Profiles of Minor Parties and Their Positions Within the Australian Political Landscapes of ‘Racism’, 1999 and 2003 New South Wales State Elections 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stephen Smith, UNSW, New South Wales ([email protected]) Chasing the ‘race’ and ‘ethnic’ votes: Profiles of minor parties and their positions within the Australian political landscapes of ‘racism’, 1999 and 2003 New South Wales State Elections 1 Introduction The candidate standings, political agenda and voter support base of a political party provide indications of the geography of their voter support, and where the messages from their political agenda resonate strongest among the body politic. My research focuses on the candidate standings and the voter support bases of Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI), One Nation (ONP) and Unity (UNI) in Greater Sydney at the 1999 and 2003 NSW State elections. The Greater Sydney region consists of fifty-six of the NSW Legislative Assembly’s ninety-three electorates. These electorates are located in the Central Coast, Sydney Metropolitan and Blue Mountains regions. The total numbers of registered voters in these electorates totalled over 2.5 million people. I have also examined the ‘political agendas’ on immigration and multiculturalism presented by the three parties, made comparisons with international parties, and looked at how the conditionality of the political landscape impact upon the activities and success of minor parties. Literature on Australian minor parties can best be described as fairly limited. Discussion of AAFI (see Economou, 1999 and Newman, 1995) and UNI (see Healy, 1999 and 2001 and Money, 1999) has been especially scarce. There has been more prominent coverage given to the ONP (for example see Goot, 1998; Goot and Watson, 2001; Johnson, 1998 and 2000 and Maddox, 2000). There has been greater coverage given to minor parties in the international context, especially on far right-wing minor parties in Western Europe. Examples of these political parties include the British National Party (BNP) and National Front (NF) in Britain (see Eatwell, 1998 and Kushner, 1994), Front National (FN) in France (see Ivaldi, 1996 and Mayer, 1998), Republikaner (REP) in Germany (see Bergmann, 1994 and Winkler and Schumann, 1998) and Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) in Austria (see Mudde, 1999 and Pedahzur and Brichta, 2002). There is also general theoretical discussion of supporter bases of minor political parties and reasons for their emergence from within the body politic (see Betz, 1998; Immerfall, 1998; Kitschelt, 1995 and Saggar, 2000) and the challenges these parties face in remaining viable participants in various electoral systems (see Gerring, 2005). This literature has enabled a comparative context and greater depth for discussion of Australian minor parties. Method There were two methods that were used in this research. First, an analysis of candidate standings was undertaken to examine the perceptions of the geography of voter support bases for each party. A comparison of the number of candidates that AAFI, the ONP and UNI fielded at the 1999 and 2003 NSW State elections in Greater Sydney electorates are outlined in Figure 1. Second, voter support bases were analysed using socio-economic and demographic variables from the 2001 Census compiled by D’Arney (2003). These variables included non-Anglo population presence, age, educational qualifications and economic disadvantage indicators such as unemployment rate and presence of low-income earning families. Analysis conducted using these variables enabled identification of the key Smith – Chasing the ‘Race’ and ‘Ethnic’ Votes 2 characteristics of the voter support bases for each of AAFI, the ONP and UNI in Greater Sydney. Political party profiles Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) was formed in 1989 with an ethos of advocating an end to net immigration as a source of population growth (Newman, 1995:46- 47). AAFI has suggested that Australia should reduce its immigration intake to 20,000- 30,000 persons per year (zero-net). This argument is reflected in the party expressions of concern about illegal immigrants and desire to present this issue on the political agenda: Illegal immigrants, their tactics to force their way here, their loyalty to Australia in the light of war on terrorism, ethnic based assaults in south-west Sydney and drug dealing in Cabramatta are all of a sudden presented to the voter as he [sic] casts his [sic] vote. (AAFI cited in NSW SEO, 2003a:1) Furthermore, the party has argued that ‘[t]he people have never been consulted on, or given their consent to, the interwoven policies of immigration and multiculturalism’ (AAFI cited in NSW SEO, 2003a:1). AAFI have accused both major parties of attempting to avoid discussion of immigration and multiculturalism issues ‘for fear of