‘We have found out today that the new Prime Minister is a hollow man.’
When Malcolm Turnbull ousted Tony Abbott from the nation’s top political job this week, many liberal-minded Australians breathed a sigh of relief.
They hoped new Prime Minister Turnbull, with his belief in the science of climate change and his support of marriage equality, would bring about progressive political change.
But when questioned on his key policies on Tuesday, Turnbull seemed to back down — confirming he supported Abbott’s old climate targets and plan for a plebiscite on marriage equality.
Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and Deputy Labor Leader Tanya Plibersek was not going to let that apparent backflip go unnoticed. So she gave a strongly worded speech in Parliament, warning that: “this new Prime Minister is actually just like the old one”.
Watch the full speech here (post continues after video):
“The member for Wentworth has been wandering around his electorate for 6 years, with a nod and a wink, whispering ‘put me in charge and see how much things will change’,” Plibersek said in a later online post, sharing a video of her speech.
“Now we have the people of Australia, they’re thinking ‘Thank goodness, we can do something about climate change, we can do something about funding for the ABC, we can move forward on marriage equality.’ If only…”
She concluded in her powerfully delivered address that Turnbull had already revealed himself to be “a hollow man”.
“What we have found through Question Time today is that this new Prime Minister is actually just like the old one. There’s a bit of difference to the style, but the policies are the same,” she said.
“We have found out through one short Question Time that the new Prime Minister is a hollow man.”
Tanya Plibersek is a regular columnist for Mamamia. You can read some of her writing here, here and here.
How much do you think Turnbull will reshape Australia’s policies on key issues?
Top Comments
Is it so ridiculous to notion that all great leaders 'lead'. If the past decade in polotics have taught us (as a nation) anything, particularly young Australians, we vote for a party not an individual. This may be obvious to the conservative minded, however until now many young Australans belived they were voting for a 'Rudd' or an 'Abbot'. If anything good is to come from allowing shallow minded political parties (particularly the right wing) to make pri ministerial changes it's exposure to 'that party's' beliefs. The Liberal Party bring an element of darkness to our world, trapped in some sort of imperialist time warp, I'm great fun for articles like this as education is the key!
It is ridiculous to argue that Turnbull must continue with Abbott's policies because Abbott was voted in on those policies. Abbott was voted in promising to do the exact opposite of many of the things he did do, on education, on the ABC, et al. If Turnbull were limited to ending this legislature on Abbott´s promises then he would be free to change almost everything that has been done so far.
It is not ridiculous when you consider the political system we have in Australia. We vote in a party, not a separate leader. Americans can actually vote individually for their President and the President gets some level of autonomous power that is not directed by their party. In Australia, the Prime Minister leads a party who make all the decisions together (or are supposed to). The leader of the party does not dictate all the party policies.
Turnbull is a controversial leader for the Liberals because he is far more centre-leaning than a lot of them. If he tries to change to manny policies they'll likely vote him out too. He needs to win an election for them and then start negotiating - once he shows that he's an electable Prime Minister, he'll have a lot more sway.
Fundamentalist votes don't change governments. The centre is where all the action is. Howard won the centre by appealing to them through family payments and middle-income tax cuts. He held office for 11 years. Abbott won the centre by (not being Labor, and...) apparently lying about almost everything he planned to do for them. He held office for less than two years - and that was far too long for anyone who isn't a rusted-on conservative.
No one really cares what the ultra-right or ultra-left think. If you want to win office, you have to appeal to the swinging voters - and they are, by definition, central.