In the quest to beat One Nation, two leading Liberals adopt opposite strategies

Two politicians who could be the future, in their own ways, of the Liberal Party and the nation, Andrew Hastie and Jess Wilson, are taking opposite approaches to the toughest challenge facing the Coalition in a political generation: how to respond to the rise of One Nation.

Whoever succeeds could become a Liberal hero. The loser is likely to fade into history as an example of missed potential.

This week Mr Hastie, the shadow industry minister, committed to unrestrained combat against the right-wing populist party, which wants his West Australian seat of Canning.

“To be called a traitor by One Nation,” Mr Hastie wrote, “well, they’ve picked a fight with the wrong veteran.”

On the same day, Ms Wilson, the Victorian opposition leader, was given the opportunity to smash One Nation for choosing a state leader, Warren Pickering, with a difficult personal history, including use of heavy drugs. She said: “That’s simply a matter for Mr Pickering to answer.”

Ms Wilson’s muted response was mostly lost in the tricky moral questions raised by Mr Pickering’s past, including whether breaking laws, in moments of weakness and distress, excludes an individual from being entrusted to make them.

If the Liberal Party doesn’t make any big mistakes — never a certainty in Victoria — polls suggest it will triumph in November’s election. But One Nation is taking the election seriously and it is impossible to rule out a hung parliament, which is when no party has a majority.

Ms Wilson’s strategy for dealing with One Nation has three principles: don’t attack One Nation or look like she is attacking One Nation; subtly pressure One Nation to explain how its policies will work; and pick political fights where the Coalition is strongest.

The approach was demonstrated at a May by-election when the opposition privately encouraged journalists to ask the One Nation candidate about his plan to use private funds to rebuild a public hospital in a beachside town.

After the candidate struggled to explain the policy, the Liberals’ head office accused One Nation of planning to privatise the hospital. It was the biggest issue of the by-election, which the Liberal candidate easily won.

Escalation

Over in the West, Mr Hastie’s new declaration of war this week was met with a torrent of critical feedback. Twenty-one hours after his don’t-call-me-a-traitor post went up on Facebook, there were 1400 responses.

The commentariat did not enjoy being referred to as “cowards” by Mr Hastie, who complained he was being unfairly hounded for taking the stand against his fellow SAS veteran, Ben Roberts-Smith, who has been charged with five counts of the war crime of murder.

A sample of 280 comments identified 34 per cent as for Mr Hastie (some of them self-identified Labor voters), 44 per cent against and 22 neutral or unclear. Given social media is a public relations tool for politicians, it was a high level of hostility to an individual post, which was also emailed to Mr Hastie’s supporters.

One of the more thoughtful responses came from an artilleryman who left the army to become a nurse. Brisbane-based Rhys Bosley expressed empathy for Mr Hastie’s stance on war crimes but faulted the former captain for treating politics like war.

“Twice now I have seen you insult people who would otherwise support you, the first time after they took issue over your vote on the free speech legislation and now by effectively calling a young man having a hard time finding their way, losers,” he wrote.

“Representing voters just isn’t like the Army though. Voters didn’t volunteer for military service, they are people you are paid to serve. That means it is up to you to find a way to meet their expectations while offering them a vision, which is different to trying to impose your own views on them as a commander.”

One of the surprises this week was how quickly Mr Hastie’s dispute with One Nation escalated.

On Monday, he told an ABC television interviewer that One Nation’s plans to run in his seat did not trouble him. “Look, I don’t worry about that,” he said. “I’ve got one job and that is to deliver for my electorate.”

By Tuesday morning he decided to hit back, explicitly citing One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s vow to contest his seat, which was not surprising given One Nation ran in Canning last election. Mr Hastie even formed a friendly relationship with the One Nation candidate.

“I’m calling time on cowards who have never served a day in the Australian Defence Force attacking my service record, my integrity, and my loyalty to Australia,” he wrote Tuesday morning.

After Senator Hanson denied accusing him of being a traitor, and called him a “wanker” instead, he escalated the fight.

“I would say that Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce are lying cowards,” he told News24 on Wednesday. “And I’ll say it again so there is no ambiguity. They are lying cowards.”

One Nation paradox

Among the many Liberals grappling with the One Nation challenge is Ben Small, the MP for the marginal seat of Forrest in southern Western Australia. One Nation opened a branch in his electorate before Canning.

At the next election, Mr Small might benefit from what could be called the One Nation paradox. The seat’s relatively few conservative votes — the Liberals and Nationals only received 36 per cent of the primary vote last time — makes it difficult for One Nation to win.

That’s because Mr Small will receive Labor and Greens preferences if he and his one One Nation opponent finish in the top two. Mr Small could emerge with a larger majority, while previously safe Coalition seats fall to One Nation because they have more right-wing voters and need fewer preferences to secure majorities.

In the recent Secret Harbour by-election, Mr Small calculated that 40 per cent of Liberal voters ignored the party’s advice to send their preferences to One Nation.

“That proves to me that Liberal and One Nation voters are not homogeneous,” he said today. “Each party has to have a separate identity.”

As the Liberal and National parties whether One Nation is a frenemy or enemy, they could consider their long, mutually competitive history.

Under the Coalition agreement, the parties are free to run against each other in electorates where there is no existing Liberal or National MP. Once known as three-cornered contests, these elections require the Coalition partners to compete respectfully.

The Nationals, once known as the Country Party, have been competing and cooperating with the main right-wing party since 1923, long before the Liberal Party came into existence.

If those bush politicians could do it, surely it is not beyond the abilities of today’s Coalition leaders to work out a strategy?