by PAUL COLLITS – ANY institution that doesn’t start off its life as explicitly Right-wing will end up drifting Leftwards.
These are the words of the estimable John O’Sullivan, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, writer, exemplary contributor to Quadrant magazine and President (and founder) of the Danube Institute.
- It also explains the surges in the polls of One Nation, Reform UK and (now) Restore Britain.
- Observers have noted that positions once advocated by Canavan, that of leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, have now become something he doesn’t want to talk about.
Sadly, we are now experiencing a new phenomenon, or at least an old phenomenon with a new face. And that is the face belonging to Matt Canavan, leader of the Nationals.
If it hasn’t already been named, let us call it Canavan’s Law (after the prime case study rather than the guy who coined of it).
SUPPRESS
It is as follows: Even Right-thinking and Right-leaning politicians and public figures will inevitably suppress their real views on core issues, at least publicly, when the institutions they lead or participate in have different “corporate” views.
Call it supine followership. Or narrowing the Overton Window to the achievement of the doable. Or sensible centrism. Or prioritising winning government. Or not letting the good become a prisoner of the perfect.
All sounds reasonable. Mass Parties don’t want everyone “freelancing”. It is the approach of the “don’t split the Right vote” brigade.
But…
It might also be seen as the political version of another law: That conforming to the groups to which you belong will always end up being a higher priority than your erstwhile rampant individualism.
There is quite a bit of research which shows that people’s greatest desire is to be accepted by their social group. Think of COVID, of mass formation, of teen (and older) social media behaviour and of Asch’s experiment.
It is superficially appealing. But it also explains why the polity never changes for the better.
And it explains the surges in the polls of One Nation, Reform UK and (now) Restore Britain. Ultimately, it is bullshit.
Let us look at an example of Canavan’s Law in action.
When Canavan, by some distance the smartest Nat going around and with the right views on most issues, was part of the outsider class within the Coalition, he often sided with the COVID heroes – Roberts, Antic, Babet, Christensen and Kelly (while the latter two were still around in the Parliament) – on the core issues facing the country.
Issues like health tyranny, digital ID and others.
Yes, he supported Pauline Hanson’s positions! Now he bags her – and her supporters. Many of whom were his Party’s, once. That was then.
SCAM
Mention of his climate scam pushbacks brings us to the Paris climate agreement, and to Canavan’s Law.
A number of observers have noted that a position once advocated by Matt, that of the importance of leaving the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, has now become something he doesn’t want to talk about – since the Liberals’ position is not to leave Paris.
When we say the Liberal Party position, we really mean the position of the Liberal Left, who still run things.
Matt’s “new” position is nonsense on stilts.
To those who might say, well, in a mass Party, there will always be compromises – yes, there will.
But, surely, not on core business and leaving Paris is core business. Core to his Party – mysteriously still in Coalition with a Party still controlled by globalists and wokesters.
Core to his Party’s base. Core to the future of the nation’s economy. Core to good policy.
Leaving the Paris Agreement is a stake in the ground. Rich in symbolism and central to the One Nation insurgency. But for Matt, it is now (clearly) a step too far.
This is despite, it seems, ditching net zero is respectable. Even Sir Tony Blair (of all people), the doyen of international managerialism, advocates it, in the British context.
Of course, the IPCC itself is also now dialling back climate catastrophism.
The ground is shifting under the alarmists and the lunatics like Climate Minister Chris Bowen.
Surely it ‘s time for a little leadership, right about now. For breaking free from Canavan’s Law. For going big on calling out the climate scam. For firing the biggest guns.
REFUSED
Let us (again) remember the spirit of the feisty Country Party leader, Jack McEwen, who refused to serve with a particular Liberal leader (Bill McMahon) in the 1960s and threatened to leave the Coalition, then in government, if the Libs made him leader. They didn’t. At least not at that time.
Is resisting climate ideology that important? When the climate saboteurs now in power start demolishing power stations (Liddell), yes, it is.
Canavan knows this, as does the newly minted Liberal Party President, Tony Abbott. He knows, and once said (privately) that “climate change is bullshit”.
And the Coalition wonders why One Nation is now leading in the polls. It is even ahead of Square Head Albo.
Pauline Hanson is the one leader going around who has not succumbed to Canavan’s Law. Is there a hint there?
Politicians who play to the wrong crowd are destined for the chop. This is the emerging new reality.
The ground can shift very, very quickly, as is now apparent. Tony Abbott says that the time of the UniParty is over
One can only hope that his prognosis is accurate and not just merely optimistic and self-serving.
I will only come to accept that when Canavan’s Law is shown to be a thing of the past.
Traditionally, leadership has been defined by getting ahead of the pack, by seeing the signs, by sniffing the breezes, by defining the narrative in one’s own terms, by bringing the people along, by being, well – Churchillian.
Churchill was certainly not a victim of Canavan’s Law. The secret sauce of future leadership might well be doing the same.
We are observing this playing out in real time. As they say.PC
Sir,
I have always held Matt Canavan high on a political pedestal as the saviour of common sense. To my increasing disappointment he is showing us the weakness of a man who has been compromised by the party’s leadership position that he has been awarded. I fear that Matt has been snookered into this roll so that he can be made to toe the party line of the so called moderates and their agenda of the renewables fiasco. Hawke, Wilson, Hume and their ilk will not let go of this juicy bone, if their life depends on it. Even if they did, in desperation, how could they ever be trusted again? as it is clearly not in their DNA to do anything other than the status quo.
Matt Canavan so far as Leaer of Nats has been a massive disappointment – prev. worth listening to he appears to have done a complete switch into ‘ Polly rhetoric’. Early attacks on Hanson was a mistake, and now on Bolt’s show he just dodged saying whether he would implement the one national flag as mandatory ? Nats will lose a lot of seats to One Nation, so unless Abbott gets Hanson on side for sorting our the numbers and the seats to suit both ON and the Coalition – we will end up stuck with Labor.
Er um Matt Canavan is like every other SFL and nat: gutless. He knows that global boiling is utter nonsense and a means by which the left can destroy the West. We see this in every Western nation as the expenditure on renewables and the destruction of fossil fuel causes higher energy costs, inflation and the loss of freedoms. In addition the complete hypocrisy of the greens and the alarmists is manifest in the construction of renewable grids which involves the destruction of 100s of thousands of acres of pristine forests and the killing of thousands of wildlife. Er, um Canavan knows this but still he capitulates about it. How could you vote for someone who is at base a coward.
Er um. WTF is SFL. I’ve been reading your authoritative commentary with interest – but with a slight touch of confusion.
Matts tapping his Agrarian Socialist roots.
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comment on climate change has often been misquoted, he never said “climate change is bullshit”.
“TONY Abbott has told a climate sceptics’ forum in London that global warming may actually be a good thing, while doubling down on his view that climate science is “absolute crap”.
(NOTE CLIMATE SCIENCE)
The former prime minister likened climate scientists to the “thought police” in his address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation on Monday night and said that a “gradual lift in global temperatures” may be beneficial.
His comments found some traction with the former minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Matt Canavan.
Meanwhile, it became clear yesterday that Malcolm Turnbull would likely cave to internal backbench pressure on energy reform and reject a recommendation from the Chief Scientist to introduce a Clean Energy Target.
In his speech, Mr Abbott said there was growing evidence data sets had been slanted to fit the theory of “dangerous” man-made global warming.
Liberal National (LNP QLD) Coalition Plan For Energy
https://www.liberal.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Oppositions-Plan-for-Energy_Nov2025-web.pdf
15 April 2026
Aussies are divided after Pauline Hanson declared that ‘foreigners who aren’t citizens shouldn’t own Australian homes’ in a furious online spray.
Last week on Bolt Report the former National MP Barnaby Joyce, elected again as a National at the 2025 election and later moved to One Nation, stated that One Nation policy would require non-citizens to sell property they own in Australia within two years of the rule being implemented. Obvious to viewers and the presenter Andrew Bolt who advised viewers immediately, Joyce phoned head office to confirm the policy detail and received two different answers for two party officials. He then retracted his reference to forcing existing owners who are not citizens to sell.
Since then Leader Senator Hanson has entered damage control claiming Joyce was right to have checked and corrected the record. The record predates his comment. Another example of Senator Hanson’s thought bubbles crafted to appeal to supporters but so often misguided.
One Nation in prospective – a minor party of four Senators and now two House of Representatives MP.
There is no deputy leader and no shadow cabinet minister team to be in opposition and present as the alternative government.
I was recently looking at the Coalition parties policy on energy and could not find one for One Nation.
The short answer is that there is no hard enforcement in the Paris Agreement. But all the members regularly meet, share progress, and renew their pledges of climate action, encouraging every country to step up its commitments.
Updated August 8, 2025
The Paris Agreement is a diplomatic agreement that brings the world together in a common effort to combat climate change. The most important piece of this agreement is that all members must make pledges of action every five years to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Those pledges are called their “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs). For example, the European Union’s most recent NDC pledges to cut emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030.
But while countries are required to submit these pledges, the content is up to them: Members get to decide for themselves what to promise in their NDCs. So what would make a country make a strong pledge and then stick to it?
The short answer is that there’s not much formal accountability. Instead, says Michael Mehling, Deputy Director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, the focus is on accurate reporting. “Every country has to send periodic reports on what they’re doing,” says Mehling, “in the form of national emissions inventories and progress towards achieving their NDCs.” The main formal consequence for a member failing to meet its targets is a meeting with a global committee of neutral researchers. The committee will work with struggling members to create new plans.
Except JohnW, Labor takes Paris more seriously than the rest of the world. Albanese and the left are creatures of symbolism and gestures. They will bury Australia for a personal freebie and international ovation.
And that identifies the United Nations reliance on governments that are compliant upholding the UN treaties and agreements signed, and here Federation of States that created Commonwealth of Australia and Federal Government, the States that retained most of the powers and areas of responsibility they had previously as colonial governments. Federal legislation for, say, Labor’s renewable energy target and transition away from fossil fuels must have State governments complimentary legislation and regulations. And the other protection against repealing that legislation or others is most often a hostile Senate opposition majority as Prime Minister Abbott and Cabinet’s attempt to repeal Renewable Energy Target etc encountered 2014/15.
However there are many sources apart from MIT Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research United States of America that explain why UNIPCC Paris Agreement and no “hard enforcement” applies.
And please explain how a minor party with an opinion polls based popular leader, no deputy leader and no team of alternative government shadow cabinet ministers has become the voice of all political knowledge?