3 days ago
2
Nationals leader David Littleproud has predicted his party could finish last in the race behind One Nation, the Liberals and an independent in a byelection in Sussan Ley’s regional seat, majorly downplaying expectations as leadership murmurings re-emerge in the country party.
In an interview on this masthead’s Inside Politics podcast, the under-pressure leader denied that he split the Coalition in January to blow up Ley’s leadership.
Littleproud advised commentators to “cool their jets” about polling showing the Nationals vote in the low single-digits as One Nation leaps ahead of the Coalition in regional areas, saying the Nationals vote was only relevant in pockets of the country, unlike major parties.
He also suggested Hanson, who has been censured in the Senate this week for asking if there are any “good” Muslims, was inarticulate in delivering her message, but not the leader of a racist party.
The loss of Coalition votes from the right to Hanson and the left to independents will be highlighted when voters in the NSW seat of Farrer are asked to elect a replacement for Ley in coming months.
Asked about the three main candidates who will run against the Nationals, Littleproud said he was being candid in saying the special election would be tough.
“I think it’d be very hard for us to poll ahead of any of those,” he said.
The Nationals held the seat for 17 years before 2001, when Ley won the seat after the retirement of former Nationals leader Tim Fischer. Before Fischer, the seat had always been held by Liberals.
In 2001, when Ley won, the Nationals polled 23 per cent of the primary vote, but the party have not contested the seat since.
“We haven’t been there for 25 years. It’s been a Liberal seat since the 1940s when it was established, we had it under Fischer 25 years ago,” Littleproud said. “People are angry in Farrer that they’re going to have to go back to the polls. That’s always difficult for the side of politics that causes that.”
Littleproud easily fended off a leadership challenge from rogue backbencher Colin Boyce after the Coalition split over the party’s decision to oppose Labor’s post-Bondi hate crimes laws. Boyce instigated the spill to push a credible candidate, such as Michael McCormack or Matt Canavan, to put up their hand.
Littleproud still retains majority support in the party room, but a growing number of his senior colleagues have formed the view that he cannot lead the party in the long run, according to four well-placed sources in the party unwilling to put their names to their remarks.
Those MPs worry Littleproud damaged himself and the party too severely during January’s Coalition split, the second in nine months. There are no imminent moves to topple him, but the MPs are watching the Farrer byelection and the party’s polling position, waiting for a trigger point that could take months to emerge.
Canavan has remodelled his behaviour and strategy and made himself a more credible option to lead the party.
The firebrand right-winger led the push against net zero emissions targets and had for years acted as a rebel who voted against Coalition policy. Recently, he has been more disciplined and offered to return to the frontbench in an interview with this masthead in November. This has been viewed by colleagues as Canavan being ready to launch a serious leadership challenge.
Canavan challenged Littleproud after the May election, but this was seen by colleagues as a tactic to put pressure on Littleproud to dump net zero, rather than a serious attempt to remove Littleproud.
Two others who could be considered include McCormack, who has been leader before, and Gippsland MP Darren Chester, although the latter is unlikely to have enough support because he is viewed as too moderate. Senator Bridget McKenzie is another option.
Asked about a possible handover to Canavan or McKenzie if the Nationals failed to gain ground on One Nation, Littleproud brushed off the suggestion.
“I’m relaxed. I’m comfortable in my own skin,” he said.
Several Nationals MPs have told this masthead that Littleproud was not strongly in favour of reforming the Coalition when the parties reunited in early February.
In a party room meeting at the time, about 10 Nationals spoke in favour of rejoining while eight were largely against, though some MPs were difficult to categorise. The minority group included McKenzie, deputy leader Kevin Hogan, frontbencher Ross Cadell. Littleproud hedged but was not viewed by colleagues as advocating to reform.
Asked if he was in the minority, Littleproud said he did not comment on party room talks.
“That’s the beauty of democracy and the ugliness of it. Sometimes, if you’re on the wrong side of it, you just accept that, and you move on, and you make it work,” Littleproud said.
Politicians have described the Nationals leader as running the federal party like a chairman who allows the boardroom to make calls rather than acting as the ultimate decision-maker.
Reflecting on the Coalition split that ultimately led to Ley’s removal, Littleproud said, “it was not a malicious act” and repeated his view that the Nationals were not afforded due process to debate Labor’s hate speech bill.
Ley, who had a strained personal relationship with Littleproud, sacked three Nationals frontbenchers who voted against the bill in the Senate, defying what the Liberals believed was an agreed Coalition position.
Littleproud insisted the Nationals were “mistreated” and did not agree that they had broken shadow cabinet solidarity because the final bill was never formally signed off by shadow cabinet.
Asked why his frontbenchers offered their resignations if they did not believe they broke convention, he said: “It was out of respect. It was out of respect to Sussan.”
Littleproud’s statements contrast with those made at the time by the Nationals frontbenchers in question. Back then, McKenzie sent a letter to Ley offering to quit “in accordance with longstanding conventions” while Cadell on Sky News said, “I can’t do the crime if I’m not prepared to do the time”.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
