Michelle Grattan: A tale of two new leaders as Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan react differently to Trump threat

If you want a basic measure of the difference between Liberal leader Angus Taylor and Nationals leader Matt Canavan, compare these two reactions to US President Donald Trump’s extraordinary threat this week that “a whole civilisation will die tonight”. Asked to comment on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s response that Trump’s language was not appropriate, Taylor said, “Oh look, they’re not the words I would use.” Canavan said: “The post from the president overnight went way too far and beyond the realms of acceptability”. The contrast between the two leaders was at two levels. Taylor sought to hedge his bets – he certainly did not want to call the president out. Canavan, a strong supporter of the US alliance, still believes “we’ve got to call a spade a spade at times like these”. More fundamentally, while Taylor’s actual view of the war is unclear, everyone knows Canavan’s. “I hate these sorts of conflicts. Terrible the loss of human life. They normally lead to worse outcomes, as we’ve seen in our lifetimes,” he told the National Press Club on Wednesday. His words would resonate with a majority of Australians. A Sky News poll released this week found 71% of Australians thought Trump was handling the Iran war badly. It’s become a cliche to observe the Coalition parties are in existential crisis – indeed, separate crises. The Liberals are losing voters to One Nation’s surge, and have no foreseeable strategy to reclaim voters lost years ago to teals. One Nation is cannibalising the Nationals. Both parties recently changed leaders. On the very early evidence, the Nationals’ choice of Canavan was sound; the Liberals’ decision to bypass Andrew Hastie (who was told by his faction not to run) in favour of Taylor, to replace Sussan Ley, looks more problematic. In an era when the public want straight talking and solid plans, Canavan’s Wednesday performance displayed that bluntness (note that’s an entirely separate point from whether one endorses his stands on issues that ranged from tariffs to the need to cut the foreign student intake). But his appearance reinforced the point that Canavan presents a potential problem for the Liberals. He may get on fine with Taylor personally, but their economic approaches are chalk and cheese. This is made clear by Canavan’s argument for the selective use of tariffs to build Australian industry, and his belief that “our nation’s leaders remain trapped in the narrow thinking of the old economic rationalist superhighway”. It’s not as though Canavan is some economic illiterate. A former employee of the Productivity Commission, he can carry his case – but it’s not likely to be Taylor’s case. Canavan on Wednesday referenced an Australian Financial Review editorial from when he ran for leader last year, titled “Nationals’ populism a threat to the Liberals’ economic reset”. It remains prescient. Canavan said in his Wednesday speech, “I’m not here to speak for the Liberal Party, but I’m also not interested in an economic reset. I think given the state of our country, we need an economic revolution.” Canavan’s economic views would mesh more easily with those of Hastie, who also favours protectionist policies, than with Taylor’s free-market philosophy. Certainly Hastie’s direct political style is in line with that of the Nationals leader. Kos Samaras, from the Redbridge Group, a political consultancy, says: “Nearly every democracy is in the grip of profound realignment, the pace and scale of change unlike anything seen in nearly a century. “The long settled period between 1945 and the pandemic produced a leadership culture optimised for management and consensus. That culture is now a liability. Voters aren’t looking for administrators. They’re looking for combatants. “Within the Coalition, almost no one has grasped this. Canavan and Hastie are exceptions, both possess something rare in contemporary centre-right politics: a willingness to prosecute an argument, absorb hostility, and hold ground. In 2026, that quality may be the only thing that matters.” While the Nationals are not a presence in the cities, it will be interesting to see whether the Coalition’s opponents can weaponise Canavan in urban areas as they did the former National (now One Nation member) Barnaby Joyce. Certainly Canavan’s passion against net zero will make him a target in these areas. Canavan is unlikely to loom as large in the minds of urban voters as the colourful Joyce but the Nationals could still be a drag in the Liberals’ battle with the teals. Meanwhile, Taylor is heading into a perfect storm. As leader, he is yet to release any major policy, although one of the main criticisms of Ley was her failure to produce policy. In particular, her delay to unveil an immigration blueprint came under fire among the Liberal base. Liberal sources claim release of an immigration policy was being considered before everything was blown off course by the fuel crisis. More importantly, Taylor faces a real-time test in the looming Farrer byelection. At this point the Liberals’ chances of holding Ley’s former seat are considered very slim at best, and would depend on a favourable preference flow. The contest is currently seen as between One Nation and a community independent, Michelle Milthorpe (whose campaign manager is Max Koslowski who has advised various teals). The byelection is on May 9, the weekend before the May 12 budget. Less than a week after a likely byelection rebuff, Taylor will deliver his budget reply. This will present a high bar to clear successfully. Taylor will have to advance some serious policy. If he holds the immigration policy until then, and especially if he makes it a centrepiece of his speech, as Peter Dutton did in his 2024 budget reply, that could carry risks. Alternatively, relying on announcing a number of small initiatives could make for a damp squib. Taylor needs a people-oriented, economically responsible big idea – a tall order.