Peter Van Onselen

Electoral Databases: Big Brother or Democracy Unbound?

Modern political campaigning is becoming increasingly professionalised to the extent that in Australia today the major parties use electoral databases to assist with their campaigns. The electoral databases of the Coalition (Feedback) and the Australian Labor Party (Electrac) store information on the constituents of each House of Representatives seat. The information gathered in the databases, such as the policy preferences and party identification of individual voters, are used by candidates for House seats to tailor correspondence to swinging voters, and to identify potential party supporters. Party organisations aggregate the information in the databases and use it to conduct polls and focus groups of swinging voters, and to tailor policy development and campaign strategies. Electoral databases have the potential to improve the level of communication between elected representatives and their constituents. There are, however, a number of ethical problems associated with their use. While the usefulness of the databases to the major political parties is undeniable, their use underlines the trend in modern campaigning towards targeting swinging voters at the expense of the majority of the electorate. Considerable public resources are devoted to the smooth operation of the databases. They would be much less effective were political parties not exempted from the Privacy Act. The use of personal information collected by members of parliament by political parties should be more closely regulated. Despite the wishes of the major political parties to keep their operation a secret, the advantages and disadvantages of the use of electoral databases should be more widely debated.

Pre-Parliamentary Backgrounds of Australian Major Party MPs: Effects on Representation

Legislative recruitment patterns are an important study in the field of political science, given their consequences for the practice of parliamentary government. The Australian parliament is a bicameral legislature, including a powerful elected upper chamber. This article details the pre-parliamentary party backgrounds of Australias two major parties, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal/National Party coalition (LNP) in the 39th Australian Parliament (1998–2001). It is hypothesised that the pre-parliamentary backgrounds of Upper House major party MPs are dominated by central party experience, while the party experience of Lower House MPs is more significantly localised. It is further hypothesised that these differences in pre-parliamentary backgrounds will remain constant when the respective parties are evaluated individually. This appears something of a paradox given that one would expect central party activists to prefer a legislative career in the lower house, affording them greater ministerial opportunities. The causes of such deviations from expected background distributions amongst legislators is explored. Contrary to traditional findings, upper house MPs are highly partisan, performing functionary roles to assist their lower house colleagues secure re-election. Strong senator partisanship is reflected in the non-parliamentary practice of major party senators. Such partisanship is a consequence of party selection methods, the electoral system and pre-parliamentary party backgrounds, not necessarily the uniquely powerful Australian Senate. It is therefore significant in the Australian polity and may have consequences for less powerful and/or unelected upper chambers in other bicameral parliaments.

On Message or Out of Touch? Secure Web Sites and Political Campaigning in Australia

This article examines the extent to which Australian parties are adapting new information and communication technologies (ICTs) for electoral advantage, with particular reference to the Intranets or ‘secure web sites’ being operated by the major parties. Although all parties now routinely provide public web sites to communicate with voters, their use of Intranet sites is a less well-publicised but increasingly important area of activity. These resources serve as a significant conduit of communication between the central and local arms of party organisations, helping to ensure that candidates remain organised and ‘on message’. Based on the specific case of the Liberal Party, we explore the wider implications of Intranets for the centralisation and professionalisation of political campaigning in Australia. We also assess the advantages such developments bestow on the major parties, and the prospect this raises for the ‘cartelisation’ of the Australian party system.This article examines the extent to which Australian parties are adapting new information and communication technologies (ICTs) for electoral advantage, with particular reference to the Intranets or ‘secure web sites’ being operated by the major parties. Although all parties now routinely provide public web sites to communicate with voters, their use of Intranet sites is a less well-publicised but increasingly important area of activity. These resources serve as a significant conduit of communication between the central and local arms of party organisations, helping to ensure that candidates remain organised and ‘on message’. Based on the specific case of the Liberal Party, we explore the wider implications of Intranets for the centralisation and professionalisation of political campaigning in Australia. We also assess the advantages such developments bestow on the major parties, and the prospect this raises for the ‘cartelisation’ of the Australian party system.

Shock troops: The emerging role of Senators in House of Representatives campaigns

Since the 1949 introduction of proportional representation for the Senate there have only been two elections (1983 and 84) at which the ALP has gained more Senators in the chamber than the Coalition. The Coalition has held more seats than the ALP since 1987. The decline in Senate fortunes for the Labor Party has occurred despite (or, perhaps, because of) consecutive ALP Governments from 1972–75 and, more conspicuously, 1983–96. The professionalisation of politics through the 1980s and 1990s has dramatically changed the role major parties expect of their Senate teams. The Coalition and Labor Parties each use their Senators and Senatorial office resources as ‘shock troops’ in marginal seats, as well as points of constituency contact for electors in marginal seats or seats held by the opposition. Given that major party Senators are increasingly being used by the party machines as campaign tools, and are increasingly locating their offices and staffers in marginal seats, the numerical advantage the Coalition enjoys in the Senate is worthy of consideration. The additional campaign resources that Senators provide translates potentially into an electoral advantage in the House of Representatives for the Coalition. The Coalitions majority in the Senate may therefore be of as much interest outside the chamber as it is within it.

The Western Australian Election of 26 February 2005: A Canal too far for the coalition

On Sunday, 23 January 2005 the Premier of Western Australia, Dr Geoff Gallop, visited the state’s governor and shortly thereafter announced a state election for February 26. In 2001 Dr Gallop and his Labor opposition defeated Richard Court’s Coalition government, increasing their share of the state’s 57 member Legislative Assembly from 18 to 32. The Coalition’s primary vote collapsed in 2001, dropping by 11.2%, leaving it holding 21 seats (16 Liberal Party and 5 National Party). Independents and minor parties won the remaining four Legislative Assembly seats. Labor won government on the back of Green and One Nation preferences with only 37.2% of the primary vote. In the Legislative Council the Labor Party and Coalition each won 13 of the 34 seats. The Greens won five seats with One Nation winning the remaining three seats (Black and Phillips 2001). At the outset of the 2005 campaign all the major polls (Newspoll, Westpoll and Morgan) put the Coalition in front on both first preference and two-party-preferred figures. Western Australian political analyst, Professor David Black, gave Labor only a two in ten chance of being re-elected (Australian Financial Review 14 January 2005). The Labor government had made a number of unpopular decisions in its first term, including raising taxes in its first three budgets (going back on an election promise not to increase taxes). Additionally, the state suffered from widespread power cuts at the start of 2004, putting significant pressure on Western Power and the state’s energy minister. Following its 2001 defeat, the Liberal Party elected Colin Barnett, Richard Court’s party deputy in government, as party leader in opposition. Mr Barnett’s preferred premier ratings remained low during 2001 to 2005, and media speculation as to whether he would be challenged for the party leadership marred much of his tenure. The state election was held concurrently with two referenda on shopping hours. The questions asked if voters were in favour of extending weeknight shopping (until 9pm Monday through to Friday), and whether retail shops should be allowed Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, No. 3, September, pp. 453–459

Strengths and Weaknesses in Explorations of Howard's Decade

Nick Cater (ed.), The Howard Factor: A Decade that Transformed the Nation (Carlton North, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 2006), 349 pp.,

The Democratic State as a Marketing Tool: The Permanent Campaign in Australia

29.95, ISBN 052285284X George Megalogenis, The Longe...