The foray into the ACT by Call to Australia Party leader Fred Nile will put an interesting complexion on the next ACT election which is due in 15 months.
The ACT has often been described as fairly socially and economically homogeneous, because unlike other states and territories it does not have significant urban-rural split, nor does it have an elite class of the very wealthy nor a pool of the very poor in the way that other states do, though this is now changing. However, the ACT is by no means politically homogeneous. In the three decades in which there have been full-time elected representatives for a legislative body, the people of the ACT have never given either of the major parties a majority and always elected a significant number of representatives from outside the mainstream. They have included people of various persuasions: environmental, moralist, independent, centrists and resident-oriented.
The Christian right, which roughly describes Mr Nile’s group, has frequently had representation in ACT Assemblies, under various different hats. At present Independent Paul Osborne fits that description. As Mr Nile says, “”Paul could work under our umbrella without compromising anything, but we realise he may have broader support as an independent.” It is likely, therefore, that the Call to Australia would leave Brindabella, where Mr Osborne has his seat, alone and concentrate on the other two seats. Mr Osborne would probably like to get the best of both worlds by staying an independent … picking up both the football and the Christian vote.
Mr Osborne is perhaps the only MLA not likely to be chilled by Mr Nile’s foray into the ACT. It is not that the Greens or Independent Michael Moore would fear active debate on the major social issues upon which the Call to Australia crusades. Rather the chill comes from the fact that the electoral system and a certain base support for the major parties leaves only a limited number of likely places for minor parties and independents. Mr Moore, for example, has become accustomed to a nail-biting contest for a final seat.
The major parties, too, have cause for worry. As things stand, the Labor Party might fancy capturing a seat from the Liberals in the central seat of Molonglo in order to form minority government with seven seats of its own and two Greens. That idea would evaporate, however, if the Call to Australia were to capture either or both Green seats, or the Liberal seat that Labor is eyeing off. Equally, the Liberal Party might have fancied holding all its present seats, but the Call to Australia could take its critical third seat in Molonglo, making minority government that much more difficult, if not impossible.
As for the consequences on ACT governance if Call to Australia wins one or more seats, Mr Nile’s record in NSW does not augur well. The Call to Australia has frequently used ransom tactics to get pet policies through. To date that has not, by and large, been the way of independents and Greens in the ACT, with the exception of Mr Moore’s stand on education.
On the other side of the ledger, Mr Nile’s foray could prompt existing MLAs to argue their cases more strongly. In particular, they will have to decide whether to follow the typical pattern of politicians in Australia to avoid hard social questions (what Mr Nile calls moral issues) or whether to actively rebut Mr Nile’s assertions.
Some of them are easily rebutted. Other states, for example, that have prohibited prostitution have not eradicated it; they have just made health issues more difficult. Other states that have no methadone program and much higher penalties for drug use have not eradicated the drug problem; they have just made the health problem more difficult to deal with. Such stands are of questionable morality.
But that they are to be tested in a democratic forum is welcome.