Are the Coalition getting back together?

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

Nearly two years ago, Erin Patterson served beef wellington to her family at that now infamous mushroom lunch and her murder trial has finally begun.

I'm Stephen Stockwell.

Each day, we're racing straight from court to a Mushroom Case Daily studio to bring you all the evidence from the trial.

We'll have a new podcast every evening that court is sitting.

To make sure you don't miss new episodes, hit the follow button on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast.

You can find it on the ABC Listen app.

Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values.

Government is always formed in a sensible centre, but our Liberal Party reflects a range of views.

The National Party will sit alone on a principled basis.

We've always been about the planet but we've got to make sure that people have their daily needs met.

People are starting to see that there is actually a different way of doing politics.

Hello and welcome to the party room.

I'm Patricia Carvellis and I'm joining you today from Ngunnawal Country in Parliament House, Canberra.

And I'm Frank Kelly on Gadigal Land of the Aura Nation in Sydney and PK.

A seismic week in federal political history.

I know that word has been getting kind of overused probably in the last few days but it was a bombshell split between the long-term coalition partners.

What this is about is about principle and respecting theirs and respecting ours is about taking a deep breath to be able to say to the Australian people that this is a time apart for us to be better.

It is disappointing that the National Party has decided today to leave the coalition.

The Nationals door remains open and our door remains open.

And we look forward to

PK, I think from that

it sounds like there's one side wanted this and one side didn't.

But not all the Nationals are enjoying their newfound freedom.

Some are already trying to get the band back together.

In a moment, we're going to hear from Anna Henderson.

She's the SBS chief political correspondent and friend of the podcast, of course, just kind of...

get a breakdown of what happens next for these two parties.

But PK, we were together in studio on Tuesday recording the bonus ep of the party room, answering brilliant questions from you, the listeners, when we heard this news about the coalition split.

I think it's fair to say I've still got that image of you in my mind.

You went into shock at the announcement.

How have you recovered?

I just need to welfare check, my friend.

I was shocked.

And I still,

you know, I know with the fullness of time, that shock subsides.

But the shock was because

this is genuinely huge and hasn't happened since the late 80s.

Like it's been a long time.

And each time, think about it, Barnaby Joyce was

the deputy prime minister to Malcolm Turnbull.

Fran, can you think of more divergent politics?

Hardly two peas in a pod, those two.

And they manage that in government.

And so the reason I was shocked is, I must say, I thought overwhelmingly self-interest would dominate.

So I'm genuinely shocked that the self-interest of higher salaries, more staff, more status didn't overwhelmingly decide the road that they wanted to take.

And so I was, yeah, I was shocked because, and by the way, so was everyone,

because I spoke to liberals who, you know, literally were texting me saying, oh, God, I got this one wrong.

Sorry, because they'd been giving me the steer as I've been working on these four corners.

No, they won't pull out.

You know, this is all shenanigans.

This is all just theater from them.

And also, this is how you negotiate, right?

You're a strong, you're a strong dude.

You know, you're willing to walk out and then you do a deal.

Also, Also, my other reason I'm so shocked is,

and I think they should be called out on this, and they have been by others, but Fran,

they were negotiating with a woman whose mother had just died.

Now, I want to make it clear from the start and the outset.

We've done that at the pace of Susan Lee, taking into account and respecting the personal circumstances that she's found herself in.

Sorry, it is in such poor taste.

Now, their argument is, well, she was taking meetings.

She was happy to have meetings with David Littleproud, this is Susan Lee, the liberal leader.

But Fran, it's one thing to have meetings.

It's a separate thing to then walk out on the coalition since the 80s that has shocked everyone and is incredibly significant for the conservative side of politics.

Yeah, I think it's absolutely shocking.

So have I recovered?

Not really.

I actually think it's maybe this is the sort of human side of me.

If I was mourning the death of my mother and someone just blew up the political institution and fabric I'd been involved with for my entire political career, I'd be livid, wouldn't you?

Yeah, I would.

And if we're talking about shock, I think some of the Nats are still recovering too.

You're right, this had the feel of an ambush to it in a way, PK.

And Susan Lee in that state of grief, it doesn't feel, it feels very indelicate.

It feels like

a political assassin sort of has come in the night, really.

It just feels all wrong.

It was done too hastily anyway, even without the death of Susan Lee's mother.

And I think it's interesting that the reasons for it are still working their way to the top, PK.

There's different reasons being put forward.

There's different interpretations of those reasons on both sides.

I don't know, but I'm not clear, completely clear on the reasons because, yes, Susan Lee had said, you know, we're going to come together as a Liberal Party and look at our policies, nothing abandoned, nothing adopted.

She'd made that very clear.

And then David Little Proud put these four policy options to her and said, well, if you can't sign off of these, we're out.

It had the feel of an ambush to it.

And I'm just not sure that it was all about these four policies.

What do you reckon?

Well, we know that there was more because the Liberal leader Susan Lee has said it on the record and spectacularly fact-checked Bridget McKenzie, who was in an interview with our colleague Sarah Ferguson.

and Sarah Ferguson put to her another reason that's been cited by Susan Lee which is cabinet shadow cabinet solidarity and that the Nationals didn't want to adhere to it and Mackenzie was pretty you know like strident you'd have to say saying that was not true.

That was not part of our consideration.

It was solely on those four

policies that we believe are incredibly important, that we fought hard for in the last last parliament and want to see as a basis for us moving forward as a political party so she couldn't give us that guarantee and that's the decision was made up based on that then susan lee's office starts texting sarah ferguson saying live on air wasn't it yeah as that interview played we've just received a note from susan lee's office saying it is not correct to suggest that shadow cabinet solidarity was not a sticking point and they that is susan lee's office have that in writing so obviously There's another

sort of set of written words being now shared with news.com.au about the Nationals making threats post the defection of Jacinta Napajimpa Price, who left the Nationals party room to be in the Liberal Party room, and now they're not even joint party rooms anymore.

So she's in a new party altogether.

How does that work?

That's wild in and of itself.

The level of bad blood, like when you go back to the calls by people like John John Howard saying you've got to get back together, the longer you're apart, the harder it is.

If the two parties remain separate for too long, away from a coalition, then the differences on policy will harden and it'll be more difficult to resolve them.

And then there are, of course, the logistics, Fran.

Oh, my goodness.

We're recording this as we do on a Thursday.

Even all the nationals are not all at one on this.

This is wild.

Is it about Susan Lee PK or could it be about?

Some people are saying.

Exactly.

Or could it be about David Littleproud defending his leadership here, shoring it up against more conservative elements in the party room, led by Matt Canavan, for instance, assuring them he can stand up to the Libs on issues like nuclear energy, maybe net zero, certainly divestiture?

Do you think that's had an influence in this outcome?

That's been my thesis the whole time.

I reckon this is hugely about their internals,

their political disputes for a long time, and especially under Peter Dutton, where it's fair to say the Liberals were very united.

Didn't end well for them at the election, but they were very united behind Peter Dutton.

There was no sort of leadership positioning, or there may have been positioning, sorry, but no, no challenging or whatever.

The Nationals,

they've been a mess internally.

They have been absolutely moments of undermining David Littleproud.

David Littleproud is under enormous pressure, as if that's not framing the way he made these decisions.

And so even people who have been backing him, now even they're not happy.

So I think he's actually made more enemies by taking this position from the people who had been supporting him.

I will say this because I strongly believe it and want it on the record.

I reckon David Littleproud is in trouble.

I think he, his own leadership through his actions that he's taken through this process, is in massive trouble.

And there's a question now, you know, party elders, people in the party room saying we should bring this together quickly, we should heal it.

Some suggesting we should get back together again even before parliament sits in July.

I'm interested in how Anna Henderson would feel about how that could happen, the mechanics of that.

Should we bring her in?

Let's do it.

Anna Henderson is SBS Chief Political Correspondent, Friend of the Show.

Welcome to the party room.

Thanks, PK.

Thanks, Fran.

We'll be pulling up at the country pub for a schooner today, won't we?

We will, or a couple.

Or a couple.

I love the way you think, Anna.

Anna, forget Benefer.

We've had the political breakup of the century this week with the Nats spilling from the Libs.

The Coalition is no more for now.

For how long?

That's a question.

Pigeon and I have touched on what led to the decision.

But Anna, I'm interested in what we're seeing in the aftermath.

What posturing, what sniping, what leaking and briefing is going on.

What message are these two party rooms, the individuals in these party rooms, sending to their respective constituents?

