Tony Abbott and his supporters have been laying a pretty obvious trail for the past few weeks which has now arrived at the explicit suggestion they have been hinting at – that Malcolm Turnbull is weak on terrorism.



Turnbull has not changed any aspect of national security policy, nor of asylum policy, but he did change the tone of the domestic debate. By juxtaposing that change in tone with the numerous public airings from Abbott and his supporters since the Paris terrorist attacks (and massaging the context of various statements), conservative commentator Andrew Bolt duly reached the trail’s intended conclusion, couched as a question.

“Turnbull had better find that resolve fast. His waffle, inaction and please-everyone style has served him brilliantly in the polls so far, but does it serve our security?” he asked, having made his view of the correct answer clear in the preceding 54 paragraphs of his piece in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

His main charge was that Turnbull had sided with the “catastrophically weak” US president Barack Obama in “rejecting” the idea of sending troops to join the fight against Islamic State. Abbott of course raised the idea of troops as prime minister, and revisited it in his recent speech in London and in an article in the Australian.

On no occasion did he suggest unilateral action by Australia, but on each he urged greater military action in concert with allies.

“Preferably with Sunni states such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, as well as with the US, Britain and France, Australia should be prepared to contribute more to a military campaign to destroy this terrorist caliphate on the ground in Syria and Iraq,” he said in the op-ed in the Australian soon after the Paris attacks.

His former defence minister Kevin Andrews made similar remarks Monday, saying the US and Australia should send in special forces to have any hope of winning the military campaign against Isis.



When asked similar questions Turnbull has pointed out Australia’s existing contribution and said future military contributions would be considered in the light of discussions with allies.

Given that Obama – whatever one’s views on his strategy – is not advocating a bigger military contribution, the only difference is that Abbott is “urging” the US and others to do more, which sounds resolute, and Turnbull says he would consider any request if it was made. In practical terms this divergence is unlikely to make any difference to what Australia actually does.

Differences are also being talked up in terms of the religious make-up of the intake of 12,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees, which the government also insists is unchanged, the way politicians discuss the contribution of the Australian Muslim community to the fight against terrorism, where Turnbull appears to be following the advice of the intelligence and security agencies, and over the exclusion of immigration minister Peter Dutton from the national security of cabinet, which Turnbull says he will attend when relevant to his portfolio.

The only practical difference between the Abbott conservatives and the Turnbull ministry appears to be Abbott’s backing of a change in the rules of engagement for airstrikes, which Abbott suggested, the US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter has said he would be prepared to consider, and Turnbull’s defence minister Marise Payne has reportedly rejected.

And Senator Cory Bernardi is calling for cabinet to reconsider the decision to take 12,000 Syrians and Iraqis, because of concerns raised about the effectiveness of the checks being conducted and the role of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees in the process.

A threat as serious as Isis, and a decision as serious as committing Australia’s military to overseas combat, should be debated, including in the parliament.

No one in the government seems to be supporting Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek’s motion for a parliamentary debate about Australia’s strategy in Syria and Iraq, but Turnbull will give a national security statement on Tuesday.

A threat like this will also inevitably be debated within the government. But precisely because it is so important, that’s a debate that should proceed on the merits of the arguments and not as a proxy for an entirely different discussion.