Leaked letter reveals reason why the Nationals first threatened to ditch the Coalition
A leaked letter has revealed the Nationals first threatened to ditch the Coalition after Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price defected to the Liberal party room, a revelation that undermines David Littleproud's claims that the split was solely over policy disputes.
The letter, which was sent from the Nationals Bridget McKenzie to Liberal Senate leader Michaelia Cash on May 12, complained that the Nationals would lose party status after being reduced to just just four Senators with the loss of Price.
Party status, which requires five members, confers more resources for things like travel, office space, staff and salaries.
Senator Price sensationally defected from the Nationals party room to sit with the Liberal Party room on May 8.
As a member of the Country Liberal Party, she can choose between the two. But it was widely seen as a betrayal.
Two days after her defection, Senator McKenzie penned the strongly-worded letter, first obtained by news.com.au, which was entitled 'Resignation of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from The Nationals Senate Party Room'.
'As a result of her defection, together with the severe drop in Liberal Party vote in New South Wales, from 1 July 2025 The Nationals will hold only four seats in the Senate,' Senator McKenzie wrote.
'This is below what is required to maintain party status in the Senate as a party that is "part of the Government or the Opposition" under the Parliamentary Business Resources Regulations 2017.
'Losing party status in the Senate would have significant implications for The Nationals Senate team as well as the wider Coalition.'
'Depending on the outcome of negotiations between our parties over coming weeks, the Nationals senate party room will need to consider our position with respect to sitting with the Liberal Party as a Coalition in the senate chamber.'
The idea that splitting from the Coalition was mooted as an option eight days before the Nationals announced their decision to back out undermines Littleproud's subsequent claims that it was due to disagreements over policy, rather than personnel.
On Tuesday, when he announced the Coalition was breaking up for only the third time in its 80-year history, he claimed discussion had broken down over the Nationals' desire for a commitment on nuclear power, supermarket divestiture powers, regional infrastructure and telecommunications funding.
The varying recollections spilled over into live TV on Wednesday night when Senator McKenzie was asked whether a sticking point had been the Nationals' refusal to agree that they would not speak out against the positions of the shadow cabinet.
'I can tell you, because I was in the National party room that made this decision, the decision that was then conveyed to the Liberal leader. And that was not part of our consideration … it was solely on those four policies,' she told the ABC's 7.30.
But her comments were soon disputed by Liberal Leader Sussan Ley's staff who texted into the program while the interview was still live.
'It is not correct to suggest shadow cabinet solidarity was not a sticking point,' the text said.
'We have it in writing that it was a requirement from their leader's office to ours.'
Ley's office texted again to add: '(McKenzie's) language was deliberate to make it sound like it was just about the policies. That is just not correct.'
When the texts were put to McKenzie, she told the ABC in a statement that she stood by her comments.
'The claims made above were not the basis of the Nationals party room decision not to form a Coalition at this time,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
China has a stranglehold on the world's rare-earths supply chain. Can Australia break it?
Weeks after China retaliated against Donald Trump's tariffs by suspending exports of a range of rare-earth elements and related high-powered magnets, Ford was forced to pause a production line in Chicago. Days later, executives from other major carmakers, including General Motors and Toyota, told the White House their suppliers faced an impending shortage of necessary materials that could shut assembly lines. The speed of the fallout shows just how reliant the world has become on China's mineral supply chain and its production of rare-earth magnets , used in everything from wind turbines and medical devices to combustion and electric motors, and ballistic missile guidance systems. The Albanese government believes it can help break China's dominance, but experts say the challenge is enormous. Prof John Mavrogenes, from the Australian National University's research school of earth sciences, says the government needs to dramatically boost its investment in skills, education and technology if it wants to develop the domestic capability to manufacture rare-earth products, namely magnets. 'The question over who can deal with the processing and the making of magnets is a really big one, and quite hard to get your head around because we've let China just take that business over,' says Mavrogenes. 'The question is capability. Who's ready to ramp up if we need to? One country that I know isn't ready is Australia. 'We need so many metallurgists and chemical engineers, and we need them tomorrow. We probably need 10, 20, 50 times more than we're producing.' China is a large producer of rare earths and has near-complete control over the refining processes needed to make the minerals useful. It produces about 90% of rare-earth magnets, completing its control of the supply chain. It has become a very efficient, cost-effective provider of rare-earth materials, although given some of the historical environmental damage caused by their extraction and processing, it has paid a price. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Economies around the world have benefited from China's rare earths industry. The system seemed to work, until it didn't. In 2010, China starved Japan's hi-tech manufacturing industries by halting shipments of rare earths for about two months, after a dispute over a detained Chinese fishing trawler captain. In late 2023, China formalised a ban on the export of rare-earth separation technologies. Two months ago, China placed export restrictions on seven strategically chosen rare earths and the end product, magnets. While the recent curbs were sparked by Trump's tariffs, Beijing applied the export controls to all countries. It has implemented a new export permit system, choking the world of supply. Rare-earth magnets need a lot of two light rare-earth elements, neodymium and praseodymium, which are not subject to China's export curbs. But more powerful, heat-resistant magnets used in automotive and defence industries tend to require dysprosium or terbium, which are called heavy rare earths because of their atomic weights. Dysprosium and terbium are on China's list of suspended rare earths, as is samarium, which is also used in hi-tech applications. Until recently, the desire to develop a rare earths sector has been pitched by governments as a means to fuel the transition to clean energy technology and electric vehicles. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion But now, it's also taken on the pressing aim of shoring up supplies of materials required for national interests, including defence. Australia, rich in resources, is seen as a natural competitor to China that could break into its rare-earths supply chain. The Albanese government has openly discussed this desire for well over two years, and officials have crisscrossed the country, from Dubbo in New South Wales to Western Australia and Northern Territory, offering grants, funding and other assistance in order to develop bona fide domestic processing capabilities. Notably, the government has backed the development of Iluka's Eneabba project in WA, which is designed to come online in 2027 and produce several rare-earth oxides, including dysprosium and terbium. Iluka's chief executive, Tom O'Leary, told shareholders last month the 'current industry is unsustainable, owing to China's monopoly position and approach'. 'It is a fact that rare earths are among very few metals where China has demonstrated a preparedness to withhold supply to achieve political or strategic objectives,' O'Leary said. Another Australian company, Lynas, is a step ahead, given it has some rare-earths processing capabilities out of Kalgoorlie. It relies on further refining at its factory in Malaysia, which recently became the first to separate heavy rare-earth elements, primarily dysprosium and terbium, outside China. The Labor government has also proposed setting up a strategic stockpile of critical minerals. While the details of this plan are scant, such a stockpile, by building up supplies, could provide pricing certainty for projects affected by the current monopoly market. The government's various funding announcements show that Australia is focusing on the initial extraction and refining of rare earths, but not on the process of turning that material into metals and, in turn, manufacturing magnets. There are mixed views on whether that is the right approach, given the strategy falls short of developing an end-to-end rare-earths supply chain in Australia, independent of China, as some had hoped for. There has also been limited discussion of the potential for magnet recycling in Australia. Rowena Smith, the chief executive of Australian Strategic Materials, says it is more realistic for Australia to partner with overseas magnet producers outside China than to quickly develop capabilities to produce magnets. 'The opportunity for Australia is to play to our strengths upstream and integrate with allied partners into those emerging magnet manufacturers,' says Smith. 'It would be ambitious to get this supply chain up rapidly in Australia, because you need every piece of the supply chain to come online simultaneously.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Wall Street titan sides with Musk amid Trump feud and issues chilling market warning
Billionaire Ken Griffin has sided with Elon Musk in his attack on Donald Trump 's 'Big Beautiful Bill'. The Citadel CEO warned the act will 'add several trillion dollars' to the national debt, which will soon surpass $37trillion. Unlike Musk, who called the bill a ' disgusting abomination,' Griffin criticized the legislation in more conciliatory terms. 'The bill will unquestionably add several trillion dollars,' Griffin said Thursday at the 2025 Forbes Iconoclast Summit in New York City. 'The challenge with the legislation is there's not enough tough decisions... around how we're going to put our fiscal house in order.' Griffin made his concerns known about runaway government spending after the Congressional Budget Office estimated the GOP budget bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Much of this comes down to the bill's extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which will decrease the revenue coming into the government. Griffin, who voted for Trump in the 2024 election, did not say he disagreed with the extension of the prior tax cuts. But he did take issue with even more tax relief for businesses. 'The continued reduction in tax rates for small and medium enterprise businesses; I'm not sure what we're going to achieve with that,' said Griffin, who is estimated to have a net worth of $44.5 billion. Griffin cast the bill, which is still winding its way through the Senate, as poorly thought out and dangerous to the nation's finances. 'You cannot run deficits of 6 or 7 percent [higher than GDP] at full employment after years of growth. That's just fiscally irresponsible,' said Griffin, who is worth $44.5 billion. 'There are a lot of question marks in the bill as to why we're continuing to increase our tax cuts when we have a fiscal deficit of this magnitude,' he added. approached Griffin's team and the White House for comment. Griffin also warned that if America's leaders fail to reign in spending, they risk a total collapse of US bond markets. Last week, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sounded a similar alarm, predicting that at some point, investors will lose confidence in the US government's ability to service its debt. 