Lessons to be learned

Australia has just gone through a general election and once again the Liberal/National party coalition has been returned to power. John Howard is to be the Prime Minister for the fourth consecutive term, making him the longest serving Premiere since Sir Robert Menzies half a century ago.

It is not that Labour is not used to failure at elections but this time it was supposed to be different. Mark Latham, the Opposition Leader, has offered a cornucopