The NATs have opted for the dustbin of history

Introduction

It's time to make an assessment. The new government has introduced huge changes for which it does not have a mandate. See http://www.bloggerme.com.au/abbott-says-palmer-respect-our-mandate-pass-...

The "We Are Open For Business" bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements are in progress, and they take little account of what is of value to the agricultural community. And the National Party seems unable to promote the needs of "the country". Is this an important moment in the life of the National Party?

Insights into the National Party

Watching the Leader of the National Party Warren Truss unable to perform on national television this morning, http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2014/s4021076.htm

"It doesn't matter, we are getting on with the job of managing the country"

http://theconversation.com/the-revival-of-the-national-party-in-nsw-and-...

it hit me in a flash that the NATs could be great, but they have purposely opted for obscurantism, and happy to play second fiddle to the worst musician in the world; they will soon be a small boil on the bum of the national parliament. And it won't be long before the electorate will have thrown them in the dustbin of history, never to be thought of again. He has been told by the LIBs to keep his trap shut, and he is performing his function as deputy leader by trying to think how Hockey would answer the question. A sort of "rule by second-guess" operation, that makes you cringe as you watch it.

It could have been such a different story. Let me explain:

The Numbers in the House

To understand my argument, you have to put your mind on the numbers in the parliament. I will look at the numbers as currently provided by the Parliament website:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/House_of... at 17 March 2014

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Senate_Seating_Plan Senate seating plan as at 8 May 2013

but don't forget when you are considering my deliberations, the government is about to enter into a much more hostile period in the next six years in the Senate. If my numbers tell this story in the current parliament then what I am proposing makes much more sense when the new Senate enters into its deliberations.

The House of Representatives

The first thing you notice when you look at my re-vamp of the Parliament seating arrangements is the prominance of two colours: red & blue. We have been told since the Menzies era that the only concept that makes any sense in Australia's parliamentary democracy is "two party preferred". Yes there are other parties, but the Liberal Party and the ALP dominate the scene so much, that you have to learn to play in their arena, if you want to play.

Well, I don't think so. I have deliberately mis-represented the seating arrangements (compare my picture with the one provided by the parliament). I have put the NATs (Yellow below) on the cross benches and what a different story it tells.

See http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/House_of...

LIBs 74 members (including the Speaker)
ALP 55 members
NATs 15 members
INDs 2 members
Greens 1 member
DLP 1 member
CLP 1 member
PUPs 1 member
______
150 members

The key thing to understand is that in order to run the House of Representatives with an absolute majority, any "two party preferred" needs 75 members plus the Speaker. If the Yellows were actually sitting on the cross benches, Tony Abbott would be "2 members short of an absolute majority", he would be entering into a relationship with one or two independents to "stay in power & carry out a reasonable legislative programme", and he would be looking to replace the Speaker with "someone he can trust" to provide equitable and sensible control of the House, giving him a buffer to deal with day-to-day changes in attendance. Ever heard that story before?

Another important way to look at these numbers: If the Yellows actually were concerned with promoting their own agenda (in the interests, say, of the "bush over the city"), if they decided to vote with the LIBs, you would have 73+15=88. But, if they decided to vote with the ALP, you would have 55+15=70. It's not hard to see that any action by the government under these modified arrangements would have to take the interests of the "bush over the city" very seriously indeed. (In political analysis we call this a powerful "ginger group" capable of initiating big changes to the programme to get the government to modify their policy matters, their budgetary ideology, in the interests of those whom you represent in the electorate.)

Senate

When you look at the map of the Senate it tells the same story but with more vibrancy:

See http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Senate_Seating_Plan Senate seating plan as at 8 May 2013

LIBs 27 senators (including the President)
ALP 30 senators
Greens 9 senators
NATs 6 senators
INDs 1 senator
DLP 1 senator
______
74 senators

The key thing to understand is that in order to run the Senate with an absolute majority, any "two party preferred" needs 37 senators plus the President. If the Yellows were actually sitting on the cross benches, Tony Abbott would be 11 senators short of an absolute majority.

Another important way to look at these numbers: If the Yellows actually were concerned with promoting their own agenda (in the interests, say, of the "bush over the city"), if they decided to vote with the Blues (LIBs), you would have 27+6=33. Still not a majority. If they decided to vote with the Reds (ALP), you would have 30+6=36, still not a majority. If they decided to vote with the Greens, you would have 6+9=15; still not a majority. But if the Yellows and the Greens got into bed together, a coalition that agreed to vote together ALL THE TIME, they would control both sides of the Senate. Anything that got through the Senate would get through only with their say so. They could send any legislation back to House to be modified or completely re-drafted, they could put any legislation into Committee never to see the light of day. You would have no way of controlling their influence. They may even be able to pull off a blocking of supply, and an eventual return to the electorate.

Coming changes to the numbers in the Senate

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senate_composition

From 1 July 2014 the outcome of the federal election that commenced on 7 September 2013 will see the numbers in the Senate change:
LIBs 26 senators (including the President)
ALP 25 senators
Greens 10 senators
NATs 6 senators
CLibs 1 senator
PUPs 3 senators
IND 1 senator
DLP1 senator
LDP 1 senator
FFP 1 senator
AMEP 1 senator
_______

76 senators See below http://www.bloggerme.com.au/comment/31925#comment-31925

See http://www.smh.com.au/comment/new-senate-a-fair-reflection-of-voter-inte...

It's different, but in my account, little changes: If the NATs actually were concerned with promoting their own agenda (in the interests, say, of the "bush over the city"), if they decided to vote with the LIBs, you would have 25+6=31. Still not a majority. If they decided to vote with the ALP, you would have 25+6=31, still not a majority. If they decided to vote with the Greens, you would have 6+10=16; still not a majority. But if the NATs and the Greens got into bed together, a coalition that agreed to vote together ALL THE TIME, they would control both sides of the Senate. Anything that got through the Senate would get through only with their say so. They could send any legislation back to House to be modified or completely re-drafted, they could put any legislation into Committee never to see the light of day. You would have no way of controlling their influence. They may even be able to pull off a blocking of supply, and an eventual return to the electorate.

A Unique moment in history since the Menzies era

This means that we are actually in a unique moment in the history of Australian parliamentary democracy, since Menzies. A move out of government by the NATs and an allignment with the GREENS would change everything. We would have a minority government in the House of Representatives. And we would have a coalition party controlling every aspect of the passage of bills through the Senate. There would be nothing they could not determine. Every change in the Budget, for instance, would be open to serious determination in the Senate, to be thrown out or returned to the House for re-drafting.

And we don't have to wait for the new Senate to be sworn in. We can have it now. If the parties were to enter into agreement over the long weekend, the power could start on Tuesday and Australia would have a different future.

We have been told since Menzies that we need a third party. And we have been told time and time again that it is never going to happen. You better put up with the shit of the two major parties because the third party is never going to happen. And yet all the elements for a third party are right there, under our nose. We just need a different set of glasses to see it. The key question we have to put to the NATs is do you want a vibrant ginger group in the House and the ability to control the Senate or not? If the answer is "not", then what are you doing seeking election?

Are you serious? The NATs & the Greens?

Some readers of this analysis will see it as joke. That I could not be serious. The NATs have continually seen the Greens as a party with a limited policy agenda appealing to a limited minority, whom they accuse of not taking into account the realities of life. Well, I have to say the tide has turned. Much of the abuse of the Greens was necessary by the NATs because they saw themselves as appealing to a similar electoral base, one with a Middle to Conservative agenda and one with a Middle to Change-driven agenda.

We don't really know where the NATs stand on Indigenous rights, Intervention, and the rights of asylum seekers; they tend to just follow the dealings and the garbage coming out of the mouths of the "two party preferred". But, if we assume that the NATs are interested in what goes on in the bush, in understanding the importance of science on life in Australia, in accepting the realities of the modern environment and dealing with climate change, in preparing for a rise of the sea-level, in protecting the water table from the poisons of fracking, in protecting the long term quality of the life of the major river systems, in promoting real regional development not turning it into federal/state focussed agenda driven priorities, in promoting the importance of rail development over roads, in guaranteeing water for use in agriculture, in protecting the farmers from being dominated & forced off the land by international corporations, in taking a proper place in international governance and leadership, in protecting Australian interests in international trade agreements, in understanding the need for foreign aid & its place in the modern global world, then there is a real basis for such a medium term coalition. And if the NATs sit back and let Hockey and Abbott ride rough-shod over their electoral base, and put all of these matters at risk, then they risk losing that appeal to voters who have real concerns for the future of agriculture and country towns and regional cities in Australia; we may have already seen this shift in the changes to the outcome we have seen in the re-run of the WA Senate election. If the NATs sit quietly on their hands, saying nothing, as Hockey and Abbott trash their interests, then it will be them, not the Greens, who are seen as irrelevant to the future.

What made you even think it was possible?

When a party enters parliament you assume that they have their own interests, different from the political interests of any party they enter into coalition with. You expect them to want to build the party and get their members elected into parliament. You expect them to want to take control and promote their own interests above all else. Agreements for coalition are considered to be temporary and are only continued while it continues to be in both parties best interests. You don't expect a party to turn a coalition into a 'marital relationship', protecting the current 'government in coalition' at all costs, supporting the major coalition partner like a mad uncle and accept without question the hurting the interests of the minor coalition partner; silent even at the cost of their impending demise.

We saw a moment leading up to the election in which the NATs MPs and Senators were seen to be unhappy with drought assistance policy and were told by a emerging Treasurer to pull their heads in and they will have to accept the realities of the market. This upset a lot of NATs. Since then we have seen a range of policies, such as fuel excise, paid parental leave, pension, in which the NATs have understood that their contact with regional and rural concerns is being continually eroded by Budget initiatives over which they have no control.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/joyce-defies-coalition-...

The NATs are in government now, but to continue in government is not in their long-term interests. They need to bight the bullet and get out of it and go their own way, re-defining their real interests and what they bring to the electorate. We have seen similar situations in Europe and a "Centre-Right" minor party have often entered into coalition with another say "Centre-Left" party or "Greens" party, because it is in both parties' interests to do so.

Will they take the jump?

Many MPs and Senators in the NATs have been upset with the policy changes forced upon them by a uncaring major coalition partner who is just telling them to cop it, whether they like it or not. Have there been any rumblings about making a break and going it alone? I am not in a position to know. I hope so, but I guess not! I am not the only one who sits down and looks at the numbers. My guess is that Warren Truss is happy to play out his final years in parliament being on the front bench of Government. But I am pretty sure that somebody like Barnaby Joyce MP, or Senator Bridget McKenzie, or John Cobb MP, or Senator Barry O'Sullivan, for instance, would have done the numbers. But there doesn't seem to be any indicator that such ideas are being taken into account by the Hockey regime. It will be the NATs that pay a huge price for their loyalty to their inept and ideologically-driven coalition partners. So the NATs seem to have opted for the dustbin of history. Electors in the bush can only hope that they are replaced, over time, by a new party that is genuinely concerned with their regional and rural concerns.

Interested in making a comment? We would love to hear from you! Use your email account to set up a password - Click [Register] [Login] or [+] here >>>