Defectors to a majority

30 October 2023

Followers and observers of politics, especially in Queensland, would know of this month marking the fortieth anniversary of something awkward in the State’s history. In politics there are always all sorts of moments, albeit not just good and bad. And Queensland had a State election forty years ago, in October 1983, which was arguably like no other.

In a sense, one has to remember that, despite much success all across the country, the Liberal Party has long found Queensland troublesome, at least in State politics. Unlike in other States, it has never been the main alternative to the Labor Party, which has held power in Queensland for all but a handful of years since 1989.

Mind you, things were quite different before 1989. When Labor won office back then, this was its first time in power in Queensland in three decades, because of a big split.

Going back to the Liberals, in Queensland they have consistently played second fiddle to the Nationals, who have long been strong there. The reverse has applied elsewhere in Australia, both at State level and Federal level.

As we all know, the Liberals and the Nationals have long been in a formal partnership, at least when governing – hence the existence of the Liberal-National Coalition.

In Queensland, however, at least until 1983, the Nationals dominated the Liberals and led the Coalition. But in that year, with a State election on the horizon, some dramatic events meant that the Coalition in Queensland was no more.

Back then, Joh Bjelke-Petersen was leading the Nationals and had been State Premier for over a decade. Mentioning that name would stir up memories for many!

The dramas of that year included the defections of some Liberals to the Nationals.

That July, two Liberal MPs defected to the Nationals after losing preselection, meaning the right to run as Liberal candidates in their seats.

A month later, several Liberals chose to vote against the Coalition Government – with one of those Liberals being a minister, Terry White. This led to White’s sacking, because Coalition ministers were forbidden to vote against what the ministry decided on. After White’s sacking, the Liberals revolted, dumping Llew Edwards as leader, and they chose White to replace him.

Until then, the Liberal leader would also be Deputy Premier if the Coalition was holding power in Queensland. However, Bjelke-Petersen wouldn’t tolerate White, and the result was the Coalition formally breaking up.

Despite lacking a majority with the Liberals, Bjelke-Petersen and the Nationals somehow managed to govern until the election, which was due by the end of that year. In that respect, it wasn’t really a case of Queenslanders facing a snap election.

When that election came and went, the Nationals finished just short of a majority.

Given events of recent months, one had to wonder where Queensland would go. Could the Nationals somehow govern without a majority? Would any non-Nationals provide support? Could the Liberals, in all seriousness, try to return to their formal partnership with the Nationals? With this awkward position, was a fresh election possible?

However, a few days after the election, two more MPs, despite having only just retained their seats as Liberals, defected to the Nationals – so the Nationals had a majority.

The two post-election defectors, Brian Austin and Don Lane, were the ones to naturally generate the most controversy with their actions. Everyone saw their actions as having enabled Bjelke-Petersen to get a majority. But most observers would probably forget the pre-election defectors, Bill Kaus and Bob Moore, whose actions happened before the dramas. Admittedly, Moore lost his seat in the election, but Kaus held his seat and Bjelke-Petersen was a little better off for it.

History shows that three years after this awkward election result, the Nationals would go on to win another election, this time in their own right. After this, Bjelke-Petersen got carried away with visions of grandeur, and he sought to run for Federal Parliament, but his campaign never really got anywhere. He later resigned amid massive exposure of corruption within the Government, and he was considered very lucky to avoid going to prison as a result of the corruption exposed. Despite this, many Queenslanders still admire him to this day.

Many Liberals might recall this period in 1983 unwillingly. They might hate what took place, but somehow they still remember it. They might pray for no repeat of history.

Howard’s close call with tax reform

28 October 2023

Hardly anybody commands respect within the Liberal Party like John Howard. In his time, he won four elections and was Prime Minister for more than a decade. Even after nearly two decades out of politics, and less than a dignified departure of politics with the loss of both an election and his own seat in 2007, he still has admirers and loyal fans to this day.

Perhaps part of the reason for this level of respect and admiration goes beyond just four election wins and ten years as PM. About ten years after first entering Federal Parliament, Howard sought and later got the Liberal leadership, but went on to lose an election and then the leadership. After several more attempts, he was able to regain the leadership, and in 1996 he pulled off a huge election win, with three more election wins to follow. He also took stands on issues, whether a minister or an Opposition face, which showed his conviction. This required tenacity, and the will to battle on when others would likely have given up. Serving as PM for more than ten years, making him only Australia’s second PM to serve that long, is another sign of tenacity.

But even after becoming PM in 1996, things were often hard. And in fact this month marks twenty-five years since Howard came very close to being a one-term PM.

In October 1998, just two years after becoming PM with a massive election win, Howard was very close to losing power after a single term. This can arguably be put down to a decision to pursue tax reform, specifically the introduction of a tax on goods and services – or a GST for short. This was always going to be challenging, especially as the Liberals had, a few years before, lost an election over plans for that very thing. Indeed Howard himself had publicly ruled out pursuing a GST since that loss.

However, he changed his mind in 1998, and chose to pursue a GST. While it might well have appeared to be a broken election promise, he decided to take it to the people, at an election. After all, the next election was due within the next year or so.

The 1998 election was a close call. There was a decent swing to the Labor Party, and on election night there were signs that Howard would lose.

However, as the votes came in, it became more likely that Howard would survive. Ultimately he retained power with a small majority, though not enough to be at risk of needing crossbench support.

For Labor, after copping an almighty election hiding in 1996, it might’ve seemed like a case of so near and yet so far. Led by Kim Beazley, Labor almost reversed its past defeat. But while it won more votes than the Liberals, it arguably won those votes in the wrong places. The marginal seats, which the major parties always target when only a few voters having a change of mind can make seats fall, largely stayed with the Liberals. Ultimately, Howard finished with 80 seats and Beazley had 67.

Howard clearly did a job good enough to convince enough voters of the merits of the GST. Given how the Liberals failed here a few years earlier, even when up against the immensely unpopular Paul Keating, this was clearly challenging. In a sense, given that Keating was never popular as PM but still had enough political skills to scare voters out of supporting the GST when doubts emerged, the failure of the Liberals then was monumental. In 1998, Howard and the Liberals did enough to ensure no repeat of the errors which caused so much trouble before.

When Howard became PM in 1996, he’d won lots of seats from Keating all over the country. Naturally, many of those seats were expected to go back to Labor in 1998, with Keating gone. Pursuing tax reform which many people saw as unpopular was also likely to help Labor. But while Labor regained many lost seats from 1996, and even picked up seats which it hadn’t held in 1996, it came up short.

In a sense, New South Wales proved a critical State in 1998. In 1996, twelve Labor seats ended up going Howard’s way. In 1998, only two seats, suburban Lowe and regional Paterson, returned to Labor. This might say a bit about how Howard was able to persuade voters to stick with him.

Another critical State, Victoria, told a slightly different story. But it still mattered. Howard had actually lost two seats to Labor there while gaining three others in 1996. In 1998, three seats fell, two of which had incumbent Liberals departing after years in them, but observers had tipped more to fall. Although Victoria wasn’t so friendly to Howard, it wasn’t so hostile either.

Howard’s close call in 1998 included more seat losses in smaller States, but the limits on losses in those larger States arguably proved the difference. Without these, Howard would’ve been a one-term PM.

Few politicians these days seem able or willing to argue to run with tax reform in their plans. But with tenacity and conviction, Howard did it twenty-five years ago. This might explain, in part, why Liberals really respect him long after his exit from the political scene.