In selling its budget measures, the government should listen to the voters more and to media megaphones less

Alan Jones, can I begin this column by asking you if you could say this after me.



"As a radio announcer I want to say here I am not a minister in the government, I don’t get to tell a minister of the government what to do and I don’t get to tell ministers of the government what they may say and with whom they may have dinner."



OK, I’m not holding my breath, but besides the obvious macabre fascination value, there is a serious point behind the Malcolm Turnbull versus the media megaphones stoush.



And that is the ultimate influence of the megaphones on the Abbott government, and what they believe their influence should be.



For a long time their role has been undoubtedly positive from the Coalition’s point of view, a constant drum beat of total support – and for the Labor party and the Greens, unrelenting criticism. But the commentators now seem to think they can dictate the political script, right down to what ministers should say and what prime ministers should think, which for a government that needs to keep its plumb line somewhere near the rational centre, is becoming a problem.



On the immediate issue of contention, Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt believe that Malcolm Turnbull’s dinner with Clive Palmer is evidence beyond question that the communications minister is trying to destabilise the prime minister. No matter that the prime minister has said publicly, and told each of the commentators personally, that he does not believe this is the case.



Most people would then conclude that this was truly what their very much preferred prime minister thought and they should lay down their weapons, or else that even if their very much preferred prime minister had some suspicions about his colleague’s ultimate intentions he saw no benefit in a public conflagration over the issue, in which case they might also lay down their weapons. But the commentators are not most people, they believe they know better, and they very much wanted the fight, in defence of the prime minister who didn’t want to have it.



Bolt tried to draw the prime minister into the argument on Sunday, but Abbott was having none of it.



“I think it's perfectly reasonable for senior members of the Coalition to talk with independent and minor party senators, because let's face it, Andrew, we have a budget to get through the Parliament,” he said.



Jones revealed that he too had sought prime ministerial advice on the Turnbull dinner “outrage”, telling Turnbull, “I spoke to your leader after that and he was very generous about you, he said, oh Alan they must have just bumped into one another.”



The Labor party sought to draw the prime minister into some kind of fight in parliament and again he was very clear, in any fight between one of his ministers and a member of the fourth estate, he would back his minister.



Now Malcolm Turnbull is not a retiring type and he has been, shall we say, visible lately, but in amplifying this into some dire act of destabilisation the commentators have spectacularly succeeded in elevating leadership destabilisation to a topic of conversation, when it had previously been discussed by almost noone.



Which should perhaps lead to a re-examination of what else they are urging the government to do.



They would also like to draw the prime minister into a full-scale attack on Palmer, including allegations about his business dealings. Palmer’s position, his business, and the quite obvious potential for conflict of interest with his political influence are absolutely issues demanding scrutiny. But for the government to take the initiative in publicly attacking him, in the current political circumstances, would seem to be a high-risk undertaking. In his interview on Sunday, Bolt cited figures from treasurer Joe Hockey that a single mother who was studying and had two young children could be eligible for up top $56,000 in different benefits, demanding to know whether Abbott was “just going to let that go” because “I’ve got to pay for that, lots of working people have to pay for that”.



The prime minister parlayed, saying it may not stay unchanged forever, before segueing into the changes to benefits already announced in the budget. But if there was a thought bubble above his head it might have read “Good grief, Andrew, don’t you think we’ve announced enough ‘tough decisions’ to be getting on with.”



Bolt’s personal circumstances were also instrumental in persuading the government to embark upon amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, which have caused considerable concern – including on its own backbench – and diverted from the core business of first term government.



In Bolt-land the story remains all about him – his analysis of Turnbull’s self-defence against the Bolt and Jones criticism – “it all makes sense if you see this through Turnbull’s eyes: that he is trying to marginalise commentators he perceives as supporters of Tony Abbott, to the delight of his own media constituency, the ABC and Fairfax.”



And the fact that a minister dared to defend himself against the charges of treachery was construed as clear evidence of the treachery.



In the real world, the government would probably be better advised to look at what voters are actually saying, rather than the self-appointed ciphers of the “mainstream”.



The latest Essential poll found that 53% of voters thought Labor should block some aspects of the budget in the Senate – and that included 41% who said they were Coalition voters.



Which would suggest that from the government’s point of view the budget needs a great deal more “explaining” without the diversions and demands from their “friends”.

