Coalition split could be just a phase as Nats reconvene
The Nationals are having second thoughts about the coalition's break-up, with the party's leader expecting a reunion within days.
Former Nationals leader and sitting Riverina MP Michael McCormack, who was part of a minority that did not support the coalition break-up, hoped the week's events had changed minds.
"Common sense would dictate that all will be well," he told AAP.
"But I can't guarantee what my colleagues have got to say."
The Nationals pulled the plug on the coalition's decades-long relationship over four policy demands: a recommitment to nuclear energy, a regional investment fund, powers to break up big supermarket chains and universal telecommunications coverage.
But the Liberals, still reeling from their worst election defeat since World War II, wanted to put every coalition policy up for review.
The Nationals' decision attracted fierce criticism, but the two parties eventually agreed to give each other more time.
The Liberals have since provided "in-principle" support to the policies and Nationals leader David Littleproud said he expected an arrangement in coming days.
Mr McCormack did not understand why his colleagues had voted to leave with such haste.
"That's probably why things went awry," he said.
"Decisions made in haste are not decisions that are well considered, well thought through, pragmatic and practical in the cold light of day."
Mr Littleproud continues to back his party through the ructions, even as some raise questions about his leadership.
He faced a leadership challenge from senator Matt Canavan a week earlier over climate policy and though he prevailed, Mr Littleproud did not say whether the party would stay committed to net-zero emissions by 2050.
His deputy Kevin Hogan maintained any disputes over the policy were "settled years ago" and that it was not up for review.
However, it could return to the fore as concerns continue to bubble.
"I'm not so convinced that the National Party per se are really rusted-on to net zero," Mr McCormack said.
The party had signed on to the policy during different circumstances.
At the time, the US was on board, the Nationals had agreed on the back of road and infrastructure promises linked to the previous coalition government, and Australia was negotiating trade agreements over deals contingent on net-zero commitments, Mr McCormack said.
The Nationals are having second thoughts about the coalition's break-up, with the party's leader expecting a reunion within days.
Former Nationals leader and sitting Riverina MP Michael McCormack, who was part of a minority that did not support the coalition break-up, hoped the week's events had changed minds.
"Common sense would dictate that all will be well," he told AAP.
"But I can't guarantee what my colleagues have got to say."
The Nationals pulled the plug on the coalition's decades-long relationship over four policy demands: a recommitment to nuclear energy, a regional investment fund, powers to break up big supermarket chains and universal telecommunications coverage.
But the Liberals, still reeling from their worst election defeat since World War II, wanted to put every coalition policy up for review.
The Nationals' decision attracted fierce criticism, but the two parties eventually agreed to give each other more time.
The Liberals have since provided "in-principle" support to the policies and Nationals leader David Littleproud said he expected an arrangement in coming days.
Mr McCormack did not understand why his colleagues had voted to leave with such haste.
"That's probably why things went awry," he said.
"Decisions made in haste are not decisions that are well considered, well thought through, pragmatic and practical in the cold light of day."
Mr Littleproud continues to back his party through the ructions, even as some raise questions about his leadership.
He faced a leadership challenge from senator Matt Canavan a week earlier over climate policy and though he prevailed, Mr Littleproud did not say whether the party would stay committed to net-zero emissions by 2050.
His deputy Kevin Hogan maintained any disputes over the policy were "settled years ago" and that it was not up for review.
However, it could return to the fore as concerns continue to bubble.
"I'm not so convinced that the National Party per se are really rusted-on to net zero," Mr McCormack said.
The party had signed on to the policy during different circumstances.
At the time, the US was on board, the Nationals had agreed on the back of road and infrastructure promises linked to the previous coalition government, and Australia was negotiating trade agreements over deals contingent on net-zero commitments, Mr McCormack said.
The Nationals are having second thoughts about the coalition's break-up, with the party's leader expecting a reunion within days.
Former Nationals leader and sitting Riverina MP Michael McCormack, who was part of a minority that did not support the coalition break-up, hoped the week's events had changed minds.
"Common sense would dictate that all will be well," he told AAP.
"But I can't guarantee what my colleagues have got to say."
The Nationals pulled the plug on the coalition's decades-long relationship over four policy demands: a recommitment to nuclear energy, a regional investment fund, powers to break up big supermarket chains and universal telecommunications coverage.
But the Liberals, still reeling from their worst election defeat since World War II, wanted to put every coalition policy up for review.
The Nationals' decision attracted fierce criticism, but the two parties eventually agreed to give each other more time.
The Liberals have since provided "in-principle" support to the policies and Nationals leader David Littleproud said he expected an arrangement in coming days.
Mr McCormack did not understand why his colleagues had voted to leave with such haste.
"That's probably why things went awry," he said.
"Decisions made in haste are not decisions that are well considered, well thought through, pragmatic and practical in the cold light of day."
Mr Littleproud continues to back his party through the ructions, even as some raise questions about his leadership.
He faced a leadership challenge from senator Matt Canavan a week earlier over climate policy and though he prevailed, Mr Littleproud did not say whether the party would stay committed to net-zero emissions by 2050.
His deputy Kevin Hogan maintained any disputes over the policy were "settled years ago" and that it was not up for review.
However, it could return to the fore as concerns continue to bubble.
"I'm not so convinced that the National Party per se are really rusted-on to net zero," Mr McCormack said.
The party had signed on to the policy during different circumstances.
At the time, the US was on board, the Nationals had agreed on the back of road and infrastructure promises linked to the previous coalition government, and Australia was negotiating trade agreements over deals contingent on net-zero commitments, Mr McCormack said.
The Nationals are having second thoughts about the coalition's break-up, with the party's leader expecting a reunion within days.
Former Nationals leader and sitting Riverina MP Michael McCormack, who was part of a minority that did not support the coalition break-up, hoped the week's events had changed minds.
"Common sense would dictate that all will be well," he told AAP.
"But I can't guarantee what my colleagues have got to say."
The Nationals pulled the plug on the coalition's decades-long relationship over four policy demands: a recommitment to nuclear energy, a regional investment fund, powers to break up big supermarket chains and universal telecommunications coverage.
But the Liberals, still reeling from their worst election defeat since World War II, wanted to put every coalition policy up for review.
The Nationals' decision attracted fierce criticism, but the two parties eventually agreed to give each other more time.
The Liberals have since provided "in-principle" support to the policies and Nationals leader David Littleproud said he expected an arrangement in coming days.
Mr McCormack did not understand why his colleagues had voted to leave with such haste.
"That's probably why things went awry," he said.
"Decisions made in haste are not decisions that are well considered, well thought through, pragmatic and practical in the cold light of day."
Mr Littleproud continues to back his party through the ructions, even as some raise questions about his leadership.
He faced a leadership challenge from senator Matt Canavan a week earlier over climate policy and though he prevailed, Mr Littleproud did not say whether the party would stay committed to net-zero emissions by 2050.
His deputy Kevin Hogan maintained any disputes over the policy were "settled years ago" and that it was not up for review.
However, it could return to the fore as concerns continue to bubble.
"I'm not so convinced that the National Party per se are really rusted-on to net zero," Mr McCormack said.
The party had signed on to the policy during different circumstances.
At the time, the US was on board, the Nationals had agreed on the back of road and infrastructure promises linked to the previous coalition government, and Australia was negotiating trade agreements over deals contingent on net-zero commitments, Mr McCormack said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
The US needs Australian beef for hamburgers, Littleproud says
Anthony Albanese should play hardball with the US on beef as tariff talks grind on, Nationals leader David Littleproud says. American beef imports have emerged as a key negotiating item in the Albanese government's efforts to secure a tariff carve out. The Trump administration has been pushing for Australia to loosen import rules to include beef from cattle originating in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. The Prime Minister has confirmed biosecurity officials were reviewing the request but vowed his government would not 'compromise' Australia's strict bio laws. But the prospect of changing laws has sparked unease among cattle farmers worried about keeping bovine diseases well away from the country's shores. With beef imports seemingly key to securing a US tariff exemption, Mr Littleproud on Monday said there needed to be some 'perspective'. 'The United States does need Australia and other countries to import beef to be able to put on their hamburgers,' he told Sky News. 'They don't have the production capacity to be able to produce the type of beef that goes on their hamburgers. 'So this is a tax on themselves that they put on Australian beef.' Despite being subject to the blanket 10 per cent tariffs on foreign imports, Australian beef into the US has risen by 32 per cent this year, according to Meat and Livestock Australia. Meanwhile, the cost of domestically produced beef within the US has been climbing, as cattle farmers struggle with drought. Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were not against importing American beef provided that it was from cattle 'born in the United States and bred all the way through to their slaughter in the United States'. But beef from cattle originating in third countries was a risk because 'we don't have the traceability that we have over the US production system'. 'And that's why Anthony Albanese needed to rule out straight away that he would not open that up to those cattle that were born in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the Americas, because that poses a significant risk unless we can trace those cattle,' Mr Littleproud said. Mr Albanese has been clear in saying he would 'never loosen any rules regarding our biosecurity'. But he has also said that if a deal can be struck 'in a way that protects our biosecurity, of course we don't just say no'. Mr Littleproud acknowledged Mr Albanese's words but said 'when you see reports from departments saying this is what's on the table in terms of negotiations – where there's smoke, there's fire'. In addition to the baseline 10 per cent duties on foreign goods, Australia has also been subjected to 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the Donald Trump's tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent imposts on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Though, Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Albo urged to go hard on Trump
