How ditching the Liberals can put the grunt back into the Nationals – Australia's rural party
Yet having taken the hard decision, David Littleproud – at time of publication – is now sitting astride the barbed wire fence, poised between Team Stay and Team Split. It's the worst place to be.
He appears to be having second thoughts. It is true that outside the Coalition, the Nationals will not get their bums on ministerial seats in a future government, but hear me out.
This is not the end of the Earth in a more fractured political environment. Notwithstanding Labor's thumping win this month, you just need to look at data from rural voting booths to see more unpredictable patterns as more people challenge the Coalition status quo. The major parties' primary votes are trending downwards.
Rural Australia holds the balance of power – if it wants to exercise it – in pretty much every parliament. Rural Australians are minority voters and at best 30% of the population. But it is a big enough bloc to wield with intent, if only we could muster our forces.
You don't require night vision goggles to see the potential power of country Australia.
There is a whole bloc of rural and regional MPs sitting in the Nats party room, minus Perin Davey (on votes) and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price via defection to the Liberals.
Yet the new leadership team of the Liberal party both hold rural electorates: Sussan Ley in Farrer (NSW) and Ted O'Brien in Fairfax (Queensland). The putative challengers were Angus Taylor who has been a rural MP up until the last election when Hume was reclassified outer metropolitan. Price is a Country Liberal senator for the Northern Territory. The clue is in the title.
The Liberals hold more rural territory than the National party. There are rural independents, like Indi MP Helen Haines, Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie and former Nationals Calare MP Andrew Gee, who saw off the Nationals rival easily.
The point is there are lots of rural political representatives in federal parliament, so how does the National party differentiate itself? Their sole branding point is that they only represent rural and regional people.
The Coalition split was allegedly about four policies: nuclear energy, supermarket divestiture, a $20bn regional fund and action on rural phone and internet coverage (praise be!). Let's park the fact that they did nothing about these ideas in their long tenure under Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. Leaving the nukes in the just-not-feasible basket, the old market-based Libs would never go for such interventionist policies. The most likely side to even talk about these would be the crossbench or the Labor party.
The untethered Nats could plot a course to a sensible centre right position that carves out a new city-country contract. Or they could skip down the yellow brick road to Trump world.
As a stand alone party, they will live or die by their policies and their capacity to connect with a changing rural voter base as margins get more unpredictable. Younger generations with different voting histories are also moving in, seeking cheaper housing and better lifestyles. There are good reasons to go for a full makeover while you have time to create a modern country political brand.
The crossbench has shown the Nationals could develop policies that don't have to appeal to the Liberal party as long as they got support from other quarters. It could get weird. As Donald Trump has shown, transactional politics can make for the strangest of bedfellows.
Free to roam, the Nationals could deal with any party, including Labor. Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott did such a deal for their respective electorates of New England and Lyne with Julia Gillard in 2010. They were hammered for it even though the agreement made major commitments to parliamentary reforms and regional Australia including their own electorates. Better still, the deal was made public for their own voters to see.
As voters, we cannot see what the Nationals have demanded from the Liberals in the Coalition agreement. We cannot see what the Liberals demanded of the Nats.
If you need examples of lateral thinking, the banking royal commission grew from a crossbench alliance driven by Nationals own senator John Williams going rogue with Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson and senator Nick Xenophon. They successfully forced the two big parties to act.
The federal Icac and action on climate were two key policy planks of both the Greens and the country community independents. Those issues formed part of a platform that provided a launching pad for the city-based teals, the same folk eating the Liberal party's lunch. The Nats own nuclear policy came about as a Coalition fig leaf for the Coalition's lack of climate policy.
So to the Nats, sit down and do some hard yakka to reshape the party for the political landscape as it is, not as you would like it to be.
Forget about bowing to oligopolies and billionaires. Remember the key employers in regional areas are not mining and farming now but health services, aged care, education, construction and retail. Professions mostly dominated by women. Where did the Coalition lose ground? With women.
Labor has very little interest in the bush because there are no votes in it for them. What better way to get them interested in rural policy than to signal you are open to all sides of politics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Violet loves attending her local state school, but some fear Queensland kids like her will be forced into ‘segregated' education
Violet had lots of friends over to her 11th birthday party, where they all sang karaoke and danced to Taylor Swift. As well as music, she's into swimming and loves being around people. Just like her big brother before her, Violet attends the primary school nearest her home in Yeppoon on the central Queensland coast. As with most students, Violet's education has had its ups and downs. Sign up: AU Breaking News email But this year, grade 5, has been 'a stellar, standout year', her mum, Shalee Gregson-Quinn, says. 'She's got a teacher who really understands that Violet's got a right to be there, that she will have a superior education by being there.' Given that Violet goes to a state school, one might think that right is assumed. But it is not always so for kids like Violet. 'It's just a by-the-way thing, but Violet has Down's syndrome,' her mother says. Which is what makes it so special that this vibrant young girl is surrounded by classmates who also see her disability as just a by-the-way thing – and a teacher, in Angela Hinds, who holds high expectations for Violet and works hard to ensure that she is 'included and engaged and happy'. Because those expectations help instil in Violet aspirations of the kind of 'ordinary life' that many Australians will take for granted: the chance to pursue meaningful work, to travel, to form relationships and make friends. 'It is life changing for a parent to feel that someone is so invested in your child's progress,' Gregson-Quinn says. So the community resources consultant is 'extremely disheartened' by a government announcement that she fears will mean many other young Queenslanders will miss out on an education like Violet's. In handing down its budget last month, the Liberal National party's (LNP) first since unseating Labor after a decade in power, the government announced what it claims is the 'largest special school investment in history', with a pledge to build six new special schools. This marked a significant change in direction from the 2018 high-water mark of a policy of including students with disabilities in mainstream schools, set out by then education minister Kate Jones, which advocates hailed as world leading. It is not just Gregson-Quinn dismayed by the move – the Australian disability discrimination commissioner, Rosemary Kayess, urged the LNP to 'scrap' its plan to build more 'segregated schools' on Thursday. 'It is deeply concerning that the Queensland government is blatantly ignoring all the evidence and expert advice in relation to the significant benefits of inclusive education for people with disability,' Kayess said. But, for the LNP, this investment in bricks and mortar is driven by at least two imperatives: one practical and one ideological. All six new schools will be built near existing special schools in south east Queensland growth suburbs, such as Coomera, that have seen enrolments rise in recent years. The former Labor government actually strayed from its inclusion policy and built a special school in Coomera, which opened in 2022. Its enrolment has more than doubled: from 134 to 280 students. 'Special school enrolments have increased by more than 38 percent since 2019 and we cannot ignore the growing demand from parents and carers who want to send their child to a special school,' the education minister, John-Paul Langbroek, said in a statement. But the new schools are not just a response to numbers – they reflect a guiding philosophy of this conservative government. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The premier, David Crisafulli, said earlier this month that he acknowledged the 'different views' on educating children with disabilities, but told the press he 'wholeheartedly' believed in his government's policy shift. 'I really do; I believe in it for those kids and, ultimately, I believe in choice,' Crisafulli said. 'Everything I always do is about giving choice to an individual, and I think we have a real lack of special schools in this state. 'But, overwhelmingly, when I speak to teachers and when I speak to parents of special needs children, they want that choice – and we are going to give it to them.' Born profoundly deaf, Prof Alastair McEwin was one of six commissioners who handed down the final disability royal commission report in 2023, after four years of inquiry. McEwin has repeatedly said he never had a parent tell him they chose a special school – instead, they had to 'concede that mainstream schools cannot or will not support their child'. McEwin labelled Queensland's special school build 'alarming'. He was one of three commissioners to recommend they be gradually, but entirely, phased out of Australia. The commission, however, was evenly split on this matter. Its chair and two other commissioners recommended an alternative approach in which special schools be relocated 'within or in close proximity to mainstream schools', suggesting instead a number of ways through which the different cohorts could interact. The complexity of the debate is encapsulated in a statement from the Queensland Teachers' Union president, Cresta Richardson, who said state schools were 'proud to be leaders in the area of inclusion', but that 'parents and students who need to, should have access to special schools'. 'No two students are the same, and the expectations of parents can vary greatly from school to school,' Richardson said. 'The mainstream inclusion model does come with significant challenges and additional workload for teachers and school leaders, workload that requires training, resourcing, and funding.' Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Prof Linda Graham agreed that if systems weren't in place to support teachers to include students with disabilities into their classrooms, the result could be 'mayhem'. But the director of QUT's Centre for Inclusive Education said that 'pouring money' into the physical infrastructure of segregation reduced the incentive to make mainstream schools inclusive. 'We've been working very hard since 2018 to make this happen in Queensland, with reducing commitment from political leaders,' Graham said. 'Now they are just going to pull the rug out from underneath.'
