Doing it differently

The sudden rise to influence of the independent MPs is a challenge to the two-party system and how it’s reported, writes Peter Browne

27 August 2010



Print this article Print this article

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Above: Independent MPs Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter with Greens MP Adam Bandt (second from right) after addressing the National Press Club this week.
AFP Photo/ Andrew Taylor

“IT’S GETTING to the stage where Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and the nation would actually be better of if we just went back to the polls.” Dennis Shanahan’s comment in today’s Australian might be a sincere piece of political analysis, a cry from the heart or a shrewd judgement about which way the independents might jump, but it also says something about the role of the Canberra press gallery in national politics. This is an intensely interesting period in Australian political history, and yet running through the commentary seems to be an assumption that the pre-election status quo – in which policy-making had almost ground to a halt on both sides of parliament – is preferable to allowing the three independents any say over the composition of the next government. It’s not surprising that MPs from the major parties are unsettled by the week’s events, but it’s strange that so many commentators also seem to be yearning for a familiar landscape.

The main charge levelled against Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter is that they don’t have a common view on issues like climate change and asylum seekers. “Sorry guys,” writes the Age’s Katharine Murphy, echoing comments by her Fairfax colleague Phillip Coorey at yesterday’s National Press Club lunch. “The sentiment is great. But these look like the same old policy differences and the same conflicts.” But these are independent MPs who campaigned individually in three quite different seats, so all we could reasonably expect them to have in common is a seat on the cross benches. They share considerably more than that, though: Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, in particular, have a long-term and well-developed interest in reforming parliament.

Their proposals originated in the close relationship between Windsor and Peter Andren, the independent member for Calare from 1996 until his death just before the 2007 election. Andren, a much-admired former news editor with regional television in Orange, one of Calare’s main centres, took up a series of issues that were unlikely to have majority backing in his electorate – he supported John Howard’s gun laws but opposed the crackdown on asylum seekers, for example – and in the process turned Calare into one of the safest seats in Australia. Parliamentary reform and tighter controls over electoral donations and MPs’ expenditure were among his priorities.

Since he won the Lyne by-election in 2008, Rob Oakeshott has added ideas and enthusiasm to the informal grouping. Oakeshott, who won the NSW state seat of Port Macquarie as a National Party member in 1996, aged twenty-six, left the party after seeing its developer friends doing battle with residents along the electorate’s coast. Contesting the following state election as an independent, his primary vote jumped to 70 per cent, translating into a two-candidate-preferred vote of 82 per cent. He resigned from state parliament in 2008 to contest Lyne.

Bob Katter is the outlier in the group, the one whose views on climate and asylum seekers fuelled comments like those of Katharine Murphy in the Age. Despite their differences, though, the three MPs, who between them have weathered years of indifference and sporadic attacks from both parties – but especially from the Coalition – decided to work as a group well before they were presented with this opportunity to influence the shape of parliament.

Their shared interest in parliamentary reform draws on the experience of other independents and minor parties in dealing with similar election outcomes in Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. In Victoria, for example, three independent MPs with quite distinct priorities – two who had much in common with the National Party, one a former Labor Party member – came together to back Steve Bracks’s Labor government through its first term. The arrangement was underpinned by a “charter” agreed to by the three independents and the Labor leader, and over three years Labor adopted virtually every initiative – reform of the upper house, increased autonomy for the state auditor-general, enhanced FOI legislation – it spelt out.

Not surprisingly, the Victorian independents didn’t vote as a bloc on other issues during that term of government. But they had won a remarkable set of concessions, reversing many of the anti-democratic moves of the Kennett government and dramatically modernising the Legislative Council.

Federally, the Coalition seemed to learn nothing from the growing popularity of the regional independents. In 2004, for example, the National Party campaigned against Peter Andren’s support for asylum seekers – “A vote for Peter Andren is a vote against keeping Australia in safe hands” – yet he was returned with an increased majority. Four years later, the Nationals (who had held Lyne since it was created in 1952) tried to portray Rob Oakeshott as a secret Labor supporter; he won 64 per cent of the primary vote and a massive 74 per cent of the two-candidate-preferred vote.

Obviously the party system will endure, and it’s likely that the next election will bring a return to majority government. But the major parties, and the media, should try to draw some lessons from this period of uncertainty. Tony Windsor (with 76 per cent of the two-candidate-preferred vote at last count) and Bob Katter (69 per cent) have a much higher level of support in their electorates than all but a handful of MPs who are backed by the resources of one of the major parties, and Rob Oakeshott (62 per cent) is doing pretty well too.

Their moment of influence is an opportunity to think about how the parties themselves can reconnect with their local constituencies – not in a poll-driven way, but with the kind of dialogue that has enabled the more sophisticated independent MPs to follow their consciences without losing electoral support. And the major news outlets could consider how the unexpected rise to influence of these three MPs (and the Greens and Andrew Wilkie) might influence the way they report national politics in the future. •

Peter Browne is editor of Inside Story.

Related articles

Follow Inside Story

Subscribe to Inside Story’s free weekly newsletter

Just enter your email address below, and make sure you click the confirmation link when you receive an automatic email from us:



5 Comments

  1. ellen goodman added this comment on 27 August 2010 | Permalink

    Peter,

    Such a sensible well-argued comment.

    To achieve a more balanced view of political events we need to let our journalists know that we are dissatisfied with their constant beat-ups and fear mongering particularly about issues such as asylum seekers.

    Most reporting in this country treats politics like a sporting contest.

  2. John MacKean added this comment on 28 August 2010 | Permalink

    I always welcome Peter Browne’s sensible comments and these are particularly relevant. A destructive factor in the present impasse should be recognised: the role of the Murdoch press – and particularly of The Australian – has been mischievous and unprincipled in recent years and in this election. I believe that the nation has got this election absolutely right and that we have been presented with an opportunity to put our democracy on a rational and stable course. In my 80 years, I have never seen a more dangerous international situation, with a bankrupt America engaged in dangerously provovative game of chicken with Asia. I have been given no grounds for optimism that either Gillard or Abbott will have Robert Menzies’ guts when he told Eisenhauer that Australia would not support the US in any conflict with China over Taiwan (1954?) I doubt that Abbott would consult Ken Henry if the current US recession creeps into depression as Roubini and others foresee. Above all, these Independents represent a wonderful fount of common sense: they truly represent what I value as Australianness.
    I hope devoutly that the ALP will acknowledge the validity of the Greens’ motivations and perceive how greatly they would benefit from a composition with them.

  3. Bigbear added this comment on 28 August 2010 | Permalink

    Great, insightful article. As a ‘true believer’ I look forward to a more complex reporting of the political landscape, rather then the same old views and analysis that is served up by the main stream media.

    Australians are being treated like mugs by the simple stories that are served up by the ABC and commercial stations. Then people think they are ‘well informed’ which is a pity.

    The level of journalism has to improve and provide more indepth, complex coverage rather the relying on simple, mainstream points that provide a false context.

  4. Kate Eagles added this comment on 3 September 2010 | Permalink

    A refreshingly good report; I agree with the comments made re the media.
    However, I don’t agree with Peter Browne on “obviously the party system will endure” . Why should it? Why should the parties control our so-called “democratic” system? Why don’t we have ALL Independents, representing the people in their electorates and honest, lively debate in the House of Reps, instead of decisions made by the Party elite behind closed doors (Caucus comes to mind)? We should be electing our representatives, not party representatives.
    This is a great opportunity for real democracy. The electorates are sick of the sycophancy and pork-barrelling by the party reps of the major parties. Get rid of parties, I say – and have real representation, not what the parties say we should get. How about secret ballots in the House to elect Ministers from all denominations, on merit rather than on favouritism? How about polling the pollies on performance – and publishing the results? (that might make them more responsible!). The Independents are showing us how it can be done; it would be a shame to go back to the old party system. For the first time in a long time, I am optimistic about the future of politics in this country. GO Independents!

  5. John Biggs added this comment on 6 September 2010 | Permalink

    Excellent article and the bit about the negative role played by the press particularly telling. Unfortunately, the popular view has shifted with 56% now wanting a return to the polls to get a clear result. We have the press to thank for that sure, but also I fear the triumphal and long drawn out demands of the 3 independents has frustrated and irritated people. At least Wilkie made his position clear relatively quickly, and essentially with the national and not the regional interest his main target.

    Given all that, the essential point is clear — we have a wonderful opportunity to change the structure of governance from the rigid two party system that is controlled by the likes of Arbib and the party machines.

Send us a comment

We welcome contributions about the issues covered in articles in Inside Story. We ask contributors to provide their full name for publication, but if for any reason you need to use a pseudonym please submit your comment to us via email. Because all comments are moderated, they will not appear immediately. Your email address is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *.

*
*