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 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.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
