Prime Minister John Howard has hinted that the Liberal Party will give Pauline Hanson’s One Nation preferences ahead of Labor at the next federal election. Mr Howard said a decision on where to place preferences would be made by the state party branches, but could be made on an electorate by electorate basis.
His statement comes after the Queensland National Party indicated the same thing. The Nationals sate director Ken Crooke said preference allocation would depend on what local branches decided to recommend. This would not be made until the close of nominations in each seat just two weeks before the election.
Labour has stated that One Nation would be put last on all its how-to-vote cards, giving Coalition preferences ahead of One Nation candidates.
The preference allocation is of no moment electorally in the Queensland election. Nothing will turn on them. One National candidates have no hope of polling above either a Coalition or a Labour candidate in any seat. The same is true of the House of Representatives election federally.
The only election it might make any difference is in the Senate in Queensland and perhaps Western Australia, and then only if it is a double dissolution election in which the One Nation Party might have a slight chance of picking up the 12th seat on preferences from the major parties, other minor parties and independent. It is not unusual for a minor-party candidate to win the last Senate seat on the preferences from an excluded major-party candidate. It is just possible that a Labor candidate might squeak ahead of a One Nation candidate on Coalition preferences for the last seat, but it would require an extraordinary confluence of circumstances.
For practical purposes, it is unlikely that anything will turn on the allocation of preferences. But they can have huge symbolic importance. Indeed, their symbolic importance is perhaps greater because of their small practical significance. It appears that the Coalition is prepared to announce to the world that it prefers the socially and racially divisive One Nation Party to Labor in circumstances where it is totally unnecessary to do so because the placement of Labor ahead of One Nation would make no practical difference. This would be a voluntary statement to the world that the Australian governing parties prefer One Nation and its policies to the policies of Labor, a party that has been in government many times in the past and has had the same broad support among Australians as the Coalition.
If the two Coalition parties put One Nation before Labor it will be a lost opportunity to send a united message to the world that the mainstream of Australian politics, both conservative and social democrat, reject the racism, intolerance and ignorance of the sort presented in One Nation’s policies and in the utterances of its leaders.
In an interview in this week’s edition of the Australia-Israel Review, Mr Howard said the flow of preferences would depend on the character of the candidates. He said he had met some grizzly ALP candidates. The Liberals would make a judgment state-by-state and perhaps even electorate-by-electorate.
It shows a lack of leadership or a fear or exercising authority because it might be questioned. And it is inconsistent with usual practice. The Liberal Party has not made a habit of picking out individual members of an opposing party to be treated differently from other members of that party, on the basis if grizzliness or any other feature. Invariably the Liberal Party makes its preference choices state-by-state and they usually have a nation-wide flavour. Sure, one would expect Labor to be put well down the list, but extremist parties should not get the comfort of being giving a billing by one major party ahead of another. One can only hope that Coalition voters have better sense than their party leaders and ignore the how-to-vote card. But by then it will be too late. The damage would have been done.