Trial separation is not end of the world for Coalition

“It’s not me, it’s you” is rarely the punchline for a healthy break-up or trial separation. But both the Liberals and the Nationals are entitled to see it as an apt description for the new singledom situation they now find themselves in. The long-held maxim in politics that disunity is death still holds true, and warnings by John Howard that positions can harden, making reconciliation more difficult, must be taken seriously. But if there is going to be bloodletting it may as well be in the immediate aftermath of defeat, when there is the luxury of time to have a good look around.

No doubt there was a perception of ambush in Tuesday’s announcement by Nationals leader David Littleproud that there would be no immediate Coalition agreement in opposition. Chief political correspondent Geoff Chambers revealed Sussan Ley was given only 30 minutes’ warning it would happen. This suggests there was more to the disagreement than the policy areas that were outlined: forced divestiture powers for supermarkets, regional compensation and the pathway forward for nuclear energy. Rather than push pause, Mr Littleproud elected to push the destruct button instead.

Understandably, one view is that the Coalition has performed an act of great self-harm. For the Nationals this is personal and professional given they will give up many of the spoils of being formally in opposition. For the Liberal Party there is the perception it has been rejected first by voters and then by its long-term political partner.

But there is also a lot of logic and opportunity for both sides in what has happened. The Nationals are emboldened because the party performed better than the Liberals at the May 3 federal election in relative terms. But it would be foolish to believe the Liberals would find greater success if they were simply to mirror the Nationals’ policy demands. Just as it would be dangerous for the Nationals to assume they would continue to be as successful in the regions if they fashioned their electoral pitch more to appeal to the urban voters who have deserted the Liberals to flirt with independents with more progressive views.

One of the lessons from Queensland politics during the 1990s is that the Coalition cannot win government without success in the metropolitan areas contested by the Liberals. The result there was an amalgamation to form the Liberal National Party and a surrender of party leadership from the Nationals to the Liberals, where they eventually rediscovered success under Campbell Newman.

Federally, many Liberals have long believed the Nationals tail has been wagging the Coalition dog and that to rebuild Liberal stocks where they are most needed this must stop. Ultimately, the Liberal Party must rebuild its fortunes through a return to the grassroots of small government, reward for effort, and economic credibility that captures a bigger slice of the pie across cities, suburbs and the bush. The Nationals’ agrarian socialist tendencies do not always suit the purity of free-market economics.

Left to their own devices, the Liberals will have a freer hand to rediscover what they stand for. And as an already strong regional force, the Nationals will be more potent politically in opposition in areas where they are already dominant.

Clearly, it is too early to speculate about the death of centre-right politics, as some inevitably will do. One practical consequence of the Liberal-National separation is that the Liberals will be able to deal with the government in the Senate on key legislation such as environmental and development reform in a way that prioritises business and weakens the hand of the Greens. The Nationals will be free to cut deals of their own on issues that have little sway in the major cities. These include universal service obligations for telecommunications and infrastructure funding. The absence of a Coalition agreement in opposition does not detract from the reality that both sides profit greatly from working as a Coalition in government.

There is no reason to believe that, once the electoral stocks warrant it, negotiations for a new Coalition agreement cannot be struck. In the meantime, both sides have the freedom to do what is necessary. Think of it less as a conventional marriage in crisis and more as a corporate joint venture designed to maximise self-interest.