'US default prices are probably the same as Italy or Greece,' Griffin said in reference to credit default swap markets where investors can bet on countries failing to meet their debt obligations. The consequences of a default - i.e. the country running out of money to pay its bills - would be 'catastrophic' for the US and the global economy, former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said. The stock market would almost certainly crash in such a scenario, with investors around the world coming to the understanding that the US - thought to be the most stable government in the world - could not fulfill its financial obligations for the first time in its nearly 250 years of existence. Back in April, when Trump unveiled and quickly paused his wide scale Liberation Day tariffs, multiple reports suggested that his U-turn was prompted by the major sell off in US bonds. Trump appeared to acknowledge this market turmoil at the time, saying: 'People were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit out of line.' Griffin didn't limit his criticisms of the administration to uncertainty on US debt or the big beautiful bill, which Trump wants passed by the Fourth of July. He also slammed the president for his ongoing trade policy, largely governed by historically-high tariffs. He said the tariffs have 'really taken their toll already on our economy' and have called 'into question American exceptionalism.' His firm Citadel has already cut its estimate for US economic growth by about half since Trump took office in January. As a parting shot at the president, Griffin decried Trump's decision to tear into Walmart CEO Doug McMillon for warning customers that the big-box retailer may have to increase prices thanks to tariffs. 'Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain. Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected. Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, 'EAT THE TARIFFS,' and not charge valued customers ANYTHING, Trump posted to Truth Social in May. This didn't sit well with Griffin, who argued that McMillon was simply showing candor in the face of dynamic tariff policies. 'We should not criticize CEOs for being honest, right? And that's all the CEO of Walmart was doing,' Griffin said. 'Shame on the administration.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Confusion and chaos reign in Tasmanian parliament with no endgame in sight
Craig Garland, the fisherman turned maverick independent MP from Tasmania's north-western corner, summed it up best when he told state parliament on Thursday morning he was 'a bit confused'. Garland wasn't confused about what he was doing – he calmly backed a no-confidence motion in the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff. But he expressed doubts about how the Tasmanian parliament got here, and what lay ahead. Based on the reaction online and on talkback radio, many Tasmanians agree. From the outside – and to many on the inside – the events in parliament this week look like a form of collective madness that was entirely avoidable and, despite all the strong words, largely pointless. The vote of no-confidence in Rockliff, moved by the Labor leader Dean Winter, passed on Thursday afternoon by the barest of margins: 18-17. It has pushed the state to the brink of a fresh election just 15 months since the last one. Bizarrely, the state finds itself in this position despite all the major players – Liberals, Labor and the Greens – declaring loudly that an election is a bad idea and should not happen. Each had the power to prevent one. Which is not to say all are equally to blame. We need to briefly rewind 15 months. On 23 March last year, Tasmanians chose what some have called a rainbow parliament, and others have described as chaos: 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, three MPs from the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) and three independents. No party was close to the 18 seats needed for a majority government, but the Liberals had a clear plurality of support. Winter declined to try to lead the state despite the crossbench being made up largely of progressive MPs, declaring he would never deal with the Greens. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads Rockliff won a promise of support on confidence and budget supply from JLN and the independent David O'Byrne, a former Labor leader, who would prefer an ALP government but wanted the parliament to work. In the months that followed JLN fell apart and the government's position became more precarious. The sole remaining JLN MP, Andrew Jenner, refused to vote for a budget released in September, breaking his commitment to ensure the government survived. The then treasurer and deputy premier, Michael Ferguson, was forced to resign and move to the backbench when he faced what would have been a successful no-confidence vote over mismanagement of new Spirit of Tasmania ferries. And the Greens moved two no-confidence motions in Rockliff – one over a shelved gambling harm minimisation promise, the other over a controversial AFL stadium planned for Macquarie Point, on Hobart's waterfront. Despite the noise, the premier appeared relatively safe. Just last month, Labor argued the state needed a period of stability. That changed on Tuesday, when Winter surprised observers by tabling a no-confidence motion at the end of a budget reply speech, and declaring he would move it when it was clear it had enough support. It was a dare to both the crossbench and the government. But it was a tactic without a clear endgame. The motion was ostensibly about the budget, arguing Rockliff had wrecked the state's finances, planned to sell public assets and had mismanaged the ferries. Handed down five days earlier, the budget had been