Another crucial test takes place on October 3 — the fight for control of the Senate.
It is in the Senate that the fate of either the Coalition’s or Labor’s tax package will be determined.
Half of the 72 state senators will face the people on October 3. But they will not take their places until July 1, 1999.
All four territory senators will also face the people and will take their places at the same time as members of the House of Representatives. Invariably, each territory returns one Coalition and one ALP senator, so their political effect can be discounted. So the new government will have to deal with the existing Senate until July 1 next year.
That will be an advantage for the Coalition if it is returned, because it is likely to be in a worse-off position after the half-Senate election, given the state of the polls and the state of play in the Senate.
The key to it is that the senators up for re-election were elected in 1993 which was a very polarised election which saw an unusually high number of Coalition and Labor senators elected (32), and only four independent and minor-party senators. That is unlikely to be repeated.
The table shows the position with senators by party and state and the year they take their seat (1999 or 2002).
Leaving aside the territory senators, of the 36 state senators to be elected, 17 are Coalition, 15 Labor, 2 Democrat, 1 Green (in Western Australia) and 1 Independent (Brian Harradine in Tasmania). (This counts Mal Colston as Labor, the banner he was elected under.)
The Coalition will be struggling to get back all its 17 senators, particularly with the rise of One Nation and the Democrats fortuitous position.
Oddly enough, at a time of polarisation of opinion and coalescing of opinion around the major parties in the House of Representatives, it is likely that the Senate will have more, not fewer independent and minor party senators after the election.
Only two of the seven Democrats senators are up for election: in South Australia (their best state) and Queensland. It is likely they will get both those back and perhaps another in NSW and or Victoria at the expense of either Labor or the Coalition which both have three senators up for re-election in both those states. So it is likely the Democrats will have more senators after the election, not less, despite waning support since the defection of Cheryl Kernot. This is because they are defending their very dismal Senate result of 1993 when they got only two senators in the face of big leadership troubles.
One Nation is likely to get a seat in Queensland, and perhaps one in Western Australia and/or NSW, but not elsewhere if recent state elections and by-elections are any guide.
Labor is defending three Senate positions in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania, which it may have difficulty sustaining. It is defending two position in each of the other states which it should do comfortably (getting back the position of the defecting Senator Colston in Queensland in the process).
For the major parties, getting two senators in each state is guaranteed because it requires only 29 per cent of the vote. Getting a third seat requires 43 per cent, which the majors often do not quite achieve. (Labor missed in all states in 1996.)
So expect the minor parties and independents to increase their presence in the Senate from their present 10 seats.
When the Senate was increased to 12 senators per state, the aim was to make it easier for the major parties to get all the seats, which they would if they both got more than 43 per cent of the vote in each state for two successive half-Senate elections. But it has not worked out that way in practice.
The Green percentage vote held up in the Tasmania state election at the weekend, but it is unlikely Tasmania will return another Green senator to join Bob Brown, because a lot of his vote came from his personal high profile.