If Ley and Littleproud find a way to cohabit, it will be a tense household
Remember that cliche about the Nationals tail wagging the Liberal dog? That tail wagged very vigorously this week, and smashed a lot of crockery, as it sought to bring Liberal leader Sussan Ley to heel.
In a gesture of overreach, the Nationals split the Coalition on Tuesday, after Ley refused to accept their demand that four policies to which they were committed be immediately endorsed by the Liberals.
Ley had said the Liberal Party had all policies on the table and would review them systematically, and she would not pre-empt that. The new Liberal leader was also concerned that Nationals' leader David Littleproud had not explicitly agreed to her insistence the Nationals observe shadow cabinet solidarity - that frontbenchers could not go out freelancing on issues.
Ley won praise from Liberals and commentators for standing firm against the Nationals' unilateralism.
But elders and MPs from both parties, knowing how dysfunctional the consequences of the split would be, were appalled at the break. It emerged that the National Party itself had been divided about this course, which would cost frontbenchers pay and probably lose Senate seats at the next election.
As Barnaby Joyce, who warned against the break, said subsequently, "Even from the start, people wanted to re-form as quickly as possible. [...] Blind Freddy can see it was going to be chaotic."
By late Wednesday Littleproud was taking a lot of heat for rushing something that could have been handled more judiciously. Littleproud tried to blame Ley for imposing a fast timetable, despite the fact her mother died last weekend.
If disaster was to be avoided, and the break repaired, Littleproud or Ley or both would have to give ground.
By Thursday morning time was fast running out. Ley was preparing to announce her all-Liberal shadow ministry; Littleproud was readying to put out a list of Nationals spokespeople for various policy areas. Once these teams were in place, it would be hard to retreat on the split. People would be locked into positions and there would be less appetite in either party to do so.
Amid these preparations, however, compromise was emerging.
Littleproud said on radio that he had accepted as "more than reasonable" Ley's requirement for shadow cabinet solidarity.
One reason Ley was anxious to get a firm agreement on this was the prospect of a debate coming about the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, as well as about the 2035 target, when the government announces it. Ley would not want the Nationals, if they were in a coalition, to be able to contradict opposition policy or try to set it ahead of the shadow cabinet.
At a Thursday press conference Littleproud said the solidarity issue arose from the Nationals' action over the Voice in the last term. He and his party had reached a position ahead of the Liberals. "That actually hurt in some small way the relationship that I had with Peter [Dutton] and I lost trust and I had to rebuild that."
Ley said she welcomed the solidity commitment "as a foundation to resolve other matters", and agreed to take to a Liberal party meeting the four policies the Nationals wanted endorsed. These are commitments to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets that do the wrong thing, a $20 billion regional future fund, and upgraded regional communications services.
The commitment on nuclear the Nationals want is not to the specific election policy, which was for a string of government-funded nuclear power stations. The Nationals are talking about something more general.
In her concession to the Nationals, Ley is essentially asking her party to carve out these priority policy areas from the Liberals' general policy review. This can be seen as a big thing (the Liberals being dictated to by the minor party) or a small thing (making an exception for the greater good of keeping a coalition).
If the Liberals want to re-establish the Coalition, these policies will not be too hard for them to endorse.
Liberals are divided over nuclear but most could accept at least keeping it in the policy tool box, in a generalised form, such as a commitment to lift the moratorium.
But some Liberals will resent being forced to bow to Nationals' wishes. And some, especially those with eyes on winning back city seats, have been relishing the prospect of being free of the constraint of the ties binding them to the noisy Nationals.
Thursday's pause to determine whether the two parties can come together again was a major step. But there are likely to be difficult times ahead.
Having agreed to take the Nationals' policies to her party room, Ley has now to smooth them through. That will take some private wrangling ahead of the general meeting, which will take place next week.
Assuming the party room agrees and the Coalition is re-glued, the two leaders have to work out a shadow ministry, in terms of respective numbers and key positions.
Given the long-standing poor personal relationship between Littleproud and Ley, in a re-formed Coalition there would be ongoing suspicion and tension between the two of them. Angus Taylor, only narrowly defeated by Ley for the leadership and probably preferred by Littleproud, will be watching for opportunity.
The Nationals could be expected to push the envelope on policy issues, including net zero - which Joyce on Thursday said should be on the table - and the detail of divestiture. Moderates among the Liberals would have even less regard for their country cousins than usual.
Critics of Littleproud say he has been damaged by the way he has handled the week. They point out he keeps declaring it's his party room that's driving decisions, when he should have exercised stronger leadership and better judgement.
Depending on the outcome, it will take a while to determine whether this episode strengthens or undermines Ley's leadership. But she could hardly have had a more bruising start.
Remember that cliche about the Nationals tail wagging the Liberal dog? That tail wagged very vigorously this week, and smashed a lot of crockery, as it sought to bring Liberal leader Sussan Ley to heel.
In a gesture of overreach, the Nationals split the Coalition on Tuesday, after Ley refused to accept their demand that four policies to which they were committed be immediately endorsed by the Liberals.
Ley had said the Liberal Party had all policies on the table and would review them systematically, and she would not pre-empt that. The new Liberal leader was also concerned that Nationals' leader David Littleproud had not explicitly agreed to her insistence the Nationals observe shadow cabinet solidarity - that frontbenchers could not go out freelancing on issues.
Ley won praise from Liberals and commentators for standing firm against the Nationals' unilateralism.
But elders and MPs from both parties, knowing how dysfunctional the consequences of the split would be, were appalled at the break. It emerged that the National Party itself had been divided about this course, which would cost frontbenchers pay and probably lose Senate seats at the next election.
As Barnaby Joyce, who warned against the break, said subsequently, "Even from the start, people wanted to re-form as quickly as possible. [...] Blind Freddy can see it was going to be chaotic."
By late Wednesday Littleproud was taking a lot of heat for rushing something that could have been handled more judiciously. Littleproud tried to blame Ley for imposing a fast timetable, despite the fact her mother died last weekend.
If disaster was to be avoided, and the break repaired, Littleproud or Ley or both would have to give ground.
By Thursday morning time was fast running out. Ley was preparing to announce her all-Liberal shadow ministry; Littleproud was readying to put out a list of Nationals spokespeople for various policy areas. Once these teams were in place, it would be hard to retreat on the split. People would be locked into positions and there would be less appetite in either party to do so.
Amid these preparations, however, compromise was emerging.
Littleproud said on radio that he had accepted as "more than reasonable" Ley's requirement for shadow cabinet solidarity.
One reason Ley was anxious to get a firm agreement on this was the prospect of a debate coming about the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, as well as about the 2035 target, when the government announces it. Ley would not want the Nationals, if they were in a coalition, to be able to contradict opposition policy or try to set it ahead of the shadow cabinet.
At a Thursday press conference Littleproud said the solidarity issue arose from the Nationals' action over the Voice in the last term. He and his party had reached a position ahead of the Liberals. "That actually hurt in some small way the relationship that I had with Peter [Dutton] and I lost trust and I had to rebuild that."
Ley said she welcomed the solidity commitment "as a foundation to resolve other matters", and agreed to take to a Liberal party meeting the four policies the Nationals wanted endorsed. These are commitments to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets that do the wrong thing, a $20 billion regional future fund, and upgraded regional communications services.
The commitment on nuclear the Nationals want is not to the specific election policy, which was for a string of government-funded nuclear power stations. The Nationals are talking about something more general.
In her concession to the Nationals, Ley is essentially asking her party to carve out these priority policy areas from the Liberals' general policy review. This can be seen as a big thing (the Liberals being dictated to by the minor party) or a small thing (making an exception for the greater good of keeping a coalition).
If the Liberals want to re-establish the Coalition, these policies will not be too hard for them to endorse.
Liberals are divided over nuclear but most could accept at least keeping it in the policy tool box, in a generalised form, such as a commitment to lift the moratorium.
But some Liberals will resent being forced to bow to Nationals' wishes. And some, especially those with eyes on winning back city seats, have been relishing the prospect of being free of the constraint of the ties binding them to the noisy Nationals.
Thursday's pause to determine whether the two parties can come together again was a major step. But there are likely to be difficult times ahead.
Having agreed to take the Nationals' policies to her party room, Ley has now to smooth them through. That will take some private wrangling ahead of the general meeting, which will take place next week.
Assuming the party room agrees and the Coalition is re-glued, the two leaders have to work out a shadow ministry, in terms of respective numbers and key positions.
Given the long-standing poor personal relationship between Littleproud and Ley, in a re-formed Coalition there would be ongoing suspicion and tension between the two of them. Angus Taylor, only narrowly defeated by Ley for the leadership and probably preferred by Littleproud, will be watching for opportunity.
