The Liberal National Party in Queensland
An Explainer
by Dr Tracey Arklay
The Liberal Party and the National Party (previously known as the Country Party) have worked in a close coalition arrangement across Australia for over 70 years. This coalition remains in place to this day at the federal level and in many Australian states, because of its pragmatic usefulness. It has allowed two distinctive political parties of the right to work together, to win enough city and country seats to form government while at the same time appealing to different constituencies. The coalition arrangement has allowed tensions that are inherent in political organisations, with at times conflicting policies, to be managed.
It was forged in the 1940s after Menzies created the Liberal Party to combine the appeal of a united electoral grouping that had a strong rural constituency on the one hand, with a party that appealed to a more urban voter on the other. The coalition arrangement avoided potentially damaging three-cornered contests which risked splitting the conservative vote. Across most States and federally, the Liberal Party was dominant — they provided the leader, while the deputy position came from the junior Country partner.
The coalition agreements each party sign after a change of leader remain secret but ensures a degree of stability: they don’t compete directly against each other’s sitting members and ministries are composed of the two parties roughly according to their parliamentary strength.
The Queensland difference?
Queensland is a large and decentralized state, and there has been much written about the Queensland difference. Often this is overblown, but nonetheless the State due to its geography, its considerable population in more remote areas, and the importance of the mining and agricultural sector ensured for decades that the National Party remained the senior coalition partner. This influenced the politics of Queensland; National Party premiers placed their imprimatur upon the political landscape for generations. Queensland historically has also had long term, entrenched governments and for many older Queenslanders, the National Party provided the political backdrop to their formative years.
While this dominance reduced after the Bjelke-Petersen era ended, in 2008 it was forever changed when after a long and at times tense debate, the Liberal Party and the National Party merged to become a single, united conservative party called the Liberal/National Party (LNP). The merger was sold as the best way to defeat Labor governments which by then had been in power for a large part of two decades in Queensland. And the strategy appeared to work, with the LNP returning to government (with a Liberal Premier) in 2012. Since losing government in 2015, the success of the merger has been more problematic to rate.
Merger
While the two parties merged for a variety of reasons, including financial and electoral reasons, the blurring of lines between the traditional city-based Liberals and the Nationals also came at a time when voters were becoming more fragmented. The ‘rusted-on’ voter of old has been replaced by electors who have no loyalty to any party. They don’t vote the way their parents did and many people, particularly in rural and regional Queensland, having also been hit hard by globalization, and a loss of jobs across regional centres.
At the same time there has been an influx of new minor parties (Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, United Australia Party, Katter’s Australia Party) that articulate this anger, appeal to their insecurities and at times, seem to be more relatable than the major parties who are viewed by many as part of the problem.
In terms of the merged LNP though, it has meant that the two parties are wedded to an overarching policy platform — while still needing to appeal to very different constituencies. What might sell well in cities, does not reflect the concerns of the country. Wedge issues including fears around immigration, the loss of mining jobs and suspicion about the cost of climate change mitigation highlight the fact that Queensland voters reflect a multiple Queensland outlook.
The current merger is difficult to categorise — is the party Liberal or National?
While they belong to a single party in Queensland they have separate leaders and party rooms federally.
Different stances in relation to preferences indicate the tensions that exist between the two parties at a broader level also. For example, PM Scott Morrison supports Palmer’s UAP but refused to preference One Nation ahead of Labor while the National’s leader Michael McCormack has decided on a do what it takes approach for the Nationals justifying preferencing One Nation because their policies are more in accord with many National voter sensibilities.
Preference problems
Despite these mixed messages, the Queensland LNP candidates have followed the PM’s edict in so far as they have preferenced the UAP ahead of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (but not necessarily Labor) on their how to vote cards. Now whether this is because of the recent controversy surrounding One Nation remains purely speculative — but it probably made the decision easier.
What does all this mean? There are certainly unresolved tensions, and these are picked up at times by a news media hungry for content. While the slogans and the logo might read ‘LNP’ some decisions made by individuals such as Senator Ian MacDonald who last week urged his supporters to ignore the LNP Senate ticket and instead vote 1 for him under the line — highlight an at times uneasy truce.
All this indicates that rather than being a cohesive party in Queensland, the merged LNP reflects the multiple Queenslands that exist and become particularly apparent at election time.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Follow The Machinery of Government
