Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Linda Botterill, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

The short-lived split between the Nationals and the Liberal Party after last year’s election has been followed by another breakup less than nine months later.

The Nationals are publicly stating they cannot work under Sussan Ley’s leadership. Provided there’s no rekindling of the relationship, this is the end of a coalition arrangement that’s survived for more than a century, albeit with the occasional hiccup.

As dramatic as this seems, it’s not the first time it has happened. Earle Page resigned as leader of the (then) Country Party in 1939 because he could not work under Liberal prime minister Robert Menzies, leading to a temporary breakup.

Even earlier, the Country Party made it a condition of establishing the first Coalition that Prime Minister Billy Hughes be replaced by the Nationalist Party’s Stanley Bruce.

But this time, the Nationals are much weaker than they were in the past. Facing perceived political threats from One Nation and a revolving door of leaders in the past decade, the party may benefit from some time to regroup.

Access to power

The Country Party emerged as a rural counterweight to the perceived urban bias of the other political parties in the first quarter of the 20th century.

In a clear statement of independence, the Country Party’s first federal leader, William McWilliams told the parliament in March 1920 the party was not seeking any alliances or “collusion”. It would steer its own course.

This, however, did not last long. The Coalition has been a consistent feature of the political landscape since 1923.

The Country Party, which would go on to become the National Party, is Australia’s second oldest, after Labor. Because of the coalition arrangement, it has been in government more often than not over that period. As a result, the party has wielded policy power arguably out of proportion to the number of votes it attracts.

The Liberal National Party arrangement in Queensland aside, the Nationals have resisted calls for the parties to amalgamate. Both the Liberals and the Nationals have benefited from the coalition.

The Liberals have relied on National Party numbers on all but two occasions to form government. Meanwhile, the Nationals have gained access to key cabinet posts of importance to rural Australia, such as trade and commerce.

Particularly under John “Black Jack” McEwen – who had a brief prime ministerial stint in the 1960s – the party wielded real influence over Australia’s economic policy direction. For instance, he drove the negotiation of a trade agreement with Japan. More broadly, McEwen successfully pushed for tariff protection for Australia’s manufacturing industries.

Over the years, the Nationals have crossed the floor over tariff policy, the restructure of the Australian Wheat Board and other issues of direct concern to the party’s constituency.

Each time, these events have highlighted something that many tend to forget: the Coalition was never one party, but two distinctly different ones, with different constituencies and often different priorities.

History repeating

The events of this week are also not the first time the parties have disagreed while in opposition, with the Liberals supporting a Labor government bill and the Nationals voting against it.

In 1973, the Nationals opposed the Whitlam government’s Industries Assistance Commission Bill. They argued the commission (the predecessor to the Productivity Commission) would introduce central planning by stealth and “be usurping the functions of many government departments”.

But there’s an important difference. Between 1972 and 1974, the then Country Party and the Liberals were not in coalition. They did not re-form the Coalition after Labor won the 1972 election. In the interim, both parties were free to vote in parliament in line with their own policies.

Why stay together?

While coalition makes sense to form government, the persistence of the arrangement when in opposition is more perplexing.

The Liberal-National Party Coalition is a very peculiar beast. It’s unlike any coalition arrangement anywhere in the world. Elsewhere, minor parties come together only after an election and negotiate a way to form government.

The apparent permanence of the Australian arrangements has contributed to the current unedifying situation. There is no reason why two different political parties in opposition would agree with one another on everything and vote accordingly in parliament.

The crisis here is a direct result of the two parties, largely for historical reasons, persisting with an uncomfortable coalition that is not necessary while they are in opposition, as was demonstrated between 1972 and 1974.

And over the past four decades, the Nationals have faced a different Australia from the one in which McEwen was so influential. The deregulation of the economy in the 1980s and 1990s, which included reduced support for the agricultural sector, put the Nationals on the back foot in policy terms.

---

Read more:
Nationals break Coalition, declaring it ‘untenable’ and blaming Ley

---

Rather than being the driver of pro-rural policies, they were defending Coalition policies their supporters disliked. Gun reforms introduced after the Port Arthur tragedy in 1996 is a case in point. Nationals leader Tim Fischer played a central role in supporting Liberal Prime Minister John Howard’s position.

It’s left the Nationals in a weaker electoral position over time. In the current parliament, Labor and the Liberals (including Liberal-aligned Liberal National Party members) each hold more rural seats than the Nationals. Ironically, given recent events, Tim Fischer’s old seat is now held by Ley.

There’s also the rural independents, making inroads into former National Party strongholds.

Depending on what recommendations are in the currently unpublished report into the Liberals’ performance at the 2025 election, the Nationals may find that this time, the Liberals will decide the coalition agreement is not worth the grief while in opposition.

A break would provide Sussan Ley and her team with the opportunity to reassess their party’s values and rebuild in a way that improves their chances of picking up the urban seats they so desperately need to form government. They may conclude this is easier to do without the Nationals.

Linda Botterill has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Instead of a marriage, the Coalition should be an on-again, off-again affair – https://theconversation.com/instead-of-a-marriage-the-coalition-should-be-an-on-again-off-again-affair-274105

Pacific Media Watch

The Paris-based global media freedom group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the guilty verdict against Filipino journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio whose case has been challenged since her arrest almost six years ago.

Cumpio was found guilty today on a charge of “financing terrorism” in the Philippines, and now faces a sentence of between 12 and 18 years in prison.

RSF released a statement condemning the verdict and questioning the Philippines government’s commitment to a free press.

“We are appalled by this verdict. Three RSF investigations and evidence presented in court by Frenchie Mae Cumpio’s lawyers clearly show how fabricated this case has been from the very beginning,” said RSF Asia-Pacific Bureau advocacy manager Aleksandra Bielakowska
in the statement in Taipei today.

Local and international groups have condemned the conviction of 26-year-old community journalist Cumpio, saying it sends a “chilling message” to media, activists, and even ordinary people in the Philippines, reports Rappler.

“Frenchie Mae Cumpio’s conviction represents a devastating failure on the part of the Philippine justice system and the authorities’ blatant disregard for press freedom,” said Bielakowska.

“The Philippines should serve as an international example of protecting media freedom — not a perpetrator that red-tags, prosecutes and imprisons journalists simply for doing their work.

‘Highlights systemic issues’
“This sentence only highlights the systemic issues in the country and the urgent need for comprehensive reforms.

“We renew our call on President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to act without delay to end this injustice and release Frenchie Mae Cumpio immediately.

“Without his decisive action, there will be no meaningful difference from previous administrations that showed no regard for upholding a free press.”

Committee to Protect Journalists Asia-Pacific director Beh Lih Yi said the court ruling was “absurd” and that the promises made by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to uphold press freedom were “nothing but empty talk”.

She added that the Philippines must stop criminalising journalists.

According to the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index, the Philippines is 116th out of 180 countries surveyed.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on January 22, 2026.

Trump sows ‘chaotic cruelty’ while Canadian PM Carney reminds the world it doesn’t have to play along
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University In what has become a familiar, exhausting cycle, the rest of the world is left with the futile task of trying to dredge meaning from the wreckage left behind by US President Donald

The United States’ new military strategy is a case of ‘AI peacocking’
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University The United States is set to become “the world’s undisputed [artificial intelligence-enabled] fighting force”. At least that’s the view of the country’s Department of War, which earlier this month released a new strategy to accelerate the deployment

Pro-independence FLNKS ‘unequivocally’ reject latest agreement for New Caledonia
By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk The signing of a new agreement on New Caledonia’s political and financial future has triggered a fresh wave of reactions from across the French territory’s political chessboard. The Elysée-Oudinot agreement was signed on Monday, January 19, in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron as well

Nationals break Coalition, declaring it ‘untenable’ and blaming Ley
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal Coalition is dead, with Nationals leader David Littleproud on Thursday morning declaring it “untenable” after Liberal leader Sussan Ley stared down the Liberals’ minor partner. This followed all Nationals frontbenchers resigning from the shadow ministry on Wednesday night,

Australia’s frightening new ‘hate speech’ laws are clearly aimed at pro-Palestine groups
COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone Australia’s Labor government has successfully passed a “hate speech” bill that’s plainly aimed, at least in part, at suppressing pro-Palestine organizations as “hate groups”. Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about the new laws, saying their extremely vague wording, lack of procedural fairness and low thresholds for implementation mean groups

Beneath Antarctica’s largest ice shelf, a hidden ocean is revealing its secrets
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Stevens, Professor in Ocean Physics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau; National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) Stevens/NIWA/K061, CC BY-NC-ND Beneath Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf lies one of the least measured oceans on Earth – a vast, dark cavity roughly twice the volume of

Shakespeare reinvented: how Chloé Zhao blends East and West philosophies in Hamnet
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yanyan Hong, Adjunct Fellow in Communication, Media and Film Studies, Adelaide University Agata Grzybowska © 2025 Focus Features In Hamnet, Agnes Hathaway (Jessie Buckley) asks William Shakespeare (Paul Mescal) to introduce himself by telling her a story. It is her way of seeing who this man really

NZ is again being soaked this summer – record ocean heat helps explain it
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Scholar, NCAR; Affiliate Faculty, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Sanka Vidanagama/Getty Images For many people this summer – especially those across Northland Auckland and Coromandel – showery days and bursts of heavy rain have become all too familiar. This week, fresh downpours on

Humanity’s oldest known cave art has been discovered in Sulawesi
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maxime Aubert, Professor of Archaeological Science, Griffith University Supplied When we think of the world’s oldest art, Europe usually comes to mind, with famous cave paintings in France and Spain often seen as evidence this was the birthplace of symbolic human culture. But new evidence from Indonesia

View from The Hill: Coalition crisis explodes after Sussan Ley wields the whip against defiant Nationals
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The federal Coalition was imploding on Wednesday night, with all Nationals frontbenchers, including leader David Littleproud, quitting the shadow ministry. They were retaliating against Opposition Leader Sussan Ley’s insistence three Nationals senators must resign for defying shadow cabinet solidarity. The

Grains of sand prove people – not glaciers – transported Stonehenge rocks
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Clarke, Research Associate, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University Ask people how Stonehenge was built and you’ll hear stories of sledges, ropes, boats and sheer human determination to haul stones from across Britain to Salisbury Plain, in south-west England. Others might mention giants, wizards,

Provocateur attacks Australian Palestine peace activists protesting over Gaza genocide
By Sarah Hathway in Djilang/Geelong A group of Australian Palestine supporters in the state of Victoria have been attacked as tensions continue over the right to protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza in the wake of the Bondi massacre last month. As Geelong and Victoria Southwest branch members of Independent Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) were

Hate crime laws may have unintended consequences – including chilling free speech
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney What impact will the criminal hate provisions in the Albanese government’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act 2026 have on the ability of ordinary Australians to protest? An earlier version contained a criminal offence of promoting or

As Trump’s threats over Greenland escalate, will Europe use its ‘trade bazooka’?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong The renewed campaign by United States President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland has escalated, with tariff threats against European allies. Asked on Tuesday how far he is willing to

‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance
US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine. In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies

‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance
US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine. In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies

‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance
US cybersecurity company Palantir has received a high-level Australian government security assessment despite concerns about its surveillance and complicity in the Gaza genocide in occupied Palestine. In November 2025, Palantir Technologies was assessed as meeting the protected level under the Australian Information Security Registered Assessors Programme (IRAP). This protection is a key requirement for companies

High Seas Treaty welcome news for SPREP in uncertain times
By Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor In an otherwise mixed month for the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), its leadership is hailing a win for Pacific conservation efforts with the UN Treaty on the High Seas coming into effect. The legally binding UN High Seas Treaty officially received more than 60 ratifications, and following

Keith Rankin Analysis – Greenland: National Politics versus Geopolitics
Analysis by Keith Rankin, 21 January 2026 Truth in world affairs is not a single expert-narrated story. National Politics In our ‘official’ ‘United Nations’ world – the world referenced by the expression the international rules-based order – there are about 200 sovereign nation states (ie ‘countries’) which are equal members of the global community of

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

In what has become a familiar, exhausting cycle, the rest of the world is left with the futile task of trying to dredge meaning from the wreckage left behind by US President Donald Trump.

