The Nationals are over-achievers. The evidence is the fact that Warren Truss is Deputy Prime Minister.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In another, more significant way the Nationals are also quiet achievers. They remain thin in parliamentary talent but at least, compared to their Liberal colleagues, their ministers have kept out of trouble since Senator Fiona Nash's early controversy involving food labelling and her chief of staff.
Their ranks include only one really strong personality, the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce. The ebullient former Queensland senator, now member for New England in the House of Representatives, was a lightning rod for controversy when in opposition.
His spoiling tactics seemed made for opposition rather than government and he had a short-lived and unsuccessful stint as shadow minister for finance. But he has attracted nowhere near the same fuss in government.
Years of disunity over whether or not to be in Coalition with the Liberals led to Bob Katter leaving the party, and other internal ructions led to Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor sitting on the crossbenches. All the negative media focus seemed to be on the Nationals. Tumultuous events leading to the merger of the Liberals and Nationals in Queensland in 2008 also led to attention on the Nationals.
Much has changed for the better as far as the Nationals are concerned. In short, neither Joyce nor his Nationals' colleagues are the reason why the federal Coalition government is in trouble. It is the Liberals rather than the Nationals who are the focus of adverse findings from ICAC in NSW. It is the Liberals rather than the Nationals who harbour disruptive elements like Senator Cory Bernardi. And it is the Liberals rather than the Nationals who are arguing about their leadership.
There are of course some reasons for this sunny state of affairs which are not particularly to the credit of the Nationals. They are hidden away to some extent from the bulk of voters and the media in the big population centres. For this reason their performance may be difficult to judge from Canberra.
They are also hidden away to some extent in less controversial portfolios. This reflects their weakness rather than their strength. No longer are they strong enough to claim Trade or Treasury as they once did in years gone by. Under Malcolm Fraser, Doug Anthony, Peter Nixon and Ian Sinclair were really strong cabinet ministers.
As well as Truss in Infrastructure and Regional Development and Joyce in Agriculture, they also have Senator Nigel Scullion in Indigenous Affairs as a third cabinet minister. Nash (Assistant Minister for Health) and Luke Hartsuyker (Assistant Minister for Employment) are in the outer ministry.
Among these portfolios Indigenous Affairs is potentially controversial, as Mal Brough showed during his stint during the last Howard government; but given his personal interests in Reconciliation and Constitutional Reform, the Prime Minister keeps a close eye on this portfolio and has become the major spokesman.
However, to give credit where it is due, the clue to the Nationals' less troubled existence at the moment lies more in the personality of their major figures. Truss may be almost invisible most of the time, but at least he is not a divisive figure. His monotones can serve as a calming influence. Even the most likely troublemaker, Joyce, has more personality, humility and sense of humour than many of his Liberal ministerial colleagues.
Another factor in the relative standing of the two conservative parties at the moment is the more practical ethos of the Nationals which, surprisingly, may be more attractive to the non-ideological centre of Australian politics at the moment.
The social conservatism of the Nationals is undiminished. Historically this has been the main factor that had them rated by voters as a more right-wing party than the Liberals. But that may not be the case anymore.
The Nationals appear less caught up in ideological and cultural wars now than many of the new-breed Liberals. They are less ideological on economic policy than the Liberals because of the constant reliance of primary industries on state intervention. They have always valued government action for this reason.
Likewise they are less consumed with culture wars because of the inherent pragmatism of rural Australians. Matters of national security and free speech have not put them as much in the forefront as they were when native title was being hotly debated.
It is an intriguing question as to what the Nationals think about the Liberal leadership. In the past they have been influential, no more so than when John McEwen vetoed William McMahon after Harold Holt's death in the late 1960s. But they are weaker now. And they no longer harbour the grand aspirations of Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke Petersen that wrecked John Howard's chances in 1987.
So they have kept out of the Liberal leadership squabbles. They are rarely asked for their opinions, and if asked they keep out of it. They certainly would not want leadership uncertainty and Abbott's unpopularity to cause the Coalition government to lose office in 2016. But they can't do much about that.
However, if they can't be part of the solution they can at least rest comfortably in the knowledge that they also are not the major part of the problem.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political Science at the Australian National University