National Party Election Results

[Aussiejeff]

In todays media:

"It seems federal Nationals leader Mark Vaile has failed to stem the decline of his party in yesterday's federal election. The Nationals could wind up with just 10 seats in the Parliament, the lowest number they have held. They still hold out hope of winning Flynn in central Queensland, even though Labor is leading.

But the junior Coalition partners have lost Page in New South Wales and in a big shock, the Queensland seat of Dawson has also fallen to Labor for the first time in more than three decades.

Mr Vaile says it is disappointing."

Given the poor leadership shown by the Nationals to the plight of many gripped by the years of drought in Qld & NSW, I wonder if that was a factor in their being reduced to minor party status..?


AJ

 

[nioka]

In todays media:

"It seems federal Nationals leader Mark Vaile has failed to stem the decline of his party in yesterday's federal election. The Nationals could wind up with just 10 seats in the Parliament, the lowest number they have held. They still hold out hope of winning Flynn in central Queensland, even though Labor is leading.

But the junior Coalition partners have lost Page in New South Wales and in a big shock, the Queensland seat of Dawson has also fallen to Labor for the first time in more than three decades.

Mr Vaile says it is disappointing."

Given the poor leadership shown by the Nationals to the plight of many gripped by the years of drought in Qld & NSW, I wonder if that was a factor in their being reduced to minor party status..?


AJ

If the nationals were an independent party I would stll have voted for them. It was Howard, Costello and Abott that I voted against. The nationals were "collateral" damage.

 

[Rafa]

Having listened to the likes of Bob Katter speak... The Nationals Party are a joke and beholden to a few select interests...

thats the reason they still supported AWB and the single desk and refused to let it go, even tho its in the interest of rural Australia...

The fact is, under the national/liberal rule for the last 10 years, country australia has gone backward, and more and more land and water rights are being bought up by corporate australia.

I didn't hear the national party standing up and fighting against this. The same goes for the sale of Telstra...

see this article from the Australian last week...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22786823-5014253,00.html

IF Labor wins on Saturday, we'll witness long-overdue reforms to bulk wheat marketing arrangements.

While the Coalition's stated preference is to maintain the "single desk", multiple insiders say a Machiavellian Prime Minister will deregulate next year - but I wouldn't bet on it.

I spoke with Opposition agriculture spokesman Kerry O'Brien on Sunday about Labor's plan. While it's not complete deregulation, it's a huge leap forward. The Coalition, mired in internal ructions, can't even tip-toe forward.

Labor will establish an accreditation system. Anyone may apply to export wheat. A new authority, Wheat Exports Australia, will evaluate applications against criteria, including financial standing, probity and reputation.

While anyone can apply for a permit under the current system, AWB vetoed all applications until the Government, under pressure following the Cole Inquiry's damning findings on the AWB oil-for-food scandal, transferred veto power to Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran in December.

Apart from several token approvals, McGauran has vetoed - or simply sat on - all applications. A National and avowed single-desker, McGauran is fundamentally conflicted. He claims to act in the "public interest", but his refusal to define it helps him get away with this appalling behaviour.

In contrast, accreditation under Labor will be based on a specific definition of public interest, with no ministerial veto power.

The current system is cumbersome and costly, as the rarely issued permits are country, time and tonnage specific. Labor will renew accreditation annually, provided performance is satisfactory.

Accredited exporters may ship unlimited volumes to any markets.

The discredited AWB still gets special treatment. It doesn't have to apply for permits. Despite his past savaging of AWB, a remarkably magnanimous O'Brien says he shouldn't pre-empt the WEA's decision on its accreditation. However, given it's atrocious record, AWB couldn't possibly satisfy Labor's reputation and probity criteria.

Prime Minister John Howard gave the Wheat Export Marketing Alliance until March to make the case for designating its proposed company, Auswheat, as the new single desk operator. WEMA is a grab-bag of six state-based farm lobbies whose members account for less than 15 per cent of Australia's wheat production.

While a Labor win would dash WEMA's single desk ambitions, O'Brien says it can apply for accreditation. I'd be astounded if it satisfies Labor's criteria.

WEMA's business plan is so pitiful that last month one of its own members, the South Australian Farmers Federation Grains Council, unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in it and the council's chairman lauded Labor's policy.

Despite this, McGauran publicly backed it, slipping WEMA $250,000 of taxpayers' money, and teamed with Vaile to push for $4 million more. WEMA displays the worst attributes of farm lobbies. It thinks it's entitled to special treatment and handouts from political mates.

WEMA chairman Graham Blight described his $4 million demand as "chicken feed". Coalition reform advocate Wilson Tuckey recently asked Blight: "Why should your private $2 company have more rights to taxpayers' money than the struggling health system?" Blight hasn't replied.

Incredibly, WEMA thinks it needs only $4 million of external capital to run a $3 billion export business and McGauran and Vaile believe it. Forcing growers to put $3 billion of export wheat through a company with only $4 million of capital would be irresponsible.

WEMA's fundraising effects have been disastrous. Nobbling McGauran for $250,000 was a pushover. Having sought $2 million from 20,000 growers three months ago, it got only $210,000. It hasn't raised a cent from commercial sources.

McGauran unsuccessfully pressured Howard to approve the $4 million handout days before the election was called.

The Coalition destroyed the previous regulator's integrity by pandering to farm lobby demands. It legislated the Grains Council's right to nominate two of five directors and restricted the regulator's role.

McGauran recently appointed five members of the new Export Wheat Commission, which replaces the old regulator. Four, including a former National Farmers Federation deputy president and three growers, came from the old regulator's board.

McGauran added another former NFF deputy president as chairman.

O'Brien says appointments will be based solely on "skills and experience", adding "we won't take nominations from any industry body". While not ruling out appointees from industry bodies, he stresses "no director will be appointed as a representative of any body". Directors' decisions must be made solely on "public interest, eschewing the interests of any one party".

O'Brien says the chairman must be "as independent as possible" and "can't be involved in wheat marketing or growing".

Speedy reform is imperative. O'Brien will present legislation to parliament "early next year" and wants it implemented "as soon as possible", well before the 2008-09 harvest. What will happen in the meantime?

The 2007-08 harvest is already under way, with a third of WA's crop already in. The former regulator had recommended for approval at least 10 of the many permit applications McGauran has sat on for months. Until new arrangements are legislated, a new minister will inherit McGauran's veto power.

However, O'Brien says decisions will be made "as quickly as possible" but "as I haven't seen the applications, I can't pre-empt decisions". He also wants to vigorously pursue Cole's recommendation to investigate potential criminal charges against 12 individuals.

Saturday marks a year since the Government received Cole's report. Three weeks ago this paper reported that the 12 hadn't even been interviewed. O'Brien says he's "heard that investigators were told that these pursuits were not priorities".

If the Coalition wins, the Nationals will push to hand WEMA $4 million immediately and for Auswheat's designation.

But multiple sources claim Howard won't designate Auswheat. They say he decided last year to deregulate, but agreed to the WEMA charade to keep the Nationals quiet until after the election. WEMA was set up to fail. Come March, its failure will give Howard an excuse to (partially) deregulate.

At least one Coalition parliamentarian vows to report any further WEMA handouts to the Auditor-General. Howard won't relish another lambasting like last week's Auditor-General's report on the Coalition's mishandling of its rural partnerships slush fund.

An article in the latest issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics - the most prestigious in the field - found that current wheat marketing arrangements cost Australia $US224.7 million ($252 million) annually.

The article is by Melbourne University's Don McLaren and an English economist, not by anti-single desk Americans.

On November 1, Melbourne University's Joshua Gans - whose past work AWB cited as "evidence" that the single desk earned a huge price premium - wrote (at www.economics.com.au) that "the ALP policy appears to be moving towards a better outcome", describing its plan to provide "more competition" as "a solid policy option".

I'm sick to death of the Coalition's ineptitude on wheat. Meaningful reform is only sure to occur if the Coalition loses this Saturday. Should that happen, they'll have only themselves to blame.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Another interesting read, Rafa.

Interestingly, not many here or in the media seem to be even considering the existence of the "National Party" in the post-election washup, or even whether any of it's elected members have any role to play in the new opposition. It's all about the Liberal Party. Makes you wonder how relevant the Nats will be after 3(4) or 6(8) years of opposition doesn't it?

I wonder whether their "Coalition" has become like a bad "arranged marriage" - the arrangement is not looking good for either party in the longer term... so should the Nats cut and run? Would they have the guts to do that? Or are they a spent force, destined some time in the future for the same scrapheap the Democrats (who? I hear you say...) found themselves discarded to on Election eve. Would the Libs themselves cut them free or should they try to save them from political oblivion?


AJ

 

[Smurf1976]

A serious question. Have the Nationals actually achieved anything significant over the past 20 years?

Labor when in government had policies and implemented them.

Liberal when in government had policies and implemented them.

Greens have managed to get quite a few things implemented without actually being in government, making them arguably the most effective politicians in Australia (though not overly democratic in their approach).

Democrats got some of their ideas at least partially implemented when holding the balance of power in the senate.

Even independents have managed a few wins.

But the Nationals? I seiously don't recall them having a single major policy implemented in recent times, unless of course the Liberals also had the same policy. They seem pretty much irrelevant to me other than as a means of making up the numbers for the Liberals.

 

[Rafa]

The bush, esp in Queesland, has swayed between Labor and the Nationals...

The marriage between the Nationals and Liberals to me never made sense... I am not sure what the main principles of the National party were, but certainly in the coalition govt besides the Regional Partnership Program, which pretty much gave the National Party a sum of money to spend (and subsequently proven to be nothing more that a slush fund to get the party re-elected), i couldn't see much other benifits...

Sold Telstra, increased the divide between the rural and and urban community due to complete run down of rural infrastructure, esp in the communications area...

And then we had Mark Vaile bringing out a policy to give grants for country students to go to the city universites to study when 21st communication technology could have delivered the city to the country!!!!

I got the impression that the the way Coalition policies were geared, was to simply drive all the country folk away from the land! They even started giving grants to get them to leave the land

The coalition have also done nothing on climate change, waters, services, etc besides empty rhethoric... These issues directly effect rural folk...

Yet, they all voted Nationals!!! very confusing... And the Nationals simply do what the liberals tell them too... One would have to ask what benifit there is at all for the coalition between the two parties to continue



I remeber seeing this on ABC Insiders around September... Interview with Bob Katter and Tony Windsor. Not knowing much about rural Australia, besides knowing they are the 'true' Australians, who live and breathe Egalitarianism. They are the people who work hard, to deliver our food, and have been ripped off by the supermarket chains.... They, compared to most others, deserve a fair go. This interview was a real eye opener.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2007/09/30/2047159.htm
(link to full transcript also on the website)

Some excerpts

BARRIE CASSIDY: And Tony Windsor, how do read it (the major issues) in New South Wales?

TONY WINDSOR: Well, health is always the major issue, dental health particularly coming into this election. Telecommunications, renewable energy - big issue - and I think I agree with Bob, the sleeper in the sense, even though it's been plastered all over the television screens is IR. I think there's a number of people, key people, who will actually change their vote on that particular piece of legislation. And that's reflected in Joe Hockey's fairness test. They've obviously identified that in their focus groups and trying to fix the problem, but people won't talk about it too much publicly, but I think it's something that does concern them about their futures.

.
.
.

BARRIE CASSIDY: What about the latest initiative, though, the offer to farmers - $150 000 to leave the land. How's that going over?

TONY WINDSOR: Well, I'd imagine two or three people would accept that. Most people aren't going to vacate the premises. Some of the criteria is fairly restrictive. People will make up their own minds, but there again, the focus has gone to the welfare side of it rather than keeping a very important industry in place to come out the other end when the drought breaks. There's a whole range of initiatives...

BARRIE CASSIDY: Bob Katter... Sorry. Go on, Bob, what do you make of it?

BOB KATTER: $150 000 - I mean, the Government is constantly encouraged people to leave the land. I mean, I don't know where they're going here, and there is a general... I mean, I have to say there is a very general belief throughout rural Australia - this is on the Murray, in the back of New South Wales, and in north Queensland, all over Australia - that the Government doesn't want farmers. That they actually believe that and when you give out $150 000 to leave farming, well you're reinforcing people's mind, so that once upon a time when I was in the National Party, I expected 90 per cent of the votes from the rural areas, we were down to 60-40 split when I left the National Party when most of the cocky (phonetic) voter in the electorate that I represent now because they really have broken away from the idea that the Government, whether it's Coalition or Labor, is in any way looking after them. They really believe that they're being closed down.

And Tony's point on sustainability - I mean, in the screaming frustration in rural Australia is they say there is a problem with CO2 and emissions and all of these things, and the solution is there. All of the Americas, thousand million people living in the Americas, are all moving to that solution as an op (option), but Australia won't move into it. Now...

TONY WINDSOR: Barrie, just a follow-up on the point that Bob's making there, and the mixed messages that the current Government is actually delivering to people. The Government's saying -and agriculture does have a real role - particularly in the carbon sequestration debate, and they didn't put the farm sector of the taskforce that looked at this issue. Now they're serious about renewable energy. Why are they imposing an excise tax on renewable fuels in 2011. So you've got this mixed message; they want agriculture to be there but they don't want it to move into areas where it could be producing renewable fuels, for instance. Now, if it moves into renewable fuels, they'll be taxed. I thought taxation was about trying to discriminate against a policy, not encourage it. So the Government's got to start getting its messages right. Does it want renewable energy for the future? If it does, it's got to start and encourage it, rather than put in place policies that actually discourage it.

BARRIE CASSIDY: OK. I just want to finish up by raising a hypothetical. And the parliament is deadlocked, Labor wins 15 seats. What would it take to win your support for either one of the parties? Would it be a question of who gets the most votes or would you sit down and talk policy? Bob Katter first.

BOB KATTER: Tony will say you'll follow the voting pattern, but I believe Tony will be very heavily influenced, and I most certainly... Look, I have got a suicide one every six weeks in the sugar industry in Australia. In the dairy industry, there is a suicide one every four days in the dairy industry in Australia. You know, we're fighting for survival. All of the small towns are just simply collapsing in population. We're fighting for survival. I am not interested in who's ruling Australia. I am interested in what's happening to the people I represent. And those are the considerations I.

 

[Rafa]

as posted by Aussie2Aussie

NATIONALS leader Mark Vaile is contemplating resigning from his role and moving to the backbench.

The former deputy prime minister is expected to make an announcement about his future at a press conference in Canberra to be held at 2pm.

The Australian understands Mr Vaile has been considering a move to the back bench in the wake of his party’s drubbing in Saturday night’s poll.

Despite hoping to gain two seats to increase its representation to 14 in the federal parliament, the Nationals failed to hold two seats – Dawson and Page – and failed to win the newly formed, notionally-Nationals seat of Flynn in Queensland.

Mr Vaile said on Sunday that he would offer to run as leader when his party met this week but is thought to have reconsidered the move.

The potential shift to the backbench comes as outgoing Queensland Nationals MP Deanne Kelly launched a broadside against her party, claiming the Coalition had been”far too complacent in not pushing policies that were stronger for rural and regional areas”.

Likely candidates for the Nationals leadership include current deputy leader Warren Truss or former agriculture minister Peter McGauran.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...45-601,00.html