Secondly, it will lead to
further coalition bickering, with the National Party threatening to run in a
number of urban seats, endangering a unified campaign at the next election.
The National Party are also hard bargainers and are likely to refuse to run
a joint campaign until the issue is sorted out, giving Beattie more free
time to get on top of damaging issues like his petrol price gaffe and
abandonment of his jobs target.
Thirdly, the Liberal Party
looks like it has returned to its old quarrelsome, self-interested ways. To
lose the three-cornered contest that caused the biff would prejudice future
three-cornered contests.
It is easy to see why Galtos
and Watson
were happy to pass on this one.
Advertisement
Why is the Santoro/Carroll
faction so keen to run? One reason would be that Galtos and Watson had
decided not to, against the wishes of the locals. That Santoro
uses these issues opportunistically is well demonstrated by the fact that at
the same time as he was telling Liberals he supported running he was telling
Borbidge and the Nationals he was opposed! Another reason is that Santoro
cannot get the numbers to be parliamentary leader in the current
parliamentary party. To become leader, a dream he has nursed for
20-something years, he needs an influx of new blood – it does not matter
if the injection occurs by taking a seat from Labor or the Nationals.
With these machinations taking
place, and in the light of previous organisational campaigning incompetence,
Watson decided that he had to set himself apart from the ruling
organisational faction. So, in response to a question at a press conference
on Monday 5th June, he made the comment that the people behind
the Cunningham push were hardly strategic geniuses – they were the same
people responsible for the One Nation preference deal. Incredibly, Santoro
took offence and issued an ultimatum: either Watson excepted him from the
comments and expressed confidence in him by 2:00pm Wednesday, or he would
resign.
Watson chose to downplay the
challenge, and refused to work to Santoro’s timetable. Instead he asked
why Santoro thought the comment implicated him. Wasn’t he on the record as
saying he had not been involved in the One Nation deal?
While Santoro makes this claim,
it is contrary to the facts but very important to Santoro, as he now relies
on 400 or so ethnic Chinese stacked into two branches to deliver outcomes
critical to him. Given that Santoro has never publicly admitted to being a
power broker, Watson might also have asked what part he had to play in the
decision to run, or otherwise, in Cunningham.
He did accuse Santoro of being
a prima donna, but under the circumstances, and given the fact that he was
being stood over, that would appear to be a moderate response. Santoro duly
followed through his threat.
Santoro’s resignation is a
good thing for Watson. It flushes him out as a troublemaker and factional
leader who is running a party within a party. The next day’s Courier
Mail even carried a story where Santoro admitted to raising huge amounts
of funds and doling them out to party units. He denied that favours were
ever asked in return.
Advertisement
When the party makes yet
another blue, Watson will credibly be able to point at Santoro and Carroll
and their party within the party, and seek to build a popular mandate for
himself.
The same Courier Mail
report has Howard issuing a directive that no more Federal Ministers are to
lend themselves to Santoro’s fundraising efforts, which returns us to the
original question as to why Howard would buy into a state scrap.
The least sensational theory is
that it was done to head off trouble with Nats like De-Anne Kelly and Bob
Katter and three-cornered contests at a Federal level. That doesn’t seem
to lead too far. Kelly and Katter will always be trouble, and three-cornered
contests at a Federal level go on all the time almost unremarked.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.