Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has sacked Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the shadow ministry, citing the senator’s failure to endorse her leadership as well as her refusal to apologise over her comment about Indian immigrants.

The battle with Price came to a head late on Wednesday, after Price declined to express conference in Ley’s leadership when pressed by reporters in Perth. Price said that was “a matter for our party room”.

Ley told a press conference in Hobart: “Today, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price critically failed to provide confidence in my leadership of the Liberal Party. Confidence in the Leader is a requirement for serving in the shadow ministry”.

Ley also said despite being given “the time and space to apologise” for her remarks about Indian immigration, Price “did not offer an apology today – and many Australians, not just of Indian heritage, have been calling for that apology – for remarks that were deeply hurtful”.

Last week Price said the Labor Party encouraged Indian immigrants because they voted for it. She has subiquently walked back her position but steadfastly refused calls from within and outside the Liberal Party to apologise for them.

Ley said: “My team and I have been out listening to Australians of Indian heritage and we have heard their response and the pain and hurt that these remarks provided for them.”

After Ley told her she was out of the shadow ministry, Price said in a statement, “this has been a disappointing episode for the Liberal Party. I will learn from it. I’m sure others will too. No individual is bigger than a party. And I’m sure events of the past week will ultimately make our party stronger.”

Price has been shadow minister for defence industry. She defected from the Nationals to the Liberals after the election, hoping to become deputy opposition leader on a ticket with Angus Taylor. In the event, she did not contest the deputy position after Taylor lost to Ley.

Price’s relegation to the backbench leaves her free to speak out, not just on immigration issues but on many other issues as well, including the party debate on its commitment to net zero greenhouse emissions.

Ley hopes her action against Price will shore up her authority in the party, but it remains to be seen whether it could instead be destabilising for her.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The bipartisanship about the path to a long-term settlement in the Middle East has finally been irrevocably broken.

The shadow cabinet, meeting Tuesday morning, did not just confirm the Coalition’s disagreement with the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. It also decided that recognition would be revoked by a Coalition government.

In a statement after the shadow cabinet, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and the shadow foreign minister, Michaelia Cash, said: “A Coalition government would only recognise a Palestine state at the conclusion of a proper peace process”.

On Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next month. The government is not putting preconditions on recognition, but is relying on assurances the Palestinian Authority has given.

In its statement, the opposition said Albanese had specified recognition was “predicated on there being no role for Hamas; the demilitarisation of Palestine; an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist; free and fair elections in Palestine; and, reform of [Palestinian] governance, financial transparency and the education system, including international oversight to guard against the incitement of violence and hatred”.

But, the Coalition said, “unfortunately the Albanese government has made it clear that they will still recognise a Palestinian state, regardless of whether or not their own conditions are met.”

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that in government, the Coalition had listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. “Our Labor successors have regrettably rewarded them through this action.

“I know this is not their intention, but it is the result. The caravan of appeasement is not one we should join”, Morrison said on his website.

While the split in bipartisanship has come to a head this week, it has been in the making for a considerable time.

The Coalition has been steadfastly rusted onto Israel (despite having some members, including Ley, who in the past had expressed support for the Palestinians).

In recent years, Labor has become increasingly divided between those wanting to stick to its traditional alignment with Israel and a growing number of pro-Palestinian supporters, who eventually succeeded in getting recognition of a Palestinian state into the party’s platform.

In the recent election, the Liberals pitched to and attracted many Jewish voters, while Labor was concerned with keeping the support of its Muslim constituency, located especially in western Sydney.

The government’s criticism of Israel’s approach to the war has intensified as the conflict has dragged on with no sign of resolution.

Once the current conflict reached its present impasse, with ever-more graphic footage of the suffering in Gaza, and countries such as France, Britain and Canada signalling Palestinian recognition, it was almost inevitable the Albanese government would follow, and the Coalition would oppose that decision.

The government argues something has to be done. It chooses to believe assurances given by the Palestinian Authority. It speaks as though the intractable players in this Middle East conflict can be influenced, even though the ongoing conflict makes this a heroic assumption.

Albanese undertook a round of Tuesday interviews to defend the government’s decision. Often reluctant to spell out the content of private conversations with overseas counterparts, the prime minister is being expansive about his conversation last Thursday  with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It was a conversation which reflected the conversation that I had with him in 2024. And I expressed to him my concern that he was putting the same argument that he did in 2024, that military action against Hamas would produce an outcome. That hasn’t produced an outcome. What it’s produced is a lot of innocent lives, tens of thousands of innocent lives being lost.

“I expressed my concern about the blocking of aid that occurred  as a conscious decision by the Israeli government  earlier this year,” Albanese said.

“He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.