The family that prays together

It is little wonder that reporters covering the South Australian state election in February 2002 failed to anticipate the success of the Family First party. Long renowned as a haven for lecherous drunks and Godless communists, the profession of journalism effectively quarantined itself from the new wave of evangelical religious fervour that was taking hold in the less fashionable suburbs. The phenomenon was politically activated in September 2001 with the launch of Family First by Andrew Evans, a senior national figure in the Assemblies of God church and pastor of the Paradise Community Church in north-eastern Adelaide, which boasted a 4,000 strong congregation including future Australian Idol winner Guy Sebastian. Tapping into a ready-made base of organisational and electoral support the party polled 4.1 per cent of the vote for the Legislative Council, enough to win Evans a seat at the expense of the much more fancied Greens. Not surprisingly, Evans’ success has encouraged the party to broaden its horizons. Yesterday saw the launch of Family First as a national entity with plans to field candidates in most lower house electorates and for each state in the Senate.

Having demonstrated that the electoral market gap that Fred Nile has filled in New South Wales is there to be exploited in other states, there seems every reason to believe that the party might continue to operate beneath the radar of the national media and once again surprise pundits on election night. Queensland has a large mass of disaffected voters who have been left looking for a new home with the decline of One Nation. Religious conservatives in Western Australia have long had no obvious option. The Democratic Labor Party in Victoria has never reached beyond the Catholic community. And Brian Harradine’s electoral base and Senate seat are up for grabs in Tasmania.

With One Nation effectively out of the picture it had seemed safe to assume that the non-major party vote would return to its traditional pattern of favouring Labor on preferences to the tune of 60 per cent or more. This could be jeopardised if Family First proves successful in harvesting a substantial share of the minor party protest vote. While their preferences are unlikely to have a decisive impact on the House of Representatives, for which many voters make up their own mind about preference allocation, they could play a crucial role in the Senate, where 95 per cent of voters accept the party’s nominated preference distribution by exercising the above-the-line voting option. Excluding independents and micro-parties, Family First’s preference order for the South Australian Legislative Council election in 2002 ran Nationals, Liberal, Labor, Greens, Democrats and One Nation. Unless the party has a substantial change of heart for the federal election, this could provide a substantial boost to the Coalition’s chances of gaining a blocking majority by controlling half the Senate. One could even fantasise about them achieving this despite losing government, in which case Mark Latham might find himself emulating his mentor Gough Whitlam in a manner he would have preferred to avoid.

If Boothby told

Regular reader and one-time Labor candidate for Sturt Phil Robins got rather carried away recently when dropping a line to point out a factual error in the federal election guide entry for the Adelaide seat of Boothby. In so doing he constructed a commendably thorough outline of the electorate’s history that deserves better than to rot in the Poll Bludger’s inbox forever.

Labor’s Egerton Lee Batchelor was elected the first member for Boothby in 1903. Batchelor had been the only Labor MHR elected in South Australia in the nation’s first federal election in 1901, when the whole state was one multi-member electorate. Before entering federal politics, Batchelor, a former railway engineer, had established his reputation as Minister of Education and Minister of Agriculture in the Holder government from December 1899 to 15 May 1901. The Labor Party supported his serving in that Liberal government so that the public could see that a Labor man could do the job. In 1903 Batchelor was offered the safe Labor seat of Hindmarsh but in the interests of the party opted for the riskier seat of Boothby, where he polled 55 per cent to defeat former premier and fellow foundation MHR Vaiben Solomon. In 1904, Prime Minister John Christian (Chris) Watson selected Batchelor as Minister for Home Affairs in the world’s first national Labor government. Batchelor was unopposed in Boothby in 1906 and served as Minister for External Affairs in the Fisher Labor government from 1908-10. He was easily re-elected in 1910 but died suddenly in 1911 and Boothby fell to the Liberals in a by-election that year.

Another Labor man, the German-born butcher George Dankel, won Boothby back in 1913 and retained it in 1914 but naturally, given his heritage, did not contest the wartime election of 1917, when the seat fell to the Nationalists.

Labor’s next victory in Boothby was in 1928 when the stone-mason John Lloyd Price scraped home by 84 votes. He boosted his margin in 1929 but then got caught up in the big Labor split over how to deal with the Great Depression. He joined the Independent Australia Party and held Boothby in 1931 as a candidate for the anti-Labor Emergency Committee. He was re-elected under the Liberal and Country League banner in 1934 and 1937 and as a United Australia Party member in 1940, dying in office in 1941.

Sir Archibald Price (no relation to J.L.Price) won the 1941 Boothby by-election for the UAP but was turfed out by Labor’s Tom Sheehy in the general election of 1943. Sheehy, a building contractor, trailed on primary votes but got over the line largely on the preferences of the popular Communist candidate, Dr Alan Finger. Sheehy improved his winning margin in 1946 but apparently did not like the subsequent redistribution and switched to the new seat of Kingston, which he lost narrowly in 1949. The Liberals won Boothby in 1949 and have not been seriously challenged there ever since.

One day in September

A recent burst of speculation surrounding a September 18 poll has prompted a revision to the Poll Bludger’s federal election calendar, which had given the date short shrift on the grounds that it coincides with school holidays in three states. However strong performances for the Coalition in Tuesday’s Newspoll (up 2 per cent to 45, with Labor steady on 40) and last Friday’s Roy Morgan poll (Labor down 4 per cent to 42 but the Coalition somehow stuck on 41.5) prompted excited talk that the Prime Minister would call an election at the earliest opportunity after the current session of parliament. This time though speculators had the sense to qualify their comments thus: "Federal Parliament resumes on Tuesday and Mr Howard will use the fortnight of sittings to put the political blowtorch to Mr Latham and then weigh up whether to call an election for September 18" (Phillip Hudson in The Age), and "the Prime Minister will use these two weeks of Parliament to assess whether to call an election at their conclusion – for September 18" (Louise Dodson in the Sydney Morning Herald).

At the end of the first week of the parliamentary session, the Government has worked itself into a surprising muddle through its rejection of Labor’s proposed Free Trade Agreement legislation amendment concerning pharmaceuticals patents, which it went from describing as merely unnecessary on Tuesday to disastrous on Wednesday. While the Government had calculated that a take-it-or-leave-it approach would prompt a Labor backdown reinforcing perceptions of the party as vacillating and anti-American, the effect has been to give oxygen to the Opposition Leader’s effective soundbites about cheap drugs played off against the Government’s arcane technicalities about patent law. Dennis Shanahan of The Australian, the only journalist to debunk the August 7 hypothesis well in advance and a man renowned for the quality of his Coalition sources, concluded yesterday that "as each day passes with drugs on the agenda, the likelihood of a September 18 election recedes".

Recognising its difficulty the Government is reportedly working towards a compromise measure that will clear the issue from the headlines at the cost of a short-term political victory for the Opposition. A week being a long time in politics, the Prime Minister may still be keeping open the option of a September 18 election announced next weekend, but the more likely scenario is another session of parliament from August 30 to September 9 followed by the announcement of an election for October 16, 23 or 30.

Maintain your age

A noted feature of recent opinion polling has been a continuing softening of support for Mark Latham among those old enough to know better. Last week’s ACNielsen poll showed Labor’s vote slumping from 41 to 33 per cent among the over-55s in the space of one month, and while this is from a sample too small to take entirely seriously, it backs up a trend indicated in the Newspoll’s recent geographic and demographic analysis survey which showed support for the Coalition among voters aged 50 and over increasing in the second quarter by 2 per cent directly at Labor’s expense.

Latham’s brash and somewhat erratic political style is no doubt one reason for this, as is his explicit identification with Gough Whitlam, something Bob Hawke went out of his way to avoid as he strung together Labor’s rare succession of victories in the 1980s. A new generation of young voters galvanised by opposition to the Iraq war might well be up for a bit of spirit of 1972, but the upper age brackets contain those who remember what happened afterwards. They delivered massive victories to the Coalition in 1975 and 1977 and haven’t changed their minds since. Another factor worth noting is the Federal Government’s delightful Medicare advertisements which have warmed hearts the nation over to the tune of $11 million. It has been widely reported that Labor is exasperated by the campaign’s effectiveness and a swing to the Coalition among older voters is a logical symptom of this.

A saving grace for Labor in this respect is that the crucial seats the Coalition holds by margins of less than 6 per cent tend to have a younger demographic profile. Compared with a national average of 13.9 per cent of the population aged 65 and over, the list contains a large number of outer urban seats where young families dominate such as Canning (WA, held for the Liberals by 0.4 per cent) on 9.2 per cent, Dickson (Queensland, 6 per cent) on 6.4 per cent, La Trobe (Victoria, 3.7 per cent) on 8.9 per cent, Lindsay (New South Wales, 5.5 per cent) on 7.3 per cent and Makin (South Australia, 3.8 per cent) on 9.9 per cent. Also weighing down the average are Solomon (Northern Territory, 0.1 per cent) on 5.2 per cent and Kalgoorlie (Western Australia, 4.4 per cent) on 7.7 per cent, where people are lucky to make it to adulthood, never mind old age. For the most part though, these seats are in mortgage belt territory and have been carefully targeted by the Government’s pre-election largesse.

One problem area for Labor is on the New South Wales north coast where residents of retirement villages make up an ever growing proportion of the voting pool. Among these are Paterson (a 1.5 per cent margin, with 16.9 per cent of the population over 65), Page (2.8 per cent and 16.3 per cent) and Cowper (4.8 per cent and 17.8 per cent). The Coalition will also be heartened by the knowledge that the nation’s oldest electorate is the important Adelaide marginal of Hindmarsh (1.1 per cent and 20.2 per cent).

The People versus Seven Sunrise

Because the Poll Bludger does not like to wade out of his depth, the obvious electoral law issues raised by the Seven Sunrise program’s "Vote for Me" contest were not canvassed in this earlier posting. Graham Orr, senior lecturer in Law at Griffith University, has kindly offered the following thoughts.

The show may implicate electoral bribery rules. Section 326 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act says: "A person shall not … receive … or agree to … receive, any property or benefit of any kind … on an understanding that any candidature [of that] person … will in any manner be influenced or affected". There’s a mirror offence for offering or paying such a benefit.

The AEC has chosen not to look into this closely as a criminal issue, and the parties have backed off, for fear of sounding like party-poopers. But if one of the ‘Pollstars’ were elected, gloves might be off. And on an election petition, bribery does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but if proven, it leads to automatic unseating.

Of course as regards Hetty Johnston, there’s a clear defence in that she was already pledged to stand, as you point out. Other candidates might be viewed differently.

Seven’s lawyers have been only half-clever. The ‘rules’, which form a virtual contract between Seven and the applicants, state: "Each State Finalist who successfully nominates … will be provided with the following reasonable costs of participating in Stage Three: … a donation of $10 000 (inclusive of GST) towards campaign expenses’".

They’ve sought to legally portray the payment as just another campaign donation to a candidate, rather than an incentive to induce a candidature. To be on safer ground Seven should have made payment only by way of reimbursement for actual campaign expenses. All it would take is one candid contestant to say: ‘A key reason I stood was the $10 000 offered’. Backed up by proof that some of the money was not spent on campaigning but pocketed, and Seven might be in trouble with section 326.

The broader question is why Seven is inducing candidates in the first place – for fun? ratings?? because they are such good corporate democrats???