Latest news with #all-Liberal
West Australian
23-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Michelle Grattan: Liberals and Nationals clash over Coalition and split off but damage done
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 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 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, 'Blind Freddy (could) see it was going to be chaotic.' 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 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 looming about the commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, as well as about the coming 2035 target. 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 were commitments to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets and big box retailers that do the wrong thing, a $20 billion regional future fund, and upgraded regional communications services. The commitment on nuclear the Nationals sought was not to the specific election policy, which was for a string of government-funded nuclear power stations. The Nationals scaled down to something more general. In her concession to the Nationals, Ley was 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). For Liberals wanting to re-establish the Coalition, these policies were not too big a stretch. 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 resented being forced to bow to National Party wishes. And some, especially those with eyes on winning back city seats, had been relishing the prospect of being free of the constraint of the ties binding them to the noisy Nationals. But the importance of a coalition was the bottom line. At a meeting on Friday afternoon the Liberals party room agreed to work towards accepting the four policy demands, with Ley and Littleproud to negotiate the details. The Coalition is being re-glued together, with a new agreement expected within days. Even after the rapprochement, there are likely to be difficult times ahead. In putting the Coalition together again, 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, there will be future suspicion and tension between them. Angus Taylor, only narrowly defeated by Ley for the leadership and probably preferred by Littleproud, will be watching for opportunity. The Nationals can 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 will 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 judgment. Two former leaders, Joyce and Michael McCormack, once adversaries, were both askance at the rift. There have been some predictions Littleproud's leadership won't last in the longer term. 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.
The Advertiser
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
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.
West Australian
23-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
New Liberal leader Sussan Ley likely to delay shadow cabinet announcement amid Coalition talks
New Liberal leader Sussan Ley has delayed the unveiling of her Shadow Cabinet following the start-stop split of the Coalition, with the announcement now unlikely before next week. After Nationals' leader David Littleproud dropped a break-up bombshell on Tuesday before returning to the negotiating table 48 hours later, the Liberals will meet to consider their four key policy demands. Ms Ley's all-Liberal ministry had been just 'hours away' from being announced when the pair initiated peace talks on Thursday, a move party sources say will delay her frontbench decision. She had texted Mr Littleproud as he was sorting his own 'shadow' portfolios offering an olive branch 'to re-enter good faith negotiations' after hearing him commit to Shadow Cabinet solidarity while on breakfast TV. Ms Ley claimed it was the first time Mr Littleproud had publicly started to toe the party line after stating that breaching Shadow Cabinet solidarity was a requirement. Mr Littleproud did admit on Thursday it was mentioned but insisted it wasn't a reason for the breaking point. Once they met Ms Ley made her own concession to reconvene her party room late on Thursday evening to consider the four key policies. Mr Littleproud's demands which led to the party's withdrawal of the 38-year partnership, included nuclear energy, supermarket divestiture laws, $20 billion Regional Australia Future Fund and rural telecommunications obligations. If the parties resolve issues and reunify, Nationals could regain key roles and pay, while some Liberals may lose out on potential new portfolios. Under the previous plan, Canning MP Andrew Hastie was not expected to receive a defence-related portfolio, which is the former SAS soldier's only experience in ministerial and shadow cabinet roles. After serving as defence assistant minister between 2020-2022 under Scott Morrison's Government, he became shadow defence minister under former Opposition leader Peter Dutton. It's understood he had been seeking to take on a new portfolio to broaden his experience. Political analyst Professor Martin Drum said Mr Hastie would likely be seeking to broaden away from getting 'pigeonholed' in defence roles. He noted Mr Hastie would be wise to compete for a sought after economic portfolio if he has leadership ambitions in the future. 'He has said openly that he would aspire to leadership in the future. In order to do that, he's got to demonstrate he's got experience across the board,' Professor Drum said. 'So he can, and should seek a portfolio change. Usually, some economic experience is very well regarded and plays well. 'That might be competitive, but he certainly should be looking for another substantive portfolio.' 'Could be education, could be health. It could be something along those lines, which gives you a profile and an opportunity to really demonstrate his credentials. 'The other thing about Andrew Hastie is his professional background is defence too. So that could compound the issue.' While Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is tipped to lose her DOGE-like 'government effectiveness' portfolio in favour of a more 'optimistic and more positive'. Depending on the outcome of Friday's 1pm Liberal Party policy meeting, Ms Ley will brief colleagues on 'what the path forward is' and meet with the Nationals to discuss the Coalition agreement before finalising the Shadow Cabinet. During the two-day break, Ms Ley had been conducting her own outreach, including calls to former leaders Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce, as well as Darren Chester, all of whom had voiced opposition to a split, Mr Littleproud's judgement has been questioned with Mr McCormack describing his leadership as 'messy' and casting doubt over his long-term support within the party. Mr McCormack said he was 'I'm ambitious for him' when asked whether he fully supported the leader going forward. Former Liberal PM Malcolm Turnbull slammed the Nationals as 'stupid' for 'holding a gun to the Liberal Party's head,' warning their demands risk damaging the Coalition's future.
