COLIN Barnett will become WA’s 29th premier after the National Party agreed to form a government with the Liberals today.
The Nationals announced their decision after spending yesterday locked in day-long negotiations, considering proposals from both Labor and Liberals. Neither party could form government without a partnership with the Nationals.
Yesterday the Nats met to make the decision. The reports say:
But Mr Grylls, who feels his party has been shabbily treated by the Liberals in previous partnerships, remained adamant yesterday that an alliance with Labor was a very real possibility.
Earlier in the day a picture was emerging of Mr Grylls preferring a Labor deal, while the majority of his colleagues preferred a pact with the more conservative Liberals.
…
Adding to the day’s intrigue was the presence of the Nationals’ South Australian leader, Karlene Maywald, at the hotel. She was on hand to offer advice on a potential alliance with Labor.
Mrs Maywald, a close friend and confidante of Mr Grylls, has been a minister in the SA Labor Government since 2004.On Friday, Mr Grylls scoffed at people who thought his positive comments about Alan Carpenter were a ruse to get a better deal from the Liberals.
“Anyone who has seen me closely for the past three years can make up their own mind as to whether I am all talk or not,” Mr Grylls said.
“It would be history (if we formed an alliance with Labor)… maybe we are on the brink of history.”
…
Mr Truss told The Sunday Times Mr Grylls risked making a monumental mistake.
…
“I’m sure that the National Party in the eastern states would find the concept of some sort of an alliance between Nationals and Labor distasteful.
“It would be destabilising for the Nationals federally if any kind of deal was struck between Labor and the Nationals in WA.
“Certainly, the party was unhappy with Karlene Maywald when she took that route in South Australia — there was some disciplinary action taken.
“Whether that would happen in WA would be a matter for the party.”
…
Mr Grylls and colleagues were still locked in talks last night.
Four hours after yesterday’s meeting began, Mr Trenorden emerged for a break and said that Labor had “on paper” put forward the best deal.
But Mr Grylls remained under immense pressure to opt for the Liberals.
Apart from Mr Truss breathing down his neck, Mr Trenorden and Nationals Moore MLA Grant Woodhams entered the meeting saying they preferred an alliance with the Liberals.
Nationals Blackwood-Stirling MLA Terry Redman said the dominant view of people he’d spoken with was that the Nationals should pick the Liberals.
…
“I will go into the meeting saying that I have received a tremendous number of calls from people wanting us to remain a conservative party and form government with the Liberals.”
Speaking from Italy, Mr Cowan also urged Mr Grylls to choose Mr Barnett.
“I think the key issue here is the swing against Labor,” Mr Cowan said. “Clearly, there is a mood for change in WA. That has to be taken into account more than anything else.”
Meanwhile, the Libs come up with an interesting way to get more women into their cabinet:
SENIOR Liberals are openly canvassing the idea of parachuting a non-MP into the cabinet of a Colin Barnett government.
There are serious discussions about giving Deidre Willmott — the economist who missed out on the plum seat of Cottesloe when Mr Barnett was elevated to the leadership — a seat at the cabinet table.
How much will the tax payer have to shell out for the highway robbers of the National Party to give their consent to create a government?
They’ll get the $675 million they campaigned for, and won the power to choose government with.
And here I was for a mement, thinking that the nationals would become politically relevant again. Silly me.
Oh well, maybe this time they’ll officially rename themselves “The Country Liberal Party”.
Mathew
So what you’re saying is that the Nationals are only relevant if they’re backing the Labor Party unconditionally? Um, what?
If Mr Grylls stays good to his promise and works in the best interests of his and his party’s electorates rather than rubber-stamping everything the Libs present then he and his party will never be irrelevant.
It’s been an interesting week, but by far the irony of this situation is the best part. A one-vote one-value redistribution and election timing dependent on taking advantage of conservative unpreparedness has resulted in making the Nationals the most powerful political party in WA. Classic.
PinkyOz
Certainly Grylls has given up a great opportunity to “make history” as he puts it, and has also has his leadership credentials publicly threatened. I think it was clear that he wanted to go with Labor, and he either couldn’t win, or wasn’t brave enough to fight it.
Hendy Cowan makes the only reasonable argument for the Lib decision, in that the public clearly didn’t want Labor. However, they also clearly didn’t want the Libs.
