This week's actions were bizarre. But the Nationals are built a little different

The Advertiser

23-05-2025

If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.