Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The Weatherill Government's hyper 'what ever it takes' 2014 campaign

By Haydon Manning - posted Wednesday, 14 May 2014


The dust settled on the SA State election a couple of months ago and saw the Weatherill Labor returned with the support of an independent, Geoff Brock. Brock holds a seat in the Liberal Party's heartland in regional SA a fact when set alongside the Liberals winning 53 per cent of the two party preferred vote is cause for considerable chagrin. In my view greater cause for anger at the apparent 'unfairness' of the result lies with a development with campaign leafleting that has no place in Australian elections.

I recognise that negative campaign tactics have a place in election campaigns and know from research and interviews that campaign strategists are convinced negativity works in wooing undecided voters. What is so interesting about the recent campaign is that in the heat of campaigning Labor strategists willingly discarded any semblance of 'moral compass' to what might be acceptable campaign leafleting and embraced a hyper 'whatever it takes' ethos.

The fact that Labor's State Secretary sanctioned the leaflet pictured below focusing on Liberal candidate Carolyn Habib's surname places this instance of a negative attack into a different realm from the unauthorized leaflet distribution in Lindsay.

Advertisement

Such shameless dog whistling played a part in Labor narrow victory but it is impossible to surmise how many swinging voters were swayed away from supporting Habib. Not surprisingly drew condemnation among Liberals, unconvincing defence from Labor claiming it was not racist and widespread media coverage in SA and nationally.

The stress upon Habib's surname and the deliberate absence of her first name combine with the invocation to voters to reflect on 'TRUST' set against a wall that conjures a war zone serves a targeted purpose. Namely to imply that Habib is trouble akin to what you'd expect to find with with the strife we observe bedevilling Middle-Eastern countries and possibly terrorism.

The leaflet's background imagery begs the question – why this particular imagery and not the standard for negative campaign pamphleteering such as the bland background used by Labor only in its attack upon the Liberal candidate in the electorate of Hartley? Notable in Hartley was use of the candidate's first name, prompting the obvious question, 'why was not the same employed in the case of Carolyn Habib?' Perhaps 'Carolyn' does not sound sufficiently dubious for a pitch that aims to stereotype and smear.

Habib explained to me that she wanted to counterattack with a leaflet saying 'I'm a Christian, born in Australia'. Shechose not to feeling that such would lend itself to view that to be otherwise, especially Muslim and not born in Australian, simply entertained the same prejudices of those who issued the leaflet. She clearly understands how stereotypes resonate, a matter that one figures should be de rigueur for an inner urban Labor campaign team.

Advertisement

If you are not convinced by my assertion about the considered nature of the intention here, consider any number of Labor, or Liberal for that matter, negative attack pamphlets. The example above attacking Liberal candidate Vincent Tarzia employs the common negative methodology whereby a candidate features in grim looking picture - often photo-shopped – accompanied by a set of exaggerated claims of maleficence and, significantly, set against a relatively neutral background.

There is no way to gauge whether the leaflet swung a sufficient number of voters. If Labor received 400 less votes out of about 21,000 formal votes in Elder, Habib would probably have won.

Clearly, negative attack advertising is aimed at attracting the attention of the largely disengaged swinging voters [i.e voters not strongly committed or habitual with regard to the party they support] and strives, in some instances, to foster fear in voters' minds about what might be the outcome of their vote. More than anything the negative pitch is more likely to be remembered by swinging voters than the positive. As Pamela Williams reported the Liberal Party in the lead up to the 1996 national election studied 25 years of campaign adverts and concluded unequivocally that the negative pitch worked the best when it comes to swaying swinging voters, a view supported by Sally Young in her insightful research on political advertising.

Negative campaign tactics are particularly odious when they play upon racist sentiment in the community, often referred to as 'dog whistle politics'. Among the more infamous examples we recall the 2007 national election in the NSW metropolitan seat of Lindsay. Here a bogus pamphlet purporting to be authored by the "Islamic Federation of Australia" was circulated by local Liberal Party campaigners with its claim that "We gratefully acknowledge Labor's support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings". The leaflet's authorship and distribution was not officially sanctioned by the Liberal Party being the work of local level campaigners, notably Liberal incumbent MP Jackie Kelly's husband. Prime Minister Howard condemned the leaflet and all those associated with its distribution were subsequently expelled from the Liberal Party. Arguably such contrition ought to be instructive to Premier Weatherill and newly elected MP, Annabel Digance.

On the other side of the coin, is the question of the 'beneficiary' of such tactics. Labor candidate, Digance was running in Elder having failed at the previous two national elections to unseat the Liberals in Boothby. I interviewed Digance last September during the national election campaign and at the time was impressed by her credibility and determination – the hours spent toiling away trying to unseat a long serving incumbent deserves our respect for, in my view, such effort is rarely given the recognition it deserves.

Nevertheless, some six months later, and probably out of desperation to win, Digance consented to the leaflet's distribution. That is a shame as this lapse in judgment now blights her time as an MP. She simply did not win, 'fair and square', a notion that should apply notwithstanding the pervasiveness of negative attack advertising. I don't know the degree of pressure she may have endured to agree to the leaflet's distribution. This is something that ought to be revealed for it might clear her name, somewhat. It appears that campaign strategy in Elder was prepared to 'dog whistle' well before the campaign commenced. Abbott Government minister, Christopher Pyne, said on local ABC breakfast radio that a senior ALP politician had informed him many months earlier to expect "a thinly veiled racist attack on Carolyn Habib".

Pyne's viewpoint is supported by as Liberal leader in the State Upper House, David Ridgeway, who informed me that another Labor MP said much the same to him.

Entertaining campaign dirty tricks is unbecoming at the best of times but unlikely to go away, rather it is a matter of degree. Labor federal MP Ed Husic called for an apology and I hope this is noted by Digance in her maiden speech due in the next fortnight because Liberal candidate Carolyn Habib deserves some contrition from Labor; in fact, we all do.

Australian democratic practice, as expressed during election campaigns, needs to be mindful of the foundations that underpin the social cohesion and not seek to exploit undercurrents that work in the opposite direction. Five decades of laudable bipartisanship in our Parliament explains why multiculturalism and racial tolerance are, for the most part, deeply embedded in contemporary Australia.

Accordingly,with the 53rd South Australian Parliament meeting this month week the opportunity presents for Premier Weatherill to demonstrate some contrition in relation to the treatment candidate Habib endured and rule it out in future. In essence, if a line cannot be drawn through this type of campaign tactic it is likely that many people with excellent credentials and cause to run for public office will simply shy away. That consequence ought to weigh upon the minds of those who, in the heat of campaigning, plot the negative pitch.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

1 post so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Associate Professor Haydon Manning teaches in the School of Social and Policy Studies at Flinders University, Adelaide.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Haydon Manning

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 1 comment
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy