No wonder they’re calling it Labor’s “fright night.’’ Last weekend, elections across the ACT and NSW showed an exodus of voter support, with record swings against the party in two state by-elections and the loss of majority government for Labor in the ACT.
The ABC’s election analyst Anthony Green bluntly described the NSW by-elections as “a bloodbath for Labor’’ pointing out the “swings of more than 22 per cent recorded in Cabramatta and Ryde are the largest at a NSW or federal by-election since the Second World War, and may be the largest swings ever recorded’’ in Australia.
With refreshing honesty, NSW Premier Nathan Rees conceded the result was “a shellacking’’ and warned the voter message to his government was clearly “lift your game or else.’’ But ACT Labor leader, Jon Stanhope was still talking up his party’s chances on Saturday night, despite a swing of almost 11 per cent against Labor and record voter support for the Greens. He admitted the overall result was “something of a belt’’ but argued his personal vote was still the highest of any candidate. Labor scored 37 per cent of the vote, which meant Canberrans had “indicated the party they wish to take this community forward over the next four years’’ was, of course, ACT Labor. Good attempt to save face, but way off the money in terms of judging the mood of the electorate.
Both the NSW and ACT results – in combination with recent poll results in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and various Federal by-elections - show Australians are tired of the two-party duopoly that has, until now, dominated and frustrated national and state politics. They’re tired of voter concerns being ignored by Big Party machine juggernauts, and of issues being assessed in terms of the high-profile photo opportunities they provide for politicians. Most of all, they’re sick to death of the strut and thrust of political egos that passes for political debate these days. Couldn’t question time be conducted with more gravitas? Couldn’t it be a more useful exercise? Couldn’t both parties treat parliament with a bit more respect?
Voters are rejecting dumbed-down politics. Over the past decade, there’s been an information revolution. Thanks to the internet, voters can be as informed as they choose on any issue and can contact experts and lobby groups all around the globe for advice and support. Take the example of Professor Ross Garnaut’s report to the Federal Government on climate change. Not so long ago, anyone interested in reading such a landmark report would have to wait for copies to be printed and shipped to various government bookshops across the continent. That could take weeks, even months, in some states.
Now, a report is available online as soon as it’s released. People can go straight to the source for the information they want, by-passing attempts by political parties at information management. By the time the evening TV news rolls around, the report is public currency and voters expect more substance than glib sound-bites. If they’ve read the report online, they’ve probably read the press releases as well. Garbled repetition of stodgy phrases (world’s best practice, policy-making progress etc) doesn’t cut it as analysis or policy accountability.
Yes minister, your constituents have not only heard of the Garnaut or Stern reports, they’ve read them with highlighter in hand to mark the relevant bits. If they’re really keen (or incensed), they’ve already fired off an email or two to the relevant Senate committee or parliamentary taskforce. And no minister, you can’t duck questions with vacuous waffle about “a suite of options being brought to the table for consideration by all stakeholders in this important economic debate.’’ Tell us what you intend to do and where you stand on issues like climate change. Give us a plain-speaking commitment to action and a deadline.
Last week, staff at Geoscience Australia went on strike over pay and working conditions. These are the geologists who do the work that underpins Australia’s mineral wealth. They monitor earthquakes and tsunamis, map Australia’s ocean boundaries and provide essential satellite information that shapes our response to climate change. After a nine-month dispute, they appealed to the Federal Government to step in and help them achieve a cost-of-living pay rise. They were given the brush-off by energy and resources minister Martin Ferguson and workplace relations minister Julia Gillard. A few days later, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was presenting national science prizes at an elite black-tie dinner at Parliament House claiming science played “an important role in the Government’s vision for Australia’s future’’ and that we ought to do more to reward our best and brightest.
It’s this “Yes, Minister’’ mis-match between rhetoric and reality that’s driving voters away from the two-party system. At one of the Geoscience Australia walk-outs, a public sector union official pointed out both Ferguson and Gillard owed their entrées into Federal politics to union careers. Both were now side-stepping any involvement to resolve a dispute that affects Australia’s ability to retain scientific talent and continue with geological research to map carbon capture and storage sites to meet the challenge of climate change. “Vote for the Greens,’’ yelled one of the striking scientists. To a man and woman, the crowd of more than 300 stamped, cheered and whistled. As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha!’’
Email a friend