To leave the federal coalition is cost we can count: nine members of the National Party slated as shadow ministers will forfeit around $60,000 in additional salary. Once the Liberal Party fills all shadow positions, it will be hard to claw some of them back — and that prospect looks too much to bear.
It has often seemed that the salary and staffing benefits of being in coalition have restrained many National Party parliamentarians from vigorously prosecuting our interests, both at state and federal levels.
There is no better example than water — the issue of most importance to our region by far. The Liberal Party has mostly succumbed to South Australian interests, particularly during development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Not surprisingly, the metropolitan media and the ABC piled vigorously on the Nationals after their decision to leave coalition, as did many Liberal Party stalwarts. This reminded us of two things: first, city people are utterly dismissive of regional attributes and interests — except perhaps when they need to escape during a pandemic; and second, the Liberals are in a lot more trouble than the Nationals after their shattering loss of almost 20 seats — while the Nationals lost none.
We thought that time outside the coalition would give the Nationals time to develop nuanced policy positions on contentious issues such as net zero and nuclear power. They must do this anyway — both issues are complicated and must have an eye on Australia’s “sensible centre”.
Take nuclear: when former chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel spoke in Shepparton a few years ago, he made clear his view — as an expert in energy policy — that nuclear offered significant clean energy advantages over fossil fuels, but of course faced the challenges of high capital costs, no permanent disposal solutions for waste and the need for significant water resources for cooling.
While accidents are statistically rare, there is also widespread community resistance to the idea of nuclear facilities either near them (or at all) and, despite the advances in technologies such as small modular reactors that can address some of these issues, the argument must be made carefully. The advantages of nuclear are such that it shouldn’t be “taken off the table”, but nor should it be a strident policy position without bringing the electorate with it.
Net zero is another issue with broad public support. With the US leaving the Paris climate agreement and countries such as the UK, Germany and Canada reviewing their implementation timelines for net zero, Australia (with one per cent of global emissions) can surely afford to do the same — but it would be a mistake to retreat from the 2050 net zero commitment.
Young people are justifiably worried about climate impacts on their future, and so are we. There is no place for climate denialism — but there is room for nuanced arguments about the pace of progress and what it costs.
For many country people, the rollout of renewables to meet net zero targets also means ugly transmission lines and wind turbines littering loved rural landscapes — an issue of absolutely no concern to city people. The Nationals must demand minimum incursions on productive rural land and insist on adequate compensation for the loss of it.
With careful policy development, the Nationals can lead the Liberal Party to sound policy positions that will deliver Australians a secure and prosperous future. Avoiding the culture wars is essential — country people want their most important issues taken care of first.