Grylls is talking about reserving the right to vote against Cabinet decisions. Will this usher in a new style of politics in Australia or will the new government tear itself apart on the floor of the Legislative Assembly?
So, let me get this straight.
The Premier didn’t want the job, didn’t even have preselection, and is now scrambling to placate the woman who got the arse to make room for him.
The Deputy Premier wanted to go with the other party, got rolled by his colleagues, and now wants to be part of the cabinet but won’t promise to vote with it.
The Treasurer is most famous for sniffing chairs.
The talent pool is so shallow they’re looking at drafting non-MPs into cabinet.
DREAM TEAM.
Grylls says he made his decision based on denying the Greens the power to veto Labor/Nat government decisions in the Upper House. What he really means is he wants uranium mining to go ahead -it’s the only way a govt of either stripe could afford his ‘royalties for regions’ policy- and he knows that even if Labor backflipped on its anti-U promise, the Greens would never stomach it. Ah well, when we’re all glowing in the dark, we won’t need so many lights on in the house… Global warming solved!
That doesn’t make sense, Ozymandias. If Labor, the Nats and the Libs all supported a policy, how, exactly, would the Greens veto it? It would only be a problem if it was a policy the Libs did not support, and while such a beast might exist, uranium mining ain’t it.
… and Carpenter is Grilled
PinkyOz
How long before they bring in aggressive workplace laws to “thank” the people for their votes.
Oh good grief …
WA didn’t elect John Howard as premier; although by the sound of it you could be mistaken. We have had a good handful of conspiracy theories on what the Libs will do in office and as of now (there isn’t even a government per se, but for arguments sake) The Barnett government has existed for a grand total of 7 hours.
I’m not a fan of the Liberals, but I believe on judging governments on their records, and so far the WA Libs haven’t put a step wrong in office in this term. We can make some broad assumptions on what might happen, but we cannot impose the specter of the Howard government on ever Liberal government thereafter, it’s not helpful or productive.
So let’s just take a step back, and not assume that the world is ending and let this government rise and fall on its merits and failures like all governments it has preceded and that will succeeded it in due course.
PinkyOz
Unfortunately, you CAN judge the Liberals on their record, Pinky, with regard to industrial relations. I suggest you look up “third wave” industrial legislation, which occurred well before John Howard and had a lot to do with a former State minister, Graham Kierath, who lost his own seat on one of the biggest swings against the Liberals in the metropolitan area in 2001. Barnett was in the cabinet that made those decisions, and was a loud advocate of them.
Chris,
I do have some understanding of the history here, although not perfectly. Effectively what your saying is that no Liberal member has the capacity to learn from their mistakes, that they can’t change their attitudes or soften their approaches. And even if they haven’t learned a thing in opposition, they haven’t exactly been given a ‘Mandate’ have they, they will still have to vote through the Nationals and between 1 and 2 Independents, all with their own agendas.
I’m not saying don’t be wary of the Libs, by all means get ready to be appalled. But it’s a new government, there is nothing to complain about … yet.
PinkyOz
A view from Victoria:
The Burkey/corruption issue must have played a significant part in Labor’s downfall. Sacked Ministers is not a good look. Slimey deals ditto. WA, NSW, where else???
Message to other State ALP branches: clean up your (branch stacked) preselections; reduce the ‘jobs-for-mates’ outlook; remove corruption; and govern. In Victoria: seriously consider an anti-corruption body. Federal implications may be few, State implications are large.
cheerio
PinkyOz #4,
That is not at all what I said. But since you seem incapable of reasoning nuances in any fashion but to support your cheap shots, I’ll elaborate:
I believe that the National Party may as well be called the “Country Liberal Party” for all the independance it has, of action or thought, and as such, it will, over time, lose its relevance to all but a handful of old codgers nostalgically remembering the days of free Government $$$. As this base diminishes due to old age, expect the Nationals to lose more and more seats.
Ultimately, this was a crossroads for the National Party. It could have demonstrated that it was not beholden to the Liberal Party – which, given that the Federal parties have been in coalition for the last 64 years (since the founding of the LP), is a legitimate perception – and, at the same time, served its rural constituency, ensuring future relevance. However, they didn’t.