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
If the economics of broadening or lifting Australia's GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous
When Jim Chalmers declared we needed a national debate on reforming the economy to drive the next generation of prosperity, he scolded the media for its penchant for playing the rule-in-rule-out game. The irony is that from his high horse, the treasurer had almost certainly ruled out one major change: lifting or broadening the GST. If Chalmers is being disingenuous when he suggests nothing is off the table at next month's talkfest – and he absolutely is – then he should have ruled out changes to the consumption tax from the very start. Many economists argue that lifting or broadening the GST is an essential ingredient in any reform package that fundamentally improves the efficiency of the tax system. More GST revenue can pay for cuts to income and company tax rates, for example. This shift provides a structurally more stable tax revenue base, and sharpens incentives to work and invest. Labor as a party, however, is fundamentally opposed to changing the tax on consumption on the basis that it hurts poorer Australians. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the worry about fairness is real. New analysis by the ANU's Ben Phillips shows that the GST is 'highly regressive'. Phillips' modelling shows the bottom fifth of income earners pay 5.4% of their income on consumption taxes. That's more than twice as much as the top 20% of households, where GST accounts for 2.6% of disposable income. Broadening the GST to include the things currently excluded – such as fresh food and education – makes the tax even more regressive. Phillips finds consumption taxes as a share of household budgets climbs to 7.9% for the lowest incomes, and 3.5% for those at the top. 'I think equity concerns are spot on,' Phillips says. 'There would have to be a complicated new approach to compensation for lower and middle income workers to make it politically feasible. 'We would be relying on there being some substantial economic gains from increasing the GST, and they are probably relatively modest.' If the economics of broadening or lifting the GST are challenging, the politics are horrendous. The first hurdle is the most obvious: the states get the revenue, while the commonwealth cops the heat. Even if the Albanese government could agree with its state and territory counterparts to share the proceeds, there is also the issue that the GST distribution system has been fundamentally undermined by the obscenely generous deal with Western Australia, the country's richest state. As such, a bigger GST pile without getting rid of this distortion would simply exacerbate what Saul Eslake has called 'possibly the worst public policy decision of the 21st century'. Which begs the question: can we get meaningful tax reform without lifting the GST? Ken Henry, who authored a major tax paper in 2010 and is considered the country's high priest of reform, argues that 'tax reform cannot be done piecemeal; a big package will be required'. He recently told The Conversation's Michelle Grattan 'it would be better not to constrain the reform process by ruling out the GST'. 'Having said that, I do think it's possible to achieve major reform of the Australian taxation system without necessarily increasing the rate or extending the base of the GST.' Such reforms could be paid for via higher taxes on natural resources, and on wealth and savings – both on capital gains and income from that capital (think property investments and superannuation). Chalmers' narrative for the reform roundtable apparently leans into Henry's view around some kind of tax 'grand bargain'. But again, the treasurer's ambition is much more narrow. He has famously described his approach to reform as 'bite-sized chunks', and defended his policy initiatives since coming to power as 'modest but meaningful'. In fact, the most obvious next steps for Labor when it comes to tax is reforming the treatment of family trusts, and introducing a road user charge to replace dwindling fuel excise revenue. Whether we need another roundtable to get there is an open question. Viva Hammer, who played a key role in designing America's immense Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, had some advice for policymakers. Speaking at a tax roundtable organised by the independent MP Allegra Spender, Hammer said the ambition should be 'to think about doing something better, and not something perfect, because perfection is for the angels'. Breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, the independent economist Chris Richardson's advice is 'let's just stop doing dumb things'. Speaking at the same event in Parliament House on Friday, Richardson said his number one 'dumb thing' is how we tax gas through the petroleum rent resources tax (PRRT). Australia over recent years has become a gas superpower. And yet, incredibly, the tax take has not changed at all, Richardson says. Labor's tweaks to the PRRT have not changed this reality – as Richardson says, the forecasts for revenue from this tax are a 'big fat nothing' in future years. 'Some people say you can't change because there would be some 'sovereign risk',' he said, referring to the claims that altering these rules puts off foreign investors and can choke off funding for the industry. 'Sovereign risk is where one side gets next to nothing across a long period of time, and our own stupidity has got us there, and we should do better.' Richardson believes we are also not charging banks enough for the implicit 'too big to fail' insurance provided by taxpayers. The two suggestions, he said, could raise $5-6bn a year.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The attack on Australia's net zero target is reckless and gutless. Voters expect more than ‘intergenerational bastardry'
