‘That's politics': Barnaby reacts to brutal exile
Barnaby Joyce says it is 'a bit disappointing' he learned of his exile to the opposition backbench via the media but that he saw 'it coming for a while'.
Opposition leader Sussan Ley unveiled her shadow cabinet on Wednesday after striking a new Coalition agreement with David Littleproud, officially ending the historic, albeit brief, separation of the Liberal and National parties.
Mr Joyce, one of the staunchest pro-Coalition MPs in the National Party, was not among the names in the Opposition Leader's new-look shadow executive.
He said on Thursday he 'read about it about a week before it happened, but that's politics'.
'That's life — move on to other things,' he told Nine.
Mr Joyce was among several senior MPs Ms Ley reached out to in an effort to save the Coalition and maintained his support for the 80-year-old political partnership both publicly and through backchannels.
He said it he did not know why the Nationals leader sent him to the backbench, but said it was Mr Littleproud's 'prerogative'.
Though, he did dismiss Mr Littleproud's framing as 'generational change'.
'It's not about generational change,' Mr Joyce said.
'There are people who are older than me now. I'm 58, I'm not 103.'
He pointed out Mr Littleproud, 48, would be the youngest.
'So it's not generational change, it's politics and personalities,' Mr Joyce said.
'Let's call it for what it is, let's be straight.
'(I'm) a little bit disappointed that I think everybody in the (shadow) cabinet … voted for David.
'It's hard to bring back unity because you're going to have to have some authority over every corner of the room, and that's difficult.
'But nonetheless, that's the prerogative, that's happened.'
More to come.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Columbia University's appeasement strategy toward Trump keeps failing
As the White House's aggressive offensive against higher education got underway, Columbia University in New York was one of the first schools to embrace a strategy rooted in appeasement. Indeed, in March, Columbia agreed to most of the White House's demands in the hopes that Donald Trump would restore $400 million in federal funding that the president and his team had cut off. It didn't work. Not only were those hopes soon dashed — Columbia didn't get its money back — but the Republican administration soon after proposed installing oversight personnel to help run the school in ways that would make the president happy. In effect, the White House responded to Columbia's appeasement by trying to take over parts of Columbia. The developments were not lost on other universities — Harvard certainly took note before choosing to fight back against Trump's heavy-handed tactics — but making matters worse is the fact that the administration wasn't done with Columbia. NBC News reported: The Trump administration said Wednesday that it has notified the accreditor for Columbia University that the school violated federal anti-discrimination laws, threatening the university's accreditation status by saying it 'no longer appears to meet the Commissions accreditation standards.' According to the administration, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights determined that Columbia violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in response to pro-Palestinian protests. If the school were to lose its accreditation, Columbia would effectively cease to be able to operate as an institution that can grant degrees. To be clear, the president and his team do not have the legal authority to revoke Columbia's accreditation, and in this instance it hasn't actually tried. Rather, the Trump administration wants the university's accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, to punish the school based on the administration's alleged findings. This, in and of itself, is a remarkable step: Columbia's accreditor is an independent entity. For the administration to intervene like this is a rather radical development that departs from how the system is supposed to work. But there's also the larger set of circumstances to consider: Despite the plain fact that Columbia agreed to most of the White House's demands months ago, they're still an administration target. The message, to other schools and other institutions, couldn't be any clearer: Trying to pacify Trump and his team will do little to slow their offensive. For its part, Columbia said in a statement that it is 'aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today' and that it has 'addressed those concerns directly' with its accreditor. 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,' it said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun makers
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the Mexican government's lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers accusing them of aiding and abetting gun violence. The court ruled unanimously that the lawsuit is barred by a 2005 federal law that shields gun companies from legal liability. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the opinion, acknowledged the gun violence problem, but said Mexico had failed to make allegations that would surmount those liability protections in claiming the companies aided and abetted the unlawful sale of guns. "The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," she wrote. The 2021 lawsuit accused Smith & Wesson, Colt and other companies of deliberately selling guns to dealers who sell products that are frequently recovered at Mexican crime scenes. The Mexican government said the aiding and abetting allegations meant that the companies were not protected by the federal immunity shield, called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Mexico was seeking up to $10 billion in damages. The case at the Supreme Court involved two companies — Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. Other manufacturers, including Glock and Colt, successfully had claims against them tossed out. A federal judge initially ruled for the manufacturers, but the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case last year, saying the liability shield did not extend to Mexico's specific claims. The case reached the Supreme Court following increased tensions between American and Mexican leaders after the election of President Donald Trump, who has cited drug trafficking and gang violence in Mexico amid his crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation intended to reduce the flow of guns across the border, which they estimate to total at least 200,000 a year. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump bans Harvard from admitting new international students
President Donald Trump has revoked Harvard University's permission to host incoming international students, the latest escalation in an ongoing battle between the White House and the country's oldest university. In an executive order issued June 4, Trump declared that Harvard's admission of international students represents a threat to the United States. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had previously threatened to halt Harvard's international program, but a federal judge temporarily blocked her from following through. In his new order, Trump listed a litany of grievances against the university, which he accuses of failing to protect Jewish students from pro-Palestinian protesters. He also noted that Harvard has long used race as a factor in admissions, which led the Supreme Court in 2023 to strike down race-based admissions policies nationwide. "It is not in the interest of the United States to further compound Harvard's discrimination against non-preferred races, national origins, shared ancestries, or religions by further reducing opportunities for American students through excessive foreign student enrollment," Trump said in his order. "Considering these facts, I have determined that it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University." The White House has repeatedly clashed with Harvard over its refusal to accede to demands for information about student protesters and for an outside review of classes and instructors. More than 25% of Harvard's total student population are international students, with about 6,800 students from about 140 counties enrolled this academic year. Trump's order applies to new students who would be arriving to study at Harvard, and asks Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider whether to also revoke the visas of current international students. "In my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers," Trump said. There are about 1.2 million international students in the United States. The largest two home countries are India and China, according to federal records. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump bans Harvard from admitting new international students
