP lost in 96 the party quickly reverted to type. The only member of the ALP front bench that one could say was a market liberal is Emerson and he has no power or influence whatsover.
As for the Libs, market liberalism is more deeply ingrained in the views of some of their representatives (Turnbull and his ilk) but again that philosphy was only ever one of a broad set of ideas that have found currency within the party at various times. The current coaliton is a grab-bag of small l liberals, conservatives and populists, witht the latter two groups far more important than the first. Abbott is the perfect leader for such a party. The party is pro-business and anti-unio, rather than pro-market. Markets are supported only so much as that support serves a broader political purpose.
In other words, LO, we’re pretty much in agreement.
Funny. I remember an environmental minister called Malcolm Turnbull who reduced our household lighting emissions by 80% by a simple use of regulation and thus avoiding the need for an extra coal fired power station. Yet here is another? Malcolm Turnbull who is quoted by Bernard Keane as saying:
I agree with much of what he said about the current Abbot scheme but this doesn’t mean that what he says about the need for a clear carbon price is right.
The regulation approach that Malcolm used for light bulbs is certainly one way of driving improvements in efficiency of a whole range of products. If we want clean electricity the most direct way of doing this would be to issue contracts for the supply of clean electricity.
My feeling is that Malcolm might have made a greater contribution by pointing out ways in which the draft coalition action plan could be improved. All he has really done is make a dramatic for the wrong cause.
We don’t care.
Hands up all those who think Turnball has burnt his bridges? It’s difficult to see him being able to get back into the drivers seat after his speech today. In fact prospects for the Liberals look really bad. What will happen when Abbott loses? Will he could continue in the role and lose again? They could try to find another candidate but their best option just called the current leader an idiot in the Parliament.
In addition they have Barnaby, what will become of him when he fails to realise his messianic destiny? Unless some kind of teabagger Republican seizure grips the Australian polity the Liberals are null and void for the foreseeable future. What will emerge? It’s a gruesome story and our media seem unable to stomach it. The woods are dark and full of Minchins, Abbotts and Joyces clad in replusive attire who leer and lurch. More at home with wet nurse fairy stories are they; not where the wild things are.
Up. Turnbull is a dilettante. There was never a chance he’d stick party politics. (Am, btw, amazed this commonplace that he’s somehow exceptionally eloquent still refuses to die. He’s run of the mill. Certainly inferior to Rudd.)
Anyway good on him for putting massive principle over party.
Look, the Tories in both Australia and Britain have proven over many years that they like power more than anything else. Churchill accepted the welfare state settlement, McMillan bound Tory stability up in it. Menzies did the same in Oz (he was the original middle path in some ways). Howard never unwound Medicare. Cameron has largely accepted the Blair settlement, well until the public finances force him to choose more extreme cuts to spending.
I wouldn’t get too far ahead of yourself, the Libs have won 4 of the last 5 elections and Labor will have done well to match Howard’s 4 victories.
The outer suburbs will go where the economy goes. Much higher interest rates and they’ll leap back to the Libs.
I think Larvatus Prodeo is a forum for cheer leaders of the left, so feel free to write off conservative Australia. I think the election politics this year will be very contested and a double dissolution over a CPRS that no constituent groups really love will not allow Rudd too many free kicks. He’ll win but I’m not sure the Government will get the kind of mandate it needs to be bold on policy in the Senate.
Mark, your comment that Hockey may “possibly not be all that comfortable with the populist nonsense he’s asked to spruik by the Abbott and Barnaby show,” is spot on.
As a Hockey hater from way back I’ve warmed to the man recently simply because he doesn’t know where to put himself when he’s with Abbott and expected to rave on about the great big new tax on water melons or whatever. His heart is clearly not in it. I even felt sorry for him as he stood embarrassed in his tutu and fairy wand. What a boofy fool he was going on that show, and he knew it.
And there he was showing a flag of sorts for Turnbull today, but slouched, head down like the naughty fat boy in class. So I might feel sorry for him, but he is still not my idea of PM material.
Maybe the ALP or Greens will adopt him. At least for his public speaking skills. Political debate in this country is a dead – you’re either towing a major party line and/or you’re incoherent, or no one is listening, or you’re a great usurper. I don’t think he is a turncoat at all – he just said what everyone’s thinking and stretched it out for 20 minutes. Since Abbott didn’t support his leadership (and what an entertaining spectacle that was), I don’t think Turnball’s really questioning his own loyalties either.
Yes, the party has gone home in choosing Abbott, that’s the reason for the bounce in the polls. Howardism with vigour. That’s a theme the party believes in, none of this Turnbull nonsense about being a Liberal Lord of the Manor Bob Hawke, which is the absolute last thing on earth the party faithful want.
But I think it’s a newly renovated place for them, where they’ve got back to, in that those inclined to moving Liberalism towards a more concilatory position in Australian society have now been told to shut-up and sit down (sit down forever), even as they voluntarily, harmoniously ceded power to the pendulum swing. Forever.
Ain’t no Holt or Peacock or Steele Hall going to be invited to succeed Tony when election day comes and we find he’s expended every last ounce of his muscular conservatism for a ceiling in the vote that’s no better than 2007.
Terry @ 5:
Rudd was more convincing on Q&A, at least in the snippets I caught while channel flicking. However, I doubt Rudd would die in a ditch for effective climate change policy like Malcolm did. Remember, Turnbull sacrificed his leadership over this issue. I can’t think of anyone on the government front benches who would do the same.
