Sussan Ley and Coalition’s bust-up is serious
Idea
In moments of darkness that are more frequent, deeper and longer lasting these days, Liberals of all colors accept that the problems facing their party, and the Coalition more generally, are insoluble.
They fear that the Coalition is beyond repair, that the Nationals will fall victim to the angry One Nation, and that the Liberals’ path to government may take a generation to build; We assume that this path exists and continues to exist in its current form, which the Liberal Party also doubts.
Naturally, there are those who think that this can be fixed and that in the next election, many voters who took refuge in One Nation will come to their senses and return to the community.
Whistling sounds can still be heard in the dark, and there are currently many dogs whistling in the dark in the old Coalition.
Those who fear the worst are right. It took two disastrous election defeats and the possibility of a third to recognize, understand and accept the crisis in the centre-right ranks.
After the 2022 election, the Liberals have avoided figuring out what they stand for and have done next to nothing to win back what they lost. After the 2025 election, it was clear that the only way to resolve the identity crisis was to leave the National Party.
Reuniting so quickly after the first split was a mistake, and there is no great enthusiasm for another hasty reunification, especially among but not exclusively among moderate Liberals. One senior Liberal described the second split as the “UAP moment”, referring to the breakup of conservative forces that precipitated the creation of the Liberal Party by Robert Menzies 81 years ago.
A growing number of MPs privately acknowledge that differences within and between parties are intractable and irreconcilable, and that neither a change of leadership nor a reconstituted Coalition can resolve them.
Liberals with a flair for dark humor predict the situation will get worse before it gets worse, as Australia’s centre-right parties prepare for a painful, inevitable and significant realignment.
Former Liberal Party official Tony Barry, whose Redbridge polling group reported that One Nation’s vote had risen to 26 per cent, trailing the Coalition by 19 per cent, was unsparing about his failure to face facts: “These guys are debating who will be the mayor of Hiroshima while Enola Gay looms on the horizon.”
Voters are looking for alternatives. This is part of the appeal of One Nation; It will diminish if it emerges as a haven for professional whiners who belittle modern Australia and policy geeks who offer solutions on how to improve it unless they want to Make Australia White Again and the once leading parties focus on economic reforms.
Other entities may appear. No one, including those in the eye of the storm, knows in what form or with whom.
There will be more escapes. Moderate Liberals are talking and working on a breakaway progressive party. Conservative Liberals could merge with the National Party. Teals value their independence, so they gravitate towards a formalized central office to assist MPs and candidates with policy research, campaigns and fundraising. If, with a new kind of party, they could be guaranteed the same freedoms that they enjoy now, they would be seduced.
Meanwhile, leadership changes are coming. Senior citizens say David Littleproud is safe for now. Senior Liberals – except Sussan Ley’s numbers man Alex Hawke – agree he is toast.
If Angus Taylor hits the numbers next week, likely to be supported by another devastating poll, he’ll use them. Otherwise, he aims to strike before the budget in May. Like others, Taylor is in no rush to reform the Coalition. He wants the freedom to focus on the economy, the only issue that can unite the party, without worrying about what the National Party might do.
The right and some moderates hope Taylor can do better than Ley. They stop predicting that he will succeed. One senior Conservative put it this way: “Taylor will be our next opposition leader, but Hastie could be our next prime minister.”
Andrew Hastie has withdrawn from the leadership race and is unlikely to stand as an MP despite demands. He needs the economic portfolio experience that both Ley and Peter Dutton have rejected, and he needs to be ready to flee if Taylor crashes and burns.
Ley’s gender and her branding as a moderate have little to do with her plight. He failed to oppose policies such as net zero and quotas and mismanaged the response to the Bondi massacre. Left and right were fed up with his passive stance on climate change. One MP described him as someone who took notes during discussions in the party room.
Many of his colleagues view him as an opportunist motivated by concerns about his leadership rather than his core beliefs. As explained in my book EarthquakeMany do not trust him. They believed that he and/or his office had infiltrated the media and polled the leadership before and during the election campaign.
Ley treated Bondi as a means of resurrection. According to both moderates and conservatives who heard this from them, Ley and his office were convinced that this would have the same effect on Albanians as losing the Voice referendum. His colleagues were unimpressed by the overtly political nature of his approach.
Albanese’s colleagues say he has been subjected to polemics over the unwarranted and uneducated accusations quickly leveled against him regarding the December 14 murders.
He fought for weeks, stubbornly refusing to convene a royal commission, then acting as if he had been planning to convene one all along. Watching him and Ley was unbearable and embarrassing.
It is rare in Australia for all three leaders of the main political parties to lose support following a national tragedy.
In this environment, Liberals need to be fully transparent about the causes of their existential crisis. The party’s federal leadership was rocked in December when Peter Dutton texted federal chairman John Olsen while discussing the official election review and threatened to sue the party if he was released without regulation.
Next month, the executive must decide whether to publish and damn the report, censor it, or be damned by its members and voters for withering and altering the report as to why they suffered the worst outcome in their history.
Although I have not seen the review by former federal cabinet minister Nick Minchin and former state cabinet minister Pru Goward, both of whom have a reputation for being tough, I understand it reflects the findings detailed here. EarthquakeIt has been on sale since November.
Niki Savva is a regular columnist. His column will be published on the first Thursday of every month.
The opinion newsletter is a weekly package of opinions that will challenge, defend and inform your own. Sign up here.
Niki Savva is an award-winning political commentator and author. He was an employee of former prime minister John Howard and former treasurer Peter Costello and is a board member of Old Parliament House.
