logo
Sussan Ley marks a new beginning – but there's still a long way back for the Liberals

Sussan Ley marks a new beginning – but there's still a long way back for the Liberals

The Guardian13-05-2025

As Liberal MPs trudged into the opposition party room to choose a new leader, Anthony Albanese and his euphoric Labor frontbench were being sworn in to their portfolios at Government House.
There's just six kilometres between the corridors of Parliament Houseand the governor general's residence in Yarralumla, but a vast chasm separates the moods of the two parties after the 3 May election.
It took just 15 minutes for Liberal MPs to choose Sussan Ley over Angus Taylor, 29 votes to 25, making her the first woman to lead the Liberal party in its 80-year-history.
As the WA senator Dean Smith quipped to media assembled outside the party room on Tuesday morning, it is a 'new beginning'.
Clear-eyed Liberal MPs view it as just that and only that: the first step in a long, difficult march back to political relevance. Ley and her new deputy, Ted O'Brien, inherit the leadership of a divided and diminished party that has found itself, or allowed itself to become, detached from mainstream Australia.
That is the lesson of consecutive election thumpings, where large sections of society – not least women – have deserted the party and, in doing so, rejected its policies in areas such as climate action.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
In that context, Tuesday's leadership ballot was a pivotal juncture. Liberal MPs could have chosen Taylor, a male conservative, and running mate Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, a rightwing firebrand, to lead the rebuild. That would have sent a message.
Instead, they chose a woman with moderate Liberal values and a man unaligned with any of the party's factional tribes. That, too, sends a message.
But to suggest Ley's views and gender might be enough to win back lost voters would naively undersell the nature and scale of the task before her and O'Brien.
The Liberals' biggest problem is in the capital cities, where it has been almost wiped out in the past two elections. Ley hails from regional NSW, while O'Brien represents part of Queensland's Sunshine Coast, two areas geographically distant from the voters the Liberals must win back.
Then there's the policies. Voters didn't just reject Peter Dutton and his macho brand of political leadership; they also rejected the Coalition's agenda – including its plans to build nuclear power plants.
Asked if the controversial nuclear plan – the brainchild of her new deputy – would remain, Ley insisted there would be no 'captain's calls' and all policies would be reviewed.
She offered the same noncommittal answer when pressed on the Liberals' commitment to net zero by 2050, declaring only that 'we need to reduce emissions'.
In one regard, it is common for a new leader to avoid immediately locking themselves into policies, even if those positions were evidently unpopular (nuclear) or the entry point for credibility (net zero).
Another reading of Ley's responses was that they offer a preview into the delicate balancing act she will need to perform as the leader of a fractured and bruised party room.
She might be more moderate but Ley's positions on welcome to country ceremonies and 'uniting' behind the Australian flag, for example, were not so far removed from her rightwing former leader.
A once vocal supporter of Palestine statehood, Ley said her views had changed. She launched an unprompted spray at Albanese and Penny Wong for 'letting down Jewish Australians' in the aftermath of Hamas's 7 October attack.
Ley said governments were formed in the 'sensible centre', while offering subtle, comforting nods to colleagues on the party's left and right.
Which brings us to the questions of mandate and unity.
Just as Albanese's clear majority hands him enormous control over the Labor caucus, Ley's slim victory means her leadership begins on shaky foundations.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
The margin of Tuesday's ballot would have been even tighter had the vote been held in July, when two of her supporters – Hollie Hughes and Linda Reynolds – will no longer be in parliament.
Ley, Taylor and their senior colleagues were on Tuesday preaching the need for unity.
Early decisions will decide if that loose bond quickly fractures.
Liberal MPs expect Ley to reward supporters Alex Hawke, Jason Wood and Scott Buchholz with frontbench promotions as she pieces together her shadow cabinet. Julian Leeser, who quit shadow cabinet in 2023 to campaign for the voice to parliament, is expected to be brought back into the fold.
Taylor's allies are cautiously optimistic that Ley won't completely sideline those who supported the shadow treasurer. There is a warning if she does.
'If they [Ley] take a winner-takes-all approach … we are all screwed,' one Liberal MP cautioned.
What now for Price, who defected from the Nationals to run as Taylor's deputy, only to pull out after he lost the leadership ballot? The 'disappointed' Indigenous senator pledged to work with the new leadership to ensure the Coalition was a 'formidable opposition'.
The unity will also be tested by arguably the biggest lesson of the Dutton leadership – the perils of discipline.
Senior Liberal MPs privately regret placing so much trust and faith in their former leader, and obediently falling into line rather than vigorously debating ideas.
The unity under Dutton was heralded as a virtue but it masked a party in crisis, sleepwalking into political oblivion.
Labor had its fights after Bill Shorten's 2019 defeat. There was leaking and blazing rows in shadow cabinet. It was messy. But it was necessary.
Six years on, Albanese and his ministry posed for selfies with governor general Sam Mostyn, still basking in the afterglow of an election win that netted 93 seats and the real prospect of at least six years in power.
It is a long road back for the Liberals.
At least they've taken the first step.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australia to boost aerial surveillance of Pacific for illegal fishing fleets
Australia to boost aerial surveillance of Pacific for illegal fishing fleets