The Advertiser
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
MPs seek united front against Labor from torn coalition
National and Liberal MPs are calling for a united front against Labor as a common enemy despite a growing rift since the parties split. Their coalition fell apart days after Sussan Ley was chosen as Liberal leader, with the Nationals pulling the plug on the decades-long marriage. Now the conservative parties are in a contest for political staff as both prepare to unveil separate shadow ministries in coming days. The Liberals make up the official opposition as the largest non-government party, a point Ms Ley was keen to point out after the split as she prepares to name an all-Liberal shadow cabinet. The prime minister determines staffing allocations for the opposition and minor parties, and the break-up can alter how many people the Nationals and Liberals can hire separately. Anthony Albanese said he has had discussions with both the National and Liberal leaders. "It's not reasonable that there be more staff or a reward, if you like, for the fact that you have this division," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. The official opposition is allocated about one-fifth of the government's staffing allocations, which are then distributed to shadow ministers to allow for scrutiny. Liberals argue diluting the entitlements in favour of a higher Nationals allocation would mean fewer staff for shadow ministers and less scrutiny. Minor parties and independents have separate staffing allocations, which the Nationals now need to navigate with the prime minister. Liberals are scathing that the regional party wanted to lock in a policy commitment so soon after a bruising election defeat. The Liberals suffered their worst loss of the post-war era at the May 3 election. The Nationals had wanted the Liberals to agree to four policies: a commitment to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets, phone coverage across Australia and a regional investment fund. The impasse was over the Liberals saying they could not lock in any policies without a partyroom debate after a resounding election loss. The two parties meet to nut out an agreement after every election, which covers matters such as how many leadership positions each get and what portfolios. Liberals say this does not include locking in specific policies as these are discussed in joint party rooms later on, meaning the Nationals had pre-determined a break-up by ending negotiations so soon. Nationals leader David Littleproud maintained the split was on principle over the policy issues and pledged to still work with the Liberals, saying he wouldn't be "unrealistic or stupid". "The enemy is still Labor," he said. Being a coalition is the best way to counter a Labor government with a commanding majority in the lower house, Liberal MP Dan Tehan said. "The longer this goes on, the harder it is then to bring it back together," he told Sky News. Liberal senator James Paterson said it isn't in either party's interest to fight each other when the real enemies are Labor, the Greens and teal independents. "We're not looking for any other political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. But not all Liberals are upset, saying it gives their party a chance to develop its own policies. Liberal MP Tim Wilson branded the split "a really exciting opportunity as a Liberal Party to find out our liberal mojo juice again". Other members went further, with one Liberal source saying it was beneficial to develop a more progressive climate policy as the party room would never stomach walking back a commitment to a net-zero emissions target - something being sought by some Nationals members. National and Liberal MPs are calling for a united front against Labor as a common enemy despite a growing rift since the parties split. Their coalition fell apart days after Sussan Ley was chosen as Liberal leader, with the Nationals pulling the plug on the decades-long marriage. Now the conservative parties are in a contest for political staff as both prepare to unveil separate shadow ministries in coming days. The Liberals make up the official opposition as the largest non-government party, a point Ms Ley was keen to point out after the split as she prepares to name an all-Liberal shadow cabinet. The prime minister determines staffing allocations for the opposition and minor parties, and the break-up can alter how many people the Nationals and Liberals can hire separately. Anthony Albanese said he has had discussions with both the National and Liberal leaders. "It's not reasonable that there be more staff or a reward, if you like, for the fact that you have this division," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. The official opposition is allocated about one-fifth of the government's staffing allocations, which are then distributed to shadow ministers to allow for scrutiny. Liberals argue diluting the entitlements in favour of a higher Nationals allocation would mean fewer staff for shadow ministers and less scrutiny. Minor parties and independents have separate staffing allocations, which the Nationals now need to navigate with the prime minister. Liberals are scathing that the regional party wanted to lock in a policy commitment so soon after a bruising election defeat. The Liberals suffered their worst loss of the post-war era at the May 3 election. The Nationals had wanted the Liberals to agree to four policies: a commitment to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets, phone coverage across Australia and a regional investment fund. The impasse was over the Liberals saying they could not lock in any policies without a partyroom debate