Minor parties in a green election: a Green perspective [Paper in: The Australian Election 07. Williams, Paul (ed.)] (2008)

The 2007 federal election was meant to be the green election - climate change was firmly on the public agenda, the impact of the drought on food prices had put sustainable water supply in the public's mind, and the upcoming slaughter of whales by the Japanese in Australian waters demanded action from the federal government. So why did the minor parties such as the Greens not double their numbers? The answers are many and varied. Firstly, the overwhelming imperative of the majority of voters was to oust John Howard. This is clear from the massive 5.74% national swing to Labor (5.28% in the Senate), which was even higher at 8.13% in Kevin Rudd's home state of Queensland (7.55% in the Senate). In elections where there is an unpopular incumbent government, the major party vote is always higher, generally at the expense of support for minor parties. People simply felt they had to vote Labor 'to be sure' they were getting rid of Howard. This is in part due to a lack of understanding of the voting system by the public, including those with tertiary qualifications. Many people are unaware they can get double value from their vote, by preferencing the major party of their choice above the major party they do not support, and by voting 1 for a minor party to send a message that they prefer the policies of that minor party. The vagaries of the Senate preferencing system also engenders widespread suspicion and mistrust about backroom preference deals between parties, and undermines voter confidence in their power of their vote (less than 5% of voters vote below the line on the Senate ballot paper, so leave their choice of preferences to the party they vote for above the line). The complexity of the voting system in the two federal Houses of Parliament is compounded in Queensland by a different state voting system (optional preferential) and the lack of an upper house. The Australian Electoral Commission would do well to develop television advertising that advises people on how the federal voting system works. The Greens aired an advertisement explaining the preference system in the final weeks of the campaign (see www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ULN_ISLVtL4), but our limited resources did not enable a wide broadcast and its impact is therefore unknown. Secondly, the Presidential style of election campaign, with its focus on Kevin Rudd and John Howard, left little room for media coverage or public debate about that other crucial House of Parliament - the Senate. Many voters do not realise the function of the Senate or know who their 12 Senators are, and this again operates as a disincentive to voters supporting minor parties in the Senate - paradoxically, where they are most important to keeping the major parties accountable. The focus on the personalities of the two leaders also left little room for critical examination of the differences - or similarities - of parties' policies, including those of minor parties. Thirdly, Labor cleverly manipulated public perception by portraying itself as a green party. Ratification of Kyoto was bandied about as proof of Labor's climate change credentials, yet once in power and present at the BaIi negotiations, Australia refused to commit to proposed greenhouse gas reduction targets of 25%-40% by 2020. Labor managed to avoid much scrutiny of their adoption of John Howard's policy on native forest logging and of their support for environmentally destructive dams and energy-guzzling desalination, and hence were able to maintain the illusion of being a pro-environment party. Time will tell whether perception matches reality. Fourthly, environmental issues were not the only important policy area in the 2007 election. WorkChoices and to a lesser extent health, education and human rights were also important vote-shapers, yet Greens policies on these core issues were rarely reported on by the media, despite receiving specific endorsement from a variety of experts and representative bodies as the most responsible and forward-looking policies. …