As a member of John Kerin’s staff, Gordon Gregory was, in effect, an adviser to the ALP. With this article he demonstrates his broadmindedness and naïveté by offering advice to the Liberal Party and to Barnaby Joyce. Simply put, it is this: “Euthanase the National Party and go it alone”.

Submissions to the review of the Liberal Party’s 2025 federal election campaign were due last week. Pru Goward and Nick Minchin have their work cut out to try to ensure the party’s trek through the wilderness ends in a happy place.

At the same time, Senator James McGrath is undertaking a root-and-branch review of the party itself to determine how it can increase its relevance and public support.

Sussan Ley has characterised these reviews as existential issues and has insisted that her party needs to consider all possible options in order “to meet Australians where they are”. Where rural people clearly are not is where they have locked themselves into a blind adherence to a particular party.

Ley’s own electoral situation should not be lost on her. For many years, the seat of Farrer was held by the leader of the National Party. Ley now has it as a safe Liberal seat. This is a model of how to deal with the party political issue. It demonstrates pragmatism and flexibility.

In the 2025 election, the Liberals were hammered, while the Nationals lost just one seat, that to an ex-National Party member running as an independent.

The lesson from these electoral results is clear: what carries individuals to victory is perceived competence and local reputation, not party membership and the labelling of individuals which results. The challenge is to field the best candidate for conservative voters, not simply one who is a member of one party or another.

If Ley, McGrath, Goward and Minchin were locked away together in a secret room for five minutes, they would surely own up to the fact that their reviews are hamstrung by a fundamental systemic problem: the National Party.

The smartest thing they could recommend is that the Liberal Party should not undertake this trek alone but, instead, as part of a single, unified conservative political entity. They should go beyond their terms of reference and propose that wise heads and brave souls take action to have the two parties amalgamate.

And Joyce could play a key role.

History shows that rural people, in general, recognise good government and national leadership, irrespective of party politics. Under Bob Hawke’s leadership and with John Kerin’s shrewd approach to the national interest, from 1987-1990 the ALP held 20 rural and regional seats.

Amalgamation of the Liberal and National Parties would have enormous, immediate and long-lasting benefits.

There would be greater clarity and certainty around the stance of the new entity. The choice throughout Australia would be (new) Liberal, ALP or Independent/Green/Other. This could only improve conservative electoral performance.

No longer would there be curious arrangements about three-cornered contests.

There would be beneficial financial effects from less duplication of services and activities. Scarce human resources could be more productively used.

In Queensland, the Liberal and National parties are already formally combined as one joint organisation, the Liberal National Party. Under the LNP agreement in the state, federal electorates are divided up between the two existing conservative parties. Whoever holds the seat of Groom, for instance, has to date taken their seat in the Liberal party room.

This is a dead-giveaway about the lack of need for two distinct conservative entities.

In the Northern Territory, the centre-right conservative grouping is the Country Liberal Party, commonly known as the Country Liberals_._

Over the years, many successful MPs for rural electorates have been Liberals. A fine recent example is Russell Broadbent who served the electorate of McMillan/Corinella/Monash devotedly (Moe, Wonthaggi, Fish Creek) for more than 25 years.

An amalgamated conservative party would help clear the decks and provide a firm base for sorting out the grassroots and organisational chaos in some of the state and territory divisions of the Liberal Party. Not for nothing are they called “divisions”. The current situation in Victoria, for example, has been characterised by a prominent alumnus as one in which members of different factions have been “eating their own”.

For amalgamation to succeed, leadership by conservatives located in rural areas would be required. This is where Joyce could come in. He is almost a caricature of the National Party: whimsical, colourful, inconsistent, outspoken, irreverent and good copy for the media.

If he stayed true to form, Joyce could be the catalyst for moderate and more progressive conservative forces to be bold enough to insist on the amalgamation of Liberal and National Parties into a single entity. With his eventual support, amalgamation could be achieved in five years and within two full electoral cycles.

The existence of two conservative parties creates unnecessary difficulties on policy issues. The situation relating to a 2050 target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions is currently the standout example. The necessary steps for the coalition are for Liberal MPs and Senators to agree a position in the Liberal party room, for Nationals Members and Senators to agree a position in their party room, and then for shadow cabinet to determine a position for the coalition.

To this end, the National Party has an internal review being led by a prominent opponent of the net-zero target, while the Liberal Party has Shadow Minister for Energy and Emissions Dan Tehan reviewing its stance. This is almost a tailor-made situation for a spoiler to create further confusion and uncertainty. Joyce’s proposed private member’s bill does that very nicely.

He could be more gainfully engaged in party politics than this.

Progress on amalgamation would require active promotion and support from members of the National Party. Traditional rusted-on National voters would need to be cajoled, informed and encouraged to appreciate the benefits of the proposed new arrangements. Extensive community consultations would be needed.

Amalgamation would be strongly resisted by elements of the National Party, who would be identified and defined by such opposition. In these circumstances and in the interim, Joyce could emerge as the lightning rod for a Save the National Party push and the obvious leader of such a rump.

But soon enough this could present him with the opportunity to help remake conservative politics by leading the resisters — the SNP people — to a new happy place.

There must already be many National Party members and supporters who see the enormous benefits to the conservative side of politics that would immediately accrue if they were all to fall on their ploughshares.

The question is, who is brave enough and selfless enough to cut the first furrow?

Calare, Hunter, Eden-Monaro, Page and Richmond in New South Wales; Capricornia, Dawson, Herbert, Leichhardt, Hinkler and Rankin in Queensland; Ballarat, Bendigo, McEwen, McMillan and Burke in Victoria; Brand and Kalgoorlie in Western Australia; Grey in South Australia; and the Northern Territory.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.