The Nationals could be expected to push the envelope on policy issues, including net zero - which Joyce on Thursday said should be on the table - and the detail of divestiture. Moderates among the Liberals would have even less regard for their country cousins than usual.
Critics of Littleproud say he has been damaged by the way he has handled the week. They point out he keeps declaring it's his party room that's driving decisions, when he should have exercised stronger leadership and better judgement.
Depending on the outcome, it will take a while to determine whether this episode strengthens or undermines Ley's leadership. But she could hardly have had a more bruising start.
Remember that cliche about the Nationals tail wagging the Liberal dog? That tail wagged very vigorously this week, and smashed a lot of crockery, as it sought to bring Liberal leader Sussan Ley to heel.
In a gesture of overreach, the Nationals split the Coalition on Tuesday, after Ley refused to accept their demand that four policies to which they were committed be immediately endorsed by the Liberals.
Ley had said the Liberal Party had all policies on the table and would review them systematically, and she would not pre-empt that. The new Liberal leader was also concerned that Nationals' leader David Littleproud had not explicitly agreed to her insistence the Nationals observe shadow cabinet solidarity - that frontbenchers could not go out freelancing on issues.
Ley won praise from Liberals and commentators for standing firm against the Nationals' unilateralism.
But elders and MPs from both parties, knowing how dysfunctional the consequences of the split would be, were appalled at the break. It emerged that the National Party itself had been divided about this course, which would cost frontbenchers pay and probably lose Senate seats at the next election.
As Barnaby Joyce, who warned against the break, said subsequently, "Even from the start, people wanted to re-form as quickly as possible. [...] Blind Freddy can see it was going to be chaotic."
By late Wednesday Littleproud was taking a lot of heat for rushing something that could have been handled more judiciously. Littleproud tried to blame Ley for imposing a fast timetable, despite the fact her mother died last weekend.
If disaster was to be avoided, and the break repaired, Littleproud or Ley or both would have to give ground.
By Thursday morning time was fast running out. Ley was preparing to announce her all-Liberal shadow ministry; Littleproud was readying to put out a list of Nationals spokespeople for various policy areas. Once these teams were in place, it would be hard to retreat on the split. People would be locked into positions and there would be less appetite in either party to do so.
Amid these preparations, however, compromise was emerging.
Littleproud said on radio that he had accepted as "more than reasonable" Ley's requirement for shadow cabinet solidarity.
One reason Ley was anxious to get a firm agreement on this was the prospect of a debate coming about the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, as well as about the 2035 target, when the government announces it. Ley would not want the Nationals, if they were in a coalition, to be able to contradict opposition policy or try to set it ahead of the shadow cabinet.
At a Thursday press conference Littleproud said the solidarity issue arose from the Nationals' action over the Voice in the last term. He and his party had reached a position ahead of the Liberals. "That actually hurt in some small way the relationship that I had with Peter [Dutton] and I lost trust and I had to rebuild that."
Ley said she welcomed the solidity commitment "as a foundation to resolve other matters", and agreed to take to a Liberal party meeting the four policies the Nationals wanted endorsed. These are commitments to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets that do the wrong thing, a $20 billion regional future fund, and upgraded regional communications services.
The commitment on nuclear the Nationals want is not to the specific election policy, which was for a string of government-funded nuclear power stations. The Nationals are talking about something more general.
In her concession to the Nationals, Ley is essentially asking her party to carve out these priority policy areas from the Liberals' general policy review. This can be seen as a big thing (the Liberals being dictated to by the minor party) or a small thing (making an exception for the greater good of keeping a coalition).
If the Liberals want to re-establish the Coalition, these policies will not be too hard for them to endorse.
Liberals are divided over nuclear but most could accept at least keeping it in the policy tool box, in a generalised form, such as a commitment to lift the moratorium.
But some Liberals will resent being forced to bow to Nationals' wishes. And some, especially those with eyes on winning back city seats, have been relishing the prospect of being free of the constraint of the ties binding them to the noisy Nationals.
Thursday's pause to determine whether the two parties can come together again was a major step. But there are likely to be difficult times ahead.
Having agreed to take the Nationals' policies to her party room, Ley has now to smooth them through. That will take some private wrangling ahead of the general meeting, which will take place next week.
Assuming the party room agrees and the Coalition is re-glued, the two leaders have to work out a shadow ministry, in terms of respective numbers and key positions.
Given the long-standing poor personal relationship between Littleproud and Ley, in a re-formed Coalition there would be ongoing suspicion and tension between the two of them. Angus Taylor, only narrowly defeated by Ley for the leadership and probably preferred by Littleproud, will be watching for opportunity.
The Nationals could be expected to push the envelope on policy issues, including net zero - which Joyce on Thursday said should be on the table - and the detail of divestiture. Moderates among the Liberals would have even less regard for their country cousins than usual.
Critics of Littleproud say he has been damaged by the way he has handled the week. They point out he keeps declaring it's his party room that's driving decisions, when he should have exercised stronger leadership and better judgement.
Depending on the outcome, it will take a while to determine whether this episode strengthens or undermines Ley's leadership. But she could hardly have had a more bruising start.
Remember that cliche about the Nationals tail wagging the Liberal dog? That tail wagged very vigorously this week, and smashed a lot of crockery, as it sought to bring Liberal leader Sussan Ley to heel.
In a gesture of overreach, the Nationals split the Coalition on Tuesday, after Ley refused to accept their demand that four policies to which they were committed be immediately endorsed by the Liberals.
Ley had said the Liberal Party had all policies on the table and would review them systematically, and she would not pre-empt that. The new Liberal leader was also concerned that Nationals' leader David Littleproud had not explicitly agreed to her insistence the Nationals observe shadow cabinet solidarity - that frontbenchers could not go out freelancing on issues.
Ley won praise from Liberals and commentators for standing firm against the Nationals' unilateralism.
But elders and MPs from both parties, knowing how dysfunctional the consequences of the split would be, were appalled at the break. It emerged that the National Party itself had been divided about this course, which would cost frontbenchers pay and probably lose Senate seats at the next election.
As Barnaby Joyce, who warned against the break, said subsequently, "Even from the start, people wanted to re-form as quickly as possible. [...] Blind Freddy can see it was going to be chaotic."
By late Wednesday Littleproud was taking a lot of heat for rushing something that could have been handled more judiciously. Littleproud tried to blame Ley for imposing a fast timetable, despite the fact her mother died last weekend.
If disaster was to be avoided, and the break repaired, Littleproud or Ley or both would have to give ground.
By Thursday morning time was fast running out. Ley was preparing to announce her all-Liberal shadow ministry; Littleproud was readying to put out a list of Nationals spokespeople for various policy areas. Once these teams were in place, it would be hard to retreat on the split. People would be locked into positions and there would be less appetite in either party to do so.
Amid these preparations, however, compromise was emerging.
Littleproud said on radio that he had accepted as "more than reasonable" Ley's requirement for shadow cabinet solidarity.
One reason Ley was anxious to get a firm agreement on this was the prospect of a debate coming about the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, as well as about the 2035 target, when the government announces it. Ley would not want the Nationals, if they were in a coalition, to be able to contradict opposition policy or try to set it ahead of the shadow cabinet.
At a Thursday press conference Littleproud said the solidarity issue arose from the Nationals' action over the Voice in the last term. He and his party had reached a position ahead of the Liberals. "That actually hurt in some small way the relationship that I had with Peter [Dutton] and I lost trust and I had to rebuild that."
Ley said she welcomed the solidity commitment "as a foundation to resolve other matters", and agreed to take to a Liberal party meeting the four policies the Nationals wanted endorsed. These are commitments to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets that do the wrong thing, a $20 billion regional future fund, and upgraded regional communications services.
The commitment on nuclear the Nationals want is not to the specific election policy, which was for a string of government-funded nuclear power stations. The Nationals are talking about something more general.
In her concession to the Nationals, Ley is essentially asking her party to carve out these priority policy areas from the Liberals' general policy review. This can be seen as a big thing (the Liberals being dictated to by the minor party) or a small thing (making an exception for the greater good of keeping a coalition).
If the Liberals want to re-establish the Coalition, these policies will not be too hard for them to endorse.
Liberals are divided over nuclear but most could accept at least keeping it in the policy tool box, in a generalised form, such as a commitment to lift the moratorium.
But some Liberals will resent being forced to bow to Nationals' wishes. And some, especially those with eyes on winning back city seats, have been relishing the prospect of being free of the constraint of the ties binding them to the noisy Nationals.
Thursday's pause to determine whether the two parties can come together again was a major step. But there are likely to be difficult times ahead.
Having agreed to take the Nationals' policies to her party room, Ley has now to smooth them through. That will take some private wrangling ahead of the general meeting, which will take place next week.
Assuming the party room agrees and the Coalition is re-glued, the two leaders have to work out a shadow ministry, in terms of respective numbers and key positions.
Given the long-standing poor personal relationship between Littleproud and Ley, in a re-formed Coalition there would be ongoing suspicion and tension between the two of them. Angus Taylor, only narrowly defeated by Ley for the leadership and probably preferred by Littleproud, will be watching for opportunity.
The Nationals could be expected to push the envelope on policy issues, including net zero - which Joyce on Thursday said should be on the table - and the detail of divestiture. Moderates among the Liberals would have even less regard for their country cousins than usual.
Critics of Littleproud say he has been damaged by the way he has handled the week. They point out he keeps declaring it's his party room that's driving decisions, when he should have exercised stronger leadership and better judgement.
Depending on the outcome, it will take a while to determine whether this episode strengthens or undermines Ley's leadership. But she could hardly have had a more bruising start.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
'We are concerned': Opposition Leader Sussan Ley calls on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump at earliest opportunity amid AUKUS crisis
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has expressed dire concern for the nation's defence, after the Trump administration launched a formal review of the AUKUS deal, suggesting it is considering "backing away" from the Biden-era pact with Australia and the United Kingdom. "We are reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda," the official said of the review, which was first reported by Financial Times. "Any changes to the administration's approach for AUKUS will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate." Ms Ley told Sky News on Thursday night the Opposition is "concerned" about the AUKUS review due to the party's lack of confidence in the Albanese government's relationship with US President Donald Trump. She further urged the PM to secure a meeting with Trump at the "earliest opportunity" to safeguard the future of the AUKUS pact. "We are concerned about the Pentagon reviewing AUKUS because we're not sure of the standing that this government has with the President and with the US administration," she told Sky News host Kieran Gilbert. "I feel there's something of a bystander approach from Anthony Albanese." The Opposition Leader added she wants to see the PM do well on "team Australia moments" and her party is willing to get behind the government on initiatives that strengthen the nation. However, she advised Mr Albanese to focus on harbouring a personal relationship with Trump as the AUKUS deal is "critical" to the nation's security in the Indo-Pacific, and "its delivery matters a great deal''. When asked what Ms Ley thought about Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles asking the Coalition to "take a deep breath" with the AUKUS panic, she urged the Albanese government to "simply focus on the task at hand". "I would say simply focus on the task at hand, which is building that relationship, that I've not been confident has been built from the get-go in this second Trump administration," she said. "It is all about the personal relationship and I'm not suggesting that it's not there. "But this does look as if the government has been caught somewhat flat-footed by the announcement of this review." Ms Ley suggested the Labor government was not aware of the AUKUS review coming up and was instead caught off-guard. "I just want to encourage the government to build that relationship and I haven't heard the Deputy Prime Minister point to a meeting that's coming up between our Prime Minister and the President," she added. "Until that happens, we secure that face-to-face conversation. I don't think we will rest on this issue." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would not react to political pressure but that he would address defence policy according to need and capability. Mr Marles also defended the Albanese government's commitment to AUKUS after the Trump administration launched their review into the $368 billion deal. 'We are committed to AUKUS and we look forward to working closely with the US on the review,' Mr Marles said in a statement response to the US review. 'It is natural that the administration would want to examine this major undertaking including progress and delivery. 'Our engagement with the Trump administration and across the full political spectrum of the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS.'
