Double Jeopardy

The rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation is at least partly the result of widespread anger at the perceived arrogance and hypocrisy of the major parties.  No doubt many people hoped that the new party might jolt other politicians into making a serious attempt to reduce the humbug in our political life.  Unfortunately, One Nation has had the opposite effect.

Although it is much less professional in its activities, One Nation has shown itself just as happy to try pulling the wool over people's eyes as any other party.  And its existence has led to fervent and counter-productive displays of moral vanity as politicians and others damn Pauline and all that she is supposed to stand for.  Such posturing is designed to convince us that the posturer is a truly principled human being, one who would rather forsake any hope of influence or power than dally with the satanic forces of One Nation.

While some of these denouncers may really believe that the angels are cheering them on, the reaction of Labor and other left-leaning groups to One Nation also involves a fair bit of cynicism.  This is evident in demands that the Coalition parties place the ALP ahead of One Nation on their how-to-vote cards for next Saturday's election.

With the exception of a handful of National Party candidates, these demands have been successful.  Consequently, in many crucial seats Labor will receive a much higher percentage of One Nation preferences than it would have obtained had Coalition candidates been able to make deals for a preference swap with One Nation.

Certainly, it is not in the interests of either Labor or the Coalition for One Nation to win any seats, either in the House of Representatives or the Senate.  So it makes sense for the Liberals and Nationals to allocate preferences so as to reduce the likelihood of this happening.

But in seats which are marginal, and where One Nation has little hope of victory, preference deals could make all the difference between a win to Labor or a win to the Coalition.  So if Kim Beazley becomes our next Prime Minister, it may well be because the Coalition parties were spooked into putting One Nation last.

Of course, Labor and many in the media claim that the issue is a big test of principle.  Mr Beazley has said that if One Nation gains the balance of power in the House of Representatives, he would never form government with their support.

But what if One Nation holds the balance of power in the Senate?  Will Mr Beazley treat them in the same way that John Howard has treated Senator Mal Colston in the past year or so?

In other words, will Mr Beazley promise never to rely on One Nation senators' votes to defeat or amend a Coalition government's legislation;  or if he becomes Prime Minister, never to rely on their votes to get legislation passed?  This is not an academic question, because on many matters -- and particularly those relating to the economy -- One Nation's position is closer to the ALP than it is to the Coalition.

The dubious basis of Mr Beazley's occupation of the moral high ground on the One Nation issue is even more obvious when we consider how Labor allocated its preferences in the 1996 election.

It should be remembered that the supposedly racist and objectionable aspects of One Nation's platform are very largely derived from two sources, Australians Against Further Immigration, and Graeme Campbell, the former ALP and then Independent member for Kalgoorlie, who now heads the Australia First party.  Campbell played an important part in Pauline Hanson's political development after she was elected to Parliament, and he makes no secret of his irritation at the success One Nation has had in running with "his" ideas.

Nevertheless, in the 1996 election, Labor had no qualms about giving its preferences to Campbell and AAFI before Coalition candidates.  While Paul Keating was still in charge then, in the by-election for the outer Sydney seat of Lindsay held a few months later -- after Beazley had taken over -- Labor still put AAFI ahead of the Liberal Party's Jackie Kelly.  The ethnic leaders who seem to think that Kim Beazley is a man who will have no truck with anti-immigrant parties must have short memories.

But One Nation is not playing things straight either.  Although it cannot admit the fact openly for fear of upsetting those of its supporters who hate Labor, One Nation's leaders would be absolutely delighted to see Mr Beazley win government.  There are two reasons for this.

Firstly, however much Mr Beazley may claim to have learnt his lessons from the overwhelming defeat of 1996, he will be unable to control the "get-up-people's-noses" section of his party.  Keating may have gone, but once they are back in power, Gareth Evans, Nick Bolkus, Cheryl Kernot and the rest won't know how to stop themselves.

We can expect to see the same kind of posturing on Aboriginal, ethnic and other victimhood issues that was so effective in alienating many Australians the last time around.  From One Nation's point of view, this will be like having a number of high-profile recruiting agents moving across the country, supported not out of its own funds, but by the Australian taxpayer.

Secondly, given the massive majority it took into the election, a defeat for the Coalition would be devastating for the morale and unity of both the Liberals and the Nationals.  So provided that One Nation wins at least some Federal seats, it could realistically hope to take advantage of the expected upheavals in the Coalition parties to capture significant numbers of their members and supporters.

It is not an appealing prospect.  People may be frustrated with the way that John Howard's government has foolishly squandered its opportunities and authority.  But those who think that a Coalition loss will lead to a more decent and unified nation are also going to be very disappointed.

ADVERTISEMENT