The power and the influence

All these issues had much more to do with symbolic gestures to the Religious Right than with good governance, and these things only got as far as they did because enough politicians had become convinced of the growing influence of the Religious Right.

So, in light of all the acquiescence and concessions both Labor and the Coalition have given the Religious Right in recent years, what was this movement actually able to deliver on Election Day?

Well, nothing as it turns out.

Not one Lower House seat was won or lost as a direct result of Family First or Christian Democrats’ preferences. Neither party gained any senators. Family First polled 1.9 per cent nationally; a 0.0 per cent increase on the last election.

The Family First vote peaked three years ago and the party only gained its lone senator in 2005 because of a curious preference deal by Labor. He is set to lose his seat at the next election.

By contrast, the party which was relentlessly attacked, ridiculed and condemned by the Religious Right during this campaign over their “anti-Christian values” (namely gay marriage), achieved its best ever result and helped thrust Labor into government with a 20-seat majority.

Indeed, the Greens achieved their highest ever nationwide vote and their greatest number of senators. They outpolled Family First five to one. In Tasmania where the anti-gay attack on the Greens was at its most vicious, the Greens actually surpassed the required quota to win a senate spot while every Coalition MP lost his seat.

In the wake of this electoral and campaign rout, how does the Religious Right now position itself to try and influence the Rudd Labor Government? What argument does it have left?

That question was answered on November 28, when Mr Wallace from the ACL had an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph in which he audaciously suggests that it was Christian voters who helped Rudd to win.

Not only is his premise illogical, it’s absurd. It’s understandable that the ACL would want to put the best possible spin on the election result, but Mr Wallace is caught out by his own argument.

In the article he says: “But given the sizeable swing to Labor last Saturday, it would be accurate to assume that many Christians who voted for the Coalition in 2004 voted for the ALP this time.”

This is as meaningless as saying that many meat eaters who voted for Howard last time voted for Rudd this time. But that doesn’t mean the Cattleman’s Association can claim some responsibility for Labor’s win.