Laurie Oakes on Turnbull-Abbott gun debate spat: PM right to take a stand
EVERYONE will remember Tony Abbott’s words on the eve of the 2013 election: “No cuts to education. No cuts to health. No changes to pensions.”
He spoke in ringing tones of absolute certainty. And they meant nothing. That tone was there again on Wednesday when Abbott was asked on ABC TV’s
7.30 program about an email suggesting a deal over gun laws in return for a Senate crossbencher’s vote on an unrelated issue when he was prime minister.
“No deals from me,” he told Leigh Sales. “No deals from my office. No deal.”
Effectively, he was saying that Justice Minister Michael Keenan and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton had acted without authorisation in the negotiations with independent David Leyonhjelm. Next day the two ministers shot down that claim. And Malcolm Turnbull, abandoning his longstanding practice of ignoring provocations from the man he deposed as PM, gave Abbott a big whack as well.
“We interacted in the usual way by keeping the prime minister’s office appraised of what was going on,” Keenan told parliament.
Dutton said that while there had been no correspondence between his office and Abbott’s, “there would have been discussions”.
Asked by Labor leader Bill Shorten who was telling the truth — Abbott or the ministers — Turnbull replied firmly that, after checking with Keenan and Dutton, he was satisfied that they had acted “in the full knowledge of the prime minister’s office at that time”.
Since the row concerns importation of the high-capacity Adler shotgun, it is tempting to reach for phrases like “high noon” to describe the confrontation, but that would be too dramatic.
Just the same, Turnbull clearly signalled that he has had enough of Abbott’s destabilisation and is prepared to hit back. It is about time. The shotgun row resulted in another lost week for the Turnbull Government. Legislative achievements were overshadowed. Plans to embarrass Labor by focusing attention on two industrial relations Bills were derailed. Coalition disunity — thanks primarily to Abbott — dominated the headlines.
Perhaps Abbott really thinks he can make a leadership comeback, despite lacking the public support that made Kevin Rudd’s brief second coming possible. Perhaps he hopes that if he makes a big enough nuisance of himself, Turnbull will have to offer him a Cabinet post for the sake of peace.
Or perhaps it’s just about payback.
Whatever his motivation, the week’s events highlighted the differences between Abbott’s approach to politics and Turnbull’s.
The storm began when Turnbull was asked in a radio interview about reports that Leyonhjelm wanted the ban on Adler imports lifted in return for his vote on the industrial relations legislation.
Turnbull tried to explain the workings of the classification process, which is the basis of the gun laws put in place under John Howard, but failed — amid the verbiage — to specifically rule out what Labor dubbed a “guns for votes” deal.
Here was the contrast. Turnbull understands that there are shades of grey in any issue, has a lawyer’s interest in detail and thinks it important to try to explain complexity. Abbott is a politician who sees things in black and white, insists on oversimplifying them, speaks in glib slogans and is not unduly worried about matters of detail or even truth.
Even after the Turnbull interview, the issue was still manageable but it took off with a vengeance when Abbott tweeted: “Disturbing to see reports of horsetrading on gun laws.” He said later he was chiding Leyonhjelm, not referring to the government.
Pull the other one, Tony.
Abbott should have been acutely embarrassed when Leyonhjelm made public the email from a Keenan staffer indicating horsetrading had actually occurred while he was still in charge.
It said quite clearly that Dutton and Keenan had agreed to insert a 12-month sunset clause into the law banning importation of lever-action shotguns in return for Leyonhjelm’s vote on a border security Bill.
But, as we know, Abbott does not do embarrassment. Hence the denial that the prime minister’s office had any knowledge of the matter, implying ministers or staffers had been off on a frolic of their own.
No one with any knowledge of the tight control exercised from the PM’s office under Abbott believed it for a second.
And Labor’s “guns for votes” claim was a bum rap anyway, because nothing the ministers agreed to resulted in any more Adlers entering the country.
An angry Dutton went to see Abbott and — according to colleagues — thought he got an undertaking that the former PM would issue a clarifying statement. No such statement was ever issued.
Some conservative Liberal MPs complain that Turnbull should not have slapped Abbott down so publicly, but he had no choice. To do otherwise would have been to mislead parliament and hang two ministers out to dry.
And he would have looked weak.
So the pretence is over. If Turnbull is as mad as hell, that is a good thing. And if he’s not going to take it anymore, so much the better.
Laurie Oakes is the Nine Network political editor
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...d/news-story/cebe56a92288dc27b95a6d5229dbce62