'Renewables continue to prove themselves as the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation,' says a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency. It has caused the UN secretary general, António Guterres, to declare: 'We are on the cusp of a new era. Fossil fuels are running out of road. The sun is rising on a clean energy age.' Well, hallelujah. Except, here in Australia, we are still mired in the politics of climate and at risk of missing the window of opportunity for both environmental protection and economic benefit. Regulatory hurdles, worker shortages and community blowback in regional Australia have all combined to feed the culture wars and the erosion of social licence that is fundamental to progress the energy transition. As Ezra Klein, co-author of the viral book Abundance, has remarked of late, 'We should be able to argue that the clean energy future should be fucking awesome.' Yet, we are failing. And in that we are betraying young people and those who are both most concerned about the impact of the renewables revolution on their communities and most at risk from the disasters that make it necessary. This week the first sitting of the 48th parliament typified time-wasting point-scoring politics with former Nationals leaders Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack teaming up to push for the repeal of the legislated net zero target, undermining the current leader, David Littleproud, in the process. This is irresponsible and gutless, and the Albanese government with its characteristic pragmatic caution must not allow its massive majority to be an excuse to curb ambition because it doesn't need to try too hard to appear to be better Instead, both governments and oppositions at state and federal level need to go back to basics and carefully build the case to step communities through the big changes ahead from the point of view of both an opportunity for affordable power and better jobs as well as a necessity. We know that Australians care about climate. Many have already been touched directly by climate disasters. Most will have seen their insurance premiums affected at the very least. The 2022 election was certainly influenced by the floods, fires and storms that led up to it, and the Morrison government's refusal to 'hold a hose'. And while the Coalition successfully channelled much of the 2025 election debate into cost-of-living pressure, even here in Goldstein, where the demographic is older than the national average, polling still consistently showed climate in the top three concerns of constituents. Many Australians also understand that climate and environment policy and the economy are intrinsically linked. In his recent address to the National Press Club, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry tied the two together, as he described failures in improving environmental management as 'a wilful act of intergenerational bastardry'. The government has revived plans for a federal EPA after parking its promised broader reforms to environmental laws towards the end of the last parliament apparently under pressure from business. Henry argues for an overhaul that both protects and restores nature, through high-integrity incentives for nature restoration and carbon storage together with genuine cooperation between all levels of government and clear standards and decision-making. He frames nature restoration as both an environmental and economic benefit, both of which are critical to the net zero transition. Speaking of which, what was not talked about in Canberra this week? While Joyce and McCormack try to ditch the 43% net zero 2030 emissions target (which is set as a floor not a ceiling because I negotiated that into the law with the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen), Australia's net zero target for 2035 has not yet been set. The government has been waiting for advice from the Climate Change Authority to set the new nationally determined contribution (NDC), which required factoring in the outcomes of both the Australian election and the 2024 US election. Now that all of that is over, to what extent will the Albanese government take its power amid this circular debate? Some in the business world, specifically the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Andrew McKellar, say a target of 65-75% would be 'exceedingly challenging for the Australian economy'. Yet expert analysis shows that a 2035 target of sub 75% or more (on 2005 levels) is aligned with more than 2C of global heating. And, according to the Climate Council, 'climate-fuelled disasters are expected to cost the Australian economy $94 billion a year by 2060 if pollution levels remain high'. At least 8.8% of Australian homes will be uninsurable due to high exposure to climate disasters by 2100. There's no question it's complicated, practically and politically. But arguably, Labor has six years in power ahead. That's a decent runway. And pragmatically, three-quarters of millennials and gen Z voters, now the largest group of Australian voters, named climate change as a key voting issue for the 2025 election. By 2028, there will be several hundred thousand more of them. And they'll expect something beyond more 'intergenerational bastardry'. Zoe Daniel is a three-time ABC foreign correspondent and former independent member for Goldstein
