The current debate about the relationship between the two Coalition parties, the Liberals and the Nationals, should emphasise greater transparency. Treating the Coalition as one party is so embedded into political discussion in Australia that it impedes useful discussion.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The transparency must begin with the public presentation of the two parties by the media. Election reporting is a prime example of how often the parties are merged into one. Just look at the way the federal election results have been reported. All the reporting has concentrated on seats won by the "Coalition". The Canberra Times is not alone in reporting in massive type on Tuesday that Labor had won 76 seats and the Coalition 58 seats. The division of these seats between the Liberals and the Nationals is usually found buried in detail, if at all.
Visually, the seats are colour-coded red for Labor, light green for the Greens, teal for the new independents and blue for the Coalition. Dark green for the Nationals rarely even features.
The same was true on election night. The primary vote percentage won by the Liberals and Nationals was collapsed into one figure for the LNP. There is no party called LNP, other than in Queensland. Why not list the Liberals and Nationals separately?
This is no small matter, because it colours how the electorate views the two parties. It is the background against which the theme "A vote for Josh is a vote for Barnaby" has an impact in the community. The media and commentators, including academics are, complicit in this portrayal of the parties.
Commentators have also not pushed hard enough to demystify the Coalition relationship. The two parties should never have been allowed to keep the formal agreement between them in government secret. Other such arrangements between a major party and the Greens or independents are pursued relentlessly until they are published - and rightly so. The same rule should be applied to the Liberal-National arrangements.
It is remarkable that the details of the arrangement reached by the two parties when the Morrison government eventually committed to net zero emissions by 2050 was never made public. The fact that Morrison and Joyce were able to brush off calls for transparency was lamentable.
The Coalition relationship is a highly structured and regulated business deal, as Joyce has reiterated this week in his brutal, no-nonsense way. It may be a sibling relationship, but it is not a close one. There is just as much of a "loving feeling" between Labor and the Greens, and we know how bitter and fractured that relationship can be.
The structure of the Coalition relationship extends to rules against three-cornered contests where there is a sitting MP, and joint Senate tickets in NSW and Victoria (and the single-party arrangement in Queensland). Once in Parliament, there are strict rules as to how portfolios are divided between the parties.
There is also provision for joint party room meetings on occasions. When Tony Abbott was prime minister, he manipulated a joint party room to suppress Liberal dissent over his resistance to same-sex marriage. Effectively he brought in the conservative Nationals to support him against his moderate colleagues. The latter were outraged.
All this background is the context for the current lament by Liberals over their loss of six heartland seats, including Josh Frydenberg in Kooyong, to the teal independents. They only have themselves, their party, and their prime minister to blame - but there is no doubt being in the Coalition did not help their cause. It made the Liberal brand much less attractive in the Liberal heartland. Not only were most Nationals against climate action, but they also had a leader in Joyce who spoke about these issues in the crudest way to appeal to some rural and regional voters. The Nationals are also an especially "blokey" party, represented by Joyce himself. Yet this was an election when women voters made their special distaste for the Coalition quite clear.
READ MORE:
Renegotiating the relationship with the Nationals must be on the agenda of the new Liberal leader. But it is not a magic bullet for the woes of the party. To see it as such would be escapism for moderate Liberals. The future of the Liberals lies in their own hands, and begins with a realistic assessment of their election defeat. That will be conducted within a party in which moderates have already been severely weakened.
The Liberal Party moved to the right under Morrison, regardless of what extreme-right Liberals like Senators Alex Antic and Gerard Rennick (supported by right-wing commentators) are now saying. This trajectory was obvious in the party's policies. It was also obvious during the campaign itself, as Morrison conducted scare campaigns over gender identity and religious freedom. Such a trajectory repelled centrist voters.
Once the Liberals have their own party in order, they will be assisted if there is some equivalent rethinking within the Nationals. That is harder to see coming, given the party is in self-congratulatory mode over its election success. Perhaps a stint in opposition will cause them some reflection.
Commentators have been predicting the demise of the Nationals for 50 years, but it hasn't happened. Nevertheless, there are centrist moderates within the party who hope for a more constructive public stance on issues such as climate action, integrity in government and women in public life. That will only happen when rural and regional voters reject the style and stance of the current Nationals leadership.
The health of the Coalition partnership ultimately depends on the health of each of the two constituent parties, not just the Liberals.
- John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
