he's being very cryptic, here. you need to read between the lines. he's saying one thing to the press, but really speaking past them in saying another thing to voters. it's an interesting example of how the press narrative can exist in a completely parallel reality to the dialogue between politicians and voters...

when he talks about a breakdown in trust, he seems to be acknowledging that he made a mistake in putting a noob in a position that should be reserved for trusted inner circles of the party. and, that is the right lesson - even if the mistake ends up fatal.

do i think that jwr did a good job on assisted dying, on cannabis, on drunk driving? i don't, actually.

but, it sounds like he realizes that the actual problem here is that the pmo is too insular, and ended up mismanaging an issue by not fully understanding the legalities around it, due to not having the expertise to do so. it was in over it's head, on this, and shouldn't have been. the adjustment of consulting more widely is a reasonable, welcome reaction; there have been broad criticisms around this pmo for existing in a bubble, and not reacting to concerns in reality. if the result of this is that the bubble bursts, that is good.

but, we're also going to see who he consults. and, i'll say this: this language is refreshing, because it sounds like something the old liberal party would say.

we'll see.

as an aside, i don't think that reacting firmly and decisively to factions that are trying to hurt you is authoritarian. rather, it's self-defence. this might be the correct adjustment, but he's continuing to broadcast his vulnerability to trojan horse attacks, and if he doesn't address that fundamental weakness, you can expect this will happen again.