Much could be read into the result of the by-election in the NSW seat of Lindsay at the weekend. But it would be foolish to read too much into most of the messages because of one over-riding factor. The by-election was caused by the exploitation of a constitutional technicality by the Labor Party. Voters had already decided in March that they wanted the Liberals’ Jackie Kelly to represent them. This overturned because she offended the Constitution by being an officer in the RAAF (holding an office of profit under the Crown) and had not technically renounced her New Zealand citizenship at the time of nomination. Most Australians would probably reject the bar on those who hold an office of profit under Crown as an out-dated irrelevancy and provided a candidate is an Australian at swearing in time, it should not matter.
The voters of Lindsay, by increasing Ms Kelly’s vote, in the face of Australia-wide opinion polls suggesting the Howard Government has not increased its popularity, have resounding rejected the technical rules and demanded Ms Kelly be given a fair go. Those rules should be changed. That is the clearest message from this by-election.
The other messages are less clear. It is apparent from the result that voters will not waste their time with the Shooters’ Party. On Saturday, freed of the burden of deciding the fate of government, the voters of Lindsay rejected the opportunity to register a protest against specific policies.
The Shooters’ Party got a paltry 2.9 per cent of the vote. True, the seat of Lindsay is not in the bush, none the less, the shooters failed to make much impact. Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kim Beazley have done a good job of giving the Shooters’ Party nowhere to go. The Shooters’ Party’s ploy of giving preferences to Labor in the hope that it could be seen as an election-determiner failed dismally.
The same ploy was used by Australians Against Further Immigration. It, too, failed, but not as spectacularly as the shooters. AAFI got 6.1 per cent of the vote, up 3.6 per cent since the March election. While not alarming, it should be of concern to the Government. There is no groundswell against all immigration, but there is growing public opinion against the large-scale immigration seen in the Hawke years. The bulk of that is probably economic and environmental, not racial. People are concerned about more people coming into Australia while unemployment is high and while they are unsure about the capacity of the environment to sustain more people or to sustain more people at the high standards Australian have become used to.
There is a real challenge here for Mr Howard. One of the central reasons AAFI puts against immigration is racial … whether overtly or by implication. This is a dangerous and divisive development. Mr Howard’s job is to ensure that there is a continuing debate about immigration but that it is couched in terms of economics, ecology, moral duty and family reunion, not on race. He must also allay people’s fears about immigration policy so that they do not turn to organisations like AAFI. Unless he does that, the likelihood is that AAFI will stand a good chance of getting a Senate seat at the next election.
Then there is the question of overall performance of the new Government and the Opposition. Ms Kelly attracted a swing of six percentage points in the primary vote since the March election and a swing of 4.8 percentage points in the two-party preferred vote. Her Labor opponent, former Labor Science Minister Ross Free lost 7 percentage points of his primary vote. This follows the astounding 11.5 per cent swing to the Liberals in March.
However, given Ms Kelly’s good personal campaign and the technical mature of the by-election, Mr Howard should not allow the by-election to give him comfort in the face of several recent political events: the ministerial-shares fiasco; the question of whether he and his party have been forceful enough in the rejection of Pauline Hanson’s populist diatribes; and the bending of several election promises in the Budget.
It takes a fair amount of time for the complexities of the share matter to sink in. There has not been enough time for the electorate to absorb the ramifications. There has been no corruption, but there has been stupidity and a failure to attend to details and follow through. The failure of Mr Howard to ensure his ministers obeyed orders is noticeable. That may not amount to much on this issue so early in his term, but it does indicate a flaw in his overall thinking that he expressed soon after victory that by-and-large ministers must be allowed the freedom to get on with the job. If the electorate is given a drip-feed of ministers doing badly the effect is cumulative, so not enough to cause an electoral effect in the early stages.
On the race matter, Mr Howard might well think his indirect approach is satisfactory. However, his support in March came from (to use his words) a broad church. Aside from the national damage, for purely electoral reasons Mr Howard would do better to forcefully reject the Hanson approach rather than engage in half-hearted rebuttals, because the Hanson supporters have nowhere else to go whereas those who reject her views but supported Mr Howard in March can easily desert him.
Much the same can be said about those affected by broken Budget promises.
Another element in the by-election was the collapse of the Democrat and Green vote. It may be one-off, but it could signal a trend for parties of the far right to capture the greater share of the minor-party vote. This would have profound effects in the Senate in the long term.
It is a very good result for Ms Kelly. The whole episode has given her so much positive profile that she could be come long-term member defying the natural weight of her electorate which is Labor, rather than a one-term wonder who took a seat in a landslide. Labor’s abuse of a technicality backfired in short term and probably the long term.