As Trump departed the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, much was made of the content of his rambling, hour-long speech because the president had so escalated his rhetoric over Greenland.

Trump had said the United States would take the semi-autonomous Danish territory “whether they like it or not”. He had threatened direct tariffs on NATO allies that opposed him. Europe was considering reciprocal tariffs and had even gotten to the point of sending troops to Greenland as a demonstration of resolve.

NATO itself seemed on the verge of collapse.

While some analysis suggests a reprieve, there is no permanence to Trump’s statements. This president plays with lives, and the future of entire countries, with no care for the consequences.

‘Big, beautiful piece of ice’

Those who seek clarity in the chaos may have been relieved to hear the president make what may seem, on the face of it, a definitive statement of his position on Greenland:

I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.

That may well seem a clear statement of intent. But attempting to impose clarity by stripping sentences of their context risks dramatically misinterpreting that intent.

Even the sentences around this one hint that Trump has far from given up on acquiring that “big, beautiful piece of ice”.

In a speech riddled with inaccuracies, the president continued:

All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland. Where were we already had it as a trustee but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and others in World War Two. We gave it back to them. We were a powerful force then, but we are a much more powerful force now.

Never mind that Greenland was never the US’ to “give” or “take” back – this is a president who has long demonstrated himself impervious to fact checking.

Trump went on to describe, in detail, his plan to build new battleships for the US Navy. The implication is fairly straightforward. Trump’s United States may not have to use force, but it can if it wants to.

Be grateful, or else

In this same section of the speech, Trump fell back on a familiar theme – that the US bears all the burden of global security, with none of the benefits. As he put it,

We’ve never gotten anything except we pay for NATO.

(Never mind the hundreds of NATO troops who died fighting with the Americans in Afghanistan after September 11, the only time Article 5 of the NATO alliance has been invoked).

That Trumpian resentment was only fuelled, unsurprisingly, by a striking speech by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carney’s excoriation of the Trump administration’s attacks on the world order was unlikely to be met with anything else from Trump.

Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also. But they’re not. I watched their prime minister yesterday. He wasn’t so grateful, they should be grateful to us. Canada, Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that Mark [Carney], the next time you make your statements.

The Trump administration is seeking “ownership” of the western hemisphere – that is, all of the continents of north and south America and surrounds. By implication, that leaves the other hemispheres to other great powers and strongmen, with whom Trump “has always had a very good relationship”.

This is the violent world Trump wants to create – a world divided into fiefdoms run by Mafia-style bosses paid simpering tributes by their weaker supplicants.

The rhetoric of white supremacy

Trump went to Europe to give a speech dripping with disdain for the people who live there. In contrast to those leaders with whom he has a “great relationship” (Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un, et al), the Trump administration sees Europe and European leaders not just as weak, but as responsible for the demise of western civilisation – something only he can reverse.

After a racist rant directed at Somali immigrants, Trump claimed:

The explosion of prosperity and conclusion and progress that built the West did not come from our tax codes. It ultimately came from our very special culture. This is the precious inheritance that America and Europe have in common.

Trump’s talk of inheritance, of his pure European bloodlines, of the “mass import of foreign cultures” reveal, once again, the ideological drive behind his administration and its attempt to radically remake not just the US but the world.

While the president may have softened his rhetoric on Greenland specifically, this drive is a constant for the administration.

Live the truth

This is why Carney’s speech was so striking. It identified, in clear language, the truth of what the Trump administration is doing.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Trump may have temporarily “backed down” on Greenland, but as Carney put it, the “rupture in the world order” cannot be undone. But what comes next is not inevitable, and it does not have to be left up to Trump.

Carney’s speech is a clear indication that while the American president will not break his constant cycle of chaotic cruelty, the rest of the world may be attempting to step outside it.

There is meaning in that.

Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Trump sows ‘chaotic cruelty’ while Canadian PM Carney reminds the world it doesn’t have to play along – https://theconversation.com/trump-sows-chaotic-cruelty-while-canadian-pm-carney-reminds-the-world-it-doesnt-have-to-play-along-274099

COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

Australia’s Labor government has successfully passed a “hate speech” bill that’s plainly aimed, at least in part, at suppressing pro-Palestine organizations as “hate groups”.

Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about the new laws, saying their extremely vague wording, lack of procedural fairness and low thresholds for implementation mean groups can now be banned if they make people feel unsafe or upset without ever actually posing any physical harm to anyone.

For me the most illuminating insight into what these laws are actually designed to do came up in an ABC interview with Attorney-General Michelle Rowland on Tuesday.

Over and over again throughout the interview Rowland was asked by ABC’s David Speers to clarify whether the new laws could see activist groups banned for criticising Israel and opposing its genocidal atrocities in a way that causes Jewish Australians to feel upset feelings, and she refused to rule out the possibility every single time.

Australia’s hate speech law            Video: ABC 7.30

“Let’s just go to what it means in practice: would a group be banned if it accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid, and as a result, Jewish Australians do feel intimidated?” Speers asked.

Rowland didn’t say no, instead saying “there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied there” and saying that agencies like the AFP and ASIO would need to make assessments of the situation.

“Okay, just coming back to the practical example though, if a group is suggesting that Israel is guilty of genocide, what other measures or factors would need to be met before they can be banned?” Speers asked.

“Under the provisions that are now before the Parliament, there would also need to be able to demonstrate that there are for example, some aspects of state laws that deal with racial vilification that have been met as well,” Rowland responded, again leaving the possibility wide open.

Australia’s frightening new ‘hate speech’ law         Video reading by Tim Foley

(It should here be noted that Greens justice spokesperson David Shoebridge has pointed out that “state laws that deal with racial vilification” can include “tests like ‘ridicule’ and ‘contempt’,” meaning people could wind up spending years in prison for associating with groups that were essentially banned for upsetting someone’s feelings.)

The only reason the Attorney General wouldn’t rule out the criminalisation of dissent and criticism of foreign countries and heads of state is if that’s exactly what Labor intends to cover here. pic.twitter.com/rV3e8TRB0l

— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) January 20, 2026

“Just to be clear, if a group is saying Israel is engaged in genocide, or they’re saying that Israel should no longer exist, that is not enough for that group to be banned?” asked Speers.

“Well, again, that would depend on the other evidence that is gathered, David, so I would be reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct that you are describing here,” Rowland replied.

All this waffling can be safely interpreted as a yes. Rowland is saying yes.

Speers pushed this question three different times from three different angles because it’s the most immediate and obvious concern about these new laws, and instead of reassuring the public that they can’t be used to target pro-Palestine groups and aren’t intended for that purpose, the nation’s Attorney General confirmed that it was indeed possible.

So that’s it then. Under the new laws we can expect to see the Israel lobby crying about Jewish Australians feeling threatened and unsafe by every pro-Palestine group under the sun, and then from there all it takes is the thumbs-up from ASIO to put the group on the banned list and cage anyone who continues associating with it for up to 15 years.

The bill that ended up making it through Parliament is actually a narrowed down version of an even scarier bill that was scrapped by Labor due to lack of support which went after individuals as well as groups.

The earlier version contained “racial vilification” components which could have been used to target any individual who voices criticisms of Israel or Zionism – so it doesn’t look like I’ll be doing any prison time for my writing any time soon. The new version moved its crosshairs to groups with the obvious intent to disrupt pro-Palestine organising in Australia.

And we’re already seeing the Israel lobby pushing to resurrect the laws targeting individuals. A new ABC article titled “Jewish leaders call for vilification offence to be revisited as Coalition splits over watered-down hate laws” cites Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler and Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim arguing that the new laws don’t go far enough.

So we can expect the Australian Israel lobby to both (A) push to get pro-Palestine groups classified as “hate groups” under the new laws and (B) keep pushing to make it illegal for individuals to criticize Israel in the form of new “racial vilification” laws.

They’ll keep trying over and over again, from government to government to government, until they get their way.

This comes after Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council executive manager Joel Burnie publicly stated that he wants to ban pro-Palestine protests and criticism of Israel throughout the nation, and as prosecutors drag an Australian woman to court for an antisemitic hate crime because she accidentally butt-dialed a Jewish nutritionist and left a blank voicemail.

So things are already ugly, and they’re getting worse.

It’s so creepy knowing I share a country with people who want to destroy my right to normal political speech. It would never occur to me to try to kill Zionists’ right to free speech, but they very openly want to kill mine.

They want to permanently silence me and anyone like me. I find that profoundly disturbing.

Israel supporters are horrible people. And I hope my saying that hurts their feelings.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The federal Coalition is dead, with Nationals leader David Littleproud on Thursday morning declaring it “untenable” after Liberal leader Sussan Ley stared down the Liberals’ minor partner.

This followed all Nationals frontbenchers resigning from the shadow ministry on Wednesday night, in protest at Ley’s retaliation against three Nationals senators, Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald, breaking shadow cabinet solidarity.

“We can not be part of a shadow ministry under Sussan Ley”, Littleproud told a news conference early Thursday.

“No one in our ministry could work in a Sussan Ley ministry.”

This leaves the Liberals alone as the opposition, with the Nationals as a crossbench party with no role in the official opposition.

Littleproud said the parties would be “two different armies” going forward for “the time being”.

The crisis dramatically increases the threat to Ley’s leadership, which was already unstable and not expected to last. Although Littleproud would not acknowledge it, the Nationals are encouraging a change in the Liberal leadership.

Most immediately, Ley will have to reshuffle her frontbench with Liberal members only.

Littleproud said the “sovereign position of the National party had been disrespected” and the three senators had been “courageous”.

“We were not going to stand by and have three of our senators be made scapegoats. We were going to stand with them because they did the right thing.”

The senators voted against the government’s hate crimes legislation, which passed with Liberal support. Their action was in accord with the Nationals’ decision to oppose the legislation. The Nationals disagreed in particular with the bill’s provision to enable the banning of hate-spruiking organisations. The party argued it was too wide and would endanger free speech.

Ley insisted there had been a shadow cabinet decision to obtain changes to the bill and then support it. Littleproud said a final decision on the legislation had not been made by the shadow cabinet or the joint parties.

Littleproud accused Ley of mismanaging the situation.

He stressed he had warned Ley of the consequences if she accepted the three senators’ resignations.

He spoke to her again early Thursday morning before announcing the decision. She held to her position.

This is the second break in the Coalition since the election.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Nationals break Coalition, declaring it ‘untenable’ and blaming Ley – https://theconversation.com/nationals-break-coalition-declaring-it-untenable-and-blaming-ley-274025

By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

The signing of a new agreement on New Caledonia’s political and financial future has triggered a fresh wave of reactions from across the French territory’s political chessboard.

The Elysée-Oudinot agreement was signed on Monday, January 19, in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron as well as most of New Caledonia’s politicians.

But the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front), the largest component of the pro-independence movement, had chosen not to travel to Paris.

The new deal, signed by parties represented at New Caledonia’s Congress (its local parliament), including members of the moderate pro-independence PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) and UPM (Union Progressiste en Mélanésie), who have split from FLNKS, all signed the agreement.

PALIKA and UPM are formed into a Parliamentary caucus called “UNI” (Union Nationale pour l’Indépendance).

The Elysée-Oudinot text was described as being a “complement” bearing “clarifications” to a previous agreement project, signed in July 2025 in the small city of Bougival, west of Paris.

The FLNKS, even though it initially signed the Bougival text, rejected it in bloc a few days after returning to New Caledonia.

As French President Macron called all politicians back to the table to refine the July 2025 talks, FLNKS announced it would not travel to Paris, saying the project which would serve as the basis for further talks did not meet their short-term goals of full sovereignty.

They said the Bougival text and all related documents were in substance “lures” of independence and that they regarded the French state as being responsible for a “rupture of dialogue”.

As the Bougival initial text, its Elysée-Oudinot complement maintains the notion of creating a “state of New Caledonia”, its correlated “nationality” and introduces a new set of commitments from France, including a package to re-launch the local economy, severely damaged as a result of the riots that broke out in May 2024.

The new text also mentions granting more powers to each of New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and the Loyalty Islands group), including in terms of revenue collection by way of taxes.

This, the FLNKS protested, could erode the powers of New Caledonian provinces and reinforce economic and social inequalities between them.

Reacting to the signing in Paris in their absence, the FLNKS, in a media release on Wednesday, condemned and rejected the new text “unequivocally”.

