When Tony Abbott came under attack from the media over bumbled statements and announcements I came to his defence. As did many others. So it’s only fair I do the same for Malcolm Turnbull.
When the PM announced his intentions over his determination to have the ABCC passed I let out a big sigh of relief. He sounded authoritative and prime ministerial. In essence the leader we needed to see. Then came the fumbled announcement of the COAG discussion over tax income sharing. Much was made about the setting of this important announcement; standing at the edge of a football field. Even more was made about Scott Morrison not being present. The media went into overdrive and I was crestfallen and as a result openly criticised the PM.
But then I stumbled upon a transcript of Turnbull’s interview with Fran Kelly.
“FRAN KELLY:
A process question first, if I may Prime Minister – why did you choose the launch of a football academy on the edge of a sporting field to reveal your plans for “the most fundamental reform in generations”?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well let me remind you that at the COAG meeting – this is the premiers and chief ministers meeting with me and the Treasurer and others in December last year – we agreed that we would at the next COAG – which is this week – review, look at a wide range of tax reform, that’s state tax reform and revenue sharing options between the Federal Government and the states. So this has been on the agenda.
We have raised it because I don't believe in dealing with the states via a megaphone. It has been raised privately and discussed between me and other chief ministers and between the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, and his counterparts and of course between Martin Parkinson the head of Premier and Cabinet and his bureaucratic counterparts. Those discussions found their way into the media yesterday morning. I heard you had a very good program yesterday morning talking about it.
PRIME MINISTER:
So really we're in a position where because, you know, confidential discussions had been breached, it was obvious I had to clarify what we were talking about and look, I'm an open person, it was an issue of concern so we – so I answered it. So there it is.”
The interview is worth a read. It clarifies a view points and highlights the difference between a perceived announcement and what in essence was a clarification. It also highlights some of the challenges with the States.
I still think the delivery could have been better. But, perhaps given the leak I’ve been harsh. That said, it's obvious someone was out to sink this proposal before it was even discussed. As I’ve said many times. For all the demands for reform the moment ideas are put up for discussion it's a deafening NO, NO, NO.
So the $64,000 question remains. Who leaked the confidential discussion? It's poor when leaders and their aides can’t be trusted to maintain confidentiality. If they were business leaders they’d be fired in similar circumstances and rightly so.
My lesson to self? Do your research before jumping to conclusions.
