Coalition Split Delivers Crushing Blow to Ley, But Littleproud Holds the Blame
The dramatic implosion of the federal Coalition has delivered a massive and potentially fatal blow to Opposition Leader Sussan Ley's already precarious leadership. However, a close examination of the crisis reveals the fault lies not with Ley, but squarely with Nationals leader David Littleproud, whose actions have torn the conservative alliance apart at a time of profound national vulnerability.
The Extraordinary Stand on Hate Crime Legislation
When you stand back and analyse the events, the behaviour of the Nationals has been nothing short of extraordinary, and many would argue, deeply reprehensible. The issue they chose to make their definitive stand on was a specific provision within the government's legislation designed to enable the banning of hate-spruiking extremist groups. This includes organisations like the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir and various neo-Nazi factions.
The Nationals argued the legislation was too broad and endangered the fundamental principle of free speech. While free speech is undoubtedly a cornerstone of democracy, the urgent need to deal with purveyors of violent hate and anti-Semitism in this instance clearly outweighs those concerns. Furthermore, the measure as finally passed included reasonable guardrails and procedural safeguards.
The Nationals' claims that they want radical Islamists dealt with ring hollow when they actively oppose this precise tool to do so. It is notable that the legislation is also attacked by some on the progressive left, also in the name of free speech, creating a strange convergence where sections of the right and left align against the pragmatic centre.
A Crisis of Process and Provocation
In the lead-up to the public rupture, a Sunday night shadow cabinet meeting—which included David Littleproud—decided to seek amendments to the hate crime bill. By Monday, the opposition had successfully negotiated concessions from the government. Ley maintains this was the proper conclusion of the process, clearing the way for Coalition support. Therefore, the three Nationals frontbench senators who subsequently voted against the bill were in clear breach of shadow cabinet solidarity.
Littleproud counters that further internal processes should have been allowed. He labelled it as persecution when Ley insisted on the resignation of the three frontbenchers, who he claims were merely following the directives of their party room.
Regardless of this procedural dispute, Ley was left with no viable alternative but to discipline the senators. Liberals who had stayed in line and voted for the bill—some with significant reservations—would have been rightly appalled if their leader had then turned a blind eye to the Nationals' defiance. This is especially true given many of those Liberals are now enduring fierce blowback on social media for their stand.
A Complete Breakdown of Coalition Comity
Coalition partnerships require mutual give and take. Liberals privately point out that several of their own frontbenchers would have preferred to support the government's recent gun reform bill. Yet they accommodated the Nationals, and their own rural members, by opposing it. There was no reciprocal quid pro quo from the Nationals on the hate crime bill.
If Littleproud had desired a peaceful resolution, he could have charted a middle course. He could have directed the Nationals to abstain on the vote, potentially allowing both leaders to navigate through the controversy. Instead, Littleproud and his party chose the most provocative path possible.
The Nationals demonstrated profoundly poor judgement in opposing the legislation. Their subsequent decision to break the Coalition is a devastating blow for an opposition already weakened by poor polls and internal strife. Moreover, Littleproud's decision to announce the split on a national day of mourning for the Bondi massacre was widely condemned as spectacularly tone-deaf. Sources indicate Ley had counseled him that all media should be paused for 24 hours, advice he pointedly ignored.
Self-Indulgence and Political Fear
The Nationals have become increasingly self-indulgent and overbearing. They preempted the Liberals on the Voice to Parliament and have insisted on post-election demands. Littleproud frequently reminds the Liberals they cannot reach government without the Nationals—a statement of fact, but one wielded as a threat.
His lack of respect for Ley is long-standing. In comments last Thursday, he painted Ley as the villain of the crisis, declaring, "Sussan Ley has put protecting her own leadership ahead of maintaining the Coalition." He made the dispute intensely personal and essentially told the Liberals to find a new leader, stating no Nationals shadow minister wanted to serve in Ley's ministry.
But this bravado masks deep-seated fear. The Nationals are spooked by the surging One Nation vote and the defection of former leader Barnaby Joyce. A recent Newspoll placed One Nation at 22 per cent, ahead of the Coalition's 21 per cent. With Joyce unable to return to the Nationals leadership, he is now actively trying to position One Nation as the replacement for his old party in regional Australia. Joyce responded to Littleproud's announcement by mocking it as a "cartwheel cluster" that would only help One Nation's recruitment.
The Dire Aftermath and an Uncertain Future
Liberals are furious with Littleproud, with scathing personal descriptions circulating privately. However, this anger does not guarantee they will rally to defend Sussan Ley. Rewarding the Nationals' behaviour is unpalatable, but the departure has left the official opposition with just 28 members in the House of Representatives, forcing Ley into another damaging reshuffle.
Even before this crisis, it was broadly accepted that Ley's leadership was living on borrowed time. These events have made her demise even more likely, though the timing remains uncertain and may be influenced by forthcoming opinion polls.
The question now is: where do the Liberals turn? The alternatives, Andrew Hastie and Angus Taylor, are both deeply flawed as potential leaders. Taylor, a conservative who performed poorly as shadow treasurer, might hold more appeal for moderates wary of Hastie's hard-right views. Conversely, Hastie could attract younger Liberals seeking generational change.
To replace Ley, the Liberals must first agree on a single contender. If both Hastie and Taylor ran, and Ley—who does not lack courage—contested as well, she might survive through a split vote. Such an outcome would only prolong the party's agony.
While the timeline is utterly unclear, this week's seismic events have undoubtedly triggered frantic numbers-counting by supporters of the various aspirants. With little fix on what happens next, or when the next eruption will occur, many shell-shocked Liberals are finding scant comfort, save for venting their feelings about David Littleproud and his band of bomb throwers.
