A informative article about the political landscape, thanks Matthew.
I'd love to see the Nats break with the Libs; it would give us four parties each representing the needs of four different constituencies. In my opinion, it would be good if minority government arrangements, such as that which we now have, were made at every election. Minority government effectively forces the voters' key demands to be met.

Similar situation here in NZ with the Mixed Member Proportional Representation electoral system and one house of parliament. The people like it, having ratified the system in a second referendum. Example of recent fair play - the Maori party have forced John Key (Nats) to delay the sale of hydro generation assets util fair equity is granted to Maori.

The two party system we've had in Aus for so long and under which the US still labours has only one winner - corporations - it is they who end up ruling the country and that is not democracy.

More a case of wishful thinking on the part of left wingers methinks.

The Nationals are , to all intents and purposes finished as an Independant party.

It will survive in entities such as Bob Katter, who may well be in the producing the new Party representing Country Interests.

The need for such a Party is obvious. The Inner City types detest anything that is further than 5 k from the GPO in your Capital City.

Many years ago, the then Country Party made the mistake of changing their name to the National Party because they thought it would attract city voters. It never happened. A lot of confused people in the country wondered where the party which represented them had gone and a most of them are still wondering.

It is about time we got a government which will look after the interests of farmers. I have just come back from the US of A where they are in the grip of a severe drought. Does that mean that the farmers incomes are going to suffer? Not on your nellie. They have government subsidised income insurance which is topped up by the government. Such a thing is unheard of out here. Our farmers are expected to look after themselves on the so called "level playing field". Crap!!

David

Great article!
I have often wondered why the nationals remained in the coalition, while liberal party policies were quite literally white anting/hollowing out their rural support base? Milk and sugar are all but incorporated and the towns and villages once keep prosperous by this production and the co-ops they supported, are now in serious decline.
Only coal and coal seam gas has acted to revive some areas.
If the nationals were indeed a separate party, they would wield much more power in our parliaments? Arguably more than the greens which seem to be on the wane?
As a balance of power party they would wield much more power over decisions and outcomes than they do now, inside a coalition cabinet, where the only game for them, with their numbers, is to simply roll over and beg for a tummy rub?
Think, if they were a separate party, the independents would likely come back into the fold; and, sale of Cubbie could simply not proceed?
Nor would the labour party be able to lock up giant swathes of the marine environment, with impunity and for purely ideological reasons or to "please" their alliance partners? Ditto the shameful back-flip on the super trawler?
As a separate party the nats could follow their conscience and their own light, rather than the hard right currently controlling the coalition?
As a quite separate party, they possibly could gain more support and preferences, from both sides of the so-called divide; and or, seriously disaffected voters looking for an alternative, more closely aligned with their values and wishes?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty

A well thought out response. Think you have made many good points. I wouldn't hold my breath about it happening though. There are not enough Bob Katters and Barnaby Joyces out there.

David

This article is a continuation of the alarmist nonsense about the sale of Cubby station which, fortunately, most voters in Australia don't buy.

I can understand the Nationals would want to tap into this sentiment which is a genuine, albeit irrational, fear in some areas of the bush. That is what political parties do, and cannot be helped.

But writers and posters on online opinion should be held to a different standard and those who supported the author of this article should hang their heads in shame. Cubby station is a piece of land that obviously has to remain in Australia as does the water, which means that it will all remain subject to Australian laws. Why its sale to Chinese interests should excite such revulsion is beyond me, particularly as they couldn't find a local buyer for it.

There was some mad suggestion that it should be sub-divided into farms for sale to locals but as the whole station (actually two stations) could not be made profitable then I don't see how a lot of smaller farms could. In any case, if Chinese interests really want a dodgy cotton farm in the backblocks of Queensland, why should anyone care if they get it?

The one point of interest is the water but it remains subject to Australian laws, and whether the owner is Chinese or Australian they will still run the station to make a profit. Nothing whatever has changed.

I could say a great deal more about this, but posters may now beging to appreciate the irrationality of getting worked up about this matter.

Interests owned by or controlled by the Australian government are not welcome to purchase property in other countries, for sovereignty and political reasons.

Therefore, It makes perfect sense to oppose the purchase of Cubby by Chinese interests if they are owned or controlled by the Chinese government. That goes also for any other foreign interests that are owned or controlled by their respective governments

Raycom
No it does not make any kind of sense, and it is absurd to say so. National affairs are not a sort of tit-for-tat where other countries do something stupid so we should be equally stupid. In any case the company buying Cubby is not state owned.. its Chinese and Japanese investors.

But even if it was state owned, so what? If they want to spend $300 million or so on a dodgy cotton station in Queensland backblocks, and try to make a go of it then let them. At least someone there is willing to pay the wages of the staff. If other countries don't want Austalian investment, for whatgever reason, well then that is their problem.. we should do what is right for our interests which is to allow the investment.,.

Curmudgeon, well said

The populist, irrational and implicitly xenophobic reaction to the sale of Cubby is rural politics at its worst

I'd be more concerned by the fact that Optus has the contract for communications in Parliament House and that's owned by the Singapore government.

In fact the Singapore government also has several commercial holding, from Gold Coast investments to the Queen Victoria Building in Sydney and after our privatisation frenzy, owns more commercial assets than the Australian government.

I think Joyce's protests were really more to do with grandstanding within the electorate in which he hopes to win a Lower House seat at the next election.

Curmudgeon

So you imply that the Chinese and Japanese investors interested in Cubby are being stupid.

The point I was trying to make was one of reciprocity.

Australia has allowed several significant foreign-government controlled investments, such as Optus and in mining ventures. Given your financial background, would you be so kind as to list significant Australian government-owned or controlled income-earning investments in other countries. You would not find many in China or Japan for a start, because they do not allow it.

Raycom
why on earth would you want the Australian Government to invest taxpayers' money in running ompanies overseas?

Wobbles: "I'd be more concerned by the fact that Optus has the contract for communications in Parliament House and that's owned by the Singapore government."

Yet, it appears that some would remain unconcerned should Optus be sold to the Chinese government.

Rhian: "why on earth would you want the Australian Government to invest taxpayers' money in running ompanies overseas?"

That is the last thing I would want. The Australian Govt has a poor record in "investing" our money in Australia, let alone overseas. Witness the BER construction wastage, the $10 billion it is squandering on socalled clean energy projects, and over $40 billion that it is sinking into the NBN project, which is running way behind schedule and appears certain to run way over budget.

Curmudgeon
Please tell us which laws apply to the new owners of Cubbie in respect to water.

Cubbie Station may only be a tenuous cotton producing enterprise to some, but may also be a potentially large food producing capability to others - in the right seasons, and where demand is appropriate. As with so many other enterprise possibilities, Oz may be relied upon to take a narrow short-term view - while others plan for the next millennium and beyond. Will we ever learn?

Imagine Cubbie down the track with a massive nearby solar concentrator facility providing electricity for a moderate fully self-sufficient satellite city. A space odyssey, or a real and worthwhile possibility?

When you sell the farm you throw away so many possibilities, and leave yourself dependent on the goodwill of others. Taken to an extreme this can only become a very hazardous and potentially precipitous position. But then, we're only talking about one little station aren't we - until the next, and the next.

Good on Barnaby for standing on principle, we could do with a lot more of such fibre and tenacity in our political leaders. As for the Nats breaking with the Libs, I think it would be preferable if the Nats remained in the Coalition but could negotiate a more equitable representation by both demanding greater recognition for their role in enabling the Coalition to ever form government and by contesting a greater number of seats in appropriate electorates - and the next federal election would be a good place to start on such a revisionary arrangement.