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Australia to boost aerial surveillance of Pacific for illegal fishing fleets

SYDNEY, June 12 (Reuters) - Australia plans to significantly boost surveillance of Pacific Islands territorial waters, spending A$477 million ($310.72 million) on aerial patrols for illegal fishing fleets, tender documents viewed by Reuters show, as China takes steps towards sending its coast guard to the region. Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will visit Fiji on Friday, the Fiji Times newspaper reported, after the government of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka last week approved a maritime security agreement that will see Australia fund a patrol boat for Fiji. Australia will operate commercial aerial patrols to support Pacific Island countries monitoring exclusive economic zones which span millions of kilometres of ocean. Efforts to tackle illegal fishing also led to a new monitoring centre being opened in Fiji in April. Australia's defence department declined to comment on the aerial tender, and Pacific Minister Pat Conroy did not respond to a request for comment. Reuters reported last week that China's coast guard is taking further steps towards high seas boarding of fishing boats in the Pacific for the first time, risking tensions with Taiwanese fleets that also ply the region. The Chinese Coast Guard demonstrated the capabilities of one of its largest ships, used to enforce maritime law in the Taiwan Strait, to 10 Pacific Island ministers, including Fiji's, in China a fortnight ago. China has registered 26 coast guard vessels for Pacific Ocean patrols with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, although it is yet to conduct an inspection, WCPFC officials said. China declined to comment. Australia has gifted two dozen patrol boats to Pacific Island nations, and operates navy and air force patrols for illegal fishing in the region several times a year. Sangaa Clark, chief executive of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, representing nine Pacific Island countries controlling the world's largest tuna fishery, said the group has not invited China to conduct coast guard patrols, and instead relied on Australian-funded surveillance and patrols by Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States. Pacific security expert Peter Connolly, a fellow at the University of New South Wales, said Chinese Coast Guard patrols in the region would "introduce geostrategic tensions to the policing of the Pacific's fisheries". "This is particularly likely because the two most common nationalities of illegal fishermen in the Pacific have been from the PRC and from Taiwan," he said, referring to the People's Republic of China. ($1 = 1.5352 Australian dollars)

'No one cares what happened to you - you are not Brittany Higgins': Political staffer with a disturbingly familiar story exposes $2.4m taxpayer funded compo double standard
'No one cares what happened to you - you are not Brittany Higgins': Political staffer with a disturbingly familiar story exposes $2.4m taxpayer funded compo double standard

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

'No one cares what happened to you - you are not Brittany Higgins': Political staffer with a disturbingly familiar story exposes $2.4m taxpayer funded compo double standard

