Latest news with #JohBjelke-Petersen
Sydney Morning Herald
05-08-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Texas governor orders arrest of Democrats who fled Trump-backed gerrymander stoush
Australia's most well-known example of gerrymandering was under Queensland's Nationals premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who oversaw a system – more accurately described as malapportionment – in which many rural seats contained far fewer people than urban seats. Gerrymandering has a long history in the US, with both sides of politics implicated. Earlier, in an interview on Fox News, Abbott conceded the proposed map constituted electoral gerrymandering, but said it was legal. 'Gerrymandering can be done, or drawing lines can be done, on the basis of political make-up, as in Republican versus Democrat, and there's nothing illegal about that,' Abbott said. 'We have the authority, legally under redistricting law, to draw districts that align with the voter preferences of the voters of the state of Texas.' Democrats who fled to New York and Chicago scoffed at the governor's threats of arrest, noting subpoenas in Texas would not affect them interstate. Loading But they also pressed the seriousness of the situation, arguing the Republicans' push to redistrict electorates was a dark moment for the country. 'When a president can pressure a state to rig maps in favour of one political party, we've lost touch with the democratic process,' the Texas arm of the Democrats party said on social media. Democrat representative James Talarico said Republicans talked tough and made threats on social media, 'but when Donald Trump comes calling, all they can do is bend the knee, all they can do is bend over'. The stoush over electoral boundaries comes as Texas continues to recover from devastating floods last month that killed more than 135 people, including dozens of children. Loading In Washington, Republicans are defending a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and would ordinarily be expected to lose seats at the midterm elections under a Republican president. In 2018, Democrats won 41 seats and control of the chamber. Trump currently enjoys a Republican majority in the House and Senate, but his agenda would be frustrated for the remainder of his term if the House were to flip. Australian election analyst Ben Raue said US political parties were getting more sophisticated in their partisan gerrymandering, using computer programs with large amounts of data that often produced boundaries that were highly unusual in shape. 'As the norms of American democracy are broken down, it's become more acceptable to more brazenly attempt to distort the playing field,' Raue said. Loading Elissa Slotkin, a Democratic senator from Michigan, said it was time for the entire US to abandon the partisan gerrymander and adopt an independent civic commission to draw 'rational lines' based on geography, as her home state did in 2018. 'This is something that both parties do … blue states and red states often engage in partisan redrawing,' she acknowledged in a video. 'This to me is a real problem for democracy.'
The Age
05-08-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Texas governor orders arrest of Democrats who fled Trump-backed gerrymander stoush
Australia's most well-known example of gerrymandering was under Queensland's Nationals premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who oversaw a system – more accurately described as malapportionment – in which many rural seats contained far fewer people than urban seats. Gerrymandering has a long history in the US, with both sides of politics implicated. Earlier, in an interview on Fox News, Abbott conceded the proposed map constituted electoral gerrymandering, but said it was legal. 'Gerrymandering can be done, or drawing lines can be done, on the basis of political make-up, as in Republican versus Democrat, and there's nothing illegal about that,' Abbott said. 'We have the authority, legally under redistricting law, to draw districts that align with the voter preferences of the voters of the state of Texas.' Democrats who fled to New York and Chicago scoffed at the governor's threats of arrest, noting subpoenas in Texas would not affect them interstate. Loading But they also pressed the seriousness of the situation, arguing the Republicans' push to redistrict electorates was a dark moment for the country. 'When a president can pressure a state to rig maps in favour of one political party, we've lost touch with the democratic process,' the Texas arm of the Democrats party said on social media. Democrat representative James Talarico said Republicans talked tough and made threats on social media, 'but when Donald Trump comes calling, all they can do is bend the knee, all they can do is bend over'. The stoush over electoral boundaries comes as Texas continues to recover from devastating floods last month that killed more than 135 people, including dozens of children. Loading In Washington, Republicans are defending a razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives and would ordinarily be expected to lose seats at the midterm elections under a Republican president. In 2018, Democrats won 41 seats and control of the chamber. Trump currently enjoys a Republican majority in the House and Senate, but his agenda would be frustrated for the remainder of his term if the House were to flip. Australian election analyst Ben Raue said US political parties were getting more sophisticated in their partisan gerrymandering, using computer programs with large amounts of data that often produced boundaries that were highly unusual in shape. 'As the norms of American democracy are broken down, it's become more acceptable to more brazenly attempt to distort the playing field,' Raue said. Loading Elissa Slotkin, a Democratic senator from Michigan, said it was time for the entire US to abandon the partisan gerrymander and adopt an independent civic commission to draw 'rational lines' based on geography, as her home state did in 2018. 'This is something that both parties do … blue states and red states often engage in partisan redrawing,' she acknowledged in a video. 'This to me is a real problem for democracy.'
Sydney Morning Herald
28-07-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Slice of history: Local family shells out $3m for antique-filled abandoned home
He said the house was last lived in by a family member in the '90s, who passed away. Since then, it had remained empty 'for no real reason'. 'It was such a cherished asset, and it took a long time for them to decide to sell it,' he said. When the time came to put it on the market, Hadgelias said it took one crew two weeks to get the abandoned abode inspection-ready. 'There was a lot of stuff in there – bits and pieces with dates on them from the '60s, '70s and '80s,' he said. 'Surprisingly, the paintwork wasn't too bad inside, even if it was on the outside.' The house was also packed with old furniture, attracting antique hunters hoping to score forgotten treasures. 'The vendors will now get to decide what they want to keep, and then they can sell the rest,' he said. Loading The house was among 177 scheduled auctions across Brisbane last week. By Saturday evening, Domain recorded a preliminary clearance rate of 56 per cent from 107 reported results, with 11 auctions withdrawn. In New Farm, another rare piece of Brisbane history – this one tied to former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen through family lineage – sold for $4.575 million, just over the undisclosed reserve. The four-bedroom home, at 3 Mark Street, was offered to the market for the first time since it was built in 1890. Set on a prime 810-square-metre block near the James Street precinct, the iconic residence features a wraparound veranda, timber floors, a generations-old poinciana tree and even the original outhouse. Thirteen bidders registered, while seven were active. A local family hoping to renovate the home kicked things off at $3 million, with the price quickly soaring to $4.3 million. It was then called on the market, leading to a final bidding battle between the family and an expat returning from the UK. In the end the expat walked away with the keys. Selling agent Heath Williams, of Place New Farm, said the home drew strong interest, with dozens of buyers inspecting and a huge crowd turning out to watch the historic sale unfold. 'It was a pretty rare listing – there aren't many blocks this size (in New Farm) … and it was a near flat block too,' he said. 'But the market is also interesting right now – previously, renovators weren't the flavour of the month.' He said a new build on a similar block nearby recently sold for just $800,000 more - showing buyers were again willing to invest in fixer-uppers. Over in Holland Park, a couple of investors paid $1.366 million for a five-bedroom post-war home they hadn't even inspected. The property at 57 Layard Street sits on a 617-square-metre block and includes a fully self-contained downstairs space. Four bidders competed, with a Toowoomba family looking to relocate to Brisbane opening the auction at $1 million. 'It was pretty competitive until $1.32 million, at which point we were above the reserve,' said co-selling agent Patrick Goldsworthy, of Place Estate Agents Bulimba. Loading 'Then there were just two buyers left battling it out until the end, but the investors got it. And they were really nonchalant and would have happily kept going. 'The fact that it sold for $60,000 over the reserve just shows the value of Holland Park.' The couple saw the property for the first time mere minutes before the auction. 'It was actually her birthday and she said it was a bit of a gift to herself,' Goldsworthy said. 'After the auction, they even asked me if they could take a bit more of a look around.' He added the vendors had owned the home for 11 years and were making a 'tree change' to the Sunshine Coast. Ray White chief economist Nerida Conisbee said Brisbane's auction results showed strong momentum, with their internal clearance rate hitting 87 per cent. 'That's up from 64.3 per cent last year,' she said. 'It tells us people have shrugged off the interest rate hold and that they're expecting a cut in two weeks.' The only headwind, she said, remained a significant shortage of listings, though she expected a spring surge.
The Age
28-07-2025
- Business
- The Age
Slice of history: Local family shells out $3m for antique-filled abandoned home
He said the house was last lived in by a family member in the '90s, who passed away. Since then, it had remained empty 'for no real reason'. 'It was such a cherished asset, and it took a long time for them to decide to sell it,' he said. When the time came to put it on the market, Hadgelias said it took one crew two weeks to get the abandoned abode inspection-ready. 'There was a lot of stuff in there – bits and pieces with dates on them from the '60s, '70s and '80s,' he said. 'Surprisingly, the paintwork wasn't too bad inside, even if it was on the outside.' The house was also packed with old furniture, attracting antique hunters hoping to score forgotten treasures. 'The vendors will now get to decide what they want to keep, and then they can sell the rest,' he said. Loading The house was among 177 scheduled auctions across Brisbane last week. By Saturday evening, Domain recorded a preliminary clearance rate of 56 per cent from 107 reported results, with 11 auctions withdrawn. In New Farm, another rare piece of Brisbane history – this one tied to former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen through family lineage – sold for $4.575 million, just over the undisclosed reserve. The four-bedroom home, at 3 Mark Street, was offered to the market for the first time since it was built in 1890. Set on a prime 810-square-metre block near the James Street precinct, the iconic residence features a wraparound veranda, timber floors, a generations-old poinciana tree and even the original outhouse. Thirteen bidders registered, while seven were active. A local family hoping to renovate the home kicked things off at $3 million, with the price quickly soaring to $4.3 million. It was then called on the market, leading to a final bidding battle between the family and an expat returning from the UK. In the end the expat walked away with the keys. Selling agent Heath Williams, of Place New Farm, said the home drew strong interest, with dozens of buyers inspecting and a huge crowd turning out to watch the historic sale unfold. 'It was a pretty rare listing – there aren't many blocks this size (in New Farm) … and it was a near flat block too,' he said. 'But the market is also interesting right now – previously, renovators weren't the flavour of the month.' He said a new build on a similar block nearby recently sold for just $800,000 more - showing buyers were again willing to invest in fixer-uppers. Over in Holland Park, a couple of investors paid $1.366 million for a five-bedroom post-war home they hadn't even inspected. The property at 57 Layard Street sits on a 617-square-metre block and includes a fully self-contained downstairs space. Four bidders competed, with a Toowoomba family looking to relocate to Brisbane opening the auction at $1 million. 'It was pretty competitive until $1.32 million, at which point we were above the reserve,' said co-selling agent Patrick Goldsworthy, of Place Estate Agents Bulimba. Loading 'Then there were just two buyers left battling it out until the end, but the investors got it. And they were really nonchalant and would have happily kept going. 'The fact that it sold for $60,000 over the reserve just shows the value of Holland Park.' The couple saw the property for the first time mere minutes before the auction. 'It was actually her birthday and she said it was a bit of a gift to herself,' Goldsworthy said. 'After the auction, they even asked me if they could take a bit more of a look around.' He added the vendors had owned the home for 11 years and were making a 'tree change' to the Sunshine Coast. Ray White chief economist Nerida Conisbee said Brisbane's auction results showed strong momentum, with their internal clearance rate hitting 87 per cent. 'That's up from 64.3 per cent last year,' she said. 'It tells us people have shrugged off the interest rate hold and that they're expecting a cut in two weeks.' The only headwind, she said, remained a significant shortage of listings, though she expected a spring surge.
The Advertiser
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
This week's actions were bizarre. But the Nationals are built a little different
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre. Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament. The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote. To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat. The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats. In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent. The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do. Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries. While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party. In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister. The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost. Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced. The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition. But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone. A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues. In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes. The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws. Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members. Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome. The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition. Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government. READ MORE: Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government. Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions. Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order. The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all. If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre. Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament. The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote. To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat. The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats. In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent. The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do. Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries. While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party. In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister. The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost. Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced. The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition. But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone. A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues. In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes. The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws. Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members. Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome. The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition. Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government. READ MORE: Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government. Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions. Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order. The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all. If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre. Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament. The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote. To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat. The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats. In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent. The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do. Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries. While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party. In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister. The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost. Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced. The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition. But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone. A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues. In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes. The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws. Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members. Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome. The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition. Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government. READ MORE: Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government. Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions. Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order. The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all. If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre. Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament. The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote. To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat. The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats. In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent. The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do. Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries. While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party. In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister. The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost. Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced. The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition. But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone. A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues. In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes. The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws. Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members. Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome. The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition. Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government. READ MORE: Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government. Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions. Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order. The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
