I'm putting my money where my mouth is. Barnaby Joyce WILL vote for the sale of Telstra. I have to say there was never any doubt - NEVER. Barnaby is NOT an original. He is firmly in the tradition of the Queensland Nationals. There is one yardstick to remember: The National Party vote is the most disciplined vote within Australian politics. Barnaby is going around sprouting about idealogues - well the sound you can hear is me choking. His maiden speech lauded Joh Bjelke Petersen. Joh was nothing if not an idealogue. As for openness to ideas and talking to other people - Joh prevented his NPA members even speaking to Labor members in the parliamentary dining room. Come off it, Barnaby.
To give an instance which shines light on what has happened with Barnaby and the Telstra issue, we should go back to events prior to the 1993 election in the Queensland cane-growing seat of Hinkler based on Bundaberg. Paul Keating was Prime Minister and Brian Courtice was the ALP member for Hinkler. The cane-growers were in their usual trouble and wanted changes to policy affectng them. They were not getting any leverage in terms of policy out of the National Party who were then in opposition federally and in Queensland. The cane-growers became involved in policy development with Brian Courtice. Brian took the issue to Canberra and, in short, gained the attention of Keating and got acceptance from the ALP Government for policies agreeable to the cane-growers.
Now, out of this, you would expect undying gratitude from the cane-growers and that gratitude to be expressed at the ballot box. Remember, cane-growers are predominantly National Party voters, if not National Party members. The cane-growers organization leans heavily towards the National Party. And remember the National Party constituency is a disciplined voting body. The cane-growers used the cane-grower friendly ALP policy to go away and negotiate the desired leverage for policy change within the National Party. What happened to Brian Courtice? He lost the seat of Hinkler by .5% to Paul Neville who continues to hold the seat.
Do you see the similarities? The Queensland Nationals have used the narrow government (remember the Nationals are part of the government) majority which the election of Barnaby provided to go for it in the same way as the cane-growers had used ALP policy - which they had influenced - to go for it within their own party. The Nationals are wedge drivers not vote changers.
What the Queensland Nationals have done is to drive a one-vote wedge to get concessions - which over time will be proved of little value - which will provide good window dressing for their consitituency. Howard could have called their bluff with brinkmanship of his own. What might have happened? Chances are that Barnaby would still have voted for the Telstra sale with some excuse. But perhaps Barnaby might have crossed the floor - though I doubt it - to again give some window dressing for a National Party constituency in Queensland. And it is the Queensland agenda that is driving this - for one very simple reason. Nowhere else in Australia is there any likelihood of the National Party governing. In Queensland, the National Party leader, Lawrence Springborg, is the Leader of the Opposition. The one-vote wedge gives the Nats in Queensland profile and some sort of credibility. This is at a time when Premier Peter Beattie is not doing well in the polls.
In other words, why not light the fires of a Queensland National Party election campaign in Canberra? More publicity and profile than money can buy.
