THE Nationals can keep the independents at bay, writes LESLIE WHITE
Elections that see Labor ousted are the darkest times rural independents face.
The NSW election at the weekend was no different.
The Nationals regained three seats from rural independents on Saturday - Port Macquarie, Tamworth and Dubbo.
But independent Richard Torbay retained Northern Tablelands, despite a strong challenge from the Nationals.
Historically, the fortunes of the Nationals and rural independents are diametrically opposed.
When rural people feel failed by the Nationals, they look elsewhere - and the fact they are conservative leaves the middle ground open and vulnerable to challenges from independents.
And support for the Nationals throughout history runs like a shark fin.
It tends to decline gradually for long periods followed by a sharp spike in support, which often comes at the expense of rural independents.
The Nationals recently increased their representation in Western Australia, Victoria, federally and in NSW - we are at the spike now.
Rural independents are often seen as Labor-aligned - whether this is the case or not - partly because they tend to get Labor preferences and partly because it suits the Coalition to label them as being a friend to Labor.
Labor would rather deal with an independent than a National and so Labor preferences might help a rural independent into office, but being seen as a friend of Labor eventually costs rural independents in conservative electorates.
This factor probably cost Rob Oakeshott's mate, Peter Besseling, the NSW seat of Port Macquarie on Saturday and helped oust Peter Draper from Tamworth, which is part of Tony Windsor's federal electorate.
The other reason rural independents tend to lose their seats when Labor is ousted is that rural voters often think they're better represented by having a voice in the Coalition government, than an independent outside it - so they vote National.
The slide in Nationals' support often comes when the party is in government and doesn't achieve as much as voters had hoped.
There's a feeling Liberals tend to ignore the Nationals if they don't require their support to get their bills through and this leaves some rural voters believing that voting for the Nationals gains little for rural areas.
This happened in Victoria with the Kennett Government leading up to the 1999 election and federally with the Howard Government leading up to the 2007 poll.
And it's what the Nationals need to be mindful of in NSW, given the Liberals won so many seats.
The Kennett Government ended when rural independents took the balance of power as they cashed in on massive rural frustration, despite the Nationals having been in power.
In the Howard Government, the Nationals rolled over on the banning of semi-automatic firearms and could not convince their Liberal partners to scrap managed investment schemes or retain the single desk for wheat.
In Victoria however, this term the Nationals effectively hold the balance of power in both houses - the Liberals need their support to pass every bill.
The truth is, neither rural independents nor the Nationals are a silver bullet to cure rural ills, but both can deliver good.
Take the case of Gippsland East independent Craig Ingram in last year's Victorian election. If Mr Ingram had survived, he would have been kingmaker - as he was in 1999 - and brokered a deal to benefit rural Victoria.
But he lost to the Nationals' Tim Bull, which delivered government to the Coalition and the chance to impress rural voters to the Nationals.
The Victorian Nationals will be as effective this term as they have ever been.
Mr Ingram did well for rural Victoria, as Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott have done for rural Australia.
Two or three terms is a good result for an independent against the might of the Coalition.
Contrary to some commentary, neither the rural independent nor the National Party faces a demise anytime soon.
The Nationals however, need to show they are not being pushed around by the Liberals and independents need to communicate that they objectively choose their positions and do not need to defend a position of a party leader's choosing.
When the Nationals fight hard for rural causes, rural independents are no great threat to them.
When rural people feel that voting National achieves nothing, they look for alternatives and rural independents are often the most palatable option.
- Leslie White is The Weekly Times' national affairs reporter
