Australia political WI

Ibnyahya

Gone Fishin'
I know fair bit about Australian political history, although not in recent years.

Anyway I read something recently about the 1981 federal by-election for the seat of Wentworth in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs.

Malcolm Turnbull the current Prime Minister ran for Liberal preselection, however lost to Peter Coleman. The POD is that Malcolm Turnbull wins preselection to the seat in 1981 and becomes the member for Wentworth. In OTL he did not enter the parliament for the electorate of Wentworth until 2004.

How would his political career go? especially after the Coalition enter opposition in 1983. In this TL John Hewson Liberal Leader for 1990-1994 might not be in parliament.

Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull would end up being federal Liberal leader in 1990, even if John Hewson was in parliament. I reckon Malcolm Turnbull would win a leadership contest against Peter Reith and possibly John Hewson.

In the event of him becoming Liberal leader in 1990, Turnbull would have likely done a better campaign than John Hewson did in the OTL 1993 federal election and would have very likely been elected Prime Minister in that election. In OTL John Hewson focusing the whole campaign on Fightback!* allowed the Keating government win the 1993 election, a different Liberal campaign which would very likely result in a Coalition victory in 1993.

Somebody in the press gallery dubbed Fightback! as the ''longest political suicide note in history''. Although I have little doubt a Turnbull government in 1993 onwards would have implemented policies broadly along the lines of what Fightback! proposed. Although it can be argued that Fightback! initially did gave the Coalition a boost and Hawke's inability to dismantle either on a policy or political, did lead to him being deposed as Labor leader in December 1991 by Paul Keating. I don't know how a Turnbull Liberal leadership would affect the leadership tensions between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating.
 
An interesting POD indeed. Here's my take on a Turnbull career based on him getting into parliament in 1981.

1981-1983: Backbencher in the Fraser Coalition Government but would've definitely been identified as an up and comer.

1983-1985: Parliamentary Secretary to Opposition Leader (Andrew Peacock). I think with Peacock being from the more moderate wing of the Liberal Party, he would have been more positively disposed towards Turnbull. Perhaps Turnbull could be used by Peacock to draw support away from that other New South Welshmen John Howard?

1985-1989: Shadow Minister of Consumer Affairs in Opposition Leader John Howard's Shadow Ministry. Probably wouldn't do so well when Howard is charge considering Howard's more conservative bent but talent that the party could not afford to do without. Becomes Shadow Minister of Justice after the 1987 Election defeat. Votes for Peacock in his 1989 Leadership Coup.

1989-1990: Shadow Attorney General under a restored Opposition Leader Andrew Peacock. The 1990 Election goes as in OTL. Peacock resigns the opposition leadership and supports fellow Victorian and Shadow Treasurer Peter Reith (Hewson having not made it to Parliament) to succeed him. Reith defeats Howard.

1990-1993: Shadow Attorney General under Opposition Leader Peter Reith. Reith begins formulating a manifesto called Fightback! (OTL, he was strongly in favor of a GST as well). Fightback! helped Hawke stumbles to Keating. Reith does a better job than Hewson in selling Fightback! but still could not handle Keating's anti-GST campaign and loses at the 1993 Election. Reith steps down at the end of election. Turnbull puts his hands up for leadership and gets elected.

1993-1996: Opposition Leader Turnbull with Downer as Shadow Treasurer/Deputy Liberal leader. Turnbull proves to be a tough opponent for Keating; being a critic Keating for the latter's "big picture" and "elitist" agenda whilst at the same time remaining an appealing figure for those "elitists" for having a stance not dissimilar to them on social issues. Keating loses the 1996 Elections. Howard resigns from his seat in 1996.

1996: Prime Minister Turnbull, Treasurer Downer, and Minister for Foreign Affairs Peter Costello take the helm of government.

I'll leave the rest to you.
 
An interesting POD indeed. Here's my take on a Turnbull career based on him getting into parliament in 1981.

That's somewhat implausible since it represents a near-perfect career trajectory. He would have had his setbacks, as all career politicians do. And prime minister in '96 at 42? A little young.
 
Quick assession relies on Turnball have good political antenna, especially the higher he goes. His OTL performance either as PM or in opposition would indicate he doesn’t.

Of course being in parliament pretty much since leaving university may overcome this, but then he just becomes a career/party man which means he won’t get his wide array of OTL experience in the legal and private sectors.

His views on a Republic are going to be an issue at some point in the party as well. That are going to become a wedge issue.
 

Ibnyahya

Gone Fishin'
That's somewhat implausible since it represents a near-perfect career trajectory. He would have had his setbacks, as all career politicians do. And prime minister in '96 at 42? A little young.

Stanley Bruce was 39, Robert Menzies was 44 and Malcolm Fraser was 45 when they all first became Prime Minister.