after a resounding election loss. The two parties meet to nut out an agreement after every election, which covers matters such as how many leadership positions each get and what portfolios. Liberals say this does not include locking in specific policies as these are discussed in joint party rooms later on, meaning the Nationals had pre-determined a break-up by ending negotiations so soon. Nationals leader David Littleproud maintained the split was on principle over the policy issues and pledged to still work with the Liberals, saying he wouldn't be "unrealistic or stupid". "The enemy is still Labor," he said. Being a coalition is the best way to counter a Labor government with a commanding majority in the lower house, Liberal MP Dan Tehan said. "The longer this goes on, the harder it is then to bring it back together," he told Sky News. Liberal senator James Paterson said it isn't in either party's interest to fight each other when the real enemies are Labor, the Greens and teal independents. "We're not looking for any other political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. But not all Liberals are upset, saying it gives their party a chance to develop its own policies. Liberal MP Tim Wilson branded the split "a really exciting opportunity as a Liberal Party to find out our liberal mojo juice again". Other members went further, with one Liberal source saying it was beneficial to develop a more progressive climate policy as the party room would never stomach walking back a commitment to a net-zero emissions target - something being sought by some Nationals members. National and Liberal MPs are calling for a united front against Labor as a common enemy despite a growing rift since the parties split. Their coalition fell apart days after Sussan Ley was chosen as Liberal leader, with the Nationals pulling the plug on the decades-long marriage. Now the conservative parties are in a contest for political staff as both prepare to unveil separate shadow ministries in coming days. The Liberals make up the official opposition as the largest non-government party, a point Ms Ley was keen to point out after the split as she prepares to name an all-Liberal shadow cabinet. The prime minister determines staffing allocations for the opposition and minor parties, and the break-up can alter how many people the Nationals and Liberals can hire separately. Anthony Albanese said he has had discussions with both the National and Liberal leaders. "It's not reasonable that there be more staff or a reward, if you like, for the fact that you have this division," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. The official opposition is allocated about one-fifth of the government's staffing allocations, which are then distributed to shadow ministers to allow for scrutiny. Liberals argue diluting the entitlements in favour of a higher Nationals allocation would mean fewer staff for shadow ministers and less scrutiny. Minor parties and independents have separate staffing allocations, which the Nationals now need to navigate with the prime minister. Liberals are scathing that the regional party wanted to lock in a policy commitment so soon after a bruising election defeat. The Liberals suffered their worst loss of the post-war era at the May 3 election. The Nationals had wanted the Liberals to agree to four policies: a commitment to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets, phone coverage across Australia and a regional investment fund. The impasse was over the Liberals saying they could not lock in any policies without a partyroom debate after a resounding election loss. The two parties meet to nut out an agreement after every election, which covers matters such as how many leadership positions each get and what portfolios. Liberals say this does not include locking in specific policies as these are discussed in joint party rooms later on, meaning the Nationals had pre-determined a break-up by ending negotiations so soon. Nationals leader David Littleproud maintained the split was on principle over the policy issues and pledged to still work with the Liberals, saying he wouldn't be "unrealistic or stupid". "The enemy is still Labor," he said. Being a coalition is the best way to counter a Labor government with a commanding majority in the lower house, Liberal MP Dan Tehan said. "The longer this goes on, the harder it is then to bring it back together," he told Sky News. Liberal senator James Paterson said it isn't in either party's interest to fight each other when the real enemies are Labor, the Greens and teal independents. "We're not looking for any other political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. But not all Liberals are upset, saying it gives their party a chance to develop its own policies. Liberal MP Tim Wilson branded the split "a really exciting opportunity as a Liberal Party to find out our liberal mojo juice again". Other members went further, with one Liberal source saying it was beneficial to develop a more progressive climate policy as the party room would never stomach walking back a commitment to a net-zero emissions target - something being sought by some Nationals members. National and Liberal MPs are calling for a united front against Labor as a common enemy despite a growing rift since the parties split. Their coalition fell apart days after Sussan Ley was chosen as Liberal leader, with the Nationals pulling the plug on the decades-long marriage. Now the conservative parties are in a contest for political staff as both prepare to unveil separate shadow ministries in coming days. The Liberals make up the official opposition as the largest non-government party, a point Ms Ley was keen to point out after the split as she prepares to name an all-Liberal shadow cabinet. The prime minister determines staffing allocations for the opposition and minor parties, and the break-up can alter how many people the Nationals and Liberals can hire separately. Anthony Albanese said he has had discussions with both the National and Liberal leaders. "It's not reasonable that there be more staff or a reward, if you like, for the fact that you have this division," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. The official opposition is allocated about one-fifth of the government's staffing allocations, which are then distributed to shadow ministers to allow for scrutiny. Liberals argue diluting the entitlements in favour of a higher Nationals allocation would mean fewer staff for shadow ministers and less scrutiny. Minor parties and independents have separate staffing allocations, which the Nationals now need to navigate with the prime minister. Liberals are scathing that the regional party wanted to lock in a policy commitment so soon after a bruising election defeat. The Liberals suffered their worst loss of the post-war era at the May 3 election. The Nationals had wanted the Liberals to agree to four policies: a commitment to nuclear energy, divestiture powers against supermarkets, phone coverage across Australia and a regional investment fund. The impasse was over the Liberals saying they could not lock in any policies without a partyroom debate after a resounding election loss. The two parties meet to nut out an agreement after every election, which covers matters such as how many leadership positions each get and what portfolios. Liberals say this does not include locking in specific policies as these are discussed in joint party rooms later on, meaning the Nationals had pre-determined a break-up by ending negotiations so soon. Nationals leader David Littleproud maintained the split was on principle over the policy issues and pledged to still work with the Liberals, saying he wouldn't be "unrealistic or stupid". "The enemy is still Labor," he said. Being a coalition is the best way to counter a Labor government with a commanding majority in the lower house, Liberal MP Dan Tehan said. "The longer this goes on, the harder it is then to bring it back together," he told Sky News. Liberal senator James Paterson said it isn't in either party's interest to fight each other when the real enemies are Labor, the Greens and teal independents. "We're not looking for any other political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. But not all Liberals are upset, saying it gives their party a chance to develop its own policies. Liberal MP Tim Wilson branded the split "a really exciting opportunity as a Liberal Party to find out our liberal mojo juice again". Other members went further, with one Liberal source saying it was beneficial to develop a more progressive climate policy as the party room would never stomach walking back a commitment to a net-zero emissions target - something being sought by some Nationals members.
The Advertiser
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Commitment issues: Nationals walk away from coalition
Liberal and National leaders hope their parties can reunite before the next election following a bitter break up over policy issues. The Nationals walked away from the coalition on Tuesday, marking the third split between the conservative political allies in 80 years and the first since 1987. Nationals leader David Littleproud said his party had taken a principled stance on issues important to them, while giving the Liberals clear air to rebuild and decide on their future direction. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley starred down four demands from the Nationals, saying the Liberals needed time to debate any future policies after a bruising election defeat. "I am disappointed, I do want the coalition to come together," she told reporters in Canberra. Liberals and Nationals meet after every election to nut out the details of a coalition agreement and determine the make up of frontbench positions and portfolios. Detailed policy proposals are often developed between the two parties. These included remaining committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to break up big supermarkets, a $20 billion investment fund that would disperse $1 billion a year on regional infrastructure and universal phone services. Landlines and payphones must have service no matter where they are in Australia but this doesn't extend to mobile phones, which the Nationals have been fighting to include. The Nationals didn't want to have to re-prosecute the case to retain policies it fought for under the previous agreement. Mr Littleproud denied there was a barney over the carve up of portfolios and cabinet spots, which are allocated between the coalition partners on a proportional basis. "This wasn't about the spoils of defeat, this was about principle," Mr Littleproud told reporters. "Making sure that those hard-fought wins are maintained and respected and we continue to look forward." Ms Ley said there needed to be open party room debate to reach positions on polices after a crushing election defeat on May 3. The Liberals hold fewer than 30 of 150 lower house seats and the Nationals 15. Both leaders left the door open to a future agreement. Mr Ley said the Liberals and Nationals were stronger as a coalition and this was proven in 1996 when John Howard would have been able to govern in his own right but still chose to work with the regional party. But getting back together could be more complicated because members of an all-Liberal shadow cabinet would need to be dumped to make way for Nationals. Ms Ley said she offered to press ahead with a joint shadow ministry but this offer was rejected by the Nationals. There was a discussion about whether National shadow cabinet members could split off to vote for the four policies but there were contradicting claims from the two camps. Cabinet members are expected to defend the party's position or resign while coalition backbenchers are free to cross the floor and vote against party policies. Ms Ley said cabinet solidarity wasn't explicitly agreed to but Nationals say this wasn't a sticking point. Climate change targets remain a thorny issue within the Nationals. The party's platform includes a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, but some elected members want to abandon the pledge. The coalition split doesn't impact the government's ability to pass legislation through parliament, with Labor commanding a majority in the lower house and only needing the Greens in the Senate. Liberal and National leaders hope their parties can reunite before the next election following a bitter break up over policy issues. The Nationals walked away from the coalition on Tuesday, marking the third split between the conservative political allies in 80 years and the first since 1987. Nationals leader David Littleproud said his party had taken a principled stance on issues important to them, while giving the Liberals clear air to rebuild and decide on their future direction. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley starred down four demands from the Nationals, saying the Liberals needed time to debate any future policies after a bruising election defeat. "I am disappointed, I do want the coalition to come together," she told reporters in Canberra. Liberals and Nationals meet after every election to nut out the details of a coalition agreement and determine the make up of frontbench positions and portfolios. Detailed policy proposals are often developed between the two parties. These included remaining committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to break up big supermarkets, a $20 billion investment fund that would disperse $1 billion a year on regional infrastructure and universal phone services. Landlines and payphones must have service no matter where they are in Australia but this doesn't extend to mobile phones, which the Nationals have been fighting to include. The Nationals didn't want to have to re-prosecute the case to retain policies it fought for under the previous agreement. Mr Littleproud denied there was a barney over the carve up of portfolios and cabinet spots, which are allocated between the coalition partners on a proportional basis. "This wasn't about the spoils of defeat, this was about principle," Mr Littleproud told reporters. "Making sure that those hard-fought wins are maintained and respected and we continue to look forward." Ms Ley said there needed to be open party room debate to reach positions on polices after a crushing election defeat on May 3. The Liberals hold fewer than 30 of 150 lower house seats and the Nationals 15. Both leaders left the door open to a future agreement. Mr Ley said the Liberals and Nationals were stronger as a coalition and this was proven in 1996 when John Howard would have been able to govern in his own right but still chose to work with the regional party. But getting back together could be more complicated because members of an all-Liberal shadow cabinet would need to be dumped to make way for Nationals. Ms Ley said she offered to press ahead with a joint shadow ministry but this offer was rejected by the Nationals. There was a discussion about whether National shadow cabinet members could split off to vote for the four policies but there were contradicting claims from the two camps. Cabinet members are expected to defend the party's position or resign while coalition backbenchers are free to cross the floor and vote against party policies. Ms Ley said cabinet solidarity wasn't explicitly agreed to but Nationals say this wasn't a sticking point. Climate change targets remain a thorny issue within the Nationals. The party's platform includes a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, but some elected members want to abandon the pledge. The coalition split doesn't impact the government's ability to pass legislation through parliament, with Labor commanding a majority in the lower house and only needing the Greens in the Senate. Liberal and National leaders hope their parties can reunite before the next election following a bitter break up over policy issues. The Nationals walked away from the coalition on Tuesday, marking the third split between the conservative political allies in 80 years and the first since 1987. Nationals leader David Littleproud said his party had taken a principled stance on issues important to them, while giving the Liberals clear air to rebuild and decide on their future direction. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley starred down four demands from the Nationals, saying the Liberals needed time to debate any future policies after a bruising election defeat. "I am disappointed, I do want the coalition to come together," she told reporters in Canberra. Liberals and Nationals meet after every election to nut out the details of a coalition agreement and determine the make up of frontbench positions and portfolios. Detailed policy proposals are often developed between the two parties. These included remaining committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to break up big supermarkets, a $20 billion investment fund that would disperse $1 billion a year on regional infrastructure and universal phone services. Landlines and payphones must have service no matter where they are in Australia but this doesn't extend to mobile phones, which the Nationals have been fighting to include. The Nationals didn't want to have to re-prosecute the case to retain policies it fought for under the previous agreement. Mr Littleproud denied there was a barney over the carve up of portfolios and cabinet spots, which are allocated between the coalition partners on a proportional basis. "This wasn't about the spoils of defeat, this was about principle," Mr Littleproud told reporters. "Making sure that those hard-fought wins are maintained and respected and we continue to look forward." Ms Ley said there needed to be open party room debate to reach positions on polices after a crushing election defeat on May 3. The Liberals hold fewer than 30 of 150 lower house seats and the Nationals 15. Both leaders left the door open to a future agreement. Mr Ley said the Liberals and Nationals were stronger as a coalition and this was proven in 1996 when John Howard would have been able to govern in his own right but still chose to work with the regional party. But getting back together could be more complicated because members of an all-Liberal shadow cabinet would need to be dumped to make way for Nationals. Ms Ley said she offered to press ahead with a joint shadow ministry but this offer was rejected by the Nationals. There was a discussion about whether National shadow cabinet members could split off to vote for the four policies but there were contradicting claims from the two camps. Cabinet members are expected to defend the party's position or resign while coalition backbenchers are free to cross the floor and vote against party policies. Ms Ley said cabinet solidarity wasn't explicitly agreed to but Nationals say this wasn't a sticking point. Climate change targets remain a thorny issue within the Nationals. The party's platform includes a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, but some elected members want to abandon the pledge. The coalition split doesn't impact the government's ability to pass legislation through parliament, with Labor commanding a majority in the lower house and only needing the Greens in the Senate. Liberal and National leaders hope their parties can reunite before the next election following a bitter break up over policy issues. The Nationals walked away from the coalition on Tuesday, marking the third split between the conservative political allies in 80 years and the first since 1987. Nationals leader David Littleproud said his party had taken a principled stance on issues important to them, while giving the Liberals clear air to rebuild and decide on their future direction. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley starred down four demands from the Nationals, saying the Liberals needed time to debate any future policies after a bruising election defeat. "I am disappointed, I do want the coalition to come together," she told reporters in Canberra. Liberals and Nationals meet after every election to nut out the details of a coalition agreement and determine the make up of frontbench positions and portfolios. Detailed policy proposals are often developed between the two parties. These included remaining committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to break up big supermarkets, a $20 billion investment fund that would disperse $1 billion a year on regional infrastructure and universal phone services. Landlines and payphones must have service no matter where they are in Australia but this doesn't extend to mobile phones, which the Nationals have been fighting to include. The Nationals didn't want to have to re-prosecute the case to retain policies it fought for under the previous agreement. Mr Littleproud denied there was a barney over the carve up of portfolios and cabinet spots, which are allocated between the coalition partners on a proportional basis. "This wasn't about the spoils of defeat, this was about principle," Mr Littleproud told reporters. "Making sure that those hard-fought wins are maintained and respected and we continue to look forward." Ms Ley said there needed to be open party room debate to reach positions on polices after a crushing election defeat on May 3. The Liberals hold fewer than 30 of 150 lower house seats and the Nationals 15. Both leaders left the door open to a future agreement. Mr Ley said the Liberals and Nationals were stronger as a coalition and this was proven in 1996 when John Howard would have been able to govern in his own right but still chose to work with the regional party. But getting back together could be more complicated because members of an all-Liberal shadow cabinet would need to be dumped to make way for Nationals. Ms Ley said she offered to press ahead with a joint shadow ministry but this offer was rejected by the Nationals. There was a discussion about whether National shadow cabinet members could split off to vote for the four policies but there were contradicting claims from the two camps. Cabinet members are expected to defend the party's position or resign while coalition backbenchers are free to cross the floor and vote against party policies. Ms Ley said cabinet solidarity wasn't explicitly agreed to but Nationals say this wasn't a sticking point. Climate change targets remain a thorny issue within the Nationals. The party's platform includes a commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, but some elected members want to abandon the pledge. The coalition split doesn't impact the government's ability to pass legislation through parliament, with Labor commanding a majority in the lower house and only needing the Greens in the Senate.
