The election in Tasmania – a referendum on old-growth logging?

Tasmanians who voted for one of the major parties opted for Labor by a margin of some 6,500 votes. Not a big majority, but a majority nonetheless. But then consider the Green vote. Because close to ten per cent of the electorate gave their primary vote to the Greens who also of course oppose old-growth logging, the two party preferred result gives Labor a clear 54/46 lead.

Those who wanted a referendum on old-growth logging now have their answer, 54 per cent want to save the forests.

The above analysis should not be taken to mean that Labor's forestry policy did not cost them in Tasmania. Although the statewide swing to the Liberals at 3.8 per cent was only slightly higher than the national swing, the larger swings in the rural regional electorate were enough to see the Labor sitting members in Bass and Braddon lose their seats. There is no doubt Latham's forestry policy was the key reason for this.

But Tasmanians clearly did not "rise up", quite the contrary. Even in the rural seats nearly half the voters chose to halt old-growth logging.

In Tasmania there is a state election due sometime in 2006. Both the Premier, Paul Lennon, and Hidding must be wondering if they have backed the right horse in so staunchly getting behind the forestry industry. How can they continue to pursue a policy supported by fewer than half the voting population?

Political commonsense should tell them they cannot. The first of the major parties to wake up and realise that there are more votes in ending old-growth clearfelling than supporting it should win the next state election.

Believe me, Tasmanians are sick and tired of the whole forestry debate. Like all major divisive issues in our society it is politics that must give us an answer. It is not science, not ideology, not the economy, not anything else: just politics.

But are our politicians up to it?