It’s now official – the Liberal/National merger is dead.
The state Coalition pollies had a first chance to kill the merger Monday at their joint party-room meeting. They missed and allowed their leadership team to claim that they had unanimous support for the proposal (whatever the proposal was supposed to be). Yesterday the phones started ringing, and today, in separate party room meetings both the Liberals and the Nationals killed the proposal off.
They’re blaming Canberra, but that is a face saving device for their state leaders. There was never any chance that the Queensland Parliamentary Nationals were going to join the Liberal Party (although they may have joined a new entity), and the Queensland Parliamentary Liberals were never going to join any party they hadn’t already joined. The premises of the deals sold to each party were unrealisable. Worse, the people doing the selling must have known that they were telling their separate organisations different things.
It was the deviousness that really killed the deal off. Nothing would have got to this stage without the deceptions, and once uncovered, the deceptions made it impossible to have a happy ending.
The situation demands a third shot. Who will it hit? Springborg is bullet proof – he’s the only leader the public will accept. Bob Quinn is also bullet proof – his only viable challenger has sworn support. That leaves Bruce Scott and Warwick Parer, the respective National and Liberal state presidents. David Russell has been forced out of the federal National Party presidency. Scott and Parer ought to follow.
I don’t know too much about Scott’s position, but Parer was rushed into the Liberal Presidency as part of a deal to help the Sicilian faction (which appears to have split over the merger issue) maintain control. Caltabiano was promising to stay as president, right until the close of nominations when Parer nominated. If Caltabiano had said he was going there would have been a number of viable alternative candidates, and Parer, lacking any support base, would never have won.
Parer was supposed to be hands-off, and looked like he would be at first – he was off on holidays when he was formally elected rather than at the convention. His performance in this debacle has him crossing at least one of his sponsors – Santoro. The only thing that might save him from the bullet is if Santoro can’t find a more pliable replacement. Even this might not be enough, as Santoro has recently been losing ground to the Brandis, and the Tucker, factions.

Lawrence Springborg claims that the overwhelming majority of voters want a merger. We researched that online for our regular “What the people want” segment on ABC Brisbane radio.
We asked voters whether the merger, as detailed by the Liberal Party, would make them more or less likely to vote for the Coalition parties. The results were mildly negative across the whole sample, with most people thinking it would make no difference to their vote.
The only group where there was significant support was amongst respondents who had changed their vote from last election moving either from Labor to Liberal/National, or vice-versa, plus those who are still undecided. While these people change elections, our earlier research says that there are issues that strongly affect all voters, and get much larger “head nods”. These are issues like health and education. They would be better to run on than an issue which only appeals to swinging voters because they demoralise government supporters when they are raised, making it harder for the government to mount an effective campaign.
I’ve reproduced our notes below. The tables are a little untidy, so if you want a cleaner copy or access to more detailed figures, email me editor@onlineopinion.com.au.
These are the notes used in today’s on-air analysis. We are still taking responses and will incorporate the revised figures into the final report.

Quantitative

Total Sample

1. This proposal is not receiving a large “head nod”.
2. The proposal has a slightly negative effective across the whole sample – minus 2%
3. The sample is more balanced than usual – 16% Greens, 27% Labor, 20% Liberal and 18% National
4. Best Liberal representation in one of our samples for a while – suggests Liberals are more motivated on this issue than Nationals of Labor.
5. Both Liberals and Nationals are more positive than negative on this proposal – 51% of Liberals and 46% of Nationals approve, while only 9% and 13% disapprove. However, worrying for them that 40% and 41% are neither more nor less likely to vote for the new entity than the party they now vote for.
6. Leadership still an issue. 35% want Lawrence Springborg, 33% have no opinion, 9% Caltabiano and 8% Flegg.

Swinging Sample

I analysed those Liberal, National and Labor voters who were changing their vote since last election from one side of the divide to the other. Results here are interestingly different.
1. 39% are more likely to vote for the new entity, and 18% less likely, making it a net 21% in favour.
2. Still 42% are still neither more nor less likely.
3. Best leader is still Springborg – 53%. Next best is Flegg – 16%. Then Caltabiano – 3%.

Conclusion

Not enough in this proposal to risk running it without widespread approval within the parties. Will make it more likely for swinging voters to vote against Labor, but the majority of voters couldn’t care less about it. Best combination to gain swinging voters would be Springborg leader with Flegg deputy.

Qualitative

I’ve done the qual just on the swinging contingent. A variety of points of view.
Two failure don’t equal one success:
“Two horses arses do not make a whole and healthy horse.” Labor voter, traditional Liberal, female, 51-60
Seen it all before:
“I cannot for the life of me believe that they are trotting out this rubbish again, I have voted for a Beattie government for the last 3 elections, he has blown all creditability as far as I’m concerned, last week topped everything, the standing of politicians in the community is fairly low, without tinkering with decriminalising lying to committies, city Liberals don’t want to take on some of the redneck policies of the boys from the bush, they just need to do it through the polls and become the senior party in the coalition under the leadership of Caltabiano” Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, male, 51-60
Opposed to National Party influence:
“I was thinking of perhaps voting Liberal but I would NEVER vote for a party whose leader is Lawrence Springbord or National Party affiliates.I think they represent Qld of old,lack of education and bad image and ideas.” Liberal voter, voted Labor last election, female, 61+
Strength in size:
“qld politics is rather lop sided at moment, need a larger second party” National voter, Greens last election, female, 51-60
Liberals and Nats working together:
“The merger shows an ability for the Liberals and Nationals to work together and I think this is important.” National voter, Labor last election, male, 51-60
They’ll fight:
“The party would have a larger membership base with possible difference of opinions, which may cause debates to become more of an infight.” Undecided, Greens last election, male, 31-40
Less democracy, not more:
“I do not believe in less but in more Parties. Good democracy thrives on diversity, not simplicity.” Undecided, no normal voting pattern, female, 51-60.

Total sample pivots

This document (pdf 44kb) lays out the mechanism by which the National Party will become part of the Liberal Party. It puts paid to suggestions that this is just an agreement in principal. The mechanisms, right down to when the parties will hold constitution conventions, are laid out.

The Australian confirms what I understood to be the case – when the National and Liberal Party organisations met simultaneously on Sunday they were each given different deals and told that the deal they had before them was the one the other side had signed-off on.
Now, I’m not sure which one’s the “girl” in my metaphor, but I can hear “breach of promise”, and worse, being muttered. I wouldn’t want to be the one who misled.
But then, maybe the intention all along was to arrange a shot-gun wedding. Some of those can be long and loving. I remember Warwick Parer once telling me “It is easier to ask foregiveness than permission,” advice I’ve sometimes followed, and more frequently quoted.

Lawrence Springborg used these words in an interview with Madonna King this morning to imply that the joint party room has unanimously endorsed the plan to merge the Liberal and National Parties.

“The joint National and Liberal party room met and unanimously agreed that we move forward with the creation of a united non-Labor party in Queensland. So that’s a merging of the two. So that was unanimous position yesterday.”

So how is it that The Courier Mail has a list of parliamentary members and whether they favour a merger or not with question marks next to the names of significant power-brokers like Bruce Flegg and Jeff Seeney who were both in the meeting? Who’s got it wrong – The Courier or Springborg?
It could be a question of semantics.
I am told that the joint party room didn’t actually vote on anything, so while we can’t say with any certainty what it was that they might all agree on, we can say that no-one actually voted against it! If you put a motion and no-one opposes it, although some might abstain, it is said to have been passed “nem con”. On the other hand, if you put a motion and everyone present votes for it is said to be “unanimous”. However, some dictionaries (for example this online one) do define “nem con” and “unanimous” as being synonymous.
All of which begs the question: Why wasn’t a motion put? If everyone is so strongly in favour it would have been passed unanimously. We’d all know, and I wouldn’t be amusing myself with etymological quibbles.

Writing on his blog Geoff Robinson sketches a brief history of mergers of the non-Labor forces in Queensland. I’m posting this with his permission, and suggest you check his blog out.

The announced merger between the Liberals and nationals in Queensland seems to involve the formation of a merged party at state level with tis federal MPs having the option of whether to sit with the Liberals or Nationals in federal parliament. Is there any reason why an MP would choose to sit with the Nationals? Once current group of Queensland National MPs moves on I would predict that the federal Nationals would disappear in Queensland. Queensland conservative politics has been down this road before. The brief emergence of a Country Party in Queensland in the early 1920s was followed by a reunification of the conservatives as the Country Progressive National Party in 1925. Although the CPNP won the 1929 elections it was otherwise a failure, and in 1935-36 it split into the Country Party and the UAP before briefly merging again in the 1940s. During the mergers federal MPs sat with the party of their choice but most even then caucused with the Nationalists/UAP. In Maranoa, the only seat lost by Labor in its 1943 federal landslide, the fact that the non-Labor candidate disavowed the merger and represented an independent Country Party grouping may have assisted his surprise victory (see my paper on western Queensland politics here).

This document was sent to me by a Liberal Party member. It is an email that has been sent to Liberal Party members with email addresses explaining the proposal and was marked “Private and Confidential”. It is clearly at odds with a number of public statements from the National Party.

Talking points re: Proposed Merger

§ The Executives of both the Liberal Party and National Party in Queensland yesterday resolved to progress discussions for a possible merger of the two parties under the Liberal Party of Australia (Queensland Division) Constitution.
§ This is the first positive step in a process of discussions that could provide unprecedented unity, giving the Liberal Party the best chance of beating the incompetent and arrogant Beattie Labor Government at the next state election.
§ Constitutional changes, if any, will be decided after further talks and ongoing consultation with both organisations and parliamentary wings, as well as rank-and-file membership.
§ This proposed merger does not mean the creation of a new party.

Questions and Answers

Do merger talks between the Qld Liberal and National parties mean a new conservative party will be formed?
No. Despite media reports, there is no talk of forming a new conservative party and the Liberal Party would not be changing its name to the ‘New Liberals.’ The merger would not form a new conservative party in Qld, rather talks are centering on the Nationals joining the Liberal Party. Discussions with the Qld National Party leadership will continue to this effect.
What did State Council decide on Sunday?
The Qld Liberal Party State Council and the Nationals equivalent agreed yesterday to support further talks between the Liberal Party of Australia (Qld Division) and the Qld National Party on the issue of a merger between parties under the Liberal Party of Australia (QLD Division) Constitution.
The Motion passed reads as follows:-
State Council congratulates the working party on ongoing discussions with the National Party to date and authorises the working group (President, State Director, Con and Rules Chairman) to continue discussions with the Parliamentary Parties and Federal Party Leadership in regards to the merger of the two Parties under the Liberal Party of Australia (Qld Division) Constitution.
What are the benefits of the Qld Nationals joining the Liberal Party of Australia (Qld Division)? Why is this proposal better than a Coalition?
The merger would create the largest political party in Queensland. The membership base would provide strength to branches and ensure that the Liberal Party be a broad-based political party, which would appeal to rural and metropolitan voters. It would combine the strengths of the National and Liberal parties to create a powerful conservative force, which would offer all Queenslanders an alternative government. Research shows that Queenslanders are more likely to vote for a unified opposition and are looking for an alternative to the disastrous Labor administration. Business groups have also indicated they will provide greater support for a united strong party with clear messages, alternative policies and a focus on achieving Government. By contrast, the Queensland Coalition Agreement is a coalition rather than a merger of the parties and still allows for divisive three-cornered contests.
How will the Liberal Party incorporate the National identity? What are the transition arrangements?
It is envisaged that the Liberal Party would undertake Constitutional reform agreed between parties to ensure that rural membership and the Nationals’ regional constituency was fully represented and enfranchised into the new partnership. The reform would look to create State Electorate Councils in six regions – Greater Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, North Queensland, Central Queensland and Western Queensland as identified in the Coalition ‘Attaining Government’ Agreement. One vice-president would be elected by each region. Members would be empowered by the creation of SECs with provision for the convening of a Policy Convention and regional policy forums in addition to an annual Convention.
Transition arrangements would have the National Party Leader as the Leader of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party Leader as Deputy and the Shadow Cabinet positions would remain unchanged subject to performance criteria. The new Senior Vice-President would be the current National Party President. The Liberal Party executive would remain in place for the next three years.
Would constitutional reform be required?
The current Liberal Party of Australia (Qld Division) Constitution and the Qld National Party Constitution allow for these changes. However, a Constitutional Convention would be constituted to amend the Liberal Party Constitution to enable further changes to take place. This convention would be open to all party membership.
Isn’t it just a takeover?
The merger concept is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It is a genuine partnership of equals, which serves the mutual interests of both parties and is designed to achieve our highest common goal – attaining government in Queensland.
What about three cornered contests – how will these be resolved?
Three-cornered contests in the seats of Broadwater, Mudgeeraba, Hervey Bay, Redlands would be resolved internally under a process of ‘Objective Assessment’.
What about the State Shadow Ministry?
The State Shadow Ministry would stay in place until the State election, subject to performance criteria.
What about Qld National Senators and MPs – would they now sit in Parliament as Liberals?
The position of the Qld National Members would be determined in consultation with Federal Members and Senators together with their Federal organisation.
What would the Senate ticket look like?
All State and Federal MPs and sitting Senators would be re-endorsed. By agreement, sitting National Party Senators would be placed on the combined Liberal Party Senate ticket.
Would members have a greater say in the Party structure?
As part of the new arrangements, there would be provision to set up State Electorate Councils and a planned Policy Convention, including provision for regional policy forums. Members would have a greater role in policy formulation and would be able to contribute fully to the direction of the revitalised Liberal Party.

The proposed Queensland merger appears to be still-born, going on statements made in the press this morning. Yesterday very reliable sources could tell me what the structure of the deal was, including some of the proposed changes to the Liberal Party constitution. They could also confidently tell me that John Howard was in favour and that the parliamentary entity would be meeting next week to elect its leadership team. Yet this morning both state presidents are playing down the firmness of the deal, and John Howard appears to be off-side.
Here are some of the quotes from this morning:

Geoff Greene (LP State Director): “The entity that will survive or continue on from the merger of the two parties will be the Liberal Party of Australia Queensland Division.” (ABC Radio 7:00 a.m. news)
Geoff Greene: “The arrangements that we have agreed to in principle would effectively operate under the Federal Liberal Party’s model.”
Bruce Scott (NP State President): “There’s a long way to go yet. It’s an agreement in principle. But we’ve never been at this stage before.”
Bob Quinn (LP Parliamentary Leader): “What we’re trying to do here is bring two parties together to have one united force in Queensland. There are… we’ve reached an in principle agreement between the two parties and we’re now going down to Canberra to talk to our federal colleagues about it.”
Bruce Scott: “Well Madonna, these talks will progress over the next few weeks. The proposed entity would be under the banner of the New Liberals…”
Warwick Parer (LP State President): “What we’ve said is we’re going through a process of discussions for a possible merger, and if it comes off, all the best. If it doesn’t come off, we will continue those discussions. They’ve been going on for years so there’s nothing very new in it. And if it did occur, it’s really evolution rather than revolution.”

My interpretation of all of this is that once the news became public telephones started ringing off the hooks with complaints leading to considerable back-peddling. Some of the major participants appear to have been misled about the agreement or otherwise of people like John Howard. Today an entirely different group of people is being misled as to what the extent of the planning was, and even how the merged entity was to be created and branded.
As George Brandis said,

“This has started to cause, not unity, but division and dispute. We need this like a hole in the head.”

It’s worth revisiting my posts from last year on the subject starting with “Pineapple party fruit salad – internal research” drawing on research that had been commissioned by Lawrence Springborg on the concept of a merger. In it the researcher Toby Ralph said:

…the process is extremely likely to be a catalyst that drives many current and potential voters away, thus utterly disastrous for the Coalition and suicidal for its political advocates.
Under no circumstance should Party leaders announce an “unresolved” merger in the hope that people will tolerate disagreements that will eventually be resolved. This would backfire badly.

He was right then, and he is right now. The result of the current furore is likely to be no merger and a reinforcement of negative community opinions about the durability and worthiness of any Coalition arrangement.
You can download the research here.

The Liberal and National Party Queensland organisations have met today and agreed to “merge” the two state parties. While in fact a merger, it will structurally mean the dissolution of the Queensland National Party, with its assets and members being transferred to the Liberal Party.
John Howard is reported to be happy with the arrangement while Mark Vaile, Deputy Prime Minister and National Party leader, is said to be strongly opposed. The move appears to be aggreeable to Lawrence Springborg and Bob Quinn, the state National and Liberal Party leaders.
Under the agreement the Queensland National Party will join the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party’s constitution will be adjusted to take account of some aspects of the National Party.
There are significant ramifications likely from this decision, the largest of which is that it becomes highly likely that Peter Beattie will go to an election now, particularly if there is significant dissent. On the Liberal side this appears to be unlikely with Howard and Quinn both in support, and only one Liberal voted against the proposal at the organisational meeting. On the National Party side, Barnaby Joyce joins Mark Vaile in being unhappy so there is significant potential, even though national president David Russell is one of the key architects.
Another ramification is the future of country representation in the Australia’s parliaments. Without Queensland the National Party is more or less finished at a national level. Will country Australians be happy to be represented by Liberals, or will this lead to the formation of another party? Or will there be a reaction against this move amongst some National Party rank and file leading to the National Party continuing to exist, perhaps without state representation?
Keep watching this blog or further information.