Turnbull was true to form at last night's Bar Association speech.
He was never going to go quietly.
Here's Brad Norington writing in The Australian today.
Malcolm Turnbull has declared the Liberal Party is not capable of dealing with climate change because of an influential group within its ranks that believes the phenomenon is a “fraud” and carbon dioxide is just plant food with “the more you have the better”.
In a scathing assessment of the government he formerly led as prime minister, Mr Turnbull said the Liberals and the Coalition as a whole were not capable of achieving a genuine consensus on the issue of climate change and the problem as a consequence was that “everybody loses”.
Mr Turnbull provided his frank comments last night to a packed room of lawyers, judges and some former colleagues including Attorney-General Christian Porter, as guest speaker at the formal dinner of the Australia and NSW Association annual conference.
In a question and answer-style address in which he was asked about authenticity and his commitment to action on climate change, Mr Turnbull said: “The truth is … the Liberal Party and the Coalition is not capable of dealing with climate change.
“It is just a fact I regret to say. It is like a third rail. We have at the present time in the Coalition, a group of, a constituency, that is the best way to describe it, who believe we should get out of (the Paris Agreement), that climate change is a fraud, the more you have the better, and are literally on another plane.
“They are not prepared to play ball with everybody else.”
Mr Turnbull said the anti-climate change group in the Coalition and his own party took the attitude that if “if you don’t do what we want, we will blow the show up, and that is essentially what you’ve seen — and so the problem is that everybody loses”.
Mr Turnbull also last night seemed to go further than his interview on the ABC’s Q&A program last week, saying his forced exit as prime minister was “terrible” for the government, the country and the Liberal Party.
Asked about the prospect of Peter Dutton as prime minister, he said: “If Peter Dutton was the answer, you’d have to ask what was the question.”
He knew what he was getting into both times he knifed someone for the leadership.
He was prepared to lie about his big headline issue in order to get the prime ministership.
The damage he wrought at the helm isn't over, it's not a negative legacy, it's an enduring, active, festering, consumptive malignancy.