Three Maori MPs suspended from NZ parliament for haka
New Zealand politicians have voted to enact record parliamentary suspensions for three MPs who performed a Māori haka to protest a proposed law.
Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, 22, received a seven-day ban and her colleagues from Te Pāti Māori, the Māori Party, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, are barred for 21 days.
Three days had been the longest ban from New Zealand's parliament previously.
Thursday's vote followed hours of fraught debate in parliament.
Last November, Maipi-Clarke became a global viral sensation with her animated dismissal of the Treaty Principles Bill, ripping it up and performing the war dance with her Maori Party co-leaders.
The bill was a reform championed by the right-wing ACT Party to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi in law, stripping rights given to Maori at New Zealand's foundation.
While the Treaty Principles Bill generated unprecedented protests across New Zealand, including tens of thousands marching on parliament, it did not become law.
The National party, led by Prime Minister Chris Luxon, agreed only to introduce the law - but not pass it - as part of a coalition agreement with the ACT party that allowed it to form government.
After months of public consultation and nationwide backlash, National and NZ First, abandoned their support.
with AAP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Independents unite to demand home support for 20,000 after aged care delay
In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages. The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare. But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care. "Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae. "This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package. "On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads. The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network. "I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said. "We can't afford to delay this further." Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas. "We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said. Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said. "Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said. "What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians." Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures". Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament. The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia. Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together. Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses. The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists. The health minister's office has been contacted for comment. In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages. The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare. But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care. "Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae. "This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package. "On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads. The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network. "I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said. "We can't afford to delay this further." Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas. "We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said. Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said. "Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said. "What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians." Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures". Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament. The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia. Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together. Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses. The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists. The health minister's office has been contacted for comment. In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages. The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare. But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care. "Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae. "This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package. "On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads. The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network. "I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said. "We can't afford to delay this further." Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas. "We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said. Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said. "Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said. "What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians." Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures". Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament. The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia. Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together. Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses. The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists. The health minister's office has been contacted for comment. In their first flex of group political muscle since the federal election, Australia's independent MPs have teamed up to call on the government to fund - within weeks - at least 20,000 extra aged care home support packages. The government announced in early June it was delaying by five months big changes to aged care, which had been due to start mid-year, to give service providers more time to prepare. But 10 crossbenchers have teamed up to express concern about the impact of the postponement on the nearly 83,000 elderly Australians on the waiting list for home care. "Research shows that the longer people go without appropriate home care supports, the higher their risk of injury or hospitalisation," the MPs said in a June 10 letter to Health Minister Mark Butler and Aged Care Minister Sam Rae. "This delay will also imperil your government's commitment that by 2027 no one will wait more than 90 days for a package. "On behalf of people in our communities, we are calling on the Albanese government to, at a minimum, fund 20,000 new packages to commence on 1 July 2025 under the current home care packages scheme, which can then be rolled over onto the new support at home program when it eventually commences," the letter reads. The call for bridging support to cover the delay is supported by both Council on the Ageing (COTA) and the Older Persons Advocacy Network. "I regularly have families contacting me about the excessively long wait times for home care packages," ACT independent senator David Pocock said. "We can't afford to delay this further." Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi in north-east Victoria, said waiting times were lengthened by a lack of qualified people to provide care in regional areas. "We also can't delay the rollout of a pricing framework that fairly reflects the travel costs to deliver care in rural areas," she said. Any setback for older people who wanted to stay at home was "unacceptable", Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie said. "Both sides of politics have dropped the ball on this issue over the last ten years," she said. "What the minister calls 'a brief deferral' will directly impact the lives of older Australians." Sydney-based Allegra Spender said she had heard "heartbreaking" stories of elderly people forced into nursing homes due to the long wait for assistance at home, while Dr Monique Ryan in Melbourne said "older Australians shouldn't suffer because of the aged care system's failures". Andrew Gee, the newly re-elected independent MP for Calare in NSW, also put his name to the letter in a sign the former National - who quit the party over its opposition to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament - will work with the so-called teals in this parliament. The other signatories were Sydney's Dr Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, Andrew Wilkie from Tasmania, and Kate Chaney from Western Australia. Given Labor's thumping majority win at the May election, the independents will have less sway in this parliament, but the letter is the first indication they will nonetheless use their numbers to lobby together. Home care packages are a form of commonwealth assistance designed to help people aged 65 and over to stay at home longer by providing assistance with household tasks, personal care and some medical care, such as that provided by nurses. The government has pledged to switch to a $5.6 billion "support at home" system, promising to be "the greatest improvement to aged care in 30 years" designed to slash waiting lists. The health minister's office has been contacted for comment.
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- The Advertiser
Hearing voices: why the Nats should be watching their backs
The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring.
AU Financial Review
4 days ago
- AU Financial Review
Qld finally reveals its position on $1b quantum deal
Queensland's Liberal-National government confirmed it will proceed with the $1 billion deal to build a world-leading super computer following a months-long review and scathing comments of the agreement while in opposition. The Crisafulli government launched a review of the deal with US-based start-up PsiQuantum within days of coming to office in November, raising concerns about the decision-making and competitive rigour of the selection process.
