The local factors in the Canberra by-election are being diluted one by one and it may surprisingly come down to much more a test of national Labor and Liberal standing than first thought. That said, by-elections are a bit like the balance of payments figures, though less regular: it is not the actual result that counts but whether it is above or below market expectation. When Rose Kelly quit, market expectation was that Canberra is dyed-in-the-wool Labor so there was no point in the Liberals even fielding a candidate in the March 25 by-election.
Four things have changed that. The former Liberal Member for Canberra John Haslem reminded people that the Liberals have held the seat and he would have another crack at it; Alexander Downer lost the leadership; psephologist Malcolm Mackerras reminded people that big by-election swings happened when sitting members swanned off to swank jobs; and lastly Kate Carnell proved Labor does not have a mortgage over the ACT. Market expectation is that the 9.6 percent swing needed to win is difficult but not impossible. The local or unusual factors that might be claimed by either side after the vent to excuse a performance outside market expectations include: actions by the Greens (which might be different from a general election); the personality factors of both the retiring Ros Kelly and Labor’s candidate Sue Robinson; and the Canberra is different from the rest of Australia. Kate Carnell put paid to the last factor and the push-polling incident has meant that from here on in, the campaign will focus on issues and not personalities.
The Green factor _ as a peculiar event in this by-election _ is also diluted. They may not be able to direct preferences to the Liberal Party as a by-election one-off, which would then give Labor an excuse for a poor performance. This is because Robinson has been such a strong anti-logging figure. The risk for the Greens would be that if they direct preferences away from her and she does badly the loggers will say, “”see what happens to those who oppose the logging industry”. It means that a Greens “”put-Labor-last” policy could backfire. If a Jim Snow (a pro-logging Labor MP) were standing, it would be a different story.
The Greens could say, “”This is a by-election. Government does not turn on it, so you can shock Labor into greener policies by giving preferences to the Liberals.” The Greens are frustrated by Labor’s message to conservationist voters that they have nowhere else to go. However, they cannot use the by-election to change that. They must take whatever solace they can from whatever federal message is in the fact that the two Green voted for a Liberal Government in the ACT (even if not pivotal to the outcome). Given Robinson’s track record, the only tenable course for the Greens, and the conservation movement (which, incidentally, is not a contiguous force as the Greens) is to maximise the primary vote for the Greens candidate James Warden. So that when the results are on the board on March 25, the Greens can say to Labor, “”Look we command 10 per cent of the vote and the preferences that flow from it could be your undoing.
This time we gave them to Robinson because she has long been a mate of the forests, but at a general election we will not give them to Snow and a couple of dozen other pro-logging Labor candidates unless you change your policy.” It means the pouring in of resources into a “”put Greens first” campaign rather than a “”put Labor last” campaign. And that is precisely what is planned. On the question of the power of Green preferences, then, informed eyes will be looking, not at the preferences, but at the primary vote. That will be guage of Green power in a general election, not the flow of preferences. With the preferences, personalities and Canberra factors out of the way, the by-election can be seen more as a test of the national political scene.