The huge problem with Andrew Hastie's political gamble after being told he would not lead the Liberal's migration policy: PVO
Andrew Hastie's decision to step off the frontbench citing twin policy issues of opposing the net zero emissions target alongside cuts to immigration is going to have a profound impact on his political future and perhaps that of the Liberal Party.
It's not the sort of move he can make and then return to the frontbench as anything other than the new leader, or perhaps under a different leader who shifts the party's direction.
It might even result in an endgame that splits the party, with the rise of a new Conservative Party modelled on the reform movement in the UK. But I doubt that, given Australia's strong two-party system combined with compulsory voting.
Splitting the right-of-centre vote further, when teals are already eroding support in inner-city (once safe Liberal) seats, would be catastrophic for the electability of non-Labor parties.
While Hastie would certainly be cognisant of the significance of his move, I'm not sure he's fully aware of the limits it places on his own parliamentary future.
For example, he can't hope to serve on a recalibrated frontbench under a new leader unless they also shift party policy. To do so without such change would make a mockery of the stand he's taken. It would signal that it was only ever about removing Sussan Ley, which has never been his target.
It would be fairer to describe her as collateral damage in this unholy mess.
But for the Liberals to shift gears and point-blank oppose a net zero target, as opposed to questioning the method and timeline of Labor's plan to get there, risks the support of all manner of voting cohorts: including younger voters, women, moderates, and swinging voters with a climate conscience.
Andrew Hastie’s resignation from the Liberal frontbench over net zero and immigration policy marks a defining moment in his career
While Sussan Ley may not have been Hastie’s intended target, his departure has left her exposed
This isn't a re-run of Tony Abbott's opposition to the carbon tax and emissions trading. The then Liberal MP and leader did so while (not always delicately) tiptoeing around climate change as a concept. That's much harder to do if the Liberals adopt Hastie's stance.
Which is not to say that they won't one day. Nor is it to suggest that Ley is safe in her job, just five months after taking over. Angus Taylor or any other more conservative leadership option could well lead the Coalition to the next federal election by the time it gets called. But alternative leaders other than Hastie are unlikely to support his all-out anti-net-zero approach.
The immigration debate is far less clear-cut, but Hastie's line in the sand includes both issues. A frontbench comeback requires both shifts to occur.
While Liberal MP Mary Aldred blasted Hastie in the party room today for fuelling internal squabbles rather than keeping Labor in the opposition's sights, that misses the point to some extent.
So soon after a totemic defeat at an election, open policy disagreements are understandable as the party works through what policies it keeps and discards going forward. It's also a Liberal tradition to be allowed to move to the backbench and champion causes the party leadership disagrees with. Lose that, and Liberals really do become Labor-lite.
But Hastie is choosing a hill to die on that likely kills off his ambitions. We've seen this sideshow before when MPs think they are bigger than the party. Petro Georgiou famously refused a John Howard offer to take on a junior portfolio after winning his way into parliament. No further offers were forthcoming in the decade that followed, as a talent like Georgiou languished on the backbench.
By drawing a hard line on two contentious issues, Hastie has effectively ruled out a return to the frontbench unless the party shifts with him
His reasoning was ego-based, Hastie is at least taking a policy stand in connection with his ego. But it limits any future leader's options if they want him back, forcing them to adhere to Hastie's worldview or leave him on the backbench when building a new team with new talent.
Unless, of course, Hastie goes on to walk back his demands in the name of promotion. That seems unlikely. It would certainly be embarrassing.
And even if Hastie is on the right side of history across both issues he's identified, by the time that plays out it could be many years from now, so far off in the distance that he's no longer around to take advantage of the shift in sentiments, other than when writing his 'what could have been' memoirs.