What can you tell us?

Well, I think the first thing to say is that anybody trying to follow on with this debate at home would be utterly confused about what this was about, why it's happened and the real reason.

And so let's try and make some sense of it.

But I mean, you know, there has been a lot of leaking and briefing around this.

I mean, David Littleproud says there were these four non-negotiable issues and they were policy issues but then we've got this question of whether or not there was a push from the Nationals to break shadow cabinet solidarity I think we now know that there was but Little Proud is saying that he got a response back from Susan Lee's office that they weren't prepared to accept that and that he was okay with that.

She made it very clear that the cabinet solidarity that we've had and the processes around that will remain.

That's why it wasn't up for debate.

I thought it was fair and reasonable what Susan Lee put back in writing.

And it was still those four principal policy decisions.

So it was in writing, like Susan Lee's office says, that he accepted the rejection.

It's the four that were the sticking point.

That's what he's saying publicly.

But we know that underpinning all of this discussion is a whole lot of things which remain secret.

Not least the coalition agreement itself, even though all these elements of it are bubbling out there and are happily being discussed by the people who say it must remain secret and they must not be forced to talk about it, but they are now talking about it.

So I think when you get to the heart of it, yes, there are these four issues.

I don't think the Liberal Party generally is anti-the idea of nuclear still being on the table.

So the sense that it's something to do with nuclear, I don't think that's the problem.

Susan Lee made clear when she stood up after being elected that she wasn't going to make captains' calls and that she needed time to go back with policies to her party room and have those discussions.

She says the Nationals weren't prepared to wait.

They say, though, that it was her timeline that they were working to and forced to.

So you have these two competing narratives now ongoing for days on end.

And I do think that people who are both liberal voters and national voters, or who are conservatives generally, will just be in utter confusion as to what's at the heart of this.

And the reality is every time this fight gets more torrid and the more backgrounding that happens and the more disunity, it is going to be so much harder to get everyone back around a table to sing kumbaya and agree to anything.

Yeah, I think that's right.

Look, and I should jump in here because Piquet and I have been so sort of caught up in the politics of it all, we forgot to list the four policies that were at the heart of it.

And as you say, they are the question of a nuclear energy policy.

It's the question of the $20 billion regional future fund.

It's the question around divestiture of the major supermarkets in particular.

particular and the fourth one came out of the blue a bit for me anyway which is around telecommunications and the universal obligation.

And basically, the Nets say the people in the bush are sick of not having proper phone coverage when Telstra gets billions and billions to provide it.

So they were the four issues ostensibly at the heart of this, yeah?

They were, ostensibly.

And publicly, David Littleproud is saying that in the end, they were the four non-negotiables.

Anything else, net zero, climate policy more generally, issues about shadow cabinet solidarity were ancillary, that they didn't get past those four bullet points, so they couldn't go any further.

But there is a differing view on the Liberal side about whether or not that is, in fact, how things unfolded.

And so we now have this problem where the two leaders are saying they respect each other, their doors are open, they're very keen to get back together.

David Littleproud yesterday told SBS he could see a pathway before Parliament resumes in July.

If the Liberal Party was to meet, the party room was to endorse these four policies, okay, they can get back to the table.

But it just seems highly unlikely that that's going to happen.

And we're now talking about potentially going through this entire term with the Prime Minister having the extraordinary luxury of having this playout and scrutiny, not focusing on him.

Oh, yeah.

And you've got to look, and I just want to make a side comment and then go back to the substance.

I mean, you've got to look at what's unfolding in Australia right now.

We've got a weather.

disaster.

We've got people really struggling.

In some of the regions, can I say, that the Nationals talk a lot about.

As time that we're recording, one man has died.

We've got the government on the front foot on that, you know, standing up, talking about it.

Large emergency personnel deployed already.

And I've spoken with my New South Wales counterpart, and we stand ready to help with any other deployments.

We'll have a ADF search and rescue.

And we've got this opposition talking about themselves.

Sorry, but I think those optics matter.

That says a lot about where we're at in our politics.

As we record, there's reporting right now that the Liberal leader Susan Lee is actually reaching out to senior nationals who opposed the decision to abandon the coalition.

Like this is getting really

very

Machiavellian, right?

Like so reaching out, I'm assuming, I don't know the names, but who's that?

Obviously, Darren Chester, Michael McCormack.

Maybe even Barnaby Joyce.

Maybe even Barnaby Joyce.

It's pretty wild, isn't it?

It's pretty wild.

It's pretty wild.

And I do think underneath all of this is potentially a misjudgment on all sides of this process this week of just what this would engender and lead to

and

some cooler heads perhaps could have or should have prevailed in order to not bring this to a head at this kind of critical juncture.

I mean, think of the juxtaposition of yesterday.

Paul Erickson, the ALP National Secretary, is up at the press club with the Prime Minister in the audience, you know, just slicing and dicing their extraordinary election victory and how they did it, giving free advice to the Coalition on Nuclear,

well and truly just doing a victory lap of extraordinary, you know, national proportions, while the other side of politics is feeling like a flaming wreckage.

And David Littleproud is sitting there doing interviews saying in

quite an emotive state that his reason for doing this is to be there for people in the bush.

He feels like they've been left behind, that the last three years haven't developed what he thought was needed for the regions.

But it's just really hard to see how the decisions the Nationals are making are actually going to get to that point of achieving things for their constituents.

Yeah, I mean, there's pleading almost from both sides, and I'm talking within the coalition now, you know, for them to rethink this.

I'm thinking of James Patterson, a Liberal senator, a key liberal frontbencher, you know, basically saying, come on, we've got enough problems, let alone having to fight the Nets as well.

I don't understand why, when we've already got the Labor Party, the Greens and the Teals to compete with, why we'd be seeking another political competitor.

It's not good for the Liberal Party, it's not good for the National Party, and it is certainly not good for the L.

Let's talk about what this actually will mean in the future and what they might be coming to terms with, not just in a sort of a big meta sense, but also in day-to-day operation of their political lives.

because this you know will cause tension because people are going to lose pay over this in the Nats, The front benches will lose all those allowances they might have got if they were shadow ministers.

They're going to lose staffing.

You know, the Prime Minister might decide to share the formula goes something like this, that the opposition, the formal opposition, gets 21% of the budget that the government gets to share out for ministerial staffing positions, things like that.

Anthony Albanese might decide that that can get shared between the two parties.

David Littlebroud is certainly making a special plea for that.

And if he did that, that would really undermine the Liberal opposition's capacity to perform as an effective opposition, which is what they will be, the formal opposition, you know, and it would stir tensions between them and the Nats.

But also, let's think about the Parliament, because the sort of the epicenter of the Parliament every day for most people is question time.

In question time, the power of the opposition comes in how effective they are

during their question time, what questions they ask, what buttons they push, push, what points they can make.

Now, last term of government, in acknowledgement of a larger than usual crossbench, the government changed the rules, as they are entitled to do, of how parliament operates, and allocated questions based on the arithmetic of the place, which meant this bigger crossbench got two or three questions every question time.

That was already annoying for the opposition.

But if the government uses that same formula, it could also then grant some specific questions to the the nationals every question time, presumably two or three if it's based on the numbers.

And this would mean that the formal opposition, the liberal opposition, will get fewer chances to ask their questions, press their political points, stand up and be seen making points against the government.

And, you know, question time is important.

I think the Liberals would be very upset about that if that's how it goes.

And I think the government might be quite mindful of that.

And if we're talking Machiavellian, it might be something they might do just to cause some trouble shall we say and not even just cause trouble but also open up you know direct engagement between Anthony Albanese and David Littleproud on policies they might want to get through the Liberals might not be so keen on you know there's there's all these different permutations of this which Anthony Albanese can court in terms of direct engagement and all the while continue to aid and abet the destruction of the kind of coalition into the future.

And then there's this other, look, I think it's kind of a wild scenario, but Andrew Wilkie yesterday, I'm not sure if you guys caught this,

proposed the suggestion, what if the whole crossbench, all the crossbenchers, including the Nats, all banded together, they could almost make up the numbers to be the same as the Liberal Party.

Could they form like a loose coalition that could become the formal opposition?

Oh, so they get all the stuff and the perks and the questions.

I don't think it's, I did check with a couple of crossbenchers who said, while they are extremely frustrated with whether or not they think that the Liberal Party has and or the coalition adequately held the government to account last term I don't think they're genuinely after going to an election as independents and you know on that basis being elected going to go and say we're going to form some kind of grouping

so so yeah think about that scenario this is people who are against net zero forming an alliance with the climate aligned yeah so yeah it's ridiculous but it did cause a little bit of a rupture within the Liberal Party like a little panic button went off of oh like all these potential ramifications that we haven't thought of, or little deals that could, you know, upset what we were expecting, what they were expecting as the Liberal Party, that they would be the obvious natural main party of opposition with the shadow cabinet and front bench and everything that comes with it.

And I think the Prime Minister was deliberately vague yesterday in his very brief press conference.

It is not reasonable

that there be more

staff or a reward, if you like.

And he's left little doors open for that fear to continue about what exactly he, because he does have some latitude to make personal decisions here, would decide.

With all of his background as the Leader of the House, he understands how these negotiations work.

He must be, honestly, living his best life.

I've been saying this and everyone can see it.

I mean, and ordinary people can see it.

Can I say my mother-in-law said to me the other day, oh, the Prime Minister must be the happiest man in in the world, like just watching this unfold,

he's the king of Australia right now, isn't he?

Like

there is a danger there though, isn't there?

Where is the kind of democratic process going to land if we do see this protracted nationals, liberals in fighting go on for a long time?

And really, like there are more, many more wounds that could be opened here and

people that could defect or people that could, you know, go independent because they've just decided they don't want a part of it anymore.

All of that happens.

And where's the holding of the government to account going to land on big spending, big policies,

big money, economic future?

There are wise heads warning about that, though.

You mentioned Paul Erickson before, the sort of Labor campaign mastermind.

He was urging caution.

The government, you know, we need to stay very grounded and just stay focused on delivering the agenda that we were elected on.

We need to stay focused on the voters who elected us and on delivering the agenda that we ran on.

And I'm quite confident that that's what we're we're doing.

You know, they've got this huge backbench that will from time to time get restless.

Claire Armstrong, I think on the podcast the other week, suggested that the Labor backbench might end up being the most effective and troublesome opposition for the Labor government in this next term.

And that's a really powerful point because that's what happens.

It's very hard to control.

Now,

the other thing is we expect that the Nationals will announce their front bench.

And I've got my quotation fingers up now because it's a a bit like the Greens how they have spokespeople for different areas so they'll have to go down that road but I'm just intrigued who are they going to make their shadow treasurer

because think about that scenario too the Nats will have a shadow treasurer well they will hope it's called a shadow treasurer you know treasury spokesperson and that the liberals will I mean it's you know and how they position on different things as everyone has been saying the longer they stay apart the longer the sort of

differences might manifest between them two.

Very hard.

And foreign affairs.

Don't forget how interesting and challenging it could be.

I believe there is

a definite frontrunner who desperately wants foreign affairs

and he, I think, will get it.

And

we'll find out when they announce it.

I wouldn't want to talk about it.

We're talking in the Liberals.

In the Nationals.

So the Nats will have a foreign affairs spokesperson.

They'll have international affairs positions different from the Liberal Party potentially on the region, on the rest of the world.

How is that going to align when they try and stitch back together?

So perhaps a harder line even on China?

Possibly.

Is that what you're talking about?

Possibly.

Is that what you're talking about?

Well, we'll just have to wait and see because they haven't formulated these policies, but we know there's wildcard aspects and then

they decide as a collective.

So even if one person might be a little bit perhaps more moderate on those issues, if the collective is really gung-ho on something internationally, there could be an outcome there.

And then imagine if they do manage to stitch back together before the next election, say, that means some of these shadow front benches in the National Party will want to claim to a ministerial position.

So Susan Lee would have to be announcing before the election who should drop from her ministry if they are elected.

And imagine that bad blood.

Oh, can you imagine?

Now, just as we, I really want to pivot, and it's such perfect timing because I'm looking at notes on my phone to talk to you, but a notification has come through and it tells me that my bank is is passing on the reserve bank's interest rate cut for my home loan and i feel nothing but happiness to hear this and it's a perfect segue to the reserve bank of australia cutting interest rates again again happy times for the government that now has under its watch of course you know it's separate we all know that but it does seem the government's get held to account for interest rate cuts or rises um two cuts now uh like the economic trajectory is going exactly in terms of the household pressures where they wanted it to.

That's all happening at the same time.

So

we're having a moment for the Labor Party here where they, you know, they promised things to the Australian people.

They said, you've got to wait.

The corner's being turned.

We are going to get there.

Just trust that the way we're doing this is going to end up with you in a feeling better off than it did three years ago at some point.

But even though that is good news, and the cut in the election campaign, I think was critical to Labor's fortunes as well in that sense of trust with voters and people who were on the fence thinking about where they were going to place their vote.

But there's still that ongoing, really challenging reality for the government around how much all their big spending measures have cost them, how little they've got in terms of structural savings in the budget and the larger reality that young people in this country still feel completely ripped off and that there isn't any big picture plan to make their wealth inequality that is embedded in the budget dramatically change.

Like there are things around hex, there are things around other things, other policy areas that give relief, but in that bigger picture, Labor didn't take those policies to the election.

So, whether or not they're going to be bolder on that front is now an open question, or do they have to sort of frame it up for a third term?

That's a long way away.

Yeah, that's right.

I mean, that's what they're basically suggesting.

I won't read up what's the notification on my phone because it's reminding me I've got to go to the dentist tomorrow.

But, Anna, it's not just their challenges here, it's the global challenges because we are in for tough economic and strategic challenges that are, you know, as a famous person once said, events, dear boy, events is what shapes a government.

You know, this Labour government is not going to have it all on their own terms, no matter how big their backbench and no matter how much turmoil is on the other side.

They've still got to govern in a very tumultuous world.

Absolutely.

And those are things beyond their control that they're going to have to try and manage.

And I guess the Prime Minister's job this year, apart from those slings and arrows as they come in, will be also the trips that he's going to make internationally to shore up those ties.

We're talking about meeting with Donald Trump for the first time fairly imminently, I would suggest.

And

then there's now reports of a trip to China by the end of the year.

So those building blocks are happening around trying to shore up the kind of security and financial relationships.

But there are events along the Australian government's control.

Whether or not they've, you know, set up the conditions to deal with them adequately, we'll find out as this year unfolds.

Anna, a font of wisdom.

And we're recording this, as I've said, on a Thursday morning.

I suspect we'll have 20 resignations by Monday.

I'm exaggerating to make a point.

We cannot predict what will even happen in the next hour.

Everyone seems to have lost their minds.

You haven't.

Thanks for coming in.

Thank you, guys.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Anna.

Solid as.

Thank you.

We'll move to questions without notice.

We'll give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

My questions to the Prime Minister.

Order.

The bells are ringing.

That means it's time for question time.

And yes, while we did a question time episode on Tuesday, which got slightly derailed by this split between the Nationals and the Liberals, which completely blew my brain, we wanted to answer even more questions today.

First one comes from Meg.

Hi, Fran, and hi, PK.

I have a question.

Now that the coalition has broken up and the Liberals and the Nationals are no longer, you know, in this coalition together, is it possible that the Liberal Party could

be

less right-wing and join with the Teals.

I know that they're more progressive on climate usually, but they're fiscally conservative.

So if there's a Liberal Party which is

less

right-wing

without the Nationals involved and as part of the coalition, is this possible?

Meg, such.

a good question and being discussed in Canberra, I can tell you, because does it open that possibility?

Absolutely.

It does open the possibility.

We're not there yet though, because yes, the Liberals, and you know, my Four Corners is essentially looking at this question on Monday.

So they don't have their coalition partner there pushing them to the further right.

Okay, let's accept that thesis.

Inside the Liberal Party though, they are divided between the Wets, the moderates, and the conservatives, the capital C Conservatives.

And of course, there are deviations of positions within all of that, like life is complex, there is nuance,

but I can assure you that people like Jacinda Napaji Price, people like Angus Taylor are not exactly

wanting to join with the teals.

I say that with quite a degree of confidence, my friend.

So

It's much more complicated.

It's almost like the Nats need to split and then they could sort of get together with the wets in the half the wet gnats.

and like the truth is it's it's way more complicated but without the gnats yeah it opens up more possibilities i still don't think we're yet there yet fran mega i think the point you make is is right in the sense that there's always been this belief in the liberal party and in the liberal sort of membership that the teals should actually be liberals most of them that they're generally you know more economic economic orthodox and socially progressive and that that's what a liberal moderate used to be.

That's what you'd call a wet, as Piquet just said.

And there was even thought at the time that when Zali Stegl won Warringa, booted out Tony Abbott, it's a liberal seat, that, you know, perhaps that they would court Zali and bring her over to their side, and over time she would become a liberal.

Now, that hasn't happened, and I think they've diverged more, in fact, over the time.

But the same with Allegra Spender in that blue ribbon seat, traditionally

seat of Wentworth, that she should be one of theirs, if you like.

But instead, they've shunned them.

They've shunned the teals, they've derided the teals, they've accused them of greens in teal clothing or something.

I can't quite remember what it was.

But, you know, it's been quite an anti-teal campaign.

They've done nothing to do that.

In a world that looks different for the Libs, where the moderates have more of a voice and they really do decide they need to woo back the

inner suburbs, they need to woo back liberal potential voters in the major capital cities, you know, I think you could potentially see

an opposition, a liberal opposition, that managed to bring some of these people back to them.

They might have to offer them front bench positions.

That's not unheard of.

You know, they do that in state governments around the place.

They sometimes have independents sitting in the front bench.

So I think it's not...

out of the realm of possibility, but right now it's a long way from possible.

But I could see that changing.

Yeah, I could see it changing, but I can't see it changing yet.

Is that fair?

That's fair.

That's exactly fair.

Yeah, our next question comes from Greg.

Hey, Fran, hey, PK, it's Greg here from Brisbane, and I am one of the Politics Now nerds that you have created over the last nine years.

So thank you for making me a nerd.

My question relates to what's going on in the Senate.

It seems that we talk so much about what's going on in the House of Representatives, and the Senate doesn't get much of a look in.

But of course, the Senate is the other half of getting legislation passed in this country.

so I would love you to dig into that a little bit how it works

and what the make-up might look like in terms of the Senate thank you and looking forward to your answer

Greg, that's a good point because we haven't really got to the Senate much yet in commentary by and large and that's partly because

the count is still going on for some Senate places.

For instance in Tasmania the final seat is a four-way count between Jackie Lambie, One Nation,

the Liberals and the Labor Party, I think it is.

So it's not decided yet.

But by and large, what it means is that, well, certainly before the coalition split, it meant that Labor had the possibility of just negotiating with the Greens.

Labor had picked up more Senate seats, so all they needed was the block of Green votes to pass legislation or the coalition siding with the government to pass legislation.

So that really put the Greens in the box seat and made things potentially easier for the government.

Now, after this coalition split, it means that the government could potentially do a deal with the Nats plus a few of the front benches, crossbenchers and the Greens maybe some of them

and get things up and they don't need the Liberals at all.

So this is a dynamic we haven't seen for a while.

There is always a danger.

It's not as though the government has won such a big landslide that they've won control of both houses.

They haven't.

That is very rare to happen in Australia.

It happened in 2007 with John Howard.

He had control of both houses, and it is deemed by many to have been the downfall of his government because it meant they could do whatever they liked.

They brought in work choices.

People saw that as very harsh and they didn't like it.

And that was seen as one of the critical sort of fault lines for the Howard government.

So it's not always a blessing to win control of both houses.

Labor hasn't done that, but it does have a few more options, more straightforward options now,

as a combination of their increased numbers and the change in the dynamics of the coalition.

Yeah, well, you know,

they had a few years of what you'd have to describe as some pretty bad luck.

And look at them now.

Don't things change with all of their combinations and their outcomes and their opposition imploding.

It just shows why we love politics, friend, that things move and change and your expectations of something can really shift based on what voters want to do.

That's really the truth here.

Voters decide the dynamics.

Voters have made everything change.

And that's you guys and that's the end of the podcast.

Keep sending your questions in because we love getting them.

We're especially fond of voice notes.

The party room at abc.net.au.

We're getting a lot of them.

Volume.

They're great.

Yeah, and the podcast is even getting more popular after nine years and I'm loving it.

So please share with your friends.

If you've made it to the end of the podcast, you're a true believer.

So, please share it with a couple of people and let new people learn about politics and us, and what is a really historic time in Australia, I think.

And don't forget, everybody, to watch Four Corners on Monday night.

Piquet's Four Corners on the Liberal Party, the remaking, the reshaping of the Liberal Party after this loss.

See you, Fran.

See you, Piquet.