By Rich Bowden:

To paraphrase Paul Keating: “Always back self interest.”

Yesterday after an excruciating 17 days of deliberations (and final dramatic press conferences) the country has a government after the last three Independents put their cards on the table. In the end they split over their support, with Queensland’s Bob Katter backing the Coalition, explaining his decision in a rambling and at times disoriented press conference at around 1.30 pm, before the NSW’s Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott announced in a 3.00 pm press conference that they were both giving conditional support to the ALP.

Oakeshott, the final speaker, indulged in a kind of “political striptease” according to Sydney Morning Herald journalist David Marr, explaining the facts and deliberations behind his decision for around 20 minutes (it seemed longer) before announcing his support for Ms Gillard.

The verdict in the end was no surprise given Windsor’s animosity to the Coalition partners the Nationals and support for Labor’s broadband policy and Oakeshott’s similar views and calls over the past 17 days for Parliamentary reform. However the point made by Tony Windsor, that he considered the ALP the most likely to try and make the next parliament work because it was less popular, has created a media firestorm of sorts.

Veteran political commentator Glenn Milne, in a column for the ABC’s Drum called it “extraordinary” decision-making by Windsor saying he would “rue the day” he made the comments.

Tony Windsor, whose vote delivered Julia Gillard a second term, has undermined that term at the outset by admitting that he decided to back a Labor Government because if an election were held now the Coalition and Tony Abbott would be more likely to win.

By Windsor’s logic – and it is his alone – stability is better served by going with the less popular of the two alternatives. Because given it is less popular Labor will be less likely to go to the polls within the three years of the full Parliamentary term. In other words the risk that democracy might prevail is too much of a risk.

Indeed Mr Abbott made no move to dispel questions over his full support for the next parliamentary term in his speech following the Independents’ announcement.

“How quickly we go back to an election depends entirely on the performance of this Government,” he said.

“If the Government’s performance is so manifestly deficient that it loses a vote of confidence in the House, then it is highly likely that we will have an election.

But why the shocked tone from the commentators over Windsor’s decision to back stability over a return to the ballot box?

Back to self-interest.

Windsor, and the other Independents, have a once-in-a-political-lifetime chance to push their agendas which, not remarkably, involve a better deal for their rural constituents. It is in their interest to vote for the option they consider most likely to make the next parliament last the full term.

Windsor, in what some have quoted as a slip, yet may well be brutal honesty, has intimated that it is the ALP (and their supporters) who have most to lose by going to the polls after a swing of over 5 per cent against the Labor government at the August poll. On the famous Fred Daly scale of “Rooster to Feather Duster” the ALP is very much at the business end of the duster having managed, in around six months, to turn an election winning lead into a near rout.

The Coalition, though it gained less than two per cent of the swing against Labor, would be doing its utmost to destroy the next parliament to return to the polls to build on its perceived momentum and gain a majority in its own right. Again self-interest. Only two considerations remain in the minds of Coalition strategists. One is to avoid appearing as if they want to go to the polls, as Australian voters traditionally dislike being dragged away from their weekend activities to vote, and the second is the ubiquitous opinion polling, which will be monitored closely for any signs of a Labor resurgence. These two factors notwithstanding, the Coalition can’t get to the polls fast enough. It is clear then that the self-interest test works for both the Coalition and the ALP.

Self interest at present for the Labor government involves building on what they hope will be a period of stability in which a Gillard government, in concert with Green and Independent support, can show the Australian people that it is capable of delivering strong and purposeful government for as long as possible in the parliamentary term. The ALP then, is much less likely to back a new election until it has had a chance to deliver on policies, election promises etc and a hoped for return to ascendancy in opinion polling.

Such a surge of public support for Ms Gillard could well tempt strategists to call an early election to “seek a mandate.”

Using this self-interest test, it would appear that Mr Windsor is correct and the party less likely to go back to the polls is the ALP. However in nailing this, Mr Windsor has exposed the cynical nature of Australian politics.

Party interests are paramount, it seems, without any consideration of the national interest. Both Gillard and Abbott articulated narrow election policies in a lackustre election campaign, designed to appeal to their supporters or swinging voters (the toughening of asylum seeker policies springs to mind.) Both of course were tainted by the way in which they grabbed power in their own party rooms after pledging support for their party leaders.

Perhaps this is why Australians are increasingly looking to third parties and Independents to represent their views. With the two main parties very much “on the nose,” with the Australian electorate, this parliament may well mark a watershed in Australian politics and see the rise of Greens and Independents as real alternatives at the expense of the major parties.

Tags: alp, australian election, katter, labor government, oakeshott, windsor