Breakaway party airs plan to still 'work' with Liberals
The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing.
But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority.
"The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.
"This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery.
"I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from."
Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election.
But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government.
Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve.
Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament.
"It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News.
The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament.
Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet.
Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions.
The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP.
Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems.
It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other.
The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies.
The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election.
Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election.
"It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio.
"We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents."
The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing.
But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority.
"The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.
"This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery.
"I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from."
Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election.
But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government.
Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve.
Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament.
"It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News.
The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament.
Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet.
Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions.
The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP.
Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems.
It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other.
The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies.
The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election.
Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election.
"It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio.
"We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents."
The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing.
But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority.
"The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.
"This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery.
"I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from."
Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election.
But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government.
Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve.
Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament.
"It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News.
The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament.
Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet.
Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions.
The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP.
Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems.
It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other.
The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies.
The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election.
Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election.
"It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio.
"We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents."
The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government.
Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing.
But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority.
"The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.
"This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery.
"I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from."
Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election.
But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government.
Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve.
Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament.
"It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News.
The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament.
Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet.
Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions.
The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP.
Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems.
It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other.
The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies.
The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election.
Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election.
"It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio.
"We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
36 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Q+A's cancellation is the mercy killing of a show that no longer got us talking
It's often sad when a much-loved show comes to an end, but it's much sadder when a show trickles to termination long after the love has faded away. The ABC's cancellation of Q+A will be viewed by many as the merciful culmination of a long drift into irrelevance, but it would be unfair to let the passing go by without acknowledging that there was a time when it was bold, vital viewing, capable of generating real excitement, discussion and outrage, and of setting the political agenda. The eye-catching point of difference for Q+A when it began in 2008 was the running of selected tweets on screen while the show was in progress. It was a gimmick, but a stroke of genius for a show looking to create buzz and connect a watching community each week. It brought another dimension to TV-watching as hardcore Q+A -ers fought fiercely each week for the honour of getting on screen. Fans often commented that the show was 'so much better when no politicians were on'. I never agreed. Episodes without them produced much civil, intelligent discourse, but lacked the fire politicians generated with their presence. Some were loud and opinionated and deliberately put on a show. Others came over all sweet and reasonable. Or they just played the straight party-line bat, repeating the approved talking points. Whatever method they chose provided great grist for the mill: whether the audience was giving a standing ovation or participating in a social media feeding frenzy. When the program was at its best, it did spark proper, serious conversations. But it also was showbusiness. Everyone remembers John Howard getting a shoe thrown at him in 2010, and that incident provided exactly what people wanted from Q+A: the feeling you were witnessing something unique; that those who weren't watching had missed out. The mostly left-leaning audience loved the chance to reaffirm their loathing of Howard. Those on the right got their jollies decrying such vulgar violence. One of the show's greatest controversies was when the Abbott government boycotted it after it allowed former terror suspect Zaky Mallah to sit in the audience and ask a question. This set off furious debate over the rights and wrongs of letting Mallah on the show, but that was what Q+A was for – creating a space for people to argue over what was right and wrong. The show's best moments were always a result of the willingness to take on the risks of live television and the placing of big, combustible personalities in proximity. Some were one-off instances of unpredictable drama, such as when GetUp director Simon Sheikh fainted on air, or the interruption to the broadcast resulting from students staging an in-studio protest against panellist Christopher Pyne. Others were moving moments that became bigger stories, taking on a life of their own after the hour was up, like when Victorian man Duncan Storrar questioned politicians about tax cuts for the rich and the plight of low-income Australians like himself. To some, Storrar became a hero, but he was later targeted by media outlets digging into his past. At other times, the show shone simply by being the ring in which ferocious and sometimes hilarious verbal brawls were staged – between Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Jacqui Lambie, Bob Katter and Josh Thomas, and many others. Over the years, Q+A lost the ability to spark anger or argument, or get people talking the next day, or set the political agenda that week. One of the reasons was that it stopped aiming for enjoyment. Even on a show with pretensions to political significance, entertainment matters – you can't be significant if nobody's watching. The switch from Monday to Thursday night, later reversed, didn't help. Moving the show to later in the week robbed it of the feeling it was the kickstarter for that week's public debate. The 2019 loss of original host Tony Jones – whose calm control and flashes of wry bemusement ('I'm going to take that as a comment') endeared him to many but infuriated others who found him smug and either too opinionated or not opinionated enough – was a blow from which the show never recovered. As time passed, the novelty of the tweets wore off, and the panellists' spats started to seem tired and predictable. 'Don't watch the Bad Show' became the social media motto, as the program tried a little too hard to engineer memorable confrontations. Without popular engagement, the claim to be dictating the national conversation rang hollow, and even the attacks on the show's perceived biases or submission to vested interests started to drop off because nobody was paying attention any more.
