Littleproud fired the gun, but Ley set up the circumstances: The spectacular Coalition break-up

Summary

Episode Overview

Title: Littleproud fired the gun, but Ley set up the circumstances: The spectacular Coalition break-up
Podcast: The Morning Edition (The Age and Sydney Morning Herald)
Date: January 22, 2026
Host: Paul Sakal
Guest: Natassia Chrysanthos (Federal Political Correspondent)

This episode takes listeners inside the dramatic and historic break-up of Australia’s federal coalition between the Liberal and National parties. Paul Sakal and Natassia Chrysanthos break down the chain of events that led to the split, the political context, the roles and missteps of key players like David Littleproud and Susan Lee, and what this all means for the future of the opposition and federal politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Coalition Breaks Up (00:03–03:49)

• Announcement of the Split:

  • Nationals leader David Littleproud confirms the split with the Liberals.
  • The century-old alliance is described as a "natural party of government" now undone after conflict over Labor’s hate speech laws.
  • Three National frontbenchers broke ranks, voting against the assumed coalition position, violating shadow cabinet solidarity.

• Key Quote:

  • “When we have three of our senators who had the courage of their conviction and did what our party room decided was the right thing to do for them to lose their jobs, we can't accept that.” — David Littleproud [00:52]

• Resignation Drama:

  • The three rebels (Bridget McKenzie, Ross Caddell, Susan McDonald) offered their resignations to Liberal deputy leader Susan Lee.
  • Littleproud threatened complete National withdrawal if resignations were accepted—Susan Lee accepted, calling the bluff.
  • By Wednesday night, “the remaining MPs in the Coalition front bench, creating a total of 11 people, had all resigned, leaving no Nationals in the coalition frontbench.” — Natassia Chrysanthos [02:54]
  • Littleproud on Thursday: “It’s all over.” [03:49]

---

2. Political Context and Path to Crisis (03:49–07:08)

• Emergency Sitting & Bondi Massacre:

  • Parliament returned early due to the Bondi massacre, as calls for stronger hate speech laws grew.
  • Pressure was on PM Albanese for decisive action and on the coalition to respond constructively.

• The Nationals’ Objections:

  • Nationals argued the legislation was rushed, not properly scrutinized:
    • “This was a rushed process. We are talking about national security matters with complex legislation... that should be scrutinised and understood before we're forced to vote on it.” — David Littleproud [05:58]
  • Criticism that Labor “made a mockery of the Westminster system.”
  • Irony: Susan Lee had pushed for a return to Parliament and quick action post-Bondi, locking herself into supporting prompt new laws.

• Community Pressure:

  • Special note that “the Jewish community wanted this bill to pass in some way, shape or form.” — Paul Sakal [07:08]

---

3. Fallout for Littleproud, Lee, and the Parties (07:21–11:45)

• David Littleproud’s Precarious Position:

  • Seen as a lesser-known figure, pressured by right-wing party members like Matt Canavan.
  • Canavan led the charge against the bill, positioning it as a major attack on free speech:
    • “The biggest attack on free speech since Robert Menzies tried to ban the Communist party in the 1950s.” — Paraphrasing Matt Canavan’s position [08:23]
  • Concerns about Littleproud’s leadership: “There are questions in the National Party now about how long Littleproud's leadership can last if his business model is effectively to follow the wishes of his right flank.” — Paul Sakal [08:47]

• The National Party’s Vulnerability:

  • Nationals depend on the Liberal Party for electoral survival, especially in the Senate.

• Susan Lee’s Role and Fallout:

  • Two interpretations: either she mishandled the crisis (setting up the circumstances) or is stuck with the blame as leader.
  • “Even though Littleproud fired the gun, she set up the circumstances... she wears the blame.” — Paul Sakal [09:42]
  • Littleproud’s moves interpreted as pressuring the Liberals to remove Susan Lee as leader.

• Leadership Instability in the Liberals:

  • MPs “on the phone all morning” but “no sense of organisation about when a leadership challenge might occur.”
  • “There's a lot of blind men in a room searching around for where the walls are.” — Liberal MP, as reported by Paul Sakal [10:37]
  • Party is “depressed” and leadership challenge timing is unclear; no action expected before Parliament resumes in February.

