Western Australians will go to the polls on February 10. The election will be a major test for Premier Richard Court, who is seeking his third term in office. At previous elections in 1993 and 1996 the Coalition could rely on the fall-out from the WA Inc Royal Commission which revealed corruption in Labor ranks. But in 2001, enough time has passed that Mr Court must be judged on his own record and what he projects for the future of Western Australia. Further, Labor has changed significantly since the days of Premier Brian Burke and “”picking winners”. Labor leader Geoff Gallop has renounced that approach, instead concentrating on health, education and crime. Further the Coalition has difficulties of its own in the mortgage brokers’ scandal. Fair Trading Minister Doug Shave is being blamed for failing to protect hundreds of mainly-elderly small investors who lost millions in dodgy pooled investments. There is no question of any government member being directly involved, rather just a failure to prevent the losses.
Labor must win 11 seats to govern it its own right, more than any party has done in Western Australian history. At present the lower House has 57 members: 29 Liberal, six Nationals, 18 Labor MPs, two Liberal-aligned independents and two Labor-aligned independents. It is likely Mr Court will lose at least some seats, after gaining a very high 55.2 per cent of the two-party preferred vote in 1996. It may well be that the independents get the balance of power. That would be no bad thing in a climate of increasing scepticism of the major parties and their propensity to abuse their power.
There are some similarities between Mr Court’s position and the Coalition federally, in that they are both seeking third terms. However, Australian voters are perfectly capable of distinguishing between state and federal levels and can vote one way at the state level and another federally. Examples abound. Not too much should be read into the Western Australian election on the federal level. State issues will play the most significant part.
A closer similarity is with the situation in Victoria a 16 months ago when the Coalition’s Jeff Kennett was seeking a third term. Like Mr Court he has inherited a financial mess from a previous Labor administration. Like Mr Court he had fixed it up, at some pain in the electorate. But after two terms, the electorate thought that because of what some saw as arrogance or over-bearing, he should be taught a lesson. Everyone thought he would win so felt they could vote against him safely without kicking him out of office. The result was that he lost.
The only difference in Western Australia is that Mr Court is not seen as arrogant as Mr Kennett and with the Victorian experience in mind, voters will be more circumspect about punishing Mr Court with a reduced vote unless they really mean to kick him out. Conversely, the new Labor Administration in Victoria has been quite popular and successful. It has not gone a spending spree. It has learnt from the Cain-Kirner years. Voters might feel, therefore, they can give Labor a go in the West.
To that extent Mr Courts initial shots in the campaign have been misdirected. He has campaigned on the slogan of “”Don’t risk Labor”.
Both major parties have wooed the regional vote. This is essential in the West because of the skewed electoral system which gives country voters more weight. It is a disgraceful affront to democracy and should be changed, but the Coalition is wedded to it for pragmatic reasons. Both parties have played the law-and-order card in the most crass way.
Rather than pandering to the rural constituency and playing on public fear by beating a law-and-order drum, Mr Court would do better to concentrate on his considerable achievements in restoring the state’s finances and on a responsible program to improve health and education services. Dr Gallop should concentrate on demonstrating how he proposes to deliver his health, education and welfare promises without blowing the budget.
And both parties need to convince the electorate that they have structures in place to prevent repetitions of the scourge of the West – flaky get-rich-quick schemes that leave the public purse impoverished.