 |
CRAIG COMMENTS |
|
18th October 2004
Now that the Commonwealth election has been run and won and the dust has almost settled, it’s interesting to take stock on what the result actually means. I pass on my congratulations to Peter McGauran and the coalition for their victory. The contestants and commentators will review the campaign and dissect the result, but as an independent observer of the election, it is my view that while the result was indeed comprehensive, the result was arguably as much a dismissal of the opposition’s policies, leadership and the Labor Party’s alliances that cost them significant seats in this campaign.
The election has been one of this nation’s most American Presidential-style campaigns in my memory and highlights a disturbing trend in Australian politics which is focusing almost totally on the two leaders, neither of whom can be voted for by Gippslanders.
The key message from the election is possibly “all that glistens is not necessarily gold”. The Labor Party’s pursuit of the Green vote in forest policy - whilst being bold - did not deliver the votes they obviously expected on the mainland and almost definitely cost the party two Tasmanian and one Gippsland seat. This was possibly a major reason that the coalition looks to have achieved the control of the senate
The claims from Bob Brown that the Greens would win eight senate seats and would hold the balance of power obviously sent shivers up the spine of many voters. Whilst support for the Greens was strong in some areas, the party appears to be as much about radical social policy as it is about the environment.
In the aftermath of the election, I am sure that Labor Party strategists are contemplating the Greens as possibly a greater threat to the party than One Nation has ever been to the coalition.
The Democrats’ demise seems to be terminal and is as a direct result of the party moving away from their core voters i.e. “small l” Liberals to a position firmly left, forcing the Democrats to fight over the same votes as the Greens.
The emergence of Family First by achieving at least one seat in the senate sees the party established as a new minor party. Family First appears certain to gain more influence as well as public scrutiny in future elections.
The word “mandate” has been bandied about by the coalition and its control of the Senate, raising its hopes of implementing without check its legislative desires like industrial relations and the full sale of Telstra. This should send almost as big of a shiver down the spine of voters as the thought of the Greens holding the balance.
Now, more than ever, the pressure is on the National Party members to show they actually can live up to the mantra of the political party protecting rural Australia. They are arguably the only check between the Liberals and the bush - on issues like the full sale of Telstra, rural health care and road funding. The coalition and Peter McGauran have made significant commitments to Gippsland during the campaign and it’s essential that those commitments are delivered.
Our political system is such a “winner-takes-all system” that everyone with the best interests of all Australians in mind must demand an end to the greed and self interest that is becoming the major driving force of election campaigns. Democracy cannot be a “winner-takes-all” contest. On the contrary, democracy expects that all opinions should be given due consideration. Above all, we should strive for a system that is fair to all.
Governments at all levels should set their differences aside and settle, once and for all, the duties and responsibilities of the respective levels of government and the fairest way of financing governments at all levels. This would end the constant bickering and cost shifting between state and federal governments on issues like health, aged care, education, road funding and water reforms. These are issues that cannot wait until one political party has control at both state and federal level.