The Age
40 minutes ago
- The Age
Q+A's cancellation is the mercy killing of a show that no longer got us talking
It's often sad when a much-loved show comes to an end, but it's much sadder when a show trickles to termination long after the love has faded away. The ABC's cancellation of Q+A will be viewed by many as the merciful culmination of a long drift into irrelevance, but it would be unfair to let the passing go by without acknowledging that there was a time when it was bold, vital viewing, capable of generating real excitement, discussion and outrage, and of setting the political agenda. The eye-catching point of difference for Q+A when it began in 2008 was the running of selected tweets on screen while the show was in progress. It was a gimmick, but a stroke of genius for a show looking to create buzz and connect a watching community each week. It brought another dimension to TV-watching as hardcore Q+A -ers fought fiercely each week for the honour of getting on screen. Fans often commented that the show was 'so much better when no politicians were on'. I never agreed. Episodes without them produced much civil, intelligent discourse, but lacked the fire politicians generated with their presence. Some were loud and opinionated and deliberately put on a show. Others came over all sweet and reasonable. Or they just played the straight party-line bat, repeating the approved talking points. Whatever method they chose provided great grist for the mill: whether the audience was giving a standing ovation or participating in a social media feeding frenzy. When the program was at its best, it did spark proper, serious conversations. But it also was showbusiness. Everyone remembers John Howard getting a shoe thrown at him in 2010, and that incident provided exactly what people wanted from Q+A: the feeling you were witnessing something unique; that those who weren't watching had missed out. The mostly left-leaning audience loved the chance to reaffirm their loathing of Howard. Those on the right got their jollies decrying such vulgar violence. One of the show's greatest controversies was when the Abbott government boycotted it after it allowed former terror suspect Zaky Mallah to sit in the audience and ask a question. This set off furious debate over the rights and wrongs of letting Mallah on the show, but that was what Q+A was for – creating a space for people to argue over what was right and wrong. The show's best moments were always a result of the willingness to take on the risks of live television and the placing of big, combustible personalities in proximity. Some were one-off instances of unpredictable drama, such as when GetUp director Simon Sheikh fainted on air, or the interruption to the broadcast resulting from students staging an in-studio protest against panellist Christopher Pyne. Others were moving moments that became bigger stories, taking on a life of their own after the hour was up, like when Victorian man Duncan Storrar questioned politicians about tax cuts for the rich and the plight of low-income Australians like himself. To some, Storrar became a hero, but he was later targeted by media outlets digging into his past. At other times, the show shone simply by being the ring in which ferocious and sometimes hilarious verbal brawls were staged – between Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Jacqui Lambie, Bob Katter and Josh Thomas, and many others. Over the years, Q+A lost the ability to spark anger or argument, or get people talking the next day, or set the political agenda that week. One of the reasons was that it stopped aiming for enjoyment. Even on a show with pretensions to political significance, entertainment matters – you can't be significant if nobody's watching. The switch from Monday to Thursday night, later reversed, didn't help. Moving the show to later in the week robbed it of the feeling it was the kickstarter for that week's public debate. The 2019 loss of original host Tony Jones – whose calm control and flashes of wry bemusement ('I'm going to take that as a comment') endeared him to many but infuriated others who found him smug and either too opinionated or not opinionated enough – was a blow from which the show never recovered. As time passed, the novelty of the tweets wore off, and the panellists' spats started to seem tired and predictable. 'Don't watch the Bad Show' became the social media motto, as the program tried a little too hard to engineer memorable confrontations. Without popular engagement, the claim to be dictating the national conversation rang hollow, and even the attacks on the show's perceived biases or submission to vested interests started to drop off because nobody was paying attention any more.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Mark Bouris rails against Labor's controversial super, unrealised gains tax; issues alarming message to young Australians
Millionaire and businessman Mark Bouris has cautioned younger Australians to be aware of the dangerous risks posed by Labor's contentious super, unrealised gains tax, stating 'every young person' in the country 'should be worried'. Labor's plan to double the tax rate from 15 to 30 per cent on super accounts over $3 million looks set to pass both houses when parliament resumes in July, with the Greens expected to join with Labor in the Senate to ram the legislation through. However, the plan, which also targets unrealised capital gains has attracted a myriad of critics including top fund managers, leading economists and former Treasury officials who have argued the policy is reckless and unprecedented in nature. Despite Treasurer Jim Chalmers repeatedly claiming the policy will only affect 80,000 Australians or 0.5 per cent of the population, industry magnates have outlined that due to the threshold not being indexed with inflation, millions of young Australians could fall victim to the tax in the coming decades. In the latest episode of his Mentored+ podcast, Mr Bouris outlined that young Australians should be extremely concerned by the tax proposal, and that the super accounts of Australians starting work today would eventually be ransacked as a result. 'The people that are going to be affected by that the most is anyone starting work today, any new young person,' Mr Bouris said. 'So, if you're a young person saying this is great, because the rich people are going to transfer the wealth across to the younger people, you will be transferring it to your kids and it's going to keep going like that forever'. The businessman who is best known for founding Wizard Home Loans, Australia's second largest non-bank mortgage lender also said that older Australians had struggled to amass superannuation savings with a low tax rate, and that the tax hike would only make things harder for younger Australians. 'Every young person in the country should be worried about this, and I'll tell you why: because every old person in the country has experienced building their superannuation up with only 15 per cent tax rate from day 1, for the last 30, 40 years'. 'We've had this, all of us had this fantastic low-tax situation with the money we earn in our super fund,' Mr Bouris said, adding that young people who accumulate more than $3 million worth of assets "will not have the same benefits that everyone else had had'. Former Labor Prime Minister and chief architect of compulsory superannuation Paul Keating is reportedly incensed by the policy, telling industry super executives and union leaders last August the plan was 'unconscionable', and that it would turn superannuation into a low-and middle-income pension scheme. Mr Bouris said the former ALP Prime Minister, who introduced compulsory superannuation in 1992 'must be feeling completely demoralised and probably to some extent betrayed' by the reforms, stating that Mr Keating had long argued for government to refrain from imposing excessive levies on super. 'All (Labor's changes) is going to do is put more strain on government when people retire, because people are not going to retire with enough money because they are going to be paying too much tax," he said. 'So if you're a young person and you're saying, 'Oh, this is great', because you're gonna get rich people to transfer the wealth across to the younger people – uh-uh." From July 12 the majority of Australian workers will have 12 per cent of their wages paid to a superannuation fund, representing a 0.5 per cent increase from the current threshold.
