Describing a political party, if I said there were fights on the floor of the party conference, a strident radical wing, socialist tendencies and legislation to introduce a public gas utility you’d probably assume I was talking about the Australian Labor Party.
In fact I would be describing the Victorian Country Party, which was the dominant parliamentary power in that state for three decades last century.
I’ve been reading “The Victorian Premiers: 1856-2006″ (Federation Press 2006) edited by Paul Strangio and Brian Costar.
I bought the book because I was interested to learn more about the dynamics that existed between the Labor and Country parties during that period.
Some facts were confirmed:
- A minority Country Party government ruled with Labor support.
- Albert Dunstan was one of Victoria’s longest-serving premiers.
- Former Labor premier Ned Hogan became a Country Party minister.
- Henry Bolte and the Liberals hated the Country Party and plotted its downfall.
Some facts I did not know:
- The Country Party supported a minority Labor Goverment (George Prendergast, 1924).
- John Wren was considered influential in securing Labor support in parliament for the Country Party.
- John Allan was Australia’s first Country Party premier (1924).
- Ned Hogan (a Catholic) was the victim of a sectarian campaign by Labor to unseat him from parliament.
- Albert Dunstan was a dud premier.
Why does any of this matter?
If you’re interested in rural politics, as I am, the National Party’s decline is worth analysing.
Many people have said decline was an inevitable result of demographic change. In my view the reasons are much deeper than that.
The revival of the WA Nationals has many parallels with Victoria from 1920-52, a period in which there was never a majority government.
Brian Costar explains in his chapter on John Allan, the Victorian Country Party derived from the Victorian Farmers Union (VFU).
The VFU was split between the “conservatives” in Gippsland and the North East, and the “radicals” in the Mallee and Wimmera, most of whom were soldier settlers. The Western District was tory (Nationalist/Liberal).
The Country Party (CP) almost self destructed and actually split over whether to form coalitions with anyone.
At various times there was a minority Nationalist government with CP support, CP governments with Nationalist and Labor support (not at the same time) and a Labor government with CP support.
Governments were never elected on polling day; they were formed in a fluid parliament.
Ultimately there was some stability when Sir Albert Dunstan (CP) ruled from 1935-45, which was a remarkable political achievement given the circumstances.
Costar describes Sir Albert (pictured) as a “virtuoso of procrastination”.
Sadly, his low-taxing regime caused Victoria significant problems when the Commonwealth took over income taxing powers.
The formula used to determine allocations to the states was based on their revenue collections in 1941-42. Because Victoria didn’t collect much tax, it didn’t receive much in disbursements and this problem continued for decades.
The final Country Party government in Victoria (John McDonald 1950-52) was more progressive and reformist, largely because Labor attached conditions to its parliamentary support, which were honored.
These included amendments to the Factory and Shops Act, attempts to establish a Greater Melbourne Council, and the creation of the Gas and Fuel Corporation, Mental Hygiene Authority and Milk Board.
McDonald also expanded the Eildon Weir, which he considered his greatest achievement.
Labor withdrew its parliamentary support over the government’s reluctance to implement electoral reform.
Malapportionment was responsible for the Country Party’s strength. At one stage 39 rural votes were equivalent to 100 city votes.
Victoria’s first majority Labor government (John Cain snr 1952-55) ended the electoral weighting. The Liberal Party renamed itself the Liberal and Country Party, attracted CP defectors and ruled for many years under authoritarian premier Henry Bolte.
The Country Party stayed on the cross benches and never returned to executive power until the Nationals joined Jeff Kennett’s majority Liberal government in 1992.
The author of Kennett’s chapter, Nick Economou, writes: “The effect (of coalition) was to marginalise the influence of the National Party, which in retrospect was to have great significance to the eventual fate of the government”.
He’s alluding to the rural backlash Kennett and Pat McNamara suffered in 1999.
The alliance between the WA Nationals and Liberals, forged after the 2008 election, was described in some quarters as groundbreaking. Likewise, the switch of Vince Catania from Labor to the Nationals was considered unprecedented.
However, the McDonald Country Party government bears a strong resemblance to what happened in WA. The main difference is the alliance partner in that case (Labor) did not seek ministries.
McDonald was able to form government on the basis that he agreed to implement particular Labor policies.
Looking at other states, I don’t believe there was ever wheeling and dealing between the Labor and Country parties as there was in Victoria.
The Victorian CP was always hostile toward the Liberals until McNamara and Allan Brown formed a coalition in opposition. Indeed, John McEwen was expelled from the CP at one time for supporting a coalition in Canberra.
So why did the Nationals decline?
I believe people failed to differentiate between the Liberals and Nationals, especially in areas where the Nationals lost representation, which frequently occurred when a sitting member retired (eg Murray and Farrer).
The Nationals should quit the coalition every time they’re in opposition. That time is an opportunity to rejuvenate and articulate policies.
The Nationals should also be prepared to deal with Labor.
To her credit, Karlene Maywald broke the mould when she supported a minority Labor government in South Australia (2004).
The historical experience in Victoria shows a regional party can be successful if it’s prepared to engage with Labor in the parliament.
The WA Nationals rediscovered that formula last year, and although they ultimately aligned with the Liberals, the serious prospect of a deal with Labor prompted concessions from Colin Barnett.
The Federal Nationals are making independent noises, albeit softly and I don’t think many people can hear them. The situation has been complicated by the merger in Queensland.
Peter Ryan’s coalition with the Liberals in Victoria was a backward step in my opinion.
Under a coalition agreement the Nationals have no hope of winning seats like Benambra and South West because they can’t contest them.
I suspect the coalition was formed partly to save money. The Nationals had to run in a lot more seats in 2006 to garner votes for the upper house.
New South Wales is the sleeper. A stable coalition has always existed there and the Nationals have mostly protected their traditional territory, so brand recognition is not such a big issue.
If the Liberals push into the north coast the Nationals may have to become more independent to survive.
They could do well to learn from their own history.
- Disclaimer: I am a former state secretary and state president of the Victorian Young Nationals (1985-86).
