Senior Nationals quit frontbench after defying shadow cabinet on hate speech laws

Senior Nationals Bridget McKenzie, Ross Cadell and Susan McDonald have quit the shadow cabinet after defying its position on the government's hate speech reforms in a late-night vote on Tuesday.

The split between the Liberals and Nationals emerged after parliament was recalled early at the insistence of Opposition Leader Sussan Ley in order to respond to the Bondi terror attack.

Last night the Liberals sided with the government to pass laws enabling extremist groups espousing hate to be banned, stronger powers for visas to be cancelled, and strengthened penalties for religious leaders promoting violence.

But the Nationals voted against the bill, including senators McKenzie, McDonald and Cadell, who as shadow ministers are bound to follow the position taken by the Coalition's shadow cabinet.

There remains speculation over whether the Nationals could resign en masse following Ms Ley's move.

The junior Coalition member will hold a party room meeting tonight.

In a statement, the opposition leader acknowledged the issue was difficult for the Nationals' party room.

But she said when the Coalition reformed following the party's election loss, the Nationals agreed to the "foundational principle" that they would adhere to decisions of the shadow cabinet.

"Last night three Nationals senators were unable to maintain that shadow cabinet solidarity," Ms Ley said.

"This is an unfortunate circumstance and one that requires action.

"[The senators] have each offered their resignations from the shadow cabinet, as is appropriate, and I have accepted them."

Senators voted knowing they could be sacked

Earlier today Senator Cadell said he was prepared to be sacked or resign over his decision.

"I am willing to take the consequences of my actions, I think that is fair," Senator Cadell said.

"I can't do the crime if I'm not prepared to do the time.

"Some things you have to stand [up] for … I couldn't get there, I had real fears about what could happen, so I did what I thought had to be done."

The senator said he expected he would lose his portfolio as a consequence.

But he insisted the matter had been dealt with well by Ms Ley, and the Nationals had no desire to "blow up" the Coalition.

"Everyone has worked well in the Liberal and National parties on this. There are ways this can work if it is the three of us [Nationals senators] going. If that is what has to happen it happens," he said.

Across multiple party room meetings, Nationals MPs canvassed the consequences of voting against the formal Coalition position.

Senator McKenzie conceded in a statement that last night's decision to oppose reforms to Australia's hate speech laws could cost the trio their ministries.

"National Party MPs and shadow ministers were very clear on the consequences of our party room decision to oppose Labor's hate speech laws," she said.

"I am very conscious of my responsibilities as a leader and have always sought to fulfil my role with integrity. I will continue to do so in this instance. This is now for consideration between our party leaders."

Liberals also question Littleproud's future

When the reforms were put to a vote in the House of Representatives yesterday, Nationals leader David Littleproud also chose not to support the bill, abstaining from the vote.

In a statement overnight, Mr Littleproud said the Nationals supported the "intent" of laws to combat hate speech and extremism but could not support reforms curtailing freedom of speech, indicating he would vote against the bill if its amendments were not accepted.

"This decision does not reflect on the relationship within the Coalition," Mr Littleproud said.

"The Coalition has secured significant improvements to the legislation, but The Nationals' party room has concluded that more time is required to more fully examine and test the bill before it is finalised."

Some Liberal Party MPs were also questioning Mr Littleproud's future, as the two Coalition parties met separately this morning to discuss how to deal with the split.

But others pointed to the extraordinary circumstances under which the reforms were introduced, given they were hurriedly drafted in the wake of the Bondi terror attack and passed in two sitting days.

Shadow Attorney-General Andrew Wallace said there were "extenuating circumstances" surrounding the bill that should be taken into account.

"This bill was incredibly rushed. It was ill thought through in the first instance," he said.

Liberal senator Leah Blyth said cabinet solidarity should be respected but told Sky News the circumstances were unique.

Last night's vote is the latest major divide between the Liberals and Nationals, who have maintained a shaky alliance since the Coalition's sweeping defeat at the May federal election.

The two parties briefly ended their Coalition agreement after the election over several policy differences, and a claim by Opposition Leader Sussan Ley that the Nationals were seeking to break cabinet solidarity on matters of significance.

When the parties reunited, Ms Ley said in a statement that the Nationals had agreed to respect cabinet solidarity, with Mr Littleproud suggesting it had never been a real concern.

At a press conference following the Coalition's reunion, Mr Littleproud said he did not want to see a chaotic partyroom.

"I don't want a free-for-all in my partyroom. I want to know that we respect the structures and processes that we have [had] for 80-plus years," he said at the time.