Aggrieved Liberals stamp their feet, testing Sussan Ley’s authority

As any leader of a political party knows, when you demote people they can become difficult, or worse.

Among Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s multiple problems are two very unhappy former frontbenchers. Sarah Henderson, who was opposition education spokeswoman last term, and Jane Hume, who had a high profile in finance, were dumped to the backbench in Ley’s reshuffle.

There were mixed views about Ley’s judgement. But it was clear neither would take the relegation lying down.

Henderson at the time declared she found it regrettable that “a number of high-performing Liberal women have been overlooked or demoted”. Hume said, ominously, “there is something very liberating about being on the backbench and being able to speak without having to stick to the party line and without having to stick to talking points”.

This week, both women used their freedom to freelance.

On the government’s student debt legislation, Henderson made her presence felt by moving an amendment designed to cap indexation. It got only a handful of votes from the crossbench. The opposition abstained.

Also in the Senate, Hume put down her marker, on a motion moved by One Nation repudiating the net zero target. Predictably, Matt Canavan (Nationals) and Alex Antic (right-wing South Australian Liberal) voted for the motion. The Liberals’ official position – given they’re in no-man’s land, reviewing their policy – was to abstain. But Hume and Andrew McLachlan (a moderate from South Australia), voted against the motion.

Hume has kept a regular spot on Sky News Australia, an opportunity to use her “liberated” voice.

Then there’s Andrew Hastie who, despite being a frontbencher, doesn’t feel under collective discipline. Hastie, whom some see as a possible future leader, didn’t get his wish for a non-security portfolio in the reshuffle. Instead, the former defence spokesman was moved to home affairs, a broad job that presents many opportunities.

When the Western Australian Liberal council passed a motion rejecting net zero at the weekend, Hastie gave his enthusiastic backing.

He then got stuck into state Liberal leader Basil Zempilas, who had said the WA parliamentary party supported “the status quo on the net zero targets”.

Hastie fired off a newsletter to supporters declaring, “This motion – moved and supported by my division of Canning – reflects a growing concern from mainstream Australians about our expensive energy bills, unreliable supply, and the erosion of our national sovereignty.

"I was therefore disappointed to see [Zempilas] publicly dismiss those concerns.”

The government was quick to exploit this, with Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen telling parliament on Thursday Hastie “will undermine any opposition leader he can find. He’s taking a practice run in Perth for what he intends to do in Canberra, some time in the next 12 months as we all know. He loves undermining leaders of the opposition.”

Peter Dutton was a disaster for the Liberals, as the election drubbing showed. But he was (mostly) able to impose substantial unity on the parliamentary party.

That was seen as a big achievement. But it had two downsides. At the time, it stifled what might have been useful internal debate, or warnings, that could have helped the opposition. And now it has left some Liberals who felt they held their tongues last time determined not to do so again. Even those not aggrieved for specific reasons are likely to be more inclined to be outspoken this term.

Ley will not be able to impose the degree of discipline that Dutton did.

Meanwhile, as the aggrieved Liberals were stamping their feet, their colleague James Paterson, new to his post of finance spokesman, was seeking to repair some of the political damage the opposition did by its attacks on the public service.

The hostility to the public service goes back a long way – some might argue it’s ingrained in the Liberals’ DNA. It was strong during Scott Morrison’s prime ministership.

Dutton promised massive cuts to the Canberra-based public service, which even the Liberals admit would have been unattainable. Hume’s plan to force public servants back into the office five days a week, a policy the opposition had to drop midway through the election campaign, has also left deep suspicion.

For the Liberals, attacking the public service has always appeared a ready road to savings. But the political dangers are obvious. It is not the seats directly affected – the ACT always votes Labor. But assaults on the public service can be readily segued by the Coalition’s opponents into code for attacks on government services.

Paterson, who’s also shadow minister for the public service, told an Australian Financial Review summit on government services, “It is not lost on me that promising significant cuts to the size of the APS or changing the way public servants work from home was poorly received and not just here in Canberra.”

Paterson said, “I have great respect for public servants, and I recognise the significant contributions they make to our democracy.

"The Coalition aspires to have a respectful, constructive relationship with the APS. We want a motivated, high-performing public service that works in genuine partnership with government to deliver the services Australians rely on. And we want it to do so as a trusted steward of taxpayer dollars.”

On the basis of history, the public servants will remain suspicious of the Liberals; Paterson’s aim will be to mitigate that as much as possible.

In a twist on the working-from-home debate, the secretary of the health department, Blair Comley, this week expressed some concern about the implications of the trend.

“I don’t think anyone is suggesting we go back to a rigid five days a week and no flexibility,” Comley told the AFR summit. But he was worried about what was happening to “learning, development, mentoring, and what’s happening to the social capital”.

Knowing the sensitivities of the issue, Comley was extremely careful with his words. Hume, having been burned once, was not putting her hand into this particular fire again. “That is not a policy that the Coalition has now, not a policy that we took to the election”, she said. There is a limit to being liberated.