Why this all-too predictable divorce is really a big question for Labor
Once the schadenfreude settles (and we all need a little bit of a giggle right now) there are some very serious questions to be asked about the Coalition’s split.
And they all involve the actual elephant in the room – the Labor government. Will Labor rehabilitate the Liberal Party? Or will it actually take the path voters mapped out for it at the last election to actually create change for the better.
The split between the Liberals and the Nationals was obvious to anyone paying attention. We raised it as early as election night, with the Nationals getting increasingly bolshie about their election result compared to the Liberal Party.
It’s not true to say the Nationals didn’t go backwards – they did. They lost a seat in the Senate and didn’t win back Calare, which before the election was considered as sure as flies on a dag – an absolute sure thing. There were also the independent challenges in seats like Cowper, but that isn’t part of the Nationals’ fairytale, so we’ll ignore it here too.
It is true that the Nationals now hold more seats than they did during the Howard years, and the Liberals hold fewer.
But the split in the 102-year-old Coalition (if you count the precursor parties to the Nats and the Libs) is more about saving certain personalities than actually saving the parties themselves.
You might like
The Nationals wanted to be able to freelance on policy, even if they were in the shadow cabinet. They didn’t want to lose any shadow cabinet positions (which, in and of itself, would be a threat to David Littleproud’s leadership) and they didn’t want to compromise on climate any longer.
So Littleproud now leads a little party and the end result will be … almost nothing.
The Nationals have dragged the Liberals into policy positions that have helped them lose successive elections and now, having taken over the internals, they have cut them loose to deal with the mess themselves.
Sussan Ley almost looked relieved – at the very least she now only has to wrangle with her own party room (a big enough job on its own given she does not hold the support of about half her MPs). And, given some are already getting out the lettuce a la Liz Truss (lettucce?) on her leadership, not having to contend with the Nationals is a boon.
After all, ask 10 farmers how to solve a problem and you’ll get 11 answers. Ask 19 Nationals how to solve something and you’ll get 25 versions of history.
Stay informed, daily
If this unhappy marriage decides to give it one more go down the track, the Nationals will have to explain why they deserve the same quota system (yup, the Liberals and Nationals have supported quotas historically – as long as it’s for the junior party) when it comes to the cabinet, and it is doubtful that the Nats, who have four senators will get much of a say in negotiations, where it matters.
As much as the media loves hearing from the Nationals, what is the point when they are even more irrelevant than usual? Plus, with a lack of staff, the National party spokespeople will have to do a lot of the portfolio/policy work themselves, which is not a strong suit for most in the party.
Ultimately, it is all over a battle that has already been won. If the Liberals and Nationals ever make it back together and then make it back to being electorally competitive (that’s if the parties even continue to exist) than that takes us, reasonably, into the 2030s.
By which time no one will be talking about nuclear, or the energy transition, or whether or not we need a net-zero target. It’s over. Labor has won the energy transition debate. The Nationals and at least half the Liberals are waging a battle against an empty field.
Which leads us to the only question in all of this. What does Labor do?
Does it legitimise the leftover Liberals who were roundly rejected by the Australian electorate as a party by negotiating with them in the senate as the “centre” despite the repudiation of the Liberals’ view for Australia, or does it go with the Greens for actual reforms?
The third option is Labor negotiating with an unholy alliance of National senators, disgruntled Liberal senators and minor parties like One Nation in the senate, which is also not out of the bounds of possibilities.
Because, as much as some in the media (and indeed in Labor) seem focused on rehabilitating the Liberal Party, that is not what the public asked for.
The formal split in Auspol’s second unhappiest marriage (Labor’s right and left factions probably still pipping it at the moment) is only hastening the parties towards irrelevance. Unless Labor comes to the rescue by choosing to go through what’s left of the Coalition in the Senate, to avoid the Greens.
Which brings us back to the main question of this parliament. What will Labor do with power this time around?
Will it seek to make reforms that materially change people’s lives for the better, and create bold and brave policy that might upset some in order to improve things for the many?
Will it now follow its policy platform and use it to speak out on genocide and act to sanction Israel, actually move on climate, build a future that takes more people with it than leave behind, make fossil fuel companies pay for the damage they have done, create a social safety net that allows people breath and restore secure housing as a right?
Or will it continue to govern in an artificial “centre” by giving the Liberals not just a veto, but a future?
