The Prime Minister, John Howard, will have to make up his mind soon as to what is more important: that the parliamentary wing does not interfere with the organisational wing of the Liberal Party, or that the Liberal Party should make a clear stand that it is against the far-right, racist policies of the One Nation party.
Mr Howard will also have to make up his mind on a more practical level whether it is better for his party to do a deal with One Nation or whether his party will get more support from Australian voters if it makes a stand against One Nation.
The issue arose at the weekend at the Western Australian state Conference of the Liberal Party. The conference voted unanimously in it favour of a motion which said that the state executive should allocate “preferences in consultation with campaign committees with the intention of maximising boats in the individual seats.”
Different people have read this different ways Western Australian Liberal senator Ross Lightfoot indicated that it could it lead the way for Liberal Party campaign committees to do preference swapping deals or with One Nation. Fellow Western Australian senator Ian Campbell, however, rejected this Abu saying the that the weekend motion “was nothing but a reaffirmation of the existing situation, and that it is that state executive makes preference decisions.” The question that many people will be asking is that if there was to be no change from the 1998 principled decision by the Liberal Party to put One Nation last on every federal Liberal how-to-vote card, why did the Western Australian state conference of the party need to adopt any motion at all. The fact that it did so indicates a change in position and the Western Australian state Liberal leader, Colin Barnett, conceded as much. The fact that the motion talked about “maximising votes” indicated that pragmatism was to be put before principle and short-term needs were to be put before long term aims.
Mr Howard was correct in 1998 in it pushing for a One-Nation-last strategy. In the long term, both major parties should put One Nation last if it they wish to remove One Nation from the political scene. If, however, the Liberal Party engages in short-term pragmatism it will only lead to One Nation being stronger in the future and less resistible when it comes to engaging in it preference deals.
Mr Howard is certainly aware of the pragmatic difficulties in the West Australian position. He said at the weekend that it was not possible for the party to do a preference deal in a remote part of the country without it having national consequences. Whereas most people who voted One Nation were average astray aliens, he said, some statements emanating from One Nation were genuinely frightening ethnic groups. And many statements that have come from One Nation candidates are indeed frightening and unacceptable in multicultural Australia.
Already several organisations representing ethnic groups have expressed alarm at the development in Western Australia and the more they do so the more the Liberal Party will understand that even if it is not prepared to isolate One Nation on grounds of principle, at least there will be a pragmatic cost particularly in urban parts of Australia. The Liberal Party will see it that for every vote gained by preference arrangements with One Nation will cause the loss of one vote more or from people who rightly object to a major party having truck with One Nation.
As to Mr Howard’s principle of allowing the organisational wing to allocate preferences unfettered from the parliamentary wing, there has now come time when preference allocation is not merely a mechanical affair but a matter of highest importance and symbolic of the Liberal Party’s philosophical position. He should act of to ensure that One Nation is put at last on every Liberal Party how to vote card. It is not impossible: the parliamentary leaders in NSW and Victoria have stated that One Nation will be put last.