When Palmer United became a party divided

After the 2013 federal election, it appeared there was a new force in Australian politics. Clive Palmer, mining magnate and Bjelke-Petersen supporter, had run a huge campaign, storming across the nation from Queensland, like a tropical cyclone. It covered television, radio, billboards, newspapers, letterbox pamphlets and even a DVD, and it worked a treat. The Palmer United Party gained one House of Representatives member (Palmer himself in Fairfax), but more importantly appeared to hold the balance of power in the Senate, with three Senators from three states, as well as an 'informal alliance' with the newly elected Ricky Muir.

As of this week, those five MPs have dwindled to two - Palmer and WA's Dio Wang are all that are left, with Muir, Jacqui Lambie and now Glenn 'Brick With Eyes' Lazarus going their own way. The cyclone had petered out to a mild drizzle.

So what happened?

In order to understand the sudden collapse of the PUP, you must see the party for what it is. Some have claimed that the party was only ever a ruse or a front for Palmer himself, designed to allow him greater lobbying ability within the parliament, and ultimately the government. Certainly, Palmer has attempted to use the party for this at times, but it seems an overly open way of lobbying for even someone like Clive. Palmer is a clever individual - dumb like a fox, you might say - and he has decades of experience in politics behind the scenes. If he just wanted to lobby, he would just lobby.

No, it seems that Palmer was genuinely interested in some kind of party for the people. Of course, the party would have to serve his interests, but Palmer would presumably also believe that his interests are the interests of the majority of Australians. Essentially, he wanted to create a populist party that could claim to be for the people, by the people.

You can see this in the candidates that were selected. The range of backgrounds is remarkably wide, from academics to tradesmen and everything in between. But there is also the sense that in most cases they just picked whoever was willing to have a go, apart from a few hand-picked candidates.

This is an approach fraught with danger, but it didn't seem to affect their overall appeal too much. In fact, stories like their candidate in Corangamite's wild election launch party were probably just as appealing to some members of the electorate as they were unappealing to others. So, during the course of the 2013 campaign, all seemed well. The potential for disaster that exists with having independently minded candidates brought together only by dissatisfaction with current politics was hidden by the sheer breadth of the campaign. Palmer offered a simple, effective message to the public - 'reunite the nation' - and the public responded.

Even though many wondered how long Lambie would last within the party upon first hearing her opinions, things seemed to get even better for the PUP in the WA Senate election, when they received 12.34% of the vote, a remarkable amount for a minor party in Australia.

Since then, it has been downhill. Two Queensland state MPs quit the party, with one citing a culture of 'jobs for the boys'. The three Northern Territory rebel MPs who joined the party in 2014 quit soon after, due to a total lack of structure and support.

And, most crucially, two Senators announced they would be independent. Lambie and Lazarus both left after personal spats with Palmer. Muir, meanwhile, has quietly done his own thing.

In the end, it seems the problem is Clive, and the fact that everything in the party centres around him. Should a member find fault with him, they find fault with the party, and leave. This is a difficult problem to have, as Palmer is also the only reason the party exists in the first place. As is often the case when one person drives the entire party, the fortunes of the party live and die on that person's performance, which is in no way a viable long-term option. 

The story of the Dutch Pim Fortuyn List is a clear example of this. Led by a populist, nationalist leader in Pim Fortuyn, the party rocketed into Government in its first election. It did this without Fortuyn, who had been assassinated during the election campaign. Without Fortuyn, and unable to use the wave of public support to govern in the same way it did to get voted in, the party fell apart. In only one year the party lost two-thirds of its vote. Three years later it barely registered at all.

So, what must the PUP do to avoid this fate? Firstly, it must change its name to what it was originally to be called - the United Australia Party. This, if only rhetorically, takes the focus off Palmer. Second, it needs to develop clear policy. Populism can only take a party so far, and often only on the back of a popular leader. As we have seen, a party based on a popular leader will not last, so the party must look to add depth of support, even if it comes at the expense of breadth of support.

Only then may the PUP be seen as a potential lasting force in Australian politics. If it does not, or cannot, do these things, it will be only a footnote in our political history.

The value of politicians from all walks of life

Last week, with only a little fanfare, Senator Ricky Muir gave his maiden speech in the Senate. He took nearly eight months to get around to delivering it, which may (or may not) be a record. Prior to that, he had only spoken three times in the chamber. This may suggest that Muir someone who clearly shouldn't be in the parliament, someone who doesn't belong, isn't well educated enough and doesn't have the right qualifications.

Certainly, that is the impression that has been given of Muir since his election. When it became apparent that this unknown candidate was going to gain a seat in the Senate with only 17,000 votes going to him off first preferences, the media naturally set about finding what they could about him. The first thing they found was a video of him flinging kangaroo dung around on a camping trip.

This set the tone for the way his image was shaped in the weeks following. There was precious little else to go on, so the media happily took this as proof that Muir was just some Aussie larrikin that really shouldn't be in the parliament. His first television interview, done with Mike Willesee, was also more or less a disaster. But Muir kept his head up, and continued his preparations.

As it turns out, the image of Muir as some uneducated, incapable Aussie bush bloke is, ironically, rather unrefined.

The first indication we got of this was in this piece by Sophie Morris in July last year. Muir is - surprise - a car enthusiast, but he is also more than that. He is a strong family man, he understands the value of employment to the average person, he is thoughtful, and he is independent.

He also calls himself 'just an ordinary bloke'.

Then, last week, all of these things were confirmed in his maiden speech, which you can see here:

Muir bought his first suit just for the speech. For the most part, like most people would in a similar situation, he read the pre-prepared speech word for word. There was nothing slick about it, and there wasn't any sense that Muir was there for his own interests. He was there because he cared, and because he felt a duty towards people like him.

If you read the comments below the YouTube video, you'll find that they are overwhelmingly positive, praising Muir for being authentic, humble, real and, above all, an average Australian. How many politicians would get that kind of response to a speech of theirs?

Not many in our Parliament today. Certainly, not many from the major parties. One other 'average' Australian comes to mind, though, in Jacqui Lambie. Lambie's performance in public since being elected could not be further removed from Muir's, but she receives similar positive responses for being real.

To the public, they are just ordinary Aussies.

Muir has also given every indication so far that he intends to make informed decisions in the parliament. He has sought to learn from those in the know, and he has learnt quickly. He needed to. Of all the people elected to the Senate last year, he was the one being held up as the clearest example that the Senate was not representative.

But, thanks to the way our political system works, it often turns out that those elected with the smallest proportion of votes can actually truly represent the largest number of voters. When we vote for our Senators, we vote for individuals. If we were able to meet all the people running for the Senate face-to-face, chances are it would be people like Muir who would be most positively received.

There's no doubt that a system that allows people to be elected with 0.03 of a quota on first preferences isn't quite working correctly. But it also happens to be those same quirks that allow us to have representatives who aren't beholden to behemoth parties, and who genuinely care about their constituency.

If the Senate is ever the 'unrepresentative swill' Paul Keating claimed it is, it will be when people like sawmill worker Muir, military policeman Lambie and boilermaker John Madigan are barred from entering the parliament. We must ensure this never happens.