Voters in the seat of Fraser go to the polls today in what might be described as one of the most superfluous by-elections in the history of the Australian federation. Fraser is one of the safest Labor seats in the country. It has returned a Labor member at every election since it was created in the mid-1970s. The proverbial white rabbit would win the seat for Labor. And once won, the successful member will only hold the seat for the two years to the next election when it will be almost inevitably be abolished because the ACT’s population growth is lower than other parts of Australia making the population fall below the quota needed to keep three seats.
At the last election, Cheryl Hill, the then endorsed Liberal managed to cut Labor’s margin from 12 per cent to 7 per cent in the swing that brought John Howard to power in what must have been the most favourable environments for Liberal success. Seven per cent is a significant margin. But since the March election the Liberals have continued Labor’s policy of cutting public service numbers at an even faster pace and so are less popular than they were 10 months ago.
The Liberals have seen the writing on the wall and are not even running a candidate. Instead, Mrs Hill, who resigned from the Liberal Party in protest at public-service cuts, is standing as an independent. In the absence of an endorsed Liberal she is trying to put herself forward as the acceptable face of conservatism in Canberra. Even if she picks up the traditional Liberal vote, it is difficult to see her winning the seat.
Despite the inevitability of a Labor win, the by-election has attracted 11 candidates. It has also attracted the interest of the federal Labor leadership which wants the electorate to send a clear message to John Howard. Mrs Hill, too, wants the electorate to send a clear message to Mr Howard and to Labor.
It is unlikely that either wish will be granted. Rather the message voters send to the leaders of the major parties will be confused. The confused message will arise because of the impossibility of determining why people vote in a certain way. A vote for Labor might be more easily read as a protest against public-service cuts and government policy in general rather than an endorsement of the way Kim Beazley is running the Opposition or an endorsement of the qualifications and ability of Labor’s candidate. Indeed, there is a lot to be said for the argument that the Democrats have presented a much more forceful and coherent Opposition to the Howard Government than Labor has. A vote for Mrs Hill might more easily be read as a plague on both your houses, rather than an endorsement of Mrs Hill’s capacity to represent Canberrans as an independent. It might also be read as a protest that John Langmore, elected for a three-year term, left for a UN job after one. There again, any reduction in the Labor vote could be read merely as the drift of Mr Langmore’s personal vote, which must be significant for a long-serving member.
All that said, voters should take their responsibility seriously. There is a danger that a significant swing back to Labor will cause the Government to be even more convinced that Canberra is not worth any sympathy. On the other hand it might also serve as a warning that that sentiment is not confined to Canberra.