Some public servants might well have shuddered at the National Press Club yesterday (Nov 21) afternoon.
Kevin Rudd confirmed, “When I talk about a razor gang . . . I’m deadly serious.”
But one other person might have shuddered more: Greens Senate candidate Kerrie Tucker.
If Kerrie Tucker is to unseat Liberal Senator Gary Humphries she will be relying on a lot of overflow from Labor’s Senator Kate Lundy.
The prospect of a Rudd razor gang might move some hoverers back to the Coalition – not only public servants, but more importantly some ordinarily Coalition-supporting business people who think that in Canberra Labor is good for business because it brings more public servants which is good for business. Razor gangs are not.
The Senate count is a complicated business. Success for a minor candidate depends not only on preference flow from unsuccessful candidates but on the flow of surplus votes from successful candidates.
In the ACT a candidates needs 33 and a third of the vote after preference to secure a quota.
If Lundy gets, say, 48 per cent of the vote, it means she has an over quota of 15 per cent to distribute. It would first go to the second Labor candidate and it Tucker got more than 15 per cent spill to the Tucker who might have, say 19 per cent (after distribution of shrapnel candidates’ preferences) . Tucker would then have 34 per cent and would be elected over Humphries on, say, 32 per cent (after distribution of shrapnel candidates’ preferences).
But, in this example, if the Rudd razor-gang threat pushed just a couple of percent from Labor to Liberal, Humphries would get over the line.
A Tucker win is not beyond possibility. Bear in mind that in five Labor House of Representatives seats (admittedly in NSW and Victoria) the Coalition has less vote (33.3 per cent) than that required to get a quota for an ACT Senate seat.
Policies aside, in this election, half a dozen factors favour Humphries and half a dozen favour Tucker.
Things favouring Humphries over Tucker.
1. It should not be too difficult for Liberals to get 33.3 per cent of the vote AFTER preferences. That is just 33.3 of the two party preferred vote. But bear in mind those five Reps seat where such a percentage has not been achieved.
2. The Liberals are coming off a low base, In 2004 there was a swing to Labor in the ACT, bucking the national trend. So swings to Labor in national polls are not a good guide.
3. The two ACT House of Representatives seats in 2004 (and every other election come to that) have never hit a better-than 67-33 two party preferred high for Labor which is the split you would need to deny Humphries his seat.
4. Rudd’s razor gang mentioned above.
5. A lot of the professed Green vote in the Senate is really Labor vote, so despite a high Green vote, it does not ultimately sound in the conservative-Labor divide which will determine Humphries’ fate. The Labor-Green total has to be higher than 67, leaving Humphries on 33, just a tad under the quota needed for election.
6. Humphries crossed the floor on legislation to overturn ACT Legislative Assembly legislation to recognise Civil Unions – one of the very rare instances in the term of the Howard Government.
Things favouring Kerrie Tucker against Humphries
1. The Morgan Gallop opinion polls favour her chances, giving Humphries just 24 per cent of the primary vote. But the sample was low (less than 350) and taken over a long period.
2. The GetUp campaign has marshaled a lot of publicity against a Coalition majority in the Senate.
3. Tucker served nine years in the ACT Legislative Assembly. In that time she did a lot of general community and social justice work, not just Green stuff. If anyone can do it she can. If she fails she will still come closer to toppling a major-party candidate in a territory senate race than anyone before her.
4. Humphries not a great campaigner. He doesn’t seem to have attracted the money and people to make a splash seeing the real danger he is in.
5. The Green vote in the ACT is higher than anywhere in Australia. But the arrangement for Territory senators was rigged by the major parties to make it almost inevitable that they would get one senator each indefinitely.
6. The formal preferences lodged by all but one of the shrapnel parties with the Electoral Commission for above-the-line-voters favour Labor and Greens against Humphries. Against that, the ACT has the highest below-the-line voting in Australia (20 per cent). Lots of people vote for the incumbent senators 1 and 2, despite the political contradiction, because they know them or of them personally.
7. Despite his civil-unions vote (which was more pro-ACT than pro-gay, Humphries is socially too much to the Right in this electorate. If Kate Carnell had got the Liberal pre-selection it would be a different story. She would have been much more active. But there was no place in Howard’s Liberals for small l-liberals. If Tucker wins this will be another example of earlier right-wing success in the Liberal Party coming to bite it on the behind later.
Overall, my guess is that Humphries will get over the line in an extremely close contest. But even if he doesn’t and Kerrie Tucker takes her seat immediately, unlike like state senators who take their seats in July 2008, it will make no real difference. The Coalition will still have 38 seats or exactly half the Senate, which will be enough for a new Coalition Opposition (now looking almost inevitable) to block legislation, even if it does not have 39 seats, an absolute majority to pass legislation or other motions.