'Littleprexit' changes Australian politics, but there's more to come

By
Annabel Crabb,
ABC
Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud. he fracturing opens new opportunities for Labor in the Senate, where the government has multiple pathways to get legislation through.
Photo:
ABC / Matt Rovers
Analysis
- For 102 years now (apart from a brief and steamy affair with Joh Bjelke-Petersen in 1987) the country-based folk of Australia's National Party have been married to the urbanites of its Liberal Party.
They've done big things together. At times, they've quietly loathed each other, for sure.
They've fought about the usual things. Money. Infrastructure. Who does what around the House. Whether it's a big deal for one of the kids to be gay.
They've stuck together, also for the usual reason, which is that neither of them has ever had the stomach for the drop in living standards that divorce would entail.
But when Nationals leader David Littleproud convened a press conference with his colleagues Kevin Hogan and Bridget McKenzie yesterday, the vibe was very clear: "Kids, we've got some news."
Everybody knew that Littleproud and the new Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, had been locked in discussion for days about the "Coalition agreement", which is a sort of triennial pre-nup the parties negotiate and sign after each election.
Everybody knew that the Nats wanted Ley to promise she would support nuclear power, the $20 billion regional future fund that they nagged Peter Dutton for, and the introduction of divestiture powers over major supermarkets and big-box retailers.
Are any of these things going to happen? No, they are not, because the Coalition lost the election.
But marriages are about principles, as they should be. And of course we all know couples who've called it quits over fantasy amendments to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act. So there was a definite whiff of "Splitsville" in the air.
Before confirming that he was
walking out on the marriage
, Littleproud first took care to explain that had been very patient and respectful and conducted the negotiations "very much at the pace of Sussan Ley," whose mother died last Saturday.
"So much so… that I took the decision to drive to Albury, to commence these negotiations when she was ready."
Having delivered this moving tribute to his own sensitivity and restraint (30 seconds during which, presumably, every divorced woman in Australia made a mental note to meet up with Ley soon for a cheeky pinot gris), Littleproud dropped the solemn news he'd come to deliver.
The National Party (and its cognates, the Country Liberal Party and the "N-identifying" members of Queensland's LNP) would be moving out of the Coalition party room, in order to find themselves and possibly see other people. There was no rancour, only respect. Perhaps there was a chance of reconciliation down the track, but in the meantime a separation would be good for Ley as well, Littleproud thought.
"She is a leader that needs to rebuild the Liberal Party. They are going on a journey of rediscovery, and this will provide them the opportunity to do that without the spectre of the National Party imposing their will."
For good measure, he added: "I don't intend to take a step back when I take big steps forward in three years."
What does this mean?
Not the stepping back and forward thing, of course. Even Yoda would struggle with the specifics (though one is left with the generalised but unmistakeable suspicion that someone is about to get - or already has got - a very unwise tattoo).
On a practical financial level, the divorce isn't good news for the Nats. The Liberals become the sole party of opposition, which means that the Nationals who would have otherwise been shadow ministers each lose nearly $60,000 a year in salary.
But Littleproud insisted that these deprivations did not figure in the decision to split. As you would expect, from a man sufficiently saintly to drive to Albury for a meeting with a colleague whose Mum just died.
More broadly, "Littleprexit" makes it harder for the Liberals to form a government, because they've almost always relied on Nationals numbers. Even John Howard's landslide win in 1996 only netted 75 seats for the Liberals in a Lower House of 148. A majority, but very vulnerable to an individual heart attack or dodgy travel claims. Very hairy territory for any gang member advocating a go-it-alone doctrine.
But the mathematics of forming government feel like a very distant and future problem. Right now, the Liberal Party has a trek through the wilderness to undertake.
And it may well be easier for Ley to guide this expedition now that she's not handcuffed to a junior companion constantly yammering at her to build them a nuclear reactor.
There's little doubt that in both 2022 and 2025, the binding Coalition commitment to the policy demands of the Nationals is what caused the Liberals to lose most of their city seats.
These existential questions can be considered at leisure, especially if you're divorced.
But the more immediate and intriguing mathematics are found in the Senate, where results are not yet clear but Labor's best-case scenario looks to be 31 senators out of 76.
Penny Wong - Labor's leader in the Upper House - needs 38 votes to get Labor legislation through.
One way to collect those extra votes would be to make deals with the Greens, who look likely to return 11 senators.
There will only be four Nationals in the new Senate, because deputy leader Perin Davey lost her seat and the CLP's Jacinta Nampijinpa Price defected, post-election, to the Liberal Party, which appears to have won custody of the NT senator in the divorce.
But there will be heaps of Liberals in the new Senate.
And who knows what the Liberal Party - dizzy with loss but also with the possibilities that freedom brings - might be prepared to try out?
When the government brings its revised environmental laws to the Senate, for instance, what will the Liberal Party do?
Stand by and let the Labor Party co-design environment policy with the Greens? Or pitch in and create an outcome that better suits Liberal voters?
Two days ago, such an idea would have been unthinkable. Now? Still unlikely. But do not mistake the urgency of the Liberal Party's search for meaning and relevance.
Ley - who spoke warmly of her party's ex in her press conference late yesterday and insisted that the door remained open to reconciliation - has insisted that the Liberals need to consider all possible options as part of their post-election review.
She's of the oft-repeated view that her party needs to "meet Australians where they are."
Right now, the immediate risk is that when the Liberal Party searches up the GPS coordinates for "where Australians are", they come up as "in a car, driving at speed away from you".
In these circumstances, hot pursuit - while well-intended - can absolutely be misconstrued.
So it's possible that Ley's low-speed model is prudent.
The Liberals have struggled for some time to land the concept of "relatability" for Australian women. While not a planned move on Ley's part, "I got dumped 10 days after my Mum died, and I absolutely did not lose my rag" is the closest a Liberal leader has come to this Holy Grail.
It doesn't change the fact that there is very little to be recommended for crushing defeat, if you're a political party.
But when you're really on the mat, the only resource in which you're genuinely rich is time. Time's not something of which you ever have a surfeit when you're in government.
And while the "conscious uncoupling" of the Coalition is indeed a ludicrously significant tectonic shift, it's possible that taking a break is actually the most useful thing these parties could do right now, with tensions at such an irreconcilable pitch.
The Coalition is probably the only long-standing Australian marriage in which parties are obliged to sit down on a triennial basis for an explicit negotiation about how many jobs each constituent party will agree to do for the forthcoming three years.
It's a much better model than the scheduled factory setting of the average Australian marriage. Three years of "Isn't this fun?" followed by five years of "My God, would it kill you to pick up a towel?", with separation occurring at eight years, and all outstanding legal matters done and dusted by 12.
Will they get back together? Hope springs eternal. Democracies are never perfect, but the existence of decent oppositions are what nudge them above all the other options.
-
ABC