There were plenty on this site cheering on Turnbull’s demise through OzCar last year. Why I don’t know. Turnbull was the only hope for effective climate change policy in this country with the current Parliament. It may turn out to be our only opportunity, because there is no guarantee the Greens will hold the BofP in the Senate given the current shift in attitudes on climate change.
Likewise Barnaby Joyce, Terry.
The character Forrest Gump was disabled both intellectually and physically.
Good to see the new tolerance here at LP allows jokes using this disadvantged group.
See other thread for discussion about the inadvisability of doing so.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/02/04/joyce-and-monckton-singing-from-the-same-hymn-book/
Why is it so difficult for readers and contributors to directly attack Joyce’s multiple difficiencies? He provides an almost endless stream of slip-ups and gaffes so why not use them to highlight the weakness of his positions?
@murph the surf,
thanks for explaining the reference in Peter Kemp’s post. The movie reference whooshed past me entirely.
I agree: highly inappropriate.
“I wouldn’t get too far ahead of yourself, the Libs have won 4 of the last 5 elections and Labor will have done well to match Howard’s 4 victories.”
Yes and that was against an opposition that at time looked half decent. What you are doing is articulating the problem that the conservatives now face. I don’t think a strategy based on born to rule is going to keep working for you. How does having won 4 of the last 5 elections help you? To you have some sort of statistical approach to electioneering? Howard is no longer there for you. He has left a party deeply divided, rent by ideological division. Good luck with all that.
I think Joe Hockey is in the wrong party and he knows it. Some of the policy he has spouted has always been with a shamed look, I keep hoping he wakes up and crosses the floor. I know Rudd would take him into the ALP.
As for Turnbull. Good on him, even if now he looks like Don Quioxtie tilting at windmalls.
Jesterette #28, I don’t blame you for using the phrase “towing the line” as people have been getting it wrong for the past seven decades, but the correct expression is “toeing the line” as when all members of an army battalion or the like standing to attention with their toes perfectly in line.
That’s one small blow in defence of the English language.
Excellent writeup at The Drum by Turnbull explaining why an ETS, a market price on carbon is necessary, and Abbott’s direct action is rubbish.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813351.htm
Small correction, Paul @ 36 – we actually used to line up our heels. (I assume that’s still the practice.)
PatrickdB, hey, I’m no conservative, I was simply saying you’d be crazy to write off their chances for 2013 or 2016.
“Ain’t no Holt or Peacock or Steele Hall going to be invited to succeed Tony when election day comes and we find he’s expended every last ounce of his muscular conservatism for a ceiling in the vote that’s no better than 2007.”
I agree. One can think of what the Libs are doing as “base jumping”. Abbott’s stance puts a floor under their support, but also puts a ceiling on it that I think is too low to win elections in a country that is slowly becoming more socially liberal over time.
I cannot see how small-l libs can remain in or gravitate to the modern Liberal party. They have been completely screwed over for nearly two decades now. They either have to fight for the party or leave it.
I’m still hoping Turnbull contests Wentworth as an independent Liberal, wins, then sets about creating a liberal democratic party.
Update: Peter Martin reproduces the text of Turnbull’s speech.
#36 Paul Norton – “Towing the line” yields 22 500 000 hits on Google, “toeing the line” yields 227 000. I think it’s an acceptable variation at this stage. The language evolves – and we’ll soon all be spelling American thanks to MS Word being so tricky to set up for any other language.
LO, look it took the Tories in Britain 3 catastrophic losses to get the message but they did eventually.
Also in Australia it is a very narrow band of voters who ‘matter’. The Labor ads in 2007 were spot on, angry Jenny and traddie Dave. My guess is if they worry about jobs, cost of living and buying a house. They’ll go to the party that offers this. Recent elections have all been very close except 96 and 07 (and may be 04?). 2010 may well be another blowout but those people will decide. I would suggest so, who knows ….. that would be historic. I can’t see the Libs being smashed in 2016 though, politicians learn and governments age. 2016 is only 6 years away …..
I just read Turnbull’s speech. He argues the case well. Better than Rudd, Wong, Abbott or Joyce.
Interestingly, Turnbull argues the case for letting the market decide on which actions to take, yet he took direct action himself with the light globe change.
It would appear that Turnbull actually believes (in terms of his actions, rather than rhetoric) in a bit of both. Direct action AND an ETS.
Despite a well-argued case for controlling emissions by setting caps (Ends rather than Means), my main worries about the ETS remain.
Firstly, Turnbull says that the ETS avoids pollies picking winners as a result of political expediencies and business lobbying. Then he says that the pollies will give money raised from the ETS to Trade Exposed Industries who are unable to reduce emissions. And how will they decide which ones and how much help they need? Would that involve political expediency and business lobbying?
Secondly, Turnbull says that the permits will be bought on a straightforward basis of a company’s emissions, and sold by farmers on the basis of their emissions reduction efforts. Then he says that the methodology for working out the agricultural emissions reduction is still indeterminate and not globally established. How will the ETS bureaucrats decide on the level of emissions and potential reduction? Would that involve an expensive and intrusive monitoring and surveillance program (thus a large ETS public service sector), with a lot of business lobbying about which emissions are counted and which aren’t?
Turnbull did not address the fact that the emission reductions claimed for the CPRS in the Treasury modelling were mainly achieved by (a) buying “reductions” from third world countries, and (b) somehow inventing successful CCS on a massive scale by 2030. Pure political fantasy, both methods.
When will we see modelling that shows significant emission reductions IN AUSTRALIA, from normal operation of this ETS, not from fantasy items that aren’t related to the invasive surveillance program they are proposing?
When we get satisfactory answers to the above 3 conceptual problems, we can feel more confident in supporting an ETS, and all it represents.