Have the Nationals blown themselves up?

From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Wednesday, May twenty one, twenty twenty five. Mortgage rates are on the way down, with the Reserve Bank Board lowering the cash rate by zero point two five percent to three point eight five percent. Economists a warning inflation could rise again, but the Bank says it's confident now

This is one of the hardest political decisions of my life.

National Party leader David Little Proud dropped a bombshell on Liberal leader Susan Lee on Tuesday, telling her his party would no longer be in a formal coalition with the Liberals.

It's with great disappointment that I announced that we're not going to form part of that coalition.

Dennis Shanahan is The Australian's national editor and someone who's covered the Libs and the Nats and all the quirks of their relationship for many years. They can never, of course govern in their own right unless something massive changes Dennis and the Nationals suddenly start winning seats in the

I think if it's an attempt to have bigger rounds for the National Party, it's pretty misguided. David Little Proud clearly in the manner of delivering an ultimatum to Susan Lee and simply saying We've got thirty minutes to talk about that and then I'm going out to a press conference, he put up proposals which were clearly not acceptable and impractical and really didn't require any split in a coalition to resolve.

It was all about the National Party.

It was about the National Party leadership and the revolt about being in the coalition, anger at the loss by the Liberals, and so what David Little Proud has done, he said, I'm not interested in the coalition now because there's no advantage to it at all. All the advantage to him is to run his own show. However, I think what he's actually done is probably completely undermined Susan Lee's leadership and in doing so, just about guaranteed his leadership won't last either.

Let's look at the issues that he says this is all about. And he was doing quite a bit of finger wagging and telling the journalists in the room that they might not understand, but this was a principal decision.

We're being pragmatic. This is a principal position. So it may be foreign to some of you, but we are making this on principles about how we actually deliver for the people we represent and to allow the Liberal Party.

The Nationals have a different view to the Liberals on nuclear power, on the forced breakup of big supermarket chains, of the establishment of a twenty billion dollar Regional Future Fund, and on service obligations for regional areas for people in the regions.

What we fight for every day.

That's the principal position we took that we needed to have comfort.

Around how important are those issues? Dennis, was this really all about principles?

Well, going backwards, the regional fund. Really it's off budget. It's something that could easily have been accommodator. That's not a problem as far as nuclear power is concerned. It was working on an agnostic basis saying this is where the Liberals are going, and don't forget that former Nat Country Liberal Party just since a Nampajimpa Price has said

It was one of.

Those areas where you could have resolved certain issues. The Nats and the Liberals have done this for years. So I think that what we actually have here is a National Party leader looking for principled reasons to provide a justifiable cause for splitting the coalition for the first time in a very long time and allowing him to be seen as the new Nationals leader. I don't think it's working.

Coming up more from my conversation with Dennis Shanahan, would it be fair enough for Susan Lee and some of the Liberals to have a bit of a bitter taste in their mouths, Dennis, given that it's the National's position on some big issues that have resulted in the coalition overall and the Liberal Party looking like they were more conservative than perhaps some Liberals would have wanted. I'm thinking of the National's reluctance to embrace, for example, the transition

Yes, the net zero omissions by twenty fifty was a negotiated agreement between the Nationals and the Liberals.

Both leaders gone.

But what we're actually seeing here is the suggestion that the moderate Liberals have a different view to the conservative Nationals.

And duh, this has always been the case.

If you want to see some real differences, think about some of the old Country Party leaders.

Boy did they have some differences with the Liberals.

But they survived in coalition and there were some really tough National Party leaders with John.

Howard who worked with him.

Look at Tim Fisher worked with John Howard on gun reform.

That was a big issue for the Nationals.

They didn't want to touch it, and yet Tim Fisher brought the Nationals along. Now that was a much tougher issue than something about supermarket chains. And yet the coalition survived because John Howard and Tim Fisher were coalitionists. John Howard after the Port Arthur massacre, and this was only a few weeks after John Howard had become Prime minister. It was the biggest massacre in Australian history and what the Prime Minister knew then was that we had to change the gun laws.

At least thirty four people were killed and four others critically wounded when a twenty nine year old gunman with a history of mental problems opened fire in a popular tourist area. The cournage came to an annually after the gunman caught fire following a twelve hour standoff with police.

This was an imperative, it was a moral decision he took.

But to get that politics through, to get the legislation through. To get through with popular support, he needed the national support because this was a very difficult issue. Gun control was very much opposed in the regional areas. I'm sorry, and yet Tim Fisher as leader of the Nationals, worked with John Howard hand in fist and said no, we are going to work on this, and they carried it. And there's no doubt it cost the Nationals because it built support for Pauline.

Hanson's One Nation Party.

And yet we saw the coalition survive such a severe test to the advantage of the national interest. You can work around these differences and you can turn them into a strength without blowing up the bus.

Do you think, Dennis, that it's in the best interest for the Liberals to keep working, be patient, hope that the Nationals come back to the coalition, or to look at other options. Should they think about going into coalition, for example with the Teals.

It's funny you should mention that because I had a message from someone who shall remain named, suggesting that I reread The Gbung Polo Club by Banjo Patterson. Now, the Gbung Polo Club is about a polo match on a rocky field between the Collis and Ties. The bosses and cockies and the whole bunch of scrub dwelling stockman. In the end, everyone on the Gbung Polo Club match is killed until the last moment the captain of the collis and ties stirs himself.

Although mortally wounded, he.

Makes his way back onto his pony, charges towards the goalposts and hits the ball and misses.

So it ended in a tie with them all dead.

This was what the reference to the Gbung Polo Club was all about, that without each other they will all die. And the Nationals are facing like so many more conservative parties regional parties in Europe, that what will happen to them?

They'll be reduced to a rump.

Now, the Liberal Party is more likely to attract some of the Teals and have some sort of a coalition. But remember most of those Teals, or all of those Teals have come from Liberal seats, so there's no great advantage for the Liberals in forming a coalition with the Teals. They have to win those Teal seats back. But if they wish to get back to government, the Nationals will

Lee des Shanahan is The Australian's National editor. You can read all his analysis, plus all the rest of our expertise on Canberra and politics from the rest of the country, right now at the Australian dot com dot au