Those preference dealsBy YULIA ONSMAN
Neil Cremasco says " One of the most shocking and sinister outcomes of the federal election is the possible Coalition domination of the Senate, with the help of the far-right religious fundamentalist party Family First. Many fear that Australia is now reduced to a one party state, as the Senate becomes a rubber stamp for Howard's agenda. Intriguingly, there are two political parties remaining conspicuously silent on this frightening development, and they are Labor and the Democrats, both nationally and on a State level."
Firstly Neil is displaying an astoundingly naive 'if it's not in the media it isn't so' mentality. The Democrats media releases issued since the election are clearly visible on both the Democrats website, Despite all the 'they're spiteful' rhetoric from the Greens, the Democrats Senate preference negotiations were focused on two things, to maximise the chances of Democrats sitting Senators re-election and to minimise the possibility of the Coalition winning a majority of Senate seats. Clearly the size of the Liberals' primary vote was underestimated by everybody - and perhaps the Greens should take a more realistic look at how much impact the forests policies of the last week had in pushing voters to the Liberals in both Tasmania and Victoria as well as elsewhere. To a degree in Tasmania the Democrats fell into the trap of believing the Greens' publicity - that they were a sure thing for a Senate seat and an outside chance for two, so we focused on trying to guarantee that three of the other 5 seats didn't go Liberal. (Hence the breaking with normal Democrats' tradition in lodging a single ticket and preferencing only to Labor). Victoria and Tasmania were the two states widely acknowledged as being the hardest ones for the Liberals to win 3 seats in. Family First diverting conservative preferences away from the Liberals to the Democrats (and ALP) made the possibility of the Liberals winning the extra seats more difficult. But the reality is the Democrats vote was so low in Victoria that even if it had gone to the Greens, Family First would still have been elected. If a few others had not gone to Family First, then the seat would have gone to the ALP. In hindsight, the Liberal vote was too high everywhere for anything to make a difference in stopping them getting half the seats in the Senate. The Coalition may well win four Senate seats in Queensland, despite the Greens having Democrats preferences in their count - and the Liberals in Tasmania have won over three quotas in their own right, needing no one's preferences at all. The Democrats got just as raw a deal on preferences as Greens in places like NSW and probably worse in Qld and Tasmania. Additionally the Democrats vote might not have been so low if the Greens hadn't put out numerous releases and paid advertising attacking the Democrats, which would have helped the Greens in Qld and got a Democrat instead of an ALP Senator elected in SA. And the Democrats were effectively squeezed out by the Greens through their preference deal with Labor - a deal that also proved to be less than useful for Labor in the end. (I again acknowledge the Democrats primary vote proved to be too low - something we will have to deal with.) Presumably the Greens decision to preference the Non-Custodial Parents Party and the Great Australians ahead of the Democrats in Queensland was based on their desire to maximise the possibility of the Greens winning the Senate seat from the Democrats there. The Democrats preferencing to Family First before the Greens here in Tasmania, guaranteed Family First would preference Brian Greig in WA - something that would have secured the seat for him if the Democrats primary vote had held. Again, that it didn't is something the Party will have to deal with and work on. Quite frankly I do not for one moment believe that the Greens made their preference decisions based on pure policy or principles and not political pragmatism - if that was true the deal with Labor would not have been done. While the religious right are deemed to be so evil now, before the election Christine Milne was actively trying to position herself as the natural successor to Brian Harradine's role, even though Harradine himself recommended a vote for Family First. Suggesting Family First is identical to the Howard Government and provides automatic control of the Senate to them is just as silly as saying that Harradine delivered the same - he clearly did not. It's also just plain silly to assume every conservative Christian is a member of the loony right - there's a few there, but then there's a few members of the loony left amongst the Greens too, and tarring the whole group with that brush isn't exactly accurate, nor does it enhance understanding and it sure as hell doesn't show tolerance. I realise it's become a bit of a fun pastime and probably eases frustrations to bag or ridicule the Democrats, but if that's the best people can come up with then I can't see anyone moving beyond this ghastly election result for quite some time. I'm not particularly interested in slinging insults around, or getting in to lengthy blaming debates. Neither do I apologise for prioritising the election of Democrats to the Senate. If it were my aim to get Greens (or anyone else) elected I'd be putting my time and energy there. It's not and I wouldn't. I've been a Democrat for 15 years and believe strongly in my Party's ethos, objectives and policies and regardless of our electoral fortunes at this time, continue to do so. The Senate will be worse off for a reduced Democrats presence. The loss of both Aden Ridgeway (NSW) and Brian Greig (WA) from the Senate is a tragedy for progressive politics in this country. Just because the Democrats have in the past been less successful at spruiking their legislative record in the media does not mean it doesn't exist. It does and it is without doubt an excellent one - and one I am very proud of. (And I'm well aware the 'GST' shouts will rain down once again - how about directing those calls to the state government and asking where the hell all that money has gone?) This election result is a horrible one and a reflection of the effectiveness of Howard's racist and divisive agenda - one based on fear and lies. Chucking blame, insults and accusations at each other is not going to change that fact. The real debate for the whole progressive side is how come Howard got such historic highs in the Senate - and an increased majority in the Lower House - and what can we do about it now, rather than indulge in old style left wing internecine finger pointing and spitting (which just might be part of why Howard has got where he is). Yulia Onsman is the President, Tasmanian Division, of the Australian Democrats
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Friday, October 15, 2004 |