Also there was something of a leadership vacuum in the Liberal Party after the 1990 federal election, John Hewson who had only been in the parliament for three years became leader after Andrew Peacock resigned. In this TL Malcolm Turnbull would have been in parliament for eight years, longer than Peter Reith had and he was not in parliament between 1983-1984 (when he was defeated in Flinders after winning it in a by-election).

Paul Kelly's book The End of Certainty describes a lot of the politics particularly behind the scenes in both the Labor and Coalition between 1983 and 1992, it is quite a big book however well worth a read. For example; I believe the Coalition would have won the 1990 federal election in a landslide, if they had used the negative campaign which the SA Liberals used in the 1989 state election. That state election forced Labor to form a minority government and the Liberals won 52% of the two party preferred vote on a 5% swing. The The End of Certainty describes in the months before the 1990 Federal election the Labor internal polling were showing them losing the forthcoming election pretty badly and they really feared the Federal Liberals modelling their campaign on the one used in the SA state election.

In this TL in my opinion it is highly likely Malcolm Turnbull if his career trajectory went fairly smoothly, would have a high chance of becoming leader of the Liberal party in 1990. The OTL Liberal leadership contest in 1990 was John Hewson vs Peter Reith.

Quick assession relies on Turnball have good political antenna, especially the higher he goes. His OTL performance either as PM or in opposition would indicate he doesn’t.

Of course being in parliament pretty much since leaving university may overcome this, but then he just becomes a career/party man which means he won’t get his wide array of OTL experience in the legal and private sectors.

His views on a Republic are going to be an issue at some point in the party as well. That are going to become a wedge issue.

Interesting thoughts there, I am not sure how an Opposition leader Turnbull would have gone against Bob Hawke and especially Paul Keating.
 
Last edited:
An interesting POD indeed. Here's my take on a Turnbull career based on him getting into parliament in 1981.

1981-1983: Backbencher in the Fraser Coalition Government but would've definitely been identified as an up and comer.

1983-1985: Parliamentary Secretary to Opposition Leader (Andrew Peacock). I think with Peacock being from the more moderate wing of the Liberal Party, he would have been more positively disposed towards Turnbull. Perhaps Turnbull could be used by Peacock to draw support away from that other New South Welshmen John Howard?

1985-1989: Shadow Minister of Consumer Affairs in Opposition Leader John Howard's Shadow Ministry. Probably wouldn't do so well when Howard is charge considering Howard's more conservative bent but talent that the party could not afford to do without. Becomes Shadow Minister of Justice after the 1987 Election defeat. Votes for Peacock in his 1989 Leadership Coup.

1989-1990: Shadow Attorney General under a restored Opposition Leader Andrew Peacock. The 1990 Election goes as in OTL. Peacock resigns the opposition leadership and supports fellow Victorian and Shadow Treasurer Peter Reith (Hewson having not made it to Parliament) to succeed him. Reith defeats Howard.

1990-1993: Shadow Attorney General under Opposition Leader Peter Reith. Reith begins formulating a manifesto called Fightback! (OTL, he was strongly in favor of a GST as well). Fightback! helped Hawke stumbles to Keating. Reith does a better job than Hewson in selling Fightback! but still could not handle Keating's anti-GST campaign and loses at the 1993 Election. Reith steps down at the end of election. Turnbull puts his hands up for leadership and gets elected.

1993-1996: Opposition Leader Turnbull with Downer as Shadow Treasurer/Deputy Liberal leader. Turnbull proves to be a tough opponent for Keating; being a critic Keating for the latter's "big picture" and "elitist" agenda whilst at the same time remaining an appealing figure for those "elitists" for having a stance not dissimilar to them on social issues. Keating loses the 1996 Elections. Howard resigns from his seat in 1996.

1996: Prime Minister Turnbull, Treasurer Downer, and Minister for Foreign Affairs Peter Costello take the helm of government.

I'll leave the rest to you.

Well if he doesn't decide to bring in the GST. by 99, Viva Republique if he becomes PM that early. Seriously though, outside Downer that would be pretty good.
 
Stanley Bruce was 39, Robert Menzies was 44 and Malcolm Fraser was 45 when they all first became Prime Minister.

You found one example under 42? One.

In this TL in my opinion it is highly likely Malcolm Turnbull if his career trajectory went fairly smoothly, would have a high chance of (etc)

Key word right there.

It's also just as likely - and I would argue more so - Turnbull would choose a wrong side, champion a wrong cause, upset the wrong people and see his fortunes fail.
 

Ibnyahya

Gone Fishin'
You found one example under 42? One.

Actually two, I forgot to include Chris Watson who became Prime Minister at the age of 37. Becoming Prime Minister for the first time at 42 is at the low end, the average being 53.

It's also just as likely - and I would argue more so - Turnbull would choose a wrong side, champion a wrong cause, upset the wrong people and see his fortunes fail.

Good observation, Although it also depends on the dynamics of the party room in especially in the Liberal Party during the 1980's and 1990's.
 