Anthony Albanese should play hardball with the US on beef as tariff talks grind on, Nationals leader David Littleproud says. American beef imports have emerged as a key negotiating item in the Albanese government's efforts to secure a tariff carve out. The Trump administration has been pushing for Australia to loosen import rules to include beef from cattle originating in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. The Prime Minister has confirmed biosecurity officials were reviewing the request but vowed his government would not 'compromise' Australia's strict bio laws. But the prospect of changing laws has sparked unease among cattle farmers worried about keeping bovine diseases well away from the country's shores. With beef imports seemingly key to securing a US tariff exemption, Mr Littleproud on Monday said there needed to be some 'perspective'. Nationals leader David Littleproud says the US needs Australian beef. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'The United States does need Australia and other countries to import beef to be able to put on their hamburgers,' he told Sky News. 'They don't have the production capacity to be able to produce the type of beef that goes on their hamburgers. 'So this is a tax on themselves that they put on Australian beef.' Despite being subject to the blanket 10 per cent tariffs on foreign imports, Australian beef into the US has risen by 32 per cent this year, according to Meat and Livestock Australia. Meanwhile, the cost of domestically produced beef within the US has been climbing, as cattle farmers struggle with drought. Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were not against importing American beef provided that it was from cattle 'born in the United States and bred all the way through to their slaughter in the United States'. Australian beef exports to the US have climbed this year despite US tariffs. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia But beef from cattle originating in third countries was a risk because 'we don't have the traceability that we have over the US production system'. 'And that's why Anthony Albanese needed to rule out straight away that he would not open that up to those cattle that were born in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the Americas, because that poses a significant risk unless we can trace those cattle,' Mr Littleproud said. Mr Albanese has been clear in saying he would 'never loosen any rules regarding our biosecurity'. But he has also said that if a deal can be struck 'in a way that protects our biosecurity, of course we don't just say no'. Mr Littleproud acknowledged Mr Albanese's words but said 'when you see reports from departments saying this is what's on the table in terms of negotiations – where there's smoke, there's fire'. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his government will not 'compromise' Australia's biosecurity laws for a US tariff carve out. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia In addition to the baseline 10 per cent duties on foreign goods, Australia has also been subjected to 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the Donald Trump's tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent imposts on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Though, Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
How much more will the superannuation tax cost you?
The Nationals have vowed to 'fight to the death' to stop Labor's plans to increase tax on big superannuation accounts. The Liberals have claimed the plan delivers special treatment to politicians such as the prime minister who have older defined benefit superannuation. But Treasurer Jim Chalmers has trashed those criticisms, saying it's a 'modest' change aimed at making super more sustainable. The legislation to double the tax rate on earnings from super balances over $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent will be among the first on Labor's agenda when parliament returns in July, but if you're still a bit confused, you're not alone. Below, we show what will happen for Australians who will be hit by the tax – and how much more they'll pay, drawing on calculations by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia. With the Coalition set against the change, and Labor needing to secure the support of the Greens to get its bill through, the exact form of the tax is yet to be confirmed. Loading Earnings on all superannuation accounts will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent, but we do not include this in our examples because they require their own set of calculations with changes based on personal circumstances. Our examples just show the extra 15 per cent that will be levied on earnings from accounts over $3 million. But what does all this look like in practice? And how would the tax change affect you? Using four examples, we step through the way the new, additional tax bill would be calculated for a range of people in different occupations and life stages. We only examine the effect of the tax over the first year, and do not look into the number of Australians affected over time.