---

4. What Happens Next? Parliamentary Landscape and Historical Significance (11:45–12:54)

• Immediate Parliamentary Impact:

  • Labor holds a commanding majority; the opposition now just the Liberals.
  • The Nationals reduced to a crossbench party, with Senate representation equal to One Nation: “There are four national senators, four one nation senators, like their representation is… equal to one nation now.” — Natassia Chrysanthos [12:11]
  • Describes opposition numbers as “not a strong opposition.” — Natassia Chrysanthos [12:12]

• Future Possibilities:

  • Talk of possible defections to One Nation.
  • The break-up could result in Nationals and Liberals running against each other, risk to Nationals’ seats.

• Historic Nature of the Crisis:

  • “This is arguably the lowest point in the Liberal Party's history since its founding in the mid-'40s, and probably one of the biggest crises on the right flank of politics since Federation.” — Paul Sakal [12:54]
  • Expectation that the next two weeks will see continued uncertainty and drama as Parliament heads toward its next sitting.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• “This is not a threat. They are not coming back. The coalition, for now at least, but indefinitely, is over.” — Natassia Chrysanthos paraphrasing David Littleproud [01:42]
• “If you accept these offers of resignation, we will all resign.” — The Nationals’ threat via David Littleproud [02:21]
• “We've just done exactly what we've told you we were going to do. This is on you.” — The Nationals to Susan Lee [03:35]
• “Even though Littleproud fired the gun, she set up the circumstances.” — Paul Sakal [09:42]
• “There's a lot of blind men in a room searching around for where the walls are.” — Liberal MP, via Paul Sakal [10:37]
• “This is arguably the lowest point in the Liberal Party's history since its founding in the mid-40s, and probably one of the biggest crises on the right flank of politics since Federation.” — Paul Sakal [12:54]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:03–03:49: The break-up announcement and resignation drama
• 03:49–07:08: Political context—Bondi attack, hate speech laws, pressure on PM, rationale for the Nationals’ revolt
• 07:21–11:45: Leadership fallout for Littleproud and Lee, strategic miscalculations, party vulnerability
• 11:45–12:54: New parliamentary numbers, historical significance, prospect of more realignments

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a clear, insider account of a pivotal moment in Australian federal politics. It blends high-stakes political drama, sharp journalistic analysis, and candid reporting on the challenges that now face opposition parties. The tone is urgent yet analytical, with a clear sense that listeners are witnessing a once-in-a-generation event in real time.

Transcript

[A]

Hey, everyone, it's Paul Sakal here. And we're back with a special episode of Inside Politics. Because a few things have happened in Canberra this week, namely the breakup of the federal coalition.

[B]

Nationals leader David Littleproud has confirmed the coalition will split.

[C]

The coalition is over.

[B]

The Liberal Party and the Nationals of course formed that coalition to be in opposition. Splitting for the second time in less than a year, of course, the hundred.

[A]

Year old political alliance which has turned the coalition into a natural party of government in Australia. Earlier on Thursday, Nationals leader David Littleproud announced a split with the Liberal Party after a huge fracas over Labor's hate speech laws where three rebel national senators voted against what Liberals believe to be a party position agreed a few days earlier in the shadow cabinet.

[C]

When we have three of our senators who had the courage of their conviction and did what our party room decided was the right thing to do for them to lose their jobs, we can't accept that. And we made it very clear that there would be a consequence.

[A]

Joining me today is our federal political correspondent, Natasi Chrysanthos.

[B]

Hi, Paul.

[A]

So what does this mean for the coalition? Is the split formal? And what have we learned on Thursday from David Littleproud and Susan Lee?

[B]

So according to Nationals leader David Littleproud, who spoke early on Thursday morning. It's done.

[C]

No, it's done. I spoke to Susan Lee about half an hour ago and made her fully aware. I gave her an opportunity yesterday after we had a party room meeting when she ignored the letter.

