Rudd's manifesto - neoliberalism and the pulp mill

By definition the planet cannot speak for itself. Nor can the working peoples of the developing world speak for themselves, although they are likely to be the first victims of the environmental degradation brought about by climate change. Nor can those who come after us, although they are likely to be greatest victims of this inter-generational injustice. It is the fundamental ethical challenge of our age to protect the planet - in the language of the Bible, to be proper stewards of creation. The scientific evidence is now clear, and the time for global, national and local action has well and truly come.

It was in the context of these publications towards the end of 2006, and in the context of his increasing authority in the federal Parliament, that Rudd defeated Beazley, and set the stamp of his moral authority on the Australian political scene from then until now.

Rudd’s mandate on November 24 was given by the voters on the basis of hope - hope for integrity in government, hope for honesty, hope for good governance, hope for a better society, a better environment, a better future. Hope for an end to wedge politics, to a politics driven by division.

For months before the election, as the polls consistently showed the ALP in a winning position, the Canberra press gallery and the media commentators throughout the country didn’t take it seriously. The main mantra was that incumbent governments aren’t voted out at times when the economy is strong. Even on election day many of the main dailies were advocating a return of the Coalition for economic reasons.

It wasn’t the economy which decided the election. It was issues related to social justice, the health of the nation, the health of society. Australia’s future. An exit poll conducted for the Fairfax press found that those who voted Labor and those who swung to Labor were influenced most strongly by health, education, global warming, industrial relations and WorkChoices and water - all issues involving equity, sustainability and community.

There is other convincing evidence that Howard had lost all semblance of moral authority to Rudd in the eyes of a majority of the people. One piece of evidence is the consistently large swing to Labor across north-west Western Australia, home to the most lucrative AWAs in the country, where swings exceeded the national average in the boom mining towns, including one at Port Hedland of 10 per cent. Another is the fact that Liberals who rebelled against some of the more inhumane aspects of Howard’s neoliberalism, incumbents like Petro Georgiou and Russell Broadbent, resisted the swing, both increasing their majorities in their electorates against the national trend.

Perhaps most significantly, regions and states which resisted the swing were those localities where local Labor administrations are most tainted by issues of governance themselves, issues that have undermined their moral authority as they have Howard’s.

West Australia’s swing to Labor was less than half the national average, and even that level was bolstered by the mining vote, as has been seen, the local scene still plagued by the on-going Burke saga.

But the most obvious case is Tasmania, where, without any Georgious or Broadbents, there was actually a swing away from Labor, a unique statistic on the national stage, quite remarkable given the anti-Latham vote that lost the ALP two Tasmanian seats in 2004. The fact that this did not prevent Labor from winning all five seats is testimony to the bigger swing against the Liberal Party, mirroring the national trend.

The swing against the Liberals showed Tasmanians, like the rest of Australia, voted to get rid of Howard, but there is also something very different going on.

That difference, of course, is the pulp mill issue.

There were no swings to the major parties in the Tamar valley. It was all one way traffic. This is a microcosm writ large of the voting pattern throughout the state. Every electorate showed swings to the Greens, every electorate swung against the Liberals, and every electorate except Braddon swung against Labor. The pattern was repeated in the senate, the Greens’ 18 per cent more than double the national average, only matched by the ACT.