Latest news with #JohBjelke-Petersen
The Advertiser
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
This week's actions were bizarre. But the Nationals are built a little different
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.
West Australian
21-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Australian news and politics live: Former Nationals leader, Ian Sinclair, says coalition will be mended
Scroll down for all the latest posts. The man who led the Nationals during its last divorce from the Liberals believes the coalition partners will eventually reunite. Ian Sinclair was leader of the Nationals during the coalition's five-month split in 1987, which was triggered by then-Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen's push to enter federal parliament. The 'Joh for Canberra' campaign drove a wedge through conservative politics and collapsed without widespread support. Mr Sinclair is confident the latest trial separation will not last forever, saying a split after an election wasn't unusual and issues would eventually be resolved. 'It has happened before and will happen again,' the 95-year-old told AAP. 'It's quite a healthy thing.' Party leader David Littleproud pulled the Nationals out of the coalition after Liberal Leader Sussan Ley said she couldn't commit to four policy demands, including keeping nuclear power as part of an energy policy. New South Wales has an ongoing flood crisis and the Liberals and Nationals continue to ponder over their new structures post separation. Stay right here for all the latest news, views and opinion throughout the day.
Sydney Morning Herald
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Division is death and a dead Coalition can never win government
As the Liberal Party struggles to put its house in order following the May 3 election rout, junior is playing hard ball. The National Party's decision to break up the federal Coalition is a mixed blessing, necessary but self-delusional. Nationals leader David Littleproud said that the partnership was over because the Liberals had refused to agree to his party's policies: lifting the ban on nuclear energy, establishing a $20 billion Regional Australia Future Fund, boosting mobile coverage across Australia and stopping big business abusing market power. Retaining 15 seats while the Liberals' haul plummeted to 28 has emboldened the Nationals to tell their senior partner to take a hike. But it suggests an inflated sense of self and ignores their bleeding obvious mutual dependence: the Liberal Party and the Nationals need each other to win government. However, the split will allow both parties to re-evaluate themselves in the face of defeat. The Nationals are not going anywhere, they'll stay in their bush heartland. However, the Liberals must rebuild their own heartland in cities where their vote has gone MIA. Once the Liberals have done that, they then must turn their minds to reconciling with the recalcitrant Nationals over policies and scale of differences in those policies while injecting some realpolitik into junior's thinking. They've done this before. The Coalition splintered for a few months in 1987 with the gerrymandered Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen's addled attempt to defeat Bob Hawke. But the agreement between the Liberals and the then Country Party broke up after Gough Whitlam's Labor put them out in 1972, ending 22 years in office. They remained divided for just two years, reunited to fight the 1974 election and went on to win the following year as Labor unravelled with the CP rebadged as the National Party. The difference between 2025 and those Whitlam years was that the Coalition and Labor were then only a handful of seats apart. Latest counting puts Labor at 93 seats, 50 more than the former Coalition's 43. The scale of the defeat makes a comeback a tough climb and seriously jeopardises conservative parties' prospects at the next election. The Nationals are unwelcome in the capital cities while the Liberals can realistically only field candidates in regional cities and towns, thereby opening up the damaging possibility of three-way election contests and already there are fears of Liberal internal dissent. Former prime minister John Howard called on both parties to reform as soon as possible, 'the problem of remaining too far apart for too long is that attitudes harden and differences become deeper'.
