Amalgamation is not the answer for the Liberal and National Parties

If there’s one thing that a period of electoral failure brings to the Liberal and National Parties in Queensland it is a rerun of the interminable arguments about the prospects of amalgamation between the two parties.

It has arisen again, fuelled by the sense of impending doom some Nationals feel for themselves as they endeavour to win back support from the ALP, the Liberals and a mixture of right-wing, populist Independents and One Nation left-overs.

Just as this argument consumed the parties in 1993-1994 it has the potential to do the same this year. This time, however, it seems to have a small cheer squad of Federal Liberals on the sidelines voicing their support. This contrasts with the debate of nearly a decade ago where the principal opponents of amalgamation were drawn from the ranks of Queensland Federal members.

The fact that the debate in 2002 has now become a vehicle for some Federal Liberals to pursue private vendettas unrelated to the issue of amalgamation, and more concerned with the internal machinations of the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party, is a matter of regret.

Fuel was added to the fire by the "on again – off again" comments of the Federal Finance Minister, Senator Nick Minchin, favouring amalgamation.

Against this background the simple question which both parties must face is whether individually and collectively they would be better off casting aside their separate identities, formally merging and sending both the Liberal and National Parties into history. This is exactly what was contemplated in 1994 but ultimately rejected.

At that time it was suggested that amalgamation would bring significant electoral benefits. The ALP under Wayne Goss was riding high in the polls. "Newspoll" found 49 percent of electors supporting the ALP compared with a combined 41 percent for the Liberal and National Parties in January-March 1994 – the height of the amalgamation moves. Wayne Goss received a 74 percent "satisfied" rating while he was preferred by a margin of 67 percent to 14 percent as Premier over then National leader, Rob Borbidge.

Twelve months later the Goss Government came within one seat of losing the election – by February 1996 it had been thrown out of office.

The political landscape has changed considerably since 1994. A seemingly unbeatable Labor Government is in office. However, the National Party has been reduced to a mere 12 seats following its inability to meet the challenge of a reinvigorated Labor Party and a hostile rural and regional constituency willing to embrace the nostrums of One Nation and its fellow travellers. On the other hand, the Liberal Party has just three members in Parliament, the result of its own inability to deal with One Nation and retain its credibility in the electorate.

Unfortunately for the Nationals, they now find themselves drinking in the "Last Chance" Saloon. Their traditional constituency has been alienated and has voted for challengers from both the right and the left. Their increasingly strident policy positions, taken in an effort to claw back this support, has made them an unpalatable alternative in the populous south-east.

The latest recorded opinion polls demonstrate the depths of the Nationals decline.

By whatever standard is adopted, the National Party is in desperate straits. It is barely registering on the radar screen of public opinion and is facing a bleak future. With the next State election less than two years away it appears to have no answers to drag itself out of the electoral doldrums.

A contest for the leadership of the organizational wing of the party between incumbent, Terry Bolger, and former Premier, Russell Cooper, and continuing speculation over the security of Mike Horan’s tenure as parliamentary leader does little to engender community confidence in the National Party’s ability to chart and maintain a clear, unambiguous course.

To the Nationals a revitalised Liberal Party is the only available lifeline in sight. However, the Liberal Party must answer some serious questions before accepting the latest marriage proposal.

For its own sake the Liberal Party must restore its electoral fortunes in the critical south-east – that area south from Noosa to the border and east from Toowoomba – and in selected regional areas. To do this it must present policies which have popular appeal and which demonstrate it has answers to critical questions facing Queenslanders.

This is the complete antithesis of the Nationals’ desperate "back to the bush" approach. While the Nationals are consumed with winning former One Nation and independent supporters, the Liberal Party has to cast its net over Labor voters for whom the new brand of National Party conservatism has little appeal.

Since assuming the Liberal leadership in 2001 Bob Quinn has staked out Liberal policy positions which, while unremarkable in themselves, are in complete contrast to the National Party’s way of thinking. In any amalgamated party these new Liberal policy positions would have to be accommodated. The Liberal support for land clearing guidelines, daylight saving, shopping hours reform and four year terms of Parliament are strongly opposed by the National Party. Indeed, the Nationals see opposition to such policies as key planks in their efforts to regain conservative supporters. This policy mixture would be absolute poison to an amalgamated party and its opponents would be entitled to question the very platform on which it sought electoral support.

The simple fact is that the policy prescriptions needed to assist the Liberals in their target seats are the complete anathema of those needed to help the Nationals restore their electoral fortunes. While such differences can be managed in a less formal arrangement – as existed at the 1995, 1998 and 2001 elections – they would cripple any new party arising from an amalgamation of the two.

More importantly, from the Liberal viewpoint, any sort of policy backdown to accommodate an amalgamation would convey a very clear message to the very people the Liberals are trying to get onside – the Liberal Party is once again willing to sell out its beliefs in the hope of some electoral gain. The south-east would reject the Liberal Party and cast its lot with Labor.

Whatever gains the Liberal Party has made would be squandered. Suspicions would again be aroused that the Liberal Party simply couldn’t be trusted. It would reap the political consequences of its folly.

The genesis of these latest moves is disturbing.

Dennis Atkins, writing in "The Courier Mail" on 1 April this year – April Fools Day – quoted an unnamed "insider involved in the reform movement" which pushed the amalgamation question at the National Party’s Central Council meeting in Charleville.

That "insider" said:

‘If there was a new conservative force, headed by people from the old Nationals, we could regain the position in Queensland we held in the era of Joh (Bjelke-Petersen).’

Despite this wishful thinking, there is no evidence Queenslanders want a return of any "conservative force", the "old Nationals" or "Joh". This is taking nostalgia to a new and unacceptable extreme.

If this is as far as the National Party’s political thinking has moved in the four years since the 1998 electoral defeat the Labor Party has little to worry about.

The role of Federal Liberals in the latest moves is also puzzling. None of the proponents of amalgamation has revealed how the two parties could combine in Queensland but have their elected members picking and choosing the party they supported in Federal Parliament. One of the rocks upon which amalgamation foundered in 1994 was its inability to reconcile this problem.

One Federal member to address this problem was John Howard. The then Liberal frontbencher was reported in "The Australian" of 3 November 1993 as saying:

‘The idea of having political parties operating in the national parliament but entirely State-based is not acceptable to me …. I don’t want the Balkanisation of Australian politics."

Mr Howard indicated he was against a merger occurring in one State separate from the remainder of the country.

It is a legitimate concern which no one appears to have addressed. For a successful amalgamation to occur the National and Liberal Parties in all six states and territories would have to agree. There is no evidence that this is about to happen.

Before the amalgamation question goes any further, its advocates must answer the following questions:

• As it is vital for the Liberals to win seats in the more "Liberal" metropolitan areas and south-east how will a more "conservative" party help achieve this objective?
• What proof is there that present Liberal and National supporters will transfer their votes to a new party?
• What evidence is there that Labor voters will be prepared to support a more "conservative" party?
• What guarantees are there that splinter parties – which crippled the Nationals in particular in 1998 and 2001 – will not continue to emerge thus thwarting the very rationale behind amalgamation?
• Why will a close working relationship between the Liberals and the Nationals not achieve the desired electoral successes without the attendant risks of amalgamation?
• How will the difficulties highlighted by John Howard and other Federal members in 1993 and 1994 be resolved to ensure States do not "go it alone" and create even greater problems?

Until these questions are satisfactorily answered those advocating amalgamation should direct their energies to restoring the Liberal Party’s electoral standing. Positive policies, forward-looking leadership and strategic electoral thinking are the necessary ingredients for this. Looking to the past will solve nothing.

At the same time sensible, long-awaited constitutional reform of the Liberal Party to reduce opportunities for abuse and restore public confidence in the party’s ability to manage its own affairs would help establish the image of a party willing and able to face the greater electoral challenges.

To embrace amalgamation as a desperate measure to solve the National Party’s internal problems is self-defeating.