Every vote is vital to Nats

Last week my good friend Tony Abbott defended the Coalition's poor polling in The Australian (December 12). Manfully, he explained how voters liked Christmas bonuses and lower petrol prices, but then he sought to give counsel to Nationals senators in revolt over the carbon sinks and the $2.4 billion communications fund votes. As Tony is a political warhorse, I hope he will take comments from one of those senators as from a comrade-in-arms and a known staunch Coalitionist.

"The Liberal Party can't save the country from Opposition," he writes. But surely it has to try. In the House of Representatives, the Liberals tried to do so by insisting on our amendments. The Nationals simply did the same in the Senate.

We well understand that "it's impossible to be part of a coalition only when it suits" us.

The Nationals are forever being criticised for going along with the Liberals. Several recent decisions have been difficult for us to accept but in the interests of unity we have co-operated. A coalition is give and take: neither party can have everything its own way, and that has to be understood by both parties.

The Senate was debating two issues of great import to our constituents: carbon sinks taking land away from agriculture and the future-proofing of rural telecommunications.

This criticism of Nationals senators seems very one-eyed considering that so many Liberal Senate colleagues failed to vote at all. If disunity is death, there was more internal disunity among the Liberals that night than there was disunity between Nationals and Liberals.

"The prospects of defeating the Government shouldn't be jeopardised because some people can't decide which team they're on." Exactly how many Liberals didn't vote? And which way did they vote in the lower house? The same as I did.

Of course our mutual objective is to win back government. That means showing the Australian people a better way by our actions and our votes. Why have an Opposition if there is nothing to be opposed and no stands of principle to be made?

Have we really sunk to a political monoculture?

Peter Costello once told me that unless we bring managed investment schemes under control, family farming as we know it will be a thing of the past. The Nationals and many Liberals believe that must be highlighted to the Australian people.

Senate Nationals resisted a new version of MIS by opposing carbon sinks that threaten to recast 34 million hectares of the Australian landscape. This equates to 30 per cent more than the area under crops at present. In our Senate opposition to this we are guided by our grassroots constituency.

As Malcolm Turnbull commented recently, "Labor is a very top-down, hierarchical political system where decisions are taken by a handful of party bosses and union bosses at the top. Our system is different. We've got very large grassroots membership in our branches. They have to make the decisions and it has to be driven from the grassroots. That gives us great strengths politically. It means we're much better connected to the people than the Labor Party as an organisation is."

One of our main sources of grassroots feedback is the rural press. The Queensland Country Life editorial following the Senate vote strongly endorsed the Nationals' stand as well as the importance of the Nationals being in Coalition: "The Nationals deliver a time-proven fit with the urban-centric Liberal Party and an appropriate balance to the extraordinary power wielded by urban Australia."

The $2.4 billion communications fund was the deal breaker that allowed the Nationals to support the Liberals in selling Telstra. It was the glue that kept the Coalition and the bush united on this hugely significant issue.

It was not a small thing, it was not a maverick stand, it was not Barnaby Joyce bullying other senators to back him: it was in every way conscientious dissent.

Tony says: "A party's principles should not change to suit circumstances." He rightly argues that policies have to change to respect democracy and that we don't have to vote against something until there is evidence that the electorate's opinion has changed. But similarly, if the electorate's opinion has not changed on an issue and it is in fact very clear, then we are obliged to heed that democratic voice and vote accordingly.

I am concerned that the Nationals' Senate vote is being turned into what it never was. It was neither opportunistic nor a vehicle for anyone's leadership aspirations.

It was certainly not aimed at breaking the Coalition or subjecting it to unbearable pressure. This is reflected by the fact that so many Liberals were out of their places during the vote. When arrows are directed at Nationals senators, they also hit Liberal targets.

For the Coalition to function effectively and achieve the goal of becoming the next government, there is no room for denying the interests of the junior partner. Consider how much the Liberals realised they needed their pals the Nationals to form government in Western Australia.

It might be easy in the city electorates to brush away a few votes because they are in the bush. But the Nationals cannot afford that luxury. We fight for every vote, and every vote brings the Coalition closer to winning government.

If our supporters believe that we sold them out, they would vote independent or for a One Nation type outfit.

"The Liberal Party respects conscientious dissent", but apparently not when it comes to Nationals senators. Do you really think that I acted for some other reason, Tony? Or that I am easily leaned on by others?

Heaven forbid our democracy should fall asleep with no Opposition such that "'Twas the night before Christmas when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a Nationals mouse".