[B]

This is not a threat. They are not coming back. The coalition, for now at least, but indefinitely, is over. Now, there was a lot of toing and froing in the last 24 hours as to whether that would be the case. As you mentioned, it all started when three, three national frontbenchers voted against what was assumed to be the joint party position on Labor's hate laws. This breached a concept of shadow cabinet solidarity which insists that everyone in the front bench, all of the leadership, votes with the party's position. Any breaches of this are taken very seriously and deemed to be untenable. And so when they crossed the floor late on Tuesday night, it spurred quick speculation that there would be more afoot. And indeed there was. We had the three senators, Bridget McKenzie, Ross Caddell and Susan McDonald offer their resignation to Susan Lee on the principle that they had preached shadow cabinet solidarity and understood that they should step aside. But it was, it was a bit of a bluff, shall we say? These three resignation letters came with an additional letter from David Littleproud to Susan Lee, saying, if you accept these offers of resignation, we will all resign. So it was an offer of resignation kind of underneath what was a giant threat. Susan Lee was prepared to go for it. She accepted their resignations, potentially assuming that the Nationals wouldn't. Wouldn't follow with their threat, because that would be a huge end to some crazy thing to do. But by Wednesday night, after a 6pm meeting of the Nationals, the remaining MPs in the Coalition front bench, creating a total of 11 people, had all resigned, leaving no Nationals in the coalition frontbench. Susan Lee urged them to reconsider, but they very quickly said, well, we've just done exactly what we've told you we were going to do. This is on you. And so David Littleproud comes up on Thursday morning and says, it's all over.

[A]

I think just worth putting this against a broader context to remember how we got here. We're back in Parliament two weeks earlier than was planned for an emergency sit in off the back of the Bondi massacre. There'd been weeks of fervent calls from the opposition and many others in the community of goodwill saying, we need to get back to Parliament, pass emergency laws to show that we've learnt lessons from Bondi and that we'll create a new security social cohesion infrastructure to ensure that that can never occur again. There was a lot of pressure on the Prime Minister coming into this week after a really difficult summer, facing calls for a royal commission which he rebuffed for a long time and then backtracked on. There was pressure coming in to this week on him to ensure that he got some legislation passed. The Greens and the coalition were against key elements of the legislation and there was lots of discussion about the Prime Minister's authority, whether he had been the one coming into this week with new internal pressure and a sense that he needed to match the moment. The coalition had a little bit of a pepin step, you could say. And so the stunning speed of that narrative being the prevailing narrative as late as maybe Saturday or Sunday, earlier this week to then only three days later, the coalition split in is kind of extraordinary. And I wonder, Natasia, what's the key argument that David Littleproud's put forward as to why this was not in fact the Nationals fault, but was Susan Lee's fault?

[B]

Yeah, the disintegration has indeed been remarkable little prouds. So the reason that the Nationals got to the point they did was that there was chewing and froing in the Nationals party room about whether there had been kind of adequate scrutiny of these laws, whether they'd been too rushed, whether they had enough time to go through them and make sure that they were robust enough that the nationals could tell their people or their constituents in good faith. We've looked at these and we're confident that they're in the interests of Australians. Nothing wrong with that argument. I think that's what most people expect of their elected representatives. So their justification for withholding their support for the laws rather was that labor had done it too quickly.

[C]

This was a rushed process. We are talking about national security matters with complex legislation, complex legislation that should be scrutinised and understood before we're forced to vote on it. That was the disappointing fact of it.

[B]

And that labor had made a mockery of the Westminster system by doing so. And it was all about the kind of rushed and hurried process. I think the big problem there, which Leigh found herself with is that it was her calling for Parliament to come back and pass laws, as you just mentioned, once she had done that and said what. What Australia needs to come together after this moment is new laws and new laws fast. She couldn't come back when. When Albanese had called her to and then refused to be constructive, that would have looked very bad for her. So she, in pursuing this line in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre, locked herself into this position and was not able to get out of it. And she told the coalition and she told the Nazis and she told the Liberals. At this point, it is incumbent on the opposition to be constructive and also for people. Oh, they're taking anti Semitism seriously and they want to do something about it.

[A]

The Jewish community wanted this bill to pass in some way, shape or form.

[B]

So given all of that, you know, and you can see how Susan Lee's decision making over the last month has kind of taken us to this position. What do you think this means for David Littleproud and what does it mean for Susan Lee?

[A]

Well, just on David Littleproud first, a lesser known character in the general public, no doubt, and naturally being the National Party leader, something that city based voters, someone who city based voters wouldn't know much about, he's flown under the radar a little bit this term for his tenuous grip on his party, the Junior Coalition party, There's been a lot of talk about Susan Lee and when her reign will come to an end, and that could be hastened by this crisis. But David Littleproud's in a precarious position himself. He was dragged to vote no against this bill or to allow his senators to vote no against this bill by National Senator Matt Canavan, who's an agitator in the National Party, has a significant right wing libertarian constituency in some ways has more kind of authenticity as a symbol of regional grievance and regional kind of hostility towards city based policies than his leader David Littleproud, who often feels compelled to go with Matt Canavan and execute his policy. And this was another case where Canavan kind of led the charge against this labor bill, the biggest attack on free speech since Robert Menzies tried to ban the Communist party in the 1950s. This is not the way to deal with the tragic events of Bondi we saw last month. Effectively these laws aren't about banning hatred. They're about banning criticism of government policies. And Little Proud after initially suggesting to the Liberal Party that the Nationals could support the bill in ends up in Catevan's position. There are questions in the National Party now about how long Little Prout's leadership can last if his business model is effectively to follow the wishes of his right flank. And his decision to blow up the National Party and resign himself along with other frontbenchers along with the three who were forced to resign effectively because they broke convention is a hugely contentious decision by a National Party leader. He's blown up a political alliance that has been extremely fruitful. That's meant that the coalition has been in power for the majority of time since World War II. And this split, unlike the more brief split after the May election last year, is likely to be much longer. It might lead to national and Liberal Party candidates contesting the same seats. It may lead to national senators losing their Senate positions because they have those spots, because they're number two on a coalition ticket. The national primary vote is only around 4, 5 or 6% at any given time across the country, whereas the Liberal Party vote is in the 20s. So the National Party in many ways needs the Liberals more than the other way around. And so his future is uncertain now just shifting to Lee, there are two schools of thought about the events of the past few days. One is that she has handled this poorly. And even though Little Proud fired the gun, she set up the circumstances, as you just mentioned, Natasia, and she wears the blame. And she even though again there is absolute fury towards Little Proud across both factions of the Liberal Party that she eventually wears the blame because she's the opposition leader and that she's fatally wounded. But there's a strong sentiment in the Liberal Party as well to not reward David Littleproud. Who effectively has dared Liberals to topple Susan Lee today by saying that the coalition couldn't exist, will never exist until she's removed as leader. That's the effect of what he's saying. So it was described to me today that Liberal Party MPs have been on the phone all morning. There's no sense of organisation about when a leadership challenge might occur. There is pretty widespread acknowledgement that even though she may not be entirely to blame for this crisis, that Susan Lee will eventually lose her position over it. But no one is doing the numbers formally. There is no appetite to bring the party room back before Parliament resumes in early February. So there might be a couple of weeks of, you know, speculation about how a Liberal only opposition might look until we actually have this come to a head when MPs return in early February. I think the best quote I heard today from a Liberal MP about the nature of the calls going on is that there's a lot of blind men in a room searching around for where the walls are. People don't really know where to go next. It's dire. There is a sense of depression across the party. But the next few weeks are really unclear.

[B]

I think what this means more broadly is when we do come back to Parliament in a couple of weeks time, we're going to have labor with a 94 seat majority in the House and the opposition is now just the Liberal Party. The National Party's become a crossbench party. In the Senate there are four national senators, there are four one nation senators, like their representation in the Senate is equal to one nation now and in the House it's 28 liberals.

[A]

Something like that.

[B]

Something like that. That is. It's not a strong opposition. And so, you know, very ironically, where it seemed like the last month might put the first real dent in Albanese's stronghold over the Parliament since May, now he's, he's got a. He's dealing with an opposition minus a dozen people or more. Yeah, you know, I think the dynamics of the Parliament will just continue to change and we're yet to see where they'll land, especially with the kind of spectre of one nation hovering over this and, you know, the possibility that there's more, there's more movement or more defections as perhaps some gnats choose to back the winning horse, which according to some polling is one nation.

[A]

Yeah, there's a lot of ups and downs in politics, but some moments are kind of generational and historic. And this is arguably the lowest point in the Liberal Party's history since its founding in the mid-40s, and probably one of the biggest crises on the right flank of politics since Federation. So if the last three days is anything to go by, the next two weeks will be a wild ride until we're back here in Canberra for another sitting week. Thank you for joining us. Natassio thank you. You can read this story and all our political news on our websites, theage.com au or thesmh.com au Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong, with help from Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendry. Week and if you're wondering where our esteemed host, Jacqueline Maley is, she'll be back next week. Before you go, follow INSIDE Politics and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Paul Sakal, and thank you for listening.