FLNKS President Christian Téin, in the release, said the new agreement endorses a “passage en force” (forceful passage) and is “incompatible” with the way the FLNKS envisages Kanaky’s “decolonisation path”, including in the way it is defined under the United Nations decolonisation process.

It also criticises a document signed “without the Indigenous people” of New Caledonia.

The pro-independence party also expressed its disapproval of what it calls a “pseudo-accord”.

“We will use every political tool available to us to re-alert, again and again the public”, FLNKS politburo member Gilbert Tyuienon told public broadcaster Nouvelle-Calédonie La Première at the weekend.

French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou had reiterated, even after the signing in Paris, that the door remained open to FLNKS.

In reaction to the signing, other parties have also expressed their respective points of view.

“Why didn’t they come [to Paris] to defend their positions, since they were invited?” Southern Province President (pro-France) Sonia Backès wrote on social networks.

“Does UNI not represent the Kanak people too?” she added.

French Minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou said this new set of agreements reflected a “shared will to look at the future together”.

“Now the territory can walk on its two legs”.

Some of the pro-France parties, who want New Caledonia to remain a part of France, have however acknowledged that even though the new documents were signed, the road ahead remained rocky in terms of its implementation in the French Parliament, through a local referendum and related constitutional amendments.

‘We’ve done the easiest part’ — Metzdorf
New Caledonia’s MP at the French National Assembly, Nicolas Metzdorf said a huge challenge still remained ahead.

“We’ve done the easiest, the hardest part remains . . .  This is to obtain the [French] Parliament’s support, both Houses, to enact the accords in the French Constitution.”

Following a very tight schedule in the coming weeks, the texts will be submitted to the vote of both Parliament Houses, first separately, then in a joint chamber format (the Congress, for constitutional amendment purposes).

Then the text is also to be submitted to New Caledonia’s population for approval through a referendum-like “consultation”.

In a way of foretaste of what promises to be heated debates in coming weeks, with a backdrop of strong divisions in the French Parliament, Moutchou and far-left MP Bastien Lachaud (La France Insoumise, LFI) waged a war of words on Tuesday in the National Assembly.

Responding to Lachaud’s accusations which echoed those from FLNKS, Moutchou denounced the “passage en force” claim and the absence of “consensus”.

“FLNKS was never excluded from anything. It was invited, it was approached, it was awaited, just like the other ones. It chose not to turn up,” Moutchou said.

“The politics of empty chair was never conducive to a compromise,” she said as Assembly Speaker Yaël Braun-Pivet had to call the LFI caucus back to order.

Strong financial component
Some of the financial aspects of the deals include a five-year “reconstruction” plan for New Caledonia, for a total of 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion), presented to New Caledonia’s politicians by French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu.

This chapter also comes with revisiting previous French loans for more than 1 billion euros, which New Caledonia found almost impossible to repay (with an indebtedness rate of 360 percent).

The loans, under the agreement’s financial chapter, would be renegotiated, re-scheduled and possibly converted into non-refundable grants.

Meanwhile a two-year repayment holiday (2026-2027) would be applied, while a far-reaching reform programme is expected to be pursued.

“What people really expected was [economic] prospects. This is the main part of this accord, the economic refoundation,” commented Vaimu’a Muliava, from Wallis-based Eveil Océanien party after the Paris talks.

The new financial arrangements would also provide a much-needed lifebuoy to critically threatened mechanisms in New Caledonia, such as its retirement scheme or the power supply company.

More injections for the nickel industry
Another 200 million euros is also earmarked to bail out several nickel mining companies facing critical hardships.

This includes assistance aimed at supporting business and employment for French historical Société le Nickel (SLN), Prony Resources and NMC (Nickel Mining Company, which has ties to Korea’s POSCO).

The French government has also pledged to follow-up on a request to New Caledonia’s nickel mining and refining declared a “strategic” sector by the European Union.

“The agreement’s economic chapter was as necessary as the political one,” said New Caledonia’s President Alcide Ponga after the signing.

Another cash injection was directed to this year’s budget for New Caledonia, which benefits from a direct cash injection of 58 million euros.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz