Nationals’ new man Michael McCormack is bushwhacked from the start

The new leader of the Nationals, Michael McCormack, faces a set of challenges as daunting as any that have confronted his 14 predecessors during the past century.

But he has little authority and almost no profile, and his party is riven with division, its mission is unclear and its relations with the Liberal Party are fractured.

McCormack, 53, has been in parliament since August 2010 and a minister since July 2016. He has not distinguished himself in any of the minor portfolios of small business, defence personnel or veterans’ affairs.

He is the least experienced and least known leader of the Nationals since the ill-fated Charles Blunt (1989-90).

Even the dull Warren Truss had eight years of ministerial experience when he became leader of the Nationals in December 2007. He had been deputy leader of the party in the two years prior. When Truss became deputy prime minister in September 2013, he was equipped for the role.

The Nationals are a shadow of what they once were. When ­McCormack was elected leader of the party yesterday, photos of past leaders were looking down on him, including Arthur Fadden (1940-58), John McEwen (1958-71) and Doug Anthony (1971-84).

They were leaders with gravitas who had years of experience in politics, and brought credibility and influence to the job of deputy prime minister. They were leading ministers, played critical roles in cabinet deliberations and were key voices in devising parliamentary tactics and political strategy.

Fadden and McEwen worked well with Robert Menzies and so did Anthony with Malcolm Fraser. During the previous Coalition government, the trio of Nationals leaders — Tim Fischer (1990-99), John Anderson (1999-2005) and Mark Vaile (2005-07) — developed a co-operative and respectful partnership with John Howard. The relationship between the ­Nationals and the Liberals, and their predecessors, has been ­integral to the success of both parties. There have been spectacular divisions and the Coalition was formally broken in mid-1987 during the absurd “Joh for PM” campaign and during the first term of the Whitlam government, from 1972 to 1974.

Nationals leaders have not been afraid to throw their weight around. In December 1967, ­McEwen made it clear the ­Coalition would be sunk if the ­Liberals made Billy McMahon leader. In April 1939, Earle Page ­initially refused to serve in a ­Menzies-led government. After the December 1922 election, Page exercised a veto over Billy Hughes, which enabled Stanley Bruce to become prime minister.

The division between Barnaby Joyce and Malcolm Turnbull threatened to open up another rupture. The strained party relations will take some time to repair. It was not helpful that maverick Queensland MP George Christensen suggested via social media on the weekend that the Coalition should be torn up and that the government needed new leadership.

The avalanche of scandals that engulfed Joyce, not least getting his former press secretary pregnant, has damaged the party. So much for its social conservatism and family values mantra. That he clung to the leadership for so long when everybody else saw the writing on the wall was extraordinary. The danger is that Joyce, now on the backbench, could become a running critic of the government.

Joyce faced almost certain defeat in the partyroom yesterday had he tried to remain leader. As ­Nationals backbencher Andrew Broad argued, “when character is lost, all is lost”. Joyce had no option but to resign. In the end, last Friday, he did the right thing but it came too late and at great cost to the government.

The Nationals have always had a capacity for renewal. The party has endured difficult periods in the past, mostly in opposition. The “Joh for PM” campaign was the nadir. The party foolishly decided to end Ian Sinclair’s leadership (1984-89) and it took a long time to recover.

There is not much cause for hope. There is little talent in the Nationals today. Matt Canavan and Darren Chester are the standouts, yet the latter is no longer a minister. The idea that David Littleproud, who has been in parliament for 18 months, came close to standing for leader is a sign of how desperate things are. The bid by Christensen for leader was farcical.

The best Nationals leaders prioritised succession planning and groomed future leaders. Joyce, Truss, Vaile, Anderson, Sinclair, Anthony and McEwen served as deputy leaders. But succession planning has been thrown out the window. Joyce failed to get up his preferred deputy, Canavan, last December. McCormack was not Joyce’s deputy.

Fadden, like most Nationals leaders, understood that co-operation rather than conflict with the Liberals was essential. “Though we co-operated with the Liberals, we retained our entity as a separate fighting force,” he wrote in his memoir, They Called Me Artie (1969). “Our views sometimes ­differed from those of our Liberal friends but we agreed to differ without animosity.”

The primary task for the ­party is to continue to define itself as a voice of rural and regional Australia with its own identity but wholly committed to maintaining the Coalition. Getting this balance right has always been difficult. With the conservative vote fractured and the Nationals facing challenges in key seats from Labor and the Greens, this could not be more imperative.

The Nationals surely would do anything they could for a popular and powerful figure such as McEwen or Anthony who could lead them today. But as the party approaches its centenary in January 2020, the glory days are long gone.