Sussan Ley will have to answer some tough questions next week

On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal?
For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as opposition leader. For another, it's a formidable forum for a new leader.
It could all go badly wrong, but she's right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse.
Ms Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Mr Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised "Canberra bubble" and bypassed them when he could.
That didn't serve him well — not least because he wasn't toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail.
Ms Ley's office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who's appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the government (such as links to ministers' former statements).
This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister's Office. One of Ms Ley's press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton's media staff.
To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ms Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands.
Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn't terrible. She's struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump.
Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her.
One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? Howard's old "broad church" answer no longer holds.
The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party's conservatives are hardline, have hold of the party's (narrow) base, and will undermine Ms Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape its key policies in a way that will appeal to small-l liberal voters in urban seats.
Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition's commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals' core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later.
With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ms Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week, "I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are".
One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050.
If the Liberals deserted that, they'd be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one.
For the opposition. net zero is likely the climate debate of this term — and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders.
Three: Won't it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ms Ley has been equivocal on the issue.
She told The Daily Aus: "Each of our [Liberal state] divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to [candidate] selections." This is unlikely to cut it. She needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven't worked.
Four: Ms Ley says she wants to run a constructive opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ms Ley might have a chat with John Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government's reform measures.
Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials.
More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the government will have to negotiate on legislation with either the opposition or the Greens. If the opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals' point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor's partner. How does that sit with them philosophically?
Five: Finally, how active will Ms Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal state organisations, especially in NSW (her home state) and Victoria?
The Liberals' federal executive extended federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by one-time premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate backbiting, with conservatives seeing it advantaging the moderates. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke — whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet — from Scott Morrison's old centre right faction, and she has a staffer from that faction in a senior position in her office. The faction has also protected her preselection in the past.
In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming.
Some Liberals think the state party could even lose what should be the unlosable state election next year.
That's just the start of the questions for Ms Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward.
Identifying what went wrong won't be hard for them — mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement — that will be the difficult bit.
Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

ABC News

2 hours ago

• ABC News

Jim Chalmers wants a fight on tax, just like his 'brawler' hero Paul Keating

For those hoping Labor might use its landslide victory to be more ambitious, Jim Chalmers came to the press club with a message: game on. His speech was overshadowed by dramatic developments on the other side of the world, and buried under the dull heading of productivity and tax reform. But there was no mistaking the impression that Chalmers is emboldened by the election result and wants to seize his moment. The speech was light on specifics but lofty in aspiration. The treasurer was explicit that he wanted to use August's reform roundtable to make a lasting change to the tax system — to pick a fight and win it, like his "brawler statesman" hero Paul Keating. Chalmers is several steps ahead of his more cautious prime minister, whose own press club speech about economic reform last week was more grounded in talk of "win-wins" and incremental progress. But creative tension between treasurer and prime minister is the hallmark of all consequential governments, as with Hawke and Keating, or Howard and Costello. And economic reform — especially tax — is what those governments are remembered for, just as the political graveyard is littered with infamous tax failures like Gillard's carbon tax, Hewson's "fightback" and Shorten's negative gearing and franking credits. Tax matters to people, even if its finer details can make the eyes glaze over. So it is no small matter that the treasurer is standing at an open windowsill of opportunity and declaring he wants to jump through it. As one Labor frontbencher in the room remarked, it was the kind of speech the Labor faithful had waited 15 years to hear. For now, reaction from commentators has ranged from ambivalence to outright scepticism — "Rome not yet built on day one", read the opinion pages. And it's true that ambition is often thwarted by the cold light of reality, because anything worth doing on tax is hard to do. But even the whisper of a chance is enough for economists to prick up their ears after years of relentless caution and "safe" incrementalism. And there is much that could be done. For all the rancour, economists, unions, business and welfare advocates agree a lot about what's wrong with the status quo. There are always quibbles, but the broad collected wisdom is as follows: First, Australia taxes working people too much. That picture gets even worse if you factor in transfers (welfare and subsidies), which are below the poverty line for those on the lowest incomes and effectively impose extra taxes on middle earners, because the payments are withdrawn as you earn more. The picture is worse again if you factor in bracket creep — the fact that tax settings are not adjusted for inflation, meaning people pay more tax over time. Second, our tax system is wildly inconsistent in how it treats different types of income. A couple with no assets, both on the minimum wage, could pay more tax than a couple with three homes, a share portfolio, and hundreds of thousands in annual income. In fact, without needing to bend reality too much, it's plausible that the second couple could pay no tax at all. As well as the obvious inequities, these inconsistencies are inefficient, encouraging people to park their money in certain places (especially super and property) over others. At the same time, there are many reasons to expect we will need to raise more tax over time, in part because as people live longer they will require more care. And while there is lively debate over whether some government spending can be cut, there is pressure to spend more in several areas, much of it with strong public support. So if we want to be less reliant on taxing wages, we would need to consider other ways to raise money. Increasing taxes on consumption (GST) or land are among the options that would be more efficient, though not necessarily more equitable. Finally, all of this creates an intergenerational problem, because in the coming years there will be more retirees for every person of working age, piling the tax burden onto the shoulders of the young, a problem which gets worse the longer we neglect it. To summarise: the wrong type of tax, designed badly, and not enough of it, to the detriment of working people and young people, and distorting the economy. And that's before even mentioning corporate tax, fuel tax or cigarette tax — all of which are the subject of their own lively debates. All of that is enough to be overwhelming. But a wealth of problems means a wealth of possible answers. All of the "big ticket" items that feature prominently in political debate — negative gearing, capital gains tax, super tax, raising the GST, ending bracket creep, taxing land — are efforts to address one or another of these agreed shortcomings of the tax system. While Chalmers insists he is happy for all of these to be on the table and is keen not to rule things out, his press club appearance — where journalists tried valiantly to tempt him to do just that — left the impression he wants to avoid ideas with too much baggage. If he chose negative gearing, he would be accused of reheating leftovers and presented with a highlight reel of all the times he or the PM has promised not to revisit it, with the Coalition likely opposed and the Greens likely taking credit. If he chose the GST, he would risk creating "sticker shock" and be the treasurer who delivers a temporary price rise on everything, an option unlikely to appeal so soon after a nasty bout of inflation, especially since the states would get to keep all the money. And if he chose to go further on super tax concessions, he would embolden the scare campaign already amassing against his current push to lift the tax on earnings, which visibly irritates him every time he is asked about it. None of these seems especially likely. But if the treasurer is searching for a defining reform, there are options on the shelf with more dust but fewer enemies. Perhaps the most popular among economists — and yet still fairly obscure to the general public — is a dual income tax. That tax, common in Scandinavia, treats wages and salaries ("active" or "labour" income) differently to investments and capital gains ("passive" or "savings" income). Australia currently treats some investment income the same way as wages but other types completely differently. A dual tax could close loopholes and treat investment more consistently on the one hand, and lower taxes on wage earners on the other hand, while still being revenue neutral or even raising money. It's an idea with a long lineage, discussed at length in the famous Henry tax review in the early days of the Rudd government. Ken Henry, the treasury secretary who gave that review its name and who helped Chalmers with a draft of his press club speech this week, has become something of a "godfather of tax reform", and his hefty report still carries authority. But there's little to show for that reputation — 15 years on, politicians have intoned their reverence for the Henry review while politely ignoring almost all its recommendations. The reason? Because there is no such thing as meaningful tax reform that does not create both winners and losers. And for some time now, governments skirting on the edges of electoral defeat have been nervous about losers, preferring instead to promise higher spending and lower taxes. The Morrison government made an artform of this "double carrot", carefully designing its tax cuts to ensure no taxpayer was ever made worse off by even a cent. For this it was rewarded, winning a 2019 election against a Labor opposition with a substantial and controversial tax reform agenda who told the losers that if they didn't like it, they could vote for someone else, which they did. That's the price tag of reform. But with its colossal majority, the Albanese government could decide it can afford it. Chalmers, at least, thinks so. Perhaps his most pointed comment this week was that he did not believe the media narrative that Labor was assured of a third term. Translation: time is of the essence.

West Australian

3 hours ago

• West Australian

Michelle Grattan: Key tests looming for Opposition leader Sussan Ley

On Wednesday, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley will front the National Press Club. So why is that a big deal? For one thing, her predecessor Peter Dutton never appeared there as Opposition leader. For another, it's a formidable forum for a new leader. It could all go badly wrong, but she's right to make the early appearance. It sends a message she is not risk-averse. Ley wants to establish a better relationship with the Canberra Press Gallery than Dutton had. He saw the gallery journalists as part of the despised 'Canberra bubble' and bypassed them when he could. That didn't serve him well — not least because he wasn't toughened up for when he had to face daily news conferences (with many Canberra reporters) on the election trail. Ley's office has set up a WhatsApp group for gallery journalists, alerting them to who's appearing in the media, and also dispatching short responses to things said by the Government (such as links to ministers' former statements). This matches the WhatsApp group for the gallery run by the Prime Minister's Office. One of Ley's press secretaries, Liam Jones, has also regularly been doing the rounds in the media corridors of Parliament House, something that very rarely happened with Dutton's media staff. To the extent anyone is paying attention, Ley has made a better start than many, including some Liberals, had expected. She came out of the tiff with the Nationals well, despite having to give ground on their policy demands. Her frontbench reshuffle had flaws but wasn't terrible. She's struck a reasonable, rather than shrill, tone in her comments on issues, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's failure thus far to get a meeting with US President Donald Trump. Her next significant test will be how she handles at the Press Club questions she and her party are confronting. So here are a few for her. One (the most fundamental): How is she going to thread the needle between the two sides of the Liberal Party? John Howard's old 'broad church' answer no longer holds. The church is fractured. In an era of identity politics, the Liberals have a massive identity crisis. The party's conservatives are hard line, have hold of its (narrow) base, and will undermine Ley if they can. Its moderates will struggle to shape key policies in a way that will appeal to urban small-l liberal voters. Two: How and when will she deal with the future of the Coalition's commitment to net zero emissions by 2050? She has put all policies on the table (but made exceptions for several Nationals' core policies). There is a strong case for her staking out her own position on net zero, and getting the policy settled sooner rather than later. With younger voters having eschewed the Liberals, Ley told The Daily Aus podcast this week,'I want young people to know first and foremost that I want to listen to them and meet them where they are'. One place they are is in support of net zero by 2050. If the Liberals deserted that, they'd be making the challenge of attracting more youth votes a herculean one. For the Opposition net zero is likely THE climate debate of this term — and such debates are at best difficult and at worst lethal for Liberal leaders. Three: Won't it be near impossible for the Liberals to get a respectable proportion of women in its House of Representatives team without quotas? Over the years, Ley has been equivocal on the issue. She told The Daily Aus: 'Each of our (Liberal State) divisions is responsible for its own world, if you like, when it comes to (candidate) selections'. This is unlikely to cut it: she needs to have a view, and a strategy. Targets haven't worked. Four: Ley says she wants to run a constructive Opposition, so how constructive will it be in the tax debate Treasurer Jim Chalmers launched this week? Ley might have a chat with Howard about the 1980s, when the Liberals had internal arguments about whether to support or oppose some of the Hawke government's reform measures. Obviously, no total buy-in should be expected but to oppose reforms for the sake of it would discredit a party trying to sell its economic credentials. More generally, how constructive or obstructive will the Opposition be in the Senate? This raises matters of principle, not just political opportunism. In the new Senate the Government will have to negotiate with either the Opposition or the Greens. If the Opposition constantly forces Labor into the arms of the Greens, that could produce legislation that (from the Liberals' point of view) is worse than if the Liberals were Labor's partner. How does that sit with them philosophically? Five: Finally, how active will Ley be in trying to drive improvements in the appalling Liberal State organisations, especially in NSW (her home State) and Victoria? The Liberals' Federal executive extended Federal intervention in the NSW division this week, with a new oversight committee, headed by onetime premier Nick Greiner. But the announcement spurred immediate factional backbiting. Ley is well across the NSW factions: her numbers man is Alex Hawke — whom she elevated to the shadow cabinet — from Scott Morrison's old centre-right faction. In Victoria, the factional infighting has been beyond parody, with former leader John Pesutto scratching around for funds to avoid bankruptcy after losing a defamation case brought by colleague Moira Deeming. That's just the start of the questions for Ley. Meanwhile, the party this week has set up an inquiry into the election disaster, to be conducted by former Federal minister Nick Minchin and former NSW minister Pru Goward. Identifying what went wrong won't be hard for them — mostly, it was blindingly obvious. Recommending solutions that the party can and will implement — that will be the difficult bit.

SBS Australia

11 hours ago

• SBS Australia

Australian embassy officials in Iran evacuate as conflict grows in Middle East

Australian embassy officials in Iran evacuate as conflict grows in Middle East Published 20 June 2025, 8:37 am Australian officials and their families have been evacuated from Tehran. Threats of a major regional war have prompted Australia to close its embassy. The Federal government is urgently warning Australians in Iran to leave if safe to do so.