I agree to @Fred the Great that the scenario I put forward is "near perfect". I see it myself as a most optimistic scenario. But some points I want to make with that scenario:

-I think he would've been a Peacock rather than a Howard supporter in the Peacock/Howard rivalry due to him being in the moderate wing of the party.

-While Turnbull would've been very lucky and young to become PM at 42, I wonder if it's not that far out of the realm of possibility. After the 1990 Elections OTL, the Libs wanted to get beyond the Peacock and Howard rivalry, hence Hewson's emergence as Opposition Leader. I think I would also add there was not only a desire to get beyond Peacock and Howard, but also for regeneration. Remember, Hewson became Opposition Leader after only 3 years in Parliament. You also had Costello entering parliament in 1990 and becoming Deputy Liberal Leader by 1994. So if Hewson could become Opposition Leader after 3 years in parliament and Costello becoming Deputy Leader after 4 years, certainly an ITTL Turnbull with 9 years experience under his belt would do better.

-Turnbull would become PM attracting a different mix of constituencies than Howard. I think Turnbull being a Republican and a small-l-liberal should get some of votes that probably would've headed for Keating. The majority probably wouldn't be as big as Howard's 1996 victory, though.

So optimistic scenario: Turnbull becomes PM at 42.

One thing I also want to ask about is, what are the odds that we get a Turnbull/Costello rivalry? Turnbull being an up and comer from NSW, Costello being an up and comer from Victoria. It's probably a rivalry that's bound to happen.

I think worst case scenario, Turnbull doesn't become PM because of infighting with Costello, Turnbull vs. Costello becomes the 90s version of Peacock vs. Howard, the Libs spend even longer time in the wilderness, and a longer Keating Prime Ministership.
 
Well if he doesn't decide to bring in the GST. by 99, Viva Republique if he becomes PM that early. Seriously though, outside Downer that would be pretty good.
Unfortunately the republic debate, when it occurs during the period and barring major non-domestic butterflies is still going to run into many of the same issues it faced as OTL. Although the polling generally favoured a Republic in some fashion, the actual model is going to be contentious and divide the electorate even if its not the OTL vote or the wording is different. Its also going to potentially split the party and the coalition. Having ITTL PM Turnbull, doesn't overcome the 10 lessions that Michael Kirby articulated in 2000. And if Turnball hitches his wagon to the republic vote, which he would probably do, then he's basically done a 2016 David Cameron.
 
Unfortunately the republic debate, when it occurs during the period and barring major non-domestic butterflies is still going to run into many of the same issues it faced as OTL. Although the polling generally favoured a Republic in some fashion, the actual model is going to be contentious and divide the electorate even if its not the OTL vote or the wording is different. Its also going to potentially split the party and the coalition. Having ITTL PM Turnbull, doesn't overcome the 10 lessions that Michael Kirby articulated in 2000. And if Turnball hitches his wagon to the republic vote, which he would probably do, then he's basically done a 2016 David Cameron.

That is very possible also, he could be done also if it doesn't go his way. I do think he'd himself be fully behind it and you'd get a fair bit of Labor at the time behind it. I'd argue you'd have more money in the Republican movement at that stage. It would be a lot closer than otl at least.
 
That is very possible also, he could be done also if it doesn't go his way. I do think he'd himself be fully behind it and you'd get a fair bit of Labor at the time behind it. I'd argue you'd have more money in the Republican movement at that stage. It would be a lot closer than otl at least.
You might have more money, but that might be a double edged sword as Kirby points out that pretty much all the mainstream media were urging (or strongly predicting) a YES vote and the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) ran a large campaign. However the ARM campaign was was at best ineffective and at worst counter-productive and more money is only going to escalate the problems that the campaign created in alienating many parts of the electorate.

That being said, the Constitutional Convention is going to play out differently, but the timing may not, as Kirby highlights "...even if Mr Keating had won the 1996 federal election, he was also committed to a republican referendum "some time in 1998 or 1999". Its likely that ITTL PM Turnbull isn't going to take a measured approach that would have arguably been beneficial to the Republican movement post convention, but hastily respond to the 'public mood' which on the surface was primed for supporting a Republic.
 

Ibnyahya

Gone Fishin'
I agree to @Fred the Great that the scenario I put forward is "near perfect". I see it myself as a most optimistic scenario. But some points I want to make with that scenario:

-I think he would've been a Peacock rather than a Howard supporter in the Peacock/Howard rivalry due to him being in the moderate wing of the party.

I would argue he would have a 'dry' in the 1980's. The 'wets' in the Liberals were for the most part from the generation which came of age when Menzies was in power. The Liberal politicians who came of age when Whitlam as Prime Minister and later were 'dries' for the greater part.

The 'wets' were generally protectionists and economic interventionists, while the 'dries' subscribed to things such as free trade and deregulation of the economy. That is the main division between politicians in the Liberal party in the 1980's. That divide in the Liberal party doesn't exist anymore because neither major political parties advocates the sort of economic interventionism which existed before the Hawke-Keating government.
 
Last edited:
Top