‘Gutless’: War of words breaks out over remote voting in Liberal showdown

A war of words has broken out between Opposition Leader John Pesutto and his former ally James Newbury over whether a do-or-die Liberal party-room meeting should accommodate MPs who are not available to attend in person.

Pesutto emailed the party on Tuesday informing his colleagues he would allow members to vote remotely at Friday’s meeting, which will seal the fate of the embattled leader.

Opposition Leader John Pesutto.Credit: Joe Armao

“I have received requests from Cindy McLeish and Nicholas McGowan to participate in Friday’s meeting even though they will be physically absent,” Pesutto wrote. “I have sought advice from the shadow attorney-general, who advises me that it is open to me in the circumstances to exercise the authority to enable remote participation.”

Newbury, one of the five shadow cabinet MPs to sign a letter forcing the meeting, wrote back publicly opposing the move, accusing the man he had once staunchly supported of breaching the party’s constitution in favour of his personal interests.

“Further, I strongly believe that the party room should not allow a precedent to be set that meetings should no longer be held in person, where a leader determines it may not be in his personal interests,” Newbury wrote.

Pesutto’s push for remote voting prompted speculation McGowan would side with him. McLeish has also been a supporter of Pesutto in the past, providing at least one crucial vote as he has tried to prevent a leadership spill.

MP James Newbury accused Pesutto of breaching the party’s constitution. Credit: Scott McNaughton

MPs Richard Welch and David Hodgett are also unable to attend in person during what is normally a holiday period for MPs.

Pesutto had originally called a party meeting for January 15th, in a last-ditch effort to save his job by making a shock concession and agreeing to readmit exiled MP Moira Deeming.

His rivals then moved to bring the meeting forward to Friday in a sign the group backing shadow police minister Brad Battin is confident of winning the majority support of the party room.

Signatories forcing the meeting included Newbury, housing spokesman Richard Riordan, recently resigned frontbencher Sam Groth and opposition spokesperson for industry Bridget Vallence.

In his email on Tuesday, Newbury pointed to the Liberal Party’s constitution, which specifies online remote voting is allowed under two circumstances – a health emergency or natural disaster.

“It is clear that a holiday does not make it ‘impossible’ for a member to return for the meeting,” Newbury wrote.

A source close to Pesutto, speaking anonymously to detail internal party matters, said it was “gutless” that the rebel group has not been upfront about the purpose of Friday’s meeting.

“The real purpose is to spill the leadership, but they don’t have the guts to say it.

“In what world can’t things like boards of companies not allow members to participate virtually? It’s a pretty archaic expectation that everyone physically needs to be in the room.”

Another Liberal source said Pesutto’s decision to allow remote voting was a blatant misuse of the party’s constitution, and that MPs choosing to go on holiday had more than enough time to return for the meeting, which was called on Sunday.

“Remote voting was never intended to be used for convenience – it exists for emergencies and exceptional circumstances where attendance is impossible.

“[It sets a dangerous precedent] and signals that personal priorities can outweigh party responsibilities, undermining our processes. John’s actions are not those of a leader focused on the party’s future but of someone clinging to self-interest at the expense of integrity and accountability.”

Another questioned why Newbury would be worried about remote voting if his team was confident of a majority.

“Trying to deny colleagues a vote in the leadership – I don’t know how they think that’s going to fly. It’s the week of Christmas and people are away and overseas. We’re trying to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them,” they said.

Another said: “If the first act of a new leader is to intentionally disenfranchise colleagues from participating in a leadership vote, it’s clear that there will continue to be rocky times ahead.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.