Long post ahead, but it's hopefully informative for some of you wondering why the Turnbull and Trump transcript has been received the way it has by many in Australia.
Seems like you guys hate your PM. I thought you hated your previous guy, Abbott, but maybe you hate this guy more.
Abbott was a vile individual - but you knew that he stood for what he said he stood for. He was, to use the words of one of his political idols, not for turning. It made him popular with the Liberal Party's strong far-right and socially conservative parliamentary factions, but unpopular with the electorate at large. The Libs were heading towards a huge thumping in 2016 when they blinked and restored Malcolm Turnbull to the leadership. They still got a belting, but managed to cling to power by a single seat. Turnbull had been the leader in opposition before Abbott rolled him and won power in 2013, and that period had actually made Turnbull look good to centrist and centre-left voters; one reason he was rolled was his commitment to action on climate change. He was a suave businessman who had played a role in the rise of the Internet in Australia in the nineties, and he came across on TV as a cool guy who would bring many swing voters back to the Libs from Labour.
But he sold his soul to be leader. He contorted himself in so many different ways to get enough votes from the party room to gain the leadership that he became beholden to various policies of the right-wing factions that he had previously argued against passionately, that are unpopular publicly, and that have very little chance of passing parliament (the government does not control the Senate, and has proven poor negotiators with the motley assortment of crossbench parties). Australia's paralysis on marriage equality, for example, is almost entirely down to this pact. Turnbull found himself bound to the socially conservative factions' demand for a national plebiscite, even though parliament won't pass legislation to enable a plebiscite, and if he dares to try to pass marriage equality through routine legislation, which is all that is required, he might lose the leadership through a party revolt.
He has done so many backflips, advanced so many policies he previously did not support, and in general been so gutless in the face of pressure from fringe nutters in his party, unwilling to stand up for the principles the public thought he had, that it's going to take something extraordinary for either he or the Libs to retain government at next year's election.
I am, of course, partisan. But I think this is a pretty fair overview of why Turnbull is unpopular, and especially so among the centre-left who previously thought of him as the "cool dad" of parliament.
And now for why the Trump thing has compounded this impression. Trust me, this transcript is damaging Turnbull in Australia much more than it's damaging Trump.
i particularly enjoyed this article:
Sorry, this article is very flawed and it accepts too much of Turnbull's comments at face value. Here are a few examples:
Australia has a policy of refusing to accept refugees who arrive by boat. The reason, as Turnbull patiently attempts to explain several times, is that it believes giving refuge to people who arrive by boat would encourage smuggling and create unsafe passage with a high risk of deaths at sea.
Complete rot. The "deaths at sea" justification is ex post facto for a draconian anti-refugee policy that Trump is possibly correct to characterise as "worse" than his. I'll spare you the evolution of Australian policy towards asylum seekers, especially those who have come by boat, but the two major parties have been in a race to the bottom to outdo each other in severity and exclusion of so-called boat people since the 1990s. They believe this is a vote winner, especially in marginal seats such as those in western Sydney. These draconian policies made the voyage to Australia increasingly dangerous.
Inevitably there were tragic drownings at sea, which provoked a strong humanitarian response - especially when these involved large numbers of children. Instead of acknowledging that bipartisan policy had contributed to these sinkings, and seeking to stick the boot into the Rudd/Gillard Labour government (who were in power during some of the worst sinkings), the Liberals started selling their even-more-draconian policies as seeking to protect deaths at sea. This had never been part of the debate until the Libs feared that the drownings would need them to moderate their policy, which would be unacceptable to a large chunk of their base. Those who pointed to flaws in Liberal policy, or who wanted to admit refugees who arrive by boat, were no longer just bleeding heart lefties or national security ignoramuses; they were monsters who accepted children drowning. It was a trick to cast the Liberals as humanitarians when, in fact, the reason boat arrivals cause so much hysteria (out of all proportion with their tiny numbers) is because these people are predominantly Middle Eastern and/or Muslim.
Trump is, in fact, dead right when he says "What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it." This quote will be used relentlessly against Turnbull by his opponents, mark my words.
He is unable to absorb Turnbull’s explanation that they are economic refugees, not from conflict zones
Here the author gives away their unfamiliarity with Australian political discourse. "Economic migrant" is a dogwhistle to say "these are not legitimate refugees, they are coming from comfortable lives abroad to steal your jobs". These people
have been found to be refugees with a valid fear of persecution. That's why Australia won't send them home.
Trump has completely failed to understand either that the refugees are not considered dangerous, or, again, that they are being held because of a categorical ban on ship-based refugee traffic.
Trump might not get this, but the important point here is that a ban on boat arrivals breaches the UN Refugee Convention. Australian politicians have been careful to side-step this (Labour are guilty too); whenever pressed on arrivals by air, they point to people-smuggling as the issue, trying to use that thin veneer as a defence that they are not in breach of the Convention.
Turnbull just exposed his own party's line as a lie - it is, simply, an irrational targeting of the means of arrival, regardless of whether those who arrive are terrorists or Nobel laureates. It's purely political: there is no fear in Australia of refugees who arrive by air, only of those who come by boat. And people are asking, with validity, why Turnbull is more frank with Trump than he is with the Australian people.