alienating any ethnic group which they so often cringe to secure extra votes at an election’ (AAFI cited in NSW SEO, 2003a:1). Clearly, AAFI are a political party that has used an anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism platform to appeal to voters for support, and to critique the stance of the major political parties on these issues. The One Nation Party (ONP) is another example of a political party that has presented an anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism platform to voters. Initially formed in 1997 by Pauline Hanson2, Johnson (2000:44-45) indicated that the party has drawn upon electoral resentments and articulating the fears and concerns felt by many Australians to develop its political platform. The ONP has argued that ‘[t]he cultural, ethnic and racial makeup of Australia must not be radically altered through immigration without the express consent of the Australian people through referenda’ (ONP cited in NSW SEO, 2003b:1). This statement was directed at voters who support the pro-assimilationist stance of the party and feel alienated by government policies on immigration-related issues. The ONP has also argued that government activities should focus on the assimilation of immigrants, multiculturalism should be abolished along with associated funding, and that individuals and groups wanting to maintain their cultural heritage should do so using their own resources. The equation that best describes the policy approach adopted by the ONP to attract voter support is that high immigration levels plus multicultural policies have equalled the collapse of social cohesion in Australia. This equation reflects a key grievance that is felt by a section of predominantly Anglo-Celtic voters whom the ONP has targeted to attract electoral support (Johnson, 1998:216). The Unity Party (UNI) has been included in this research as an example of a minor party that is both politically and ideologically different from both AAFI and the ONP. UNI was formed in 1998 to mobilise voter support for multiculturalism. Healy (1999:51 and 54) and Money (1999:14) indicated that the party has developed a unique pro-immigration and pro- multiculturalism agenda to appeal within the body politic. This has been reflected in UNI’s description of Australia as a ‘modern multicultural society, diverse and essentially Smith – Chasing the ‘Race’ and ‘Ethnic’ Votes 3 harmonious’ (UNI cited in NSW SEO, 2003c:1). UNI has called for Australian society to be a society ‘where the rights of all our communities are valued’ (UNI cited in NSW SEO, 2003c:1). UNI has also called upon Australians ‘to work towards creating a society that is harmonious, culturally rich and cohesive in its diversity’ (UNI cited in NSW SEO, 2003c:1). This viewpoint has been reflected in UNI’s immigration policy through calling for a fair and balanced immigration program that enriches Australian society, culture and economy (UNI, 2002). UNI has supported and promoted a platform that embraces immigration and multiculturalism as beneficial to Australian society and rejects racism through aiming to improve community relations. Candidate Standings Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) AAFI’s candidate standings remained relatively constant between the two elections in terms of its geographical spread. AAFI did not contest inner city and some middle-ring suburban electorates. However, the party fielded more candidates at the 1999 election than the 2003 election in Greater Sydney. At the 1999 election, AAFI fielded fifty-two candidates whilst at the 2003 election, AAFI fielded thirty-four candidates in Greater Sydney - a decrease of eighteen (refer Figure 1). Economou (1999:245) suggested that AAFI candidacy has often been sporadic at general elections. The 1999 and 2003 NSW State elections are two examples of general elections that would affirm Economou’s description. AAFI has increasingly focussed its efforts on building a ‘core’ electoral support base located in outer suburban electorates. These electorates are the section of the body politic where voters are most likely to support the party’s pro-assimilationist position. However, the ability of AAFI to sustain a widespread geographical presence of candidates has been hampered through sporadic candidate numbers and limited available resources for election campaigning. This has consequently impacted on the ability of the party to attract voter attention during an election campaign. One Nation (ONP) Similar to AAFI, the ONP had more candidates contest the 1999 election than at the 2003 election. At the 1999 election, the ONP fielded fifty-five candidates, and the party had the largest geographical presence of candidates in Greater Sydney. At the 2003 election, the ONP fielded only twenty-five candidates - a decrease of thirty (refer Figure 1). The geographical spread of candidates contracted significantly with the