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Reynolds' fresh target in Higgins lawsuit
Linda Reynolds has turned her attention to former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her bid to sue the Commonwealth over its compensation payment to Brittany Higgins, as the nation's anti-corruption agency revealed there was 'no corruption issue' in the payment. The retiring former Liberal minister in May launched action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth, with the crux of the claim over the $2.4m compensation payment to Brittany Higgins in 2022. Senator Reynolds argued the payment was 'publicly affirming' of Ms Higgins allegations against her that she didn't support her former staffer when she alleged she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann. Brittany Higgins was paid a $2.4m compensation payment. NewsWire / Jeremy Piper Credit: News Corp Australia The Federal Court has found Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding. An amended version of Ms Reynolds statement of claim was filed on Wednesday, just a day before the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) said there was 'no corruption issue' in the $2.4m payment. The NACC on Thursday announced there was 'no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official'. Senator Reynolds' amended statement of claim was made public late on Thursday afternoon. Linda Reynolds has amended her statement of claim. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Among the changes is a reference to a speech by Mr Dreyfus the then Attorney-General made to parliament on March 15, 2021. Mr Dreyfus is not a party to the claim. Mr Dreyfus recounted to the House of Representatives a speech by Ms Higgins just outside Parliament House, where she told a large crowd she was raped inside the building by a colleague, and how her story was 'a painful reminder to women that it can happen in Parliament House and can truly happen anywhere'. 'If a woman cannot feel safe from rape in Parliament House, a veritable fortress ringed with security cameras, with entrances protected by armed guards and with Federal Police officers on duty inside, where can women feel safe?' Mr Dreyfus told the House of Representatives, according to a transcript excerpt in the claim. 'How strong is the rule of law if it isn't able to protect a young woman working in the ministerial wing of Parliament House?' The amended statement of claim argued Senator Reynolds had suffered loss and damage as a result of Mr Dreyfus' conduct, including denying her the opportunity to rebut Ms Higgins' allegation 'in the appropriate forum'. Former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia It also argues Mr Dreyfus 'enabled and encouraged the falsity of Ms Higgins' claim to be maintained by Ms Higgins'. HWL Ebsworth, which acted on the Commonwealth's behalf, is also being sued by Senator Reynolds for negligence. Lawyers on behalf of Senator Reynolds argued HWLE breached its fiduciary duty to her by excluding her from the mediation conference where the $2.4m settlement was reached, and failing to conduct independent investigations to establish if there was 'at least a meaningful prospect of liability' by Ms Higgins. However, similar alleged breaches initially put forth against the Commonwealth were withdrawn in the amended document, with it now largely focusing on allegations of Mr Dreyfus' misfeasance of public office and alleged breaches of HWLE. Mr Dreyfus has been contacted for comment. He earlier welcomed NACC's statement. 'The NACC has conclusively found there was no improper interference by any Commonwealth official at any stage,' Mr Dreyfus said. 'I regret the baseless allegation of corruption has been so widely publicised ahead of this finding and hope future matters can be resolved in a more timely manner. 'I also regret any further distress caused to Ms Higgins as a result of this matter.'
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
How Australia's 'no-worries' approach has led our nation's defence astray
With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable. With the precision of a barrister and the venom of a politician betrayed, Malcolm Turnbull has torpedoed the credulous heart of Australia's multibillion-dollar AUKUS evangelism, raising the question: are we the only true believers? If the answer turns out to be yes, and we may know soon, the unhealthy consensus between our two major parties will have been exposed as the most naive conflation of our security interests with those of another country since Iraq, or even Vietnam. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS" the former Liberal prime minister tweeted. "The US DoD [dept of defence] is conducting a review of AUKUS. But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our Parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Maybe. We don't really do introspection and we're not much inclined towards looking backwards, either. To its credit, the UK allowed seven years for its Chilcot inquiry into Britain's disastrous enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. It found that non-military options had been deliberately overlooked, that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that the UK had too willingly agreed with America in sexing up intelligence. An easily beguiled Australia was along for the ride, unlawful and unethical as it all was. Yet an Australian equivalent of the Chilcot process was never embarked on in the years after. Lessons went unlearned. When it was unveiled in September 2021, AUKUS quickly became the new big thing - one of those binary faith questions in mainstream politics and most media. There were only two types: believers and apostates. The tripartite Anglophone deal for nuclear subs came as a rude shock to the French who had been contracted (by the Turnbull government) to build our next generation of conventionally powered submarines. The costs were gargantuan but the long-term punt on unfailing US delivery was far greater because it relied on future administrations and unknowable security challenges in the decades ahead. Change of president? No worries. Everybody in Washington is onboard, the story went. Now, with Anthony Albanese on his way to the Americas for a possible first-ever meeting with Donald Trump, AUKUS is suddenly under active review to assess its consistency with Trump's populist rubric, "America First". Few really know where Trump stands or if he has ever thought about AUKUS. What is clear is that the president's acolytes are fuming about Australian sanctions on far-right members of Netanyahu's cabinet and are looking askance at Albanese's recent statements affirming Australia's exclusive right to set levels of defence spending. Then there's the whole trade/tariff argument. READ MORE: These eddies will make for trickier conditions than Albanese might have imagined only days ago. Might it even see a bilateral meeting delayed or downgraded as a rebuke to Australia? With friends like Trump, literally anything is possible. Which, by the way, is why blind faith in AUKUS has always been disreputable.