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scoop

4 hours ago

• Scoop

New Zealand Government Feigns Neutrality In US-Israeli War Against Iran

New Zealand's right-wing National Party-led coalition government is seeking to portray itself as uninvolved in the murderous US-Israeli assault on Iran and neutral in the escalating war in the Middle East. On July 13, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon described Israel's unprovoked missile strikes against Iran as 'unwelcome' and 'potentially catastrophic.' He told reporters, 'The risk of miscalculation is high. That region does not need any more military action… What we want to see is the parties coming together and having a conversation.' Speaking to Radio NZ on June 17, however, Foreign Minister Winston Peters refused to condemn Israel's ongoing attacks, which by then had killed hundreds of people. Asked whether his government 'supports Israel taking this unilateral action,' Peters replied: 'we do not take sides in a conflict of this nature.' He called for 'de-escalation and diplomacy' but added that 'Iran is not an innocent player in this.' He said both sides were engaged in 'provocative behaviour.' Such statements amount to a falsification of what is taking place and a defence of Israel. The regime in Israel, led by fascist criminals, is engaged in a genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza and has waged illegal wars against Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. Its aim, working with the full collaboration of the US, is to expand Israel's borders and redivide the entire Middle East in favour of the imperialist powers. The pretext given by Israel—that Iran was close to producing a nuclear weapon—is a transparent lie, just like the lies that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' that were told to justify the criminal US-led invasion and destruction of Iraqi society. After President Donald Trump demanded the 'unconditional surrender' of Iran's government and said there were no plans to kill its leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'for now,' the New Zealand Herald asked Peters on June 18 whether he would support a US strike on uranium enrichment in Iran. The foreign minister replied that 'we do not believe in war when we haven't fully exhausted negotiations and diplomacy.' He added that New Zealand was a 'small country, way out here in the Southwest Pacific… I wish New Zealanders would understand our limitations here.' The reality, however, is that New Zealand is actively supporting Israeli and US military operations in the Middle East. In January 2024, a group of New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel were sent to Saudi Arabia to assist in the US bombing of targets in Yemen, in response to the Houthi forces' efforts to stop ships from supplying the Israeli war machine. New Zealand is a minor imperialist power allied with the US and a member of the US-led Five Eyes intelligence sharing network, raising further questions about its involvement. Asked during a press conference on June 16 whether New Zealand had received advance notice from the US about the attack on Iran, Peters replied, 'Well, we don't make those discussions public.' If the NZ military had foreknowledge of the illegal Israeli missile strike and kept quiet, that would make it complicit in the attack. The far-right Platform podcast's host Sean Plunket asked Peters the next day whether or not the NZ military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia had 'provided any intelligence or material support to the Israeli operation' against Iran. The foreign minister replied: 'Even if I could confirm that, I would not be doing that,' because to do so would endanger the lives of these personnel. The entire political establishment is nervous about widespread anti-war sentiment in New Zealand, which has been expressed in repeated protests against the genocide in Gaza. The opposition Labour Party's deputy leader Carmel Sepuloni told RNZ on June 17, 'we don't support what Israel is doing and we don't support [Iran's] response either.' Like Peters, she called for 'diplomacy' between the two sides. Sepuloni expressed support for the government's decision to join Canada, Australia, the UK and Norway in imposing sanctions on Israel's extreme right-wing Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. She called for 'greater sanctions,' including on companies operating illegally in the occupied Palestinian territories. All of this is completely hollow and is intended to divert attention from the fact that Labour continues to support the military alliance with the US, which is funding and supplying Israel's military and supports the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza and war against Iran. Previous Labour Party-led governments have sent troops to the criminal US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2022 Jacinda Ardern's Labour-led government, which included the Greens, sent hundreds of troops to Britain to assist in training Ukrainian conscripts to fight in the US-NATO proxy war against Russia. Labour agrees with the current government's plan to double military spending over the next few years, from 1 to 2 percent of GDP—at the expense of social programs that working people rely on. The aim, spelled out in numerous official documents and statements, is to prepare the military for joint operations with the US and Australia, particularly against China, which is considered the main 'threat' to US global hegemony. The war against Russia over Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, the war against Iran and the military build-up against China are all interconnected fronts in a rapidly developing world war aimed at seizing resources and markets and resolving the crisis of capitalism centred in the US. New Zealand's ruling elite is preparing to deepen its involvement on all these fronts, behind the backs and against the will of the population, who are overwhelmingly against war. The working class must take action to stop the war, but for this it needs its own socialist political party and strategy—in opposition to all the capitalist parties including Labour and its allies. The only way to put an end to war is through the unified action of the international working class to abolish the source of war: the capitalist system. Those who agree with this must take the decision to become politically active and join the Socialist Equality Group, which is fighting to build a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution, in New Zealand. By Tom Peters, Socialist Equality Group 22 June 2025