A parliamentary researcher who allegedly suffered a similar rape and bullying ordeal to Brittany Higgins says the government treated her completely differently. Anna Hough, 46, alleges she was raped as a young woman in politics and then bullied and discriminated against by her bosses after she raised it with them. Ms Hough claims she was sexually abused and raped by a political staffer while volunteering for the Australian Democrats between 2000 and 2001. When Ms Higgins went public in 2021 to famously disclose her alleged rape by Bruce Lehrmann, Ms Hough said it triggered her trauma from her own experience years earlier which led her to finally tell her bosses. But Ms Hough alleges that instead of being offered support by the Department of Parliamentary Services, she was sidelined and bullied by her managers. The mother-of-three from Canberra lodged a legal claim against the Federal Government in September 2023 covering both the alleged historic assaults and alleged bullying. But while Ms Higgins was given a $2.4million settlement after one day of mediation, Ms Hough claims she was instead treated like a 'second-class victim'. She told Daily Mail Australia she has been twice asked to sign non-disclosure agreements by the Labor Government and was given low-ball cash offers to settle. Now, after the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) found on Thursday there was 'no corruption issue' with Ms Higgins' huge settlement - which was signed after a day partly to avoid 'ongoing trauma' - Ms Hough has spoken out. 'I was a victim of alleged parliamentary workplace rape, sexual assault, bullying and discrimination but the Commonwealth has shown no concern about ongoing trauma to me,' Ms Hough told Daily Mail Australia. 'Instead, I have been offered a tiny fraction of the compensation, told repeatedly by lawyers and journalists that "no one cares what happened to you because you are not Brittany Higgins", and pressured to sign NDAs.' Ms Hough said some of the reasons she had been given by lawyers for the dramatic difference in settlement figures included that, 'you weren't a Liberal staffer', and 'that was a political decision'. '(But) we are supposed to have equality before the law in Australia,' she said. 'That should mean that if the Prime Minister, say, gets a speeding ticket he has to pay it the same way you or I do. 'And that if I am mistreated in the workplace, I get the same compensation as someone else who is similarly mistreated, whether they are the CEO or the cleaner.' Ms Hough stressed that her issue was with the government's handling of her own case, not how Ms Higgins' was treated. 'To be clear, I am not attacking Brittany Higgins, I am attacking the government and its inconsistency,' she said. The NACC said on Thursday that 'a critical consideration during the settlement process was avoiding ongoing trauma to Ms Higgins'. The former Liberal Party staffer's claim for alleged bullying and victimisation - not the rape itself - took about 11 months before it was resolved after a single day of mediation. 'But mine has now taken 20 months and counting,' Ms Hough said. 'The Commonwealth took four months just to respond to our first settlement offer. 'No one has shown any interest in avoiding ongoing trauma to me.' On Thursday morning, the NACC took the extraordinary step of revealing its preliminary findings into Ms Higgins' case to 'clear the air' around the 'scrutiny and speculation' surrounding the payout. It found that there was 'no corruption issue' involving any public officials. It also stated that the resolution of mediation after just a day was 'unexceptional' and revealed that Ms Higgins actually received less than the maximum amount recommended by external legal advice. Ms Higgins' former boss Senator Linda Reynolds, who lodged the original complaint, said she was 'bitterly disappointed' by the findings. 'My primary concern has always been how the Commonwealth could possibly settle unsubstantiated and statute barred claims made against me, alleging egregious conduct on my part without taking a single statement from me or speaking to me at all,' she said. Senator Reynolds has also launched legal action against the Commonwealth over the compensation payment, alleging that government lawyers were 'hopelessly conflicted'. The NACC said the question of whether Ms Higgins told mistruths during the pay-off talks was outside of their remit. 'Whether Ms Higgins made misrepresentations during the negotiations is not within the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction, as at the relevant time she was not a Commonwealth public official,' the NACC statement said. In his judgment in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case last year, Federal Court Judge Michael Lee found that Ms Higgins made at least nine untrue representations when negotiating her settlement with the commission. Senator Reynolds noted that 'the NACC highlighted that whether or not a corruption issue exists is a different issue from whether there has been any breach of duty, misfeasance or negligence by the Commonwealth or its lawyers in relation to the settlement'. 'This distinction further reinforces the importance of my decision to pursue these issues in the Federal Court,' she added. Ms Reynolds is also awaiting the outcome of a blockbuster defamation claim she brought against Ms Higgins and her husband David Sharaz over social media posts the pair made about her. A judgement is expected to be handed down in the Supreme Court of Western Australia later this month. Ms Hough first went public with her allegations in an interview with Sky News in April. Ms Hough said her motivation was the 'principle that all survivors deserve justice - regardless of their profile, role, or the media attention their case attracts'. 'I've been silenced for too long,' she added. 'Given the ALP's response to an alleged Parliament House rape cover up last election, the hypocrisy on display in their treatment of me, particularly in trying to silence me, is quite something.' Ms Hough has not had an affiliation with a political party since 2012 and has never been a member of the Liberal Party. She was a 21-year-old university student working as a volunteer for the Australian Democrats when she alleges she was raped and sexually assaulted by a political staffer between April 2000 and May 2001. 'The power imbalance, combined with a total lack of reporting mechanisms and a culture of silence, made it impossible for me to speak up,' she told Sky News. 'When I sought help outside the party after the first assault, I was made to feel that it was my fault. No one suggested I report the assault, seek counselling, or speak to the police.' It was later, during the MeToo era, when Ms. Higgins came forward with her own trauma, that Ms. Hough started suffering PTSD symptoms. At that stage, she had been working in the Department of Parliamentary Services since 2016. She disclosed her trauma to her bosses who allegedly failed to offer support. 'Instead of being supported, I was pressured to step down from a more senior acting role, denied a promotion, and treated as a burden,' she added. 'The bullying and discrimination I faced at DPS were re-traumatising.' She quit her role in April 2023 and filed her legal claim against the Commonwealth five months later. Ms Hough claims she was twice asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement during settlement negotiations. But a spokesperson for the Attorney-General's Department has previously denied that they would ask any victims to stay silent with the use of non-disclosure agreements. Daily Mail Australia approached the Attorney-General's department for further comment. During her time working in parliament, Ms Hough contributed to the Set the Standard report, which examined workplace behaviour and culture in the corridors of power. She has also continued to call for the establishment of a redress scheme for survivors of abuse in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.

Trump accused of 'lobbing grenade' into US-UK security pact as president orders review of nuclear sub deal intended to tackle Chinese aggression
Trump accused of 'lobbing grenade' into US-UK security pact as president orders review of nuclear sub deal intended to tackle Chinese aggression

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Trump accused of 'lobbing grenade' into US-UK security pact as president orders review of nuclear sub deal intended to tackle Chinese aggression

Donald Trump has been accused of 'throwing a hand grenade' into the transatlantic security alliance by ordering a review of a major nuclear submarine pact between the UK, the US and Australia. The president has ordered officials to look into Aukus, which was signed by his predecessor Joe Biden and is intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression. It involves multi-billion-pound commitments to build new nuclear-powered submarines, with the Ministry of Defence already announcing its intention to build up to 12 submarines in last week's Strategic Defence Review. But these plans have been thrown into doubt after the US defence department announced a probe to ensure Aukus meets the President's 'America First' agenda. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, who is close to President Trump and is a long-term sceptic of the agreement. A UK Government spokesman sought to play down the prospect of an American withdrawal from the deal today, saying Aukus was 'one of the most strategically important partnerships in decades'. They added: 'It is understandable that a new administration would want to review its approach to such a major partnership, just as the UK did last year.' But Helen Maguire, the Liberal Democrat defence spokeswoman, said: 'Trump's decision to review the AUKUS submarine pact has thrown another grenade into our security partnership. 'Even in the face of an imperial Putin and the rising threat posed by China, this White House simply can't be relied upon to support our collective defence. 'Our national security demands that we ramp up talks with our Commonwealth friends and work to plug the gap that the US is threatening to leave in European and global security. 'Starmer must meet urgently with Prime Minister Albanese to develop contingency plans for AUKUS if Trump withdraws from the treaty.' Announced in 2021, Aukus involves the three nations building a new generation of nuclear-powered attack submarines and cooperating in other areas of advanced defence technology. The deal will also see Australia buy three Virginia-class submarines from the US ahead of the new vessels being built. That provision has led some in Washington, including Mr Colby, to question the deal on the grounds that the US may need those submarines if it finds itself in a war with China over Taiwan. But last month, the new US ambassador to London used his first major speech in the job to back Aukus. Warren Stephens told an audience in Parliament, including Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, that the US was 'proud to stand alongside Britain and Australia, two of our closest allies, as we deepen our collaboration to respond to a changing world'. Relations between the US and Australia have soured over tariffs. America has also demanded Australia increase defence spending and wants to sell older submarines to Australia on favourable terms. Last night former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West said: 'Aukus is extremely important for the strategic situation in the Pacific and very important for Britain as a way of us moving into our next generation of submarines. 'The US had had concerns about selling its submarines to Australia, so it is not entirely unexpected that President Trump would want to look at this. Hopefully this can be resolved and we all move on together as part of the alliance.' The deal is regarded as a pillar of security co-operation. But concerns have been raised in the US over the rate of submarine production and Australia's reluctance to commit to a 'no holds barred' response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The US is committed to selling up to five boats to Australia, vessels which many in the US believe should be retained by the US Navy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store