THE rural demographic is changing and rural politics must change with it, writes LESLIE WHITE

In the 1990s, when One Nation swept Australia and picked up 25 per cent of the vote in a Queensland election, conservative politics was desperate to know what was fuelling the phenomenon.

And so a study was done on the characteristics of the One Nation voter.

Were the voters young, old, wealthy or poor, white?

Where were the votes coming from?

The study found almost all One Nation supporters had one thing in common: they used to vote National.

One Nation was an organisational disaster which failed to capitalise on the intense feelings of disenchantment it had tapped into and disappeared into the ether.

More than a decade on, the Nationals face a new threat: Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor.

The Nationals have been locked out of negotiations between coalition leader Tony Abbott and the independents as the default setting of certain Nationals to pick a fight with, rather than learn from, their opposition seems to have come back to bite them.

The irony of the situation is that the independents may well get further with their requests for regional Australia than the Nationals have.

And if the trio manages to extract better results for rural Australia than the National Party did in 11 years of coalition government, it will not bode well for the Nationals.

Many voters will ponder this: why vote National if rural independent is more effective?

Oakeshott exposes the lack of modern thinking in rural policy debate.

He's passionate about both rural Australia and climate change, he says renewable energy will provide employment in the regions and sees no gain in cultivating bitter political fights.

Windsor says nothing would evaporate distance like broadband - remote patients could see doctors and specialists via video link, for example.

It is the one area in which country people could be on equal footing with their city competitors. Fast broadband would save rural businesses time and money.

Meanwhile, Katter provides hardline opposition to the "no import tariffs" agenda which some farmers feel the Nationals failed them on.

But here's the thing about the rural independents: they only exist because of dissatisfaction with the National Party.

If the Nationals did their job, no one would vote for an independent as there would be no need.

And the three became independents largely because they, as rural representatives, felt dissatisfied with the Nationals.

The irony is the National Party is actually based on the idea that its members are free to vote differently to their colleagues - that the party is a collection of country independents. The idea is terrific, but it has obviously gone wrong somewhere as the

Nationals very rarely vote differently to the Liberals, or to one another.

The other thing for the Nationals to consider is that there may be a cross-section out there who could vote for either the Nationals or the Greens.

There were more votes available to the Nationals and Greens on August 21 because voters deserted major parties, mostly Labor.

The coalition's vote increased less than 1.5 per cent at the election, with its improved standing really the result of a collapse in the Labor vote.

And while the Nationals increased their vote in Gippsland and in Mallee, there were also swings to the Greens.

Some may say those "new" Green votes came from former Labor voters anyway, but the Nationals would rather the votes came to them, regardless of which party the voter supported last election.

The farmer who wants action on climate change must be deeply conflicted about the Nationals.

The party needs policies which reflect that it now caters to a broader audience - an increasing number of hobby farmers, tree-changers and residents in regional centres - if the aim is to become a force in inner regional as well as outer regional seats.

A force of the future, not of the past.

Doing this without alienating the traditional voter base will be tricky, but it is possible to advocate both for the rights of rural people and come up with sound environmental policy.

It's impossible not to feel for the Nationals.

Fiona Nash, Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss are fierce rural people fighting hard to improve the lives of country people around Australia and are placed in incredibly difficult political positions.

But the policies rural people needed were not offered in 2010.

Many or even most country people want to vote for a dedicated rural party. They just need a good reason to do so.

  • Leslie White is The Weekly Times national affairs writer