RNZ News

3 days ago

• RNZ News

Opposition slams Kāinga Ora decision to scrap public housing builds

Labour's Kieran McAnulty said cancelling the builds made no sense, with homelessness rising. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour housing spokesperson Kieran McAnulty has condemned the government's decision to halt thousands of planned state-housing builds. State housing provider Kāinga Ora has scrapped hundreds of developments that would have delivered nearly 3500 homes and will sell a fifth of its vacant land. The agency says the move will save up to $220 million. McAnulty said it made no sense to cancel these builds, while homelessness was rising. He said the housing crisis in New Zealand continued to worsen and this was a time the government should build more Kāinga Ora homes. "Homelessness is increasing at unprecedented levels and 15,000 construction worker have lost their jobs since this government came in," said McAnulty. "People will see this for exactly what it is - the National Party willing to promise all sorts to get elected, with no intention of following up. "Nicola Willis pledged a 1000 per year net increase in social housing in Auckland, but they're not going to do that. The only way they do that is if they count the houses the previous government funded. "Chris Bishop and Tama Potaka said they would build more houses than the previous Labour government - that would have been a decades-long record. Now they're selling houses and going backwards in some regions." Green Party housing spokesperson Tabitha Paul claimed the cost of not housing people was far higher than providing the housing they needed. "We know the wait list for public housing across the country is really high and homelessness is increase, because we're seeing it more on our streets," she said. "Kāinga Ora taking the narrow view that this might save them a few dollars will cost them more in their health fees, their justice fees and all the other ways the housing crisis manifests, when people are not properly housed." Housing Minister Chris Bishop ordered Kāinga Ora to deliver a turnaround plan that would ensure financial sustainability. The agency's plan will see it refocus as a landlord, rather than a developer, and the number of houses it owned would stabilise from 2026. Chief executive Matt Crockett said Kāinga Ora reviewed more than 460 social housing projects to ensure it was getting the best value for money and supplying houses in the areas of greatest need. "These reviews were essential to ensuring we only progress new housing projects that make commercial sense and that we sell land which is surplus to our requirements, so we can get on a more financially sustainable footing,'' he said. "Our reviews have highlighted an abnormally high number of projects and land holdings that no longer make sense for Kāinga Ora, if we want to get ourselves in a better financial position." The agency decided 212 projects that would have delivered 3479 homes would not proceed, because they did not stack up financially or were in the wrong locations. Another 254 projects would continue, building more than 1800 new homes. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

NZ Herald

3 days ago

• NZ Herald

Unlucky Luxon's popularity hits new low

A recent poll found 49% of New Zealanders have an unfavourable impression of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Photo / Mark Mitchell KEY FACTS Despite economic challenges, Christopher Luxon remains safe as National Party leader, but faces a difficult potential second term. According to this week's Freshwater Strategy-Post poll, Luxon is now as unpopular as Te Pāti Māori (TPM). The poll found that 49% of New Zealanders have an unfavourable impression