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

More notes on the Western Australian election

By Bernie Masters - posted Thursday, 15 March 2001


Elections always produce winners and losers but the recent WA election included some interesting outcomes that may have important implications for the future.

In the upper house, the losers were the Australian Democrats, National Party and Liberal Party. The Democrats had previously held two seats but lost them both. A reduction in their primary vote was due to the Greens WA running a high-profile campaign against logging of old-growth and high-conservation value forests. Although the Democrats had a more detailed and wide-ranging set of policies than the Greens, the forest issue had enjoyed a high profile for more than three years, helping to focus the public’s mind.

The Democrats were not helped by preference deals which saw the Greens securing preferences from most other parties and candidates.

Advertisement

The National Party had previously entered into joint tickets with their larger Coalition partner, the Liberal Party, allowing them to win three seats in the previous Parliament with little effort. This time around, the lay Liberal Party effectively demanded that the parliamentary Liberal Party reject any agreement with their coalition partners, partly as retribution for the National’s lack of campaign effort in the 1996 election and for their lack of support in Parliament on several key issues such as the government’s forestry policy.

The end result was that only one National Party MP retained his Upper House seat. Murray Criddle had been the Transport Minister and this high-profile position, plus an agreeable personality, helped him across the line.

The Liberal Party saw their representation drop from 14 to 12 seats, reflecting a large movement of their supporters to One Nation. Even so, they remain the largest non-government party in the Legislative Council, just one seat less than the victorious ALP. The Democrats are no longer represented and the National Party representation has been cut by two thirds.

Who were the winners in the Upper House? At first glance, the ALP seems to have done very well, but this is not totally accurate. While their representation rose from 10 to 13, two of these positions were simply reclaimed from former ALP MPs who had left the party during the last term of Parliament. In reality, therefore, they only won one extra seat.

However, the ALP’s good result in the upper house was handed to them via the Greens, who increased their representation from 3 to 5. With only 34 seats in the Upper House, the combined tally of 18 ALP and Green MPs is a majority, even after one of their members is given the position of President (the chief presiding officer). This will allow the new government to pass any legislation which is supported by the Greens, an outcome that is likely, given the ALP’s commitment to stopping logging in all old-growth forests. Electoral reform such as one vote, one value; decriminalisation of marijuana and prostitution laws; lowering the legal age of consent for homosexual and gay persons from 21 to 16; introduction of safe heroin injecting rooms; and possibly even euthanasia should be some of the controversial issues than can be expected to come before the Legislative Council.

The success of the Greens in increasing their representation from 3 to 5 should not be overstated, however. Both of their new MPs owe their success to a favourable preference position, whereby virtually every party and candidate put One Nation last in the Upper House. This saw the Greens collect a large number of preference votes by default, rather than in their own right. It can even be argued that at least one of the sitting members retained her seat in this way.

Advertisement

Looking to the next election, it is possible to assume that the major parties will ‘deal’ with the threat of One Nation in ways that best suit their political and moral needs. Without going into detail, I suspect that One Nation will be treated differently in four years time. The result will be that the Greens should lose 2 or 3 of their seats, with the Liberal Party picking up at least two of these and One Nation the remaining seat. The National Party will be hard pressed to retain their single position, with Liberal or One Nation being successful. The balance of power in the Legislative Council will thus move away from the ALP and their supporters, back to a more conservative force.

The Lower House

Government is formed by whichever party or coalition of parties wins the majority of seats in the Legislative Assembly or lower house. Clearly, the ALP had a stunning victory, now holding 32 (previously 18) out of the 57 seats. The Liberal Party dropped from 29 to 16, National Party from 6 to 5, with four independents (two former Liberals, one former ALP and only one with genuine independent credentials, in spite of a claimed link to the Liberal Party - the Liberals for Forests).

One Nation failed to win a seat even though they came second in two seats after distribution of preferences. The Liberals for Forests won one seat against a controversial minister and came second in another (against the former Premier in his seat of Nedlands).

As spectacular as the ALP’s win may appear, in fact, they enjoy a margin in the lower house of only 7 seats, compared to the previous government’s margin of 13. While this is more than sufficient for the ALP to govern without difficulty, the final years of their government in the early 1990s saw several sitting ALP members resign from the party and become independents. The then Premier Carmen Lawrence held on to government with only a slim margin, causing instability and finally forcing her to call a royal commission into her predecessors’ business dealings (the WA Inc. years).

Many of the new ALP members never expected to win their seats and I suspect they may not be as beholden to the union movement as most other ALP members. The first month of the new government has already seen the Minister responsible for road safety admit to two drink-driving convictions and a loss of driver’s licence due to accumulated traffic offences, so indications are that the next four years will be interesting.

Returning to the February 10 election, however, what were the true influences of Greens WA and One Nation on the outcome? The ALP is denying that they were handed power because of One Nation’s preferences, instead claiming that it was Greens’ WA preference support that won them enough extra seats to push them into government.

I suggest that the ALP is falsely trying to take the high moral ground by denying the reality of support from a party whose policies they largely reject.

Of the 57 lower house seats, my less-than-exhaustive analysis indicates that preferences from minor parties were important in deciding the winner in 22 of them. Of these, One Nation preferences flowed to and were important in deciding the outcomes in favour of the ALP or Greens WA in 13 seats and to Liberal or National Party candidates in just four. By comparison, Greens WA preferences flowed to the ALP in just 8 seats where their preferences helped decide the final result. Another four seats were decided at least in part by preferences coming from or going to some other combination of political parties (the total is more than 22 due to some seats being decided by preference distributions from more than one party).

My assessment of the bottom line is this: that One Nation helped the ALP win 13 seats, as opposed to Greens WA helping the ALP to win 8 seats. Whether the ALP likes it or not, they won government more because of One Nation’s refusal to direct preferences to sitting government MPs than because of support from their natural allies, Greens WA.

There are many other nuances and interesting comments that could be discussed at length. But the big picture shows that it was a huge drop in support for the Liberal Party, rather than a significant rise in support for the ALP. It was this, combined with One Nation’s preferences, which saw a change of government in WA on February 10.

The Future

The crystal ball is always hazy when trying to look four years into the future. But a number of outcomes appear likely, assuming two things: that the ALP wins office at the next federal election and that One Nation and Pauline Hanson are still in existence.

First, with both WA and federal elections due in the 2005 calendar year, it will be ALP and not conservative governments trying to decide what to do about One Nation. If the ALP puts One Nation last in all its seats, then One Nation is likely to react in the same way as they did in the recent WA election: they will generally put sitting MPs last. This decision will impact most severely on the party with most seats, i.e., the government of the day, so with One Nation preferences flowing back to the major non-government parties, the ALP should lose the 2005 election in WA.

Second, Greens WA have won their biggest ever battle (no logging in old-growth forests), but on what issue will they have to fight their 2005 campaign? I can’t see an emotionally charged issue like forests on the horizon and, short of Greens WA developing sound policies on a range of issues important to main-stream electors, their support should fall at the next election.

Third, if the new WA government fully applies the principle of one vote, one value into the electoral system, the biggest losers will be the National Party in the lower house (two or three of their current seats will disappear completely) and Greens WA in the upper house (fewer preferences are likely to flow their way for various reasons).

The ALP in WA will need to work very hard over the next four years to have a reasonable chance of retaining office in 2005. Unless they come up with a strategy that effectively negates the impact of One Nation, an unlikely outcome given their strident criticism of the party in the past, they are likely to lose 10 or more seats for no other reason than their unwillingness to confront the One Nation bogey.

On the other hand, the Liberal Party should have a greater willingness to negotiate and deal with One Nation over the next four years or, at worst, to respond constructively to the issues of importance to One Nation supporters. This won’t mean that the Liberal Party will move to the extreme right of politics. Instead, the party will simply need to broaden its policy base to cater for a wider range of attitudes, while developing the skills to better communicate with the electorate on sensitive and important issues such as globalisation, high fuel prices and illegal immigration.

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

See also Graham Young's notes on the Western Australian Election.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

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

About the Author

Bernie Masters was the Liberal MP for Vasse from 1996 to 2005 and the shadow minister for science and the environment from 2001 to 2004.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bernie Masters
Related Links
Western Australian Labor Party
Western Australian Liberal Party
Western Australian Parliament
Photo of Bernie Masters
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy