Ninety Not Out: The Nationals 1920-2010 – Paul Davey

From 1978 to 2000 Paul Davey held several senior positions with the National Party of Australia, including nearly ten years as Federal Director and more than three years as NSW General Secretary. He has also worked extensively as a news and current affairs reporter in Australia and overseas, including for Associated Press of America in Southern Africa, the Nine Network, and ABC Radio’s AM and PM programs in Western Australia, Queensland and the Canberra Press Gallery. His books include The National Party (2006) and in 2010 Ninety Not Out: The Nationals 1920-2010.

NINETY NOT OUT: THE NATIONALS 1920-2010

PAUL DAVEY

Gerard and Anne Henderson, Senator Nash, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming along and for giving me the opportunity to talk to you about some of the history of the party that this year is celebrating its ninetieth anniversary in federal parliament and that is known today as the Nationals.

When I last spoke to The Sydney Institute, it was about Doug Anthony and his family in federal politics. It was directly because of that project that I embarked on this one. Doug thought the federal party’s history should be brought up to date. Cutting a long story short and three years later, this, Ninety Not Out, is the result.

The party has a fascinating and colourful past through which two key points stand out –

First, it has made an enormous and largely unrecognised contribution to the building of modern Australia and, second, had it not been for this party, rural and regional Australia would not have seen the level of political attention that it has received.

The party was formed by a group of eleven MPs as the Australian Country Party on 22 January 1920, its core objective being to further the interests of primary producers through the national political process. Ninety years on and it still exists, having never been unrepresented in the Commonwealth Parliament. Apart from name changes from Country Party to National Country Party, National Party and most recently, The Nationals, the organisation has operated under fundamentally the same constitution as that developed by its founding fathers. It’s the second oldest party in Australia, behind the ALP.

Since Federation, the party today known as the Nationals has spent more time on the government benches than any other party – more than 54 years, compared to Labor’s 35, nearly 42 for the Liberals, ten for the United Australia Party and 13 for the Nationalists. It has been the most stable of our political organisations, having had only 12 leaders in its entire 90-year history. And, given its comparatively small size in parliamentary terms – it has had only 164 members and senators to the present day – it has wielded a disproportionate level of influence and been responsible for some highly significant initiatives as part of Coalition governments since 1923. Indeed, the Labor Party was sufficiently rattled by the emergence of the Country Party that its 1924 federal conference insisted on the adoption of a new country policy being included in its platform.

The key to the party’s success has been its independence, coupled with the strength of its leaders. As one of Labor’s favourite sons, Fred Daly, once observed: “These men… are generally tough debaters and trade insults like they trade cattle.” We all know that detractors have been predicting the party’s demise or amalgamation almost from the day of its birth. Much of that mood has been born out of jealousy or envy at the influence the party has exerted. Because of its independence, the party has been able to demand the deputy prime ministership in Coalition governments, with its leader frequently being the acting prime minister. Three of the Nationals leaders – Earle Page, Arthur Fadden and John McEwen, were briefly prime ministers.

The party has also commanded control of major portfolios – perhaps the most notable and consistent being those dealing with trade and agriculture. So long as the party can continue to hold such positions of influence, and deliver significant outcomes, its future is reasonably assured.

Arguably, at the moment, with only nine members in the House of Representatives and five senators, it’s on shaky ground. The last time it had nine members in the Reps was 1943. Then there were 74 seats in the House, compared to 150 now, so the percentage of seats it held in 1943 was just over 12; today it is barely six. Opponents view these statistics with relish, seeing them as just about the final nail in the coffin.

Yet nothing in politics is certain. In the decade to 1943, the party’s federal representation in New South Wales crashed from eight members to three. Even party stalwarts saw doom on the near horizon. But by 1949, it was back to eight. Those today who favour amalgamation argue there is little chance of the party increasing its representation because of changing demographics and the erosion of traditional rural seats.

But this is not simply a rural party, or a farmers’ party. It has not been so narrowly focused for a very long time. It is very much a regional party that should be able to appeal to a wider cross section of the community across regional cities and towns, as well as to people on farms and in remote regions. Herein, perhaps, lies one of its more serious contemporary problems. It has not adequately thrown off its image as a farmers’ party.

A simple example – the New South Wales party recently preselected a new candidate for the state seat of Orange. It endorsed a 41-year-old barrister named Andrew Gee. The opening paragraph of the local print media’s coverage of the event read: “Long regarded as a party of conservative old farmers, the NSW Nationals knew they needed someone like Andrew Gee to prove they’re moving with the times.” It further said that Gee had suddenly become “the poster-boy for a party keen to reinvent itself’. That typifies the media’s view of the party, and the party has to generate a much broader understanding of its raison d’être – the breadth of its achievements and its plans for the future, so it widens its electoral appeal, particularly among younger voters and women.

There’s an appendix in my book that documents some of the party’s landmark achievements over the years. Understandably, there are many that highlight its credentials in trade and agriculture. There are also many that demonstrate its contribution to the broader community. To just name a few:

• Introducing Commonwealth funding for roads
• Setting up the Reserve Bank and what is today’s CSIRO
• Abolishing petrol rationing in 1950, and Commonwealth death and gift duties in 1979
• Providing the first medical benefits scheme
• Introducing State Aid for independent schools and establishing the nation’s first regional university, the University of New England
• Implementing Australian Design Rules for motor vehicle safety and building the standard gauge Indian Pacific railway
• Establishing the 200-mile Australian Fishing Zone and banning all whaling in those waters
• Ensuring billions of dollars from the sale of Telstra were dedicated to regional telecommunications, and
• Securing $37 billion for the Auslink 1 and 2 national land transport programs

All of these, and more, have had an impact way beyond the farm gate. They’ve contributed to regional and national development.

One of the reasons they’re not widely known as Country or National Party achievements – particularly some of the more contemporary ones – is because they’ve been sold to the electorate as government or Coalition outcomes. The Coalition as we know it has been a fact of Australian political life in almost all non-Labor federal governments since 1923, and in all non-Labor governments and Oppositions, with the brief exception of two periods totaling barely 18 months – since 1949 – more than 60 years.

The party used to be quite forthright in telling its story. A brochure in 1954 documenting achievements over its first 30 years ended with the exhortation “You can’t afford to be without the Country Party… Thank your stars there is a Country Party”. Pretty direct stuff. I see no reason why today’s party cannot similarly highlight its achievements and better illustrate how, as an independent party, it contributes positively and forcefully to Coalition outcomes.

There has been a more noticeable National Party presence in recent times. In this last parliament, it voted against issues including deregulation of export wheat marketing, Labor’s Rebuilding Australia Fund, because it raided the $2 billion perpetual Communications Fund which had been pivotal to the Nationals supporting the final sale of Telstra, and, of course, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Over its last two federal council meetings, it has adopted wide-ranging policies that are clearly National in flavour. None of this should be seen as the Nationals being divisive or rocking the Coalition boat – although that is invariably how the media likes to interpret it.

Rather, it is part of the policy development process. As a 1988 review into the party’s future observed: “If the argument of National Party Parliamentarians is good enough, there is no reason why their policy attitudes should not dominate Coalition policies.”

That might have been a bit exuberant, but the record shows that National Party initiatives frequently do get on the statute book.

So is there a continuing need for a separate regional party? My answer is yes. Given my background, some may say I’m biased. But an objective analysis shows the value of such an entity:

• It can fight specifically for regional issues
• It keeps the other parties on their toes so far as regional Australia is concerned
• If amalgamated it would lose the clout of independence and there could be no guarantee that a former National would be the deputy prime minister
• And in a united party, city-based representatives would dominate party room discussions and policy considerations.

So, you might ask, what about the LNP in Queensland? First, it needs to be understood that the LNP was developed specifically with state politics in mind. Second, the amalgamation was not altogether unexpected. There was a joint Country and Progressive National Party in Queensland for 12 years to 1936, and it governed for a term between 1929 and 1932.There are no doubt those who hope this latest merger ultimately leads to mergers in other states and federally. But there are differences. In Queensland, the Nationals were the dominant non-Labor party, which is not the case elsewhere. The New South Wales Party has long fought overtures to amalgamate and there’s little evidence of that changing.

Turning back to the history, there have been many iconic and dramatic events, which are detailed in the pages of this book:

• John McEwen’s expulsion from the Victorian Country Party for accepting a ministry in 1937
• Earle Page’s personal attack on Robert Menzies in April 1939, which split his own party and led to his resignation as leader five months later
• McEwen’s refusal to work with Bill McMahon if elected Liberal leader to replace Harold Holt
• The party’s absolute support for blocking Supply to the Whitlam government in 1974 and 1975.
• The Joh for Canberra campaign
• The coup against Ian Sinclair’s leadership
• The controversy over new gun laws in 1996 and the subsequent threat of One Nation.
• The sale of Telstra, increased trade liberalisation and deregulation – all of which were anathema to many grassroots party members and tested the leadership of Tim Fischer, John Anderson and Mark Vaile.

There have also been quirky situations which one suspects could only happen in a party as quaint as The Nationals. One that I like goes back to the post-December 1922 election, when the Country Party held the balance of power and the then Nationalists under Billy Hughes were negotiating with Earle Page to see if a Coalition government could be formed. One of Earle Page’s key advisors in the Country Party Room was John Latham – and he wasn’t even a member of the party. He was the Independent Liberal member for Kooyong in Victoria.

Latham was fiercely anti-Hughes, as was the Country Party. Page invited Latham to join Country Party meetings. Latham was also a King’s Counsel, which made him very useful to Page in the negotiations. Ultimately, Hughes stood down as Nationalist leader in favour of Stanley Bruce and a Coalition agreement between Bruce and Page – the document upon which all subsequent Coalition agreements have since been based – was announced on 9 February 1923. The agreement was to a large extent framed for the Country Party on the basis of the strategies designed and documented by John Latham, who later joined the Nationalists and went on to be deputy leader of the United Australia Party before becoming chief justice of the High Court.

I hope I have excited your interest sufficiently to prompt you to buy at least one copy of Ninety Not Out – and perhaps even more for birthday or Christmas presents. It has been handsomely produced by the UNSW Press, which I acknowledge and thank for its work. The book will look smart on your bookshelves and make people think you really know your politics. There’s nothing particularly unusual about seeing books on the Liberal and Labor parties in private collections, but include one on the Nationals and you’ll be seen as the bee’s knees!