widely criticised for increasing debt and spending, and failing to provide solutions to structural problems. Some government supporters said it was the worst they had seen. But the opposition leader did not make a case for what Labor would do differently, and did not make a pitch to become premier if the no-confidence motion carried. The goal was to either push the Greens to side with Rockliff to prevent chaos or, more likely, claim the premier's scalp by forcing the Liberals to replace him, almost certainly with someone less popular. Neither happened. The motion quickly won backing on Tuesday from Garland, Jenner, and the independent Kristie Johnston (who had backed earlier no-confidence motions). The Greens declared their support after meeting on Wednesday morning. But the Greens did not want the motion to just be about the budget. The minor party tried to amend it to include a rejection of the stadium – one of the biggest issues dominating public debate in the state over the past year given the likely $1bn-plus cost, and because admission of the Tasmania Devils to the AFL hinges on it being built. Their leader, Rosalie Woodruff, also offered to work with Labor to try to form an alternative government. Both steps were rejected. The Greens knew they would be. They backed the motion anyway. Some commentary over the past week assumed the motion would lead to a Labor-Greens minority government. But the relationship between the two parties in the state is hostile, and they are ideologically miles apart. Winter's defining position since becoming Labor leader last year has been to argue for 'traditional industries' – including native forest logging, salmon farming and mining – and to reject suggestions he would work with the minor party. Winter did not speak with crossbenchers before tabling the no-confidence motion, and Labor and the Greens mostly voted against Rockliff for different reasons. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion There is deep history to this. Labor and the Greens fell out after governing in partnership from 2010 to 2014, a period in which two Greens held ministries. The relationship has become more distant under Winter, who is close to the former premier Paul Lennon, an assertively pro-industry and anti-green figure. It doesn't take much analysis to realise this raises questions about whether Labor can form government anytime soon, given it has lost four straight elections and has less than a third of seats in the state's lower house. It continues to argue it could win a majority. Labor and the Greens are also sharply divided over the stadium, which has become the most politically charged issue facing the state and driven significant public resentment against the government. Polls suggest a majority of the public are opposed to it in every electorate, especially in the state's parochial north. But the stadium has the support of both major parties – not least because neither wants to stand accused of killing the long-held dream of a Tasmanian AFL team, which still has overwhelming public support. There is a strong case that a new stadium will be needed in the state's capital for the club to be a success. But the state government spectacularly stuffed up the argument. It signed a lopsided deal under which the AFL pays a meagre $15m of the direct funding for the stadium's construction. Predictably, the cost of the stadium to taxpayers has blown out beyond Rockliff's initial pledge it would be capped at $375m. And the site itself is controversial. The premier has broken promises on the issue, most recently trying to push through legislation to circumvent the independent-heavy upper house from potentially blocking the stadium. Meanwhile, the AFL has refused to budge from its line – no stadium at Macquarie Point, no team. Critics including the Greens accuse the government of caving to AFL pressure, point to crises facing the state on housing and health, and argue a stadium cannot be justified. Some have claimed, without evidence, the AFL could be forced to redraw the deal. Some vocal critics don't care if there is a team. But that's not where most of the public is. It's a mess that continues to hurt the government, but doesn't necessarily win support for Labor. As the no-confidence motion was debated, Tasmania Devils executive Kath McCann broke down at a press conference as she argued the future of the club was uncertain if Rockliff was removed. While it wasn't the subject of the no-confidence motion, you could make a decent case that the stadium – including the AFL's refusal to accommodate genuinely held Tasmanian concerns – will cost Rockliff his job. But that hasn't happened yet, and it is not clear if it will. The Liberals have backed Rockliff, for now at least, rather than replace him with one of a list of potential contenders. Liberal MPs have argued the budget was backed by the government, not just Rockliff, and supported his push for an early election if the no-confidence motion was passed. They may yet change their minds. Business leaders warn an election would hurt confidence and stall investment. Some senior Liberal figures have urged the parliamentary party elect a new leader to avoid forcing Tasmanians vote again. The parliament has to return on Tuesday to pass a short-term supply bill before Rockliff plans to speak with the governor, Barbara Baker, so they have a few days to work it out. If there is an election, it is difficult to see either major party approaching a majority of seats. The most recent ERMS poll had Labor on 31% support, ahead of the Liberals, who fell five percentage points to just 29%. But 37% said they preferred someone else. This doesn't bode well for the major parties, which have struggled to come to grips with the reality of an expanded 35-member parliament in which no one has control. The Liberals failed to maintain the support of enough MPs. Labor has done little to develop a relationship with the crossbench. Tasmanians might soon tell them that's not good enough, and to try again.