Now that people know that the Nationals will – like any other dog – roll over when yelled at (Warren Truss), go to heel to the person who kicks them repeatedly (the Liberals) and sell-out anything and everything for a Cabinet post or two, they will treat them like any other housebroken dog owned by someone else: ignore them unless they go feral.
Which the Nats seem incapable of doing.
P.S. I voted Liberal (with many reservations) at the election, so don’t pull out the old “Just a sore loser” card. I’m no rusted-on (to either side). Also, I would have had no problems with an agreement to support the Libs in confidence matters only, allowing Parliament to actually review legislation. However, the Nats, by offering unconditional support, have allowed the LA to revert to its default “rubber-stamp” mode (which it wouldn’t under a minority Government), and forced the LC to the same status – Libs+Nats = a majority in both Houses. In other words, as long as Colin Barnett can keep the Nats happy, he can do anything he wants, without review or balances.
William Bowe in Crikey today thinks it was a close run thing:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080915-How-close-did-the-Nats-come-to-falling-in-with-Labor.html
yep, it was when I saw the upper house projections that I started to doubt Carp’s chances. otherwise the signs were surprisingly good.
Mathew, to have a situation where all legislation is reviewed on the floor of the Legislative Assembly (including appropriations bills) would render any government effectively neutered before they were sworn in. Governments need to be able to govern, and this is the primary reason why I support our federal electoral system as it is currently constituted.
The Nats wanted the areas away from Perth to receive a larger share of the wealth of Western Australia, which is mainly generated from areas other than Perth. Seems entirely reasonable.
Howard C #19
It is indeed reasonable to give the rural areas an increased share of the royalties etc. in the form of infrastructure and amenities programs – I, for one, think that such are necessary to begin rebuilding hte rural communities and reversing the over-urbanisation of WA.
It’s what the Nats are prapared to do that’s getting my goat.
Regarding your comment about neutered Governments, I respectfully disagree. I point to Stephen Harper’s minority Government in Canada as an example. The Canadian HoR operates in a fashion very similar to our own (except that there may as well not be a Canadian Senate), and Harper’s Conservatives have been a minority Government for three years, and have just gone to the polls, having gotten quite a bit done.
Well, I’m waiting to see what “fairer distribution of the riches of the mining boom” means… a cheque in the mail a la Sarah Palin’s Alaska? I have a feeling that – regional infrastructure aside – there might be a lot of expectations about to be disappointed.
Back on Lp, I’m not even going to try to be polite about this. A dog always returns to its vomit.
Indeed, why should ANY of the royalites etc go back to anywhere BUT where they are dug from the ground?
Why should Perth receive unearned money a la Sarah Palin’s Alaska, instead of the money going back to the Pilbara?
On that logic, Rio Tinto should become a socialist collective and distribute all its earnings to its workers, steve.
“Indeed, why should ANY of the royalites etc go back to anywhere BUT where they are dug from the ground?”
Because the relevant sovereign entities are Australia and Western Australia.
Otherwise, on SATP’s logic, all of the revenues from Ford’s car factory in Geelong should stay in Geelong; all of the revenues from Hunter Valley winemaking should stay in the Hunter Valley; all of the revenues from Dreamworld should stay on the Gold Coast; and so on.
Mark & Spiros, I draw your attention to the difference between the word “Royalties” and “Earnings”.
Just, you know, so you can rethink your responses.
steve,
How local do you want it? Maybe Mt. Whaleback should be re-built using (US) dollar notes? Maybe the royalties earned should be used to build a bridge over it (another Alaska analogy)?
wecome back, Paul Burns !!
Mathew,
Ok, I seem to have offended you a bit here, my apologies.
What I’m trying to drive at is that it wouldn’t have mattered too much if the Nats had gone Liberal or Labor, joining into a union unconditionally would have lead to a poor result for them long term as well as the seats they represent, the only thing that would change is the type of poll driven, reactionary policy making.
The only thing we can really hope for is that Grylls will stay good to his word and allow his party to act in the interests of the state and the areas they represent, instead of falling in line with everything the Libs want. It will be an interesting balancing act, but played well, we could see the National Party reach out to different constituents, specifically those that are “left behind” as cities take up more resources to the determent of smaller regional areas that are driving their success.
That’s all I’m saying, just because he chose the Libs, doesn’t mean he has sold out … so far.
PinkyOz