I’m not sure I believe in coincidences anymore. Not in politics anyway.
It was no coincidence that when Opposition leader Peter Dutton was forced in front of media other than the Sky After Dark crew during the election campaign, he was exposed as the unappealing choice for Prime Minister that he most certainly is. It was no coincidence that after one of the Coalition’s most thumping electoral losses in history, that they chose their first female leader (glass cliff, anyone?).
Is it a coincidence, then, that the first Coalition break up in almost four decades – a spectacular and confounding one, by any standard – occurred within one week of the Liberal Party doing just that: electing its first ever female leader?
Of course not.
The Coalition suffered a catastrophic defeat on May 3. The reasons for the defeat will be parsed by pundits for a long time to come, but let me propose a few obvious ones.
The first is the fantastical, utterly absurd, $600 billion nuclear power policy. A policy so bad, so friendless, that the Coalition couldn’t even bring themselves to talk about it during the election campaign.
The second was the Coalition leader himself, Peter Dutton, who for 3 years dragged the Coalition as far to the right as he could manage, with his vehement opposition to environmental reform, his refusal to acknowledge that bad things are happening in Palestine, and his decision to set progress on Indigenous affairs back decades by opposing the Voice referendum.
On a similar theme, let’s talk about the Nationals themselves. They may have broadly maintained the number of seats they hold in Parliament, but their nationalistic, retrograde populism was a drag on the Liberal Party in the areas it needed to pick up seats – urban Australia. As it stands, it looks like the Liberals hold a paltry 10 per cent of all urban seats in the country.
(The Nationals also seem to be severely overinflating the extent of their election win, and the power that comes with that. After all, they captured less than 4% of the primary vote nationwide. That’s less than one-fifth of the Liberal primary vote, less than a third of the Greens’, around half of the independents’ and considerably less – a bit more than half – of One Nation’s.)
And yet. Against this background, a mere seven days after the Liberal Party elected Sussan Ley as its first female leader, and within days of her mother’s death, David Littleproud charged down to her home electorate and made a series of absurd demands that Sussan Ley could not possibly accept. The most absurd demand was that she maintain the nuclear fantasy policy that partly lost the Liberals the election, and that the Nationals no longer be held to the Coalition-defining concept of shadow cabinet solidarity.
It’s preposterous. I posit that there is no way David Littleproud would have even taken such demands to a male leader, let alone blow up the Coalition agreement when the demands were not immediately acceded to.
Sussan Ley’s position – clearly stated prior to David Littleproud making his demands – that she will take a slow, steady and collaborative approach to policy formation is entirely reasonable. Particularly after such an electoral spanking. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
It is seldom possible to prove without doubt that sexism or misogyny – unconscious bias – is the real reason underlying an event like this break up. If it was put to David Littleproud that he only made this ridiculous blunder because he was negotiating with a woman, he would obviously deny it.
But ladies, now I’ve pointed it out, you know it’s true. After decades of experience with it, we know it in our bones.
And it is way too big a coincidence.
Support Women’s Agenda! We are 100% independent and women-owned. We’re covering the Federal Election from the perspective of what matters to women, and always keeping the issues that matter for women on the daily agenda. Foundation memberships are just $5 a month.
Bonus: you’ll receive our weekly editor’s wrap of the key stories to know every Saturday.