This article was published in The Australian in January 2016...

This article below was published in The Australian in January 2016 by Contributing Editor Peter Van Onselen. Its probably now as pertinent as anything regarding The Nationals. Right now, the Backpacker Tax is hitting the highlights but the suggestion is "wait for it, wait for it..." - Why? Fruit & Vegetable growers and a raft of other back packer employers are left hanging in limbo whilst the powers that be control the flow of political capital to enlarge vote prospects. Carnarvon WA born Andrew Broad sits in federal parliament as the member for Mallee in Victoria where he now lives. He's not happy with the backpacker tax and he's speaking out. The rest of The Nationals a little too quiet. Highlights that the Nats are in the Liberal back pocket and if they really are to survive as a political force they will have to return to their original Country Party values and break away from the Liberal coalition once and for all. As Labor has slowly spent 40+ years drifting right, the middle ground between Labor & Liberal has diminished and the Nationals have lost ground, direction, support and seats.
Time to engage in proper Unique Competitive Advantage as a retail firm might.

Time to wise up and get fully and properly independent. One thing Peter Van Onselen has done is possibly give WA Nationals more credit than their due, they haven't been properly independent either. They haven't left cabinet either and apart from the City of Perth Bill they haven't crossed the floor since 2008. Opposing the Fremantle Port Sale was the first sign of them growing a pair and standing up, but they have presented no plan, no conversation & no prospect of knowing what exactly what they want.

Re Royalties for Regions, great initiative. But that came in back in 2008. Filter that out and we don't get a lot of non RfR talk. Its now government business, not Nationals bragging rights or Nationals gift money. Lets keep that in perspective. Its under threat because its been so blatantly co-branded with Nationals logos at every opportunity it now will threaten its own survival. Its worth crossing the floor to keep it, but is that the only issue worth crossing the floor? Until the Nationals state (WA) and federal man up, its going to fall victim to a loss of support and we'll see more break away parties start up. Look over east, one's planning on fielding 50 candidates.

Here in WA, the Parliamentary National Party (the Nationals State MPs) are focused on re-election. They look to have developed their own culture and appear to decide within the party room what their stance is on any issues. Same group cannot field an Agriculture Minister in coalition...THAT is a red flag of failure.
They have made no comment on Back Packer Tax...another big red flag failure and no proper policy outlines...more red flags.

Read PeterVan Onselen's article now 4 months old...but relevant as ever.

Peter Van Onselen

Contributing Editor

Sydney

 

If the Nationals are serious about representing regional and rural Australians they need to think about breaking the formal Coalition at the federal level.

At the very least they need to be more bullish and break the agreement when in opposition, coming together only in government. Even then, it is hard to see why the party feels the need to formalise a coalition. In Western Australia the Nationals refuse to tie themselves to the hip of the Liberal Party, and as such they do not secure the position of deputy premier as they do in many other states, or as the federal arm of the party is rewarded with the deputy prime ministership.

While this is a nice title and pay rise for one Nationals MP, and something others no doubt aspire to, it is a hell of a price to pay for the many concessions Nationals are forced to make courtesy of the formal Coalition agreement.
The most successful two card trick John Howard played on Nationals leaders during his prime ministership was tricking them into believing the Nationals were a force in the government. During the Howard years the number of Nationals in the parliament steadily declined. So did the say of the junior Coalition partner.

The powerful figures of the past were not well represented by the likes of Tim Fischer, John Anderson or Mark Vaile. All three were good and decent men who wanted the best for their party.

But they were played off a break by a more savvy politician in Howard.

All the big economic debates saw the Nationals dragged to the economic right, with questionable consequences for the regions and constituents once fiercely loyal to the party. During this time we saw the rise and rise of rural independents, off the back of frustration with Nationals’ subservience to the Liberals in government.

While Nationals will never be able to carry the day on all policy scripts when in partnership with the Liberals, they should be able to do better than they did under Howard, or indeed have done since that time.

The West australian example of Royalties for Regions, a policy developed by the Nationals at state level after they broke their coalition with the Liberals after the 2005 election, delivered the party the balance of power in 2008 and a new grouping of seats in 2012. It also gave regional and rural voters a genuine alternative to the two major parties without requiring an independent vote.
Fast forward to today at the federal level, and we saw the Nationals leader and deputy leader recently forced to eat humble pie when their manoeuvring to move Ian Macfarlane into their partyroom was thwarted. I can understand Liberals being angry about the backroom planning. And Macfarlane was little more than an over-the-hill disaffected and dumped minister trying to breathe new life into his career.

But what the Nationals sought to do had been done to them previously by the Liberals, without being blocked.

So what do Nationals do now they have been thwarted? The odds are they will retreat and simply try to paper over differences with Malcolm Turnbull and others to achieve the best result at the election that they can. But Nationals should stop and think about the likelihood that the Prime Minister’s surge in support is city-based, rather than a regional phenomenon.
If Labor gets its act together in the regions, a Turnbull government could deliver the same blow to the bush for the conservatives that Jeff Kennett felt in 1999 in Victoria when the regions turfed him out of power.

For all the grief Barnaby Joyce cops, he is the closest thing the Nationals have to a powerful regional voice in parliament. The sooner he takes over from Warren Truss, the better for the brand of the party. But a Joyce takeover isn’t of itself the solution for the Nationals.
They need to rewrite the Coalition agreement and do so with powerful conviction. Changes made in the wake of Turnbull’s takeover weren’t enough.
Nationals need to rewrite the deal in the lead-up to the next election, in recognition of the fact in all likelihood the Liberals will need the Nationals to retain government.

Nobody should underestimate the challenges Nationals face. Demographic changes invariably see the loss of regional and rural seats each time boundaries are redrawn. In Queensland the Nationals have merged with the Liberals, reducing the party’s independence in its most powerful state. The changes we are witnessing outside the main cities are requiring Nationals to recalibrate and no longer only be a “party of the bush”.

Smaller urban centres are their future, and this creates generational differences when managing vastly different constituencies. Throw in the social disadvantage that is becoming more prevalent in some regions, and the alliance with the Liberals becomes even more of a burden.
Then we have the challenges individual electorates face.

If Nationals aren’t under siege from rural independents, they are being challenged by the Liberal Party when local MPs retire. Again, during the Howard years we saw a virtual breeding out of existence of National electorates by their senior Coalition partner, which would come in with more money and more campaigning know-how to pluck seats from the Nationals when they were at their weakest — at the moment popular long-term MPs retired.

Finally, Nationals need to be mindful of threats from the Greens on their left flank — not necessarily as a direct electoral threat, although that was an issue in two seats at the NSW election, but also in terms of preference negotiations.
A National Party decoupled from the Liberals might be able to secure better preference deals with Greens ahead of the Labor Party. Remember, there are some loud environmental voices in the regions.

While Nationals MPs are home with their families, they should take a look around and ponder how different their environment and the world outlook of their friends and family are compared with the modern city-centric Liberal Party.
They should think about how likelier they are to win applause in their hometown electorates if they stand up to their Coalition partner on issues from tax reform to how to divvy up welfare initiatives. And they should think about how much easier it would be to win arguments with Liberals if the Liberals realised the junior partner in the negotiation wasn’t bluffing.

Walking away from any Coalition agreement must be a live option for Nationals. It hasn’t been for too long and the party has become a shadow of its former self.
Look west to see how to build a powerful independent party organisation. Then copy what it does.

Peter van Onselen is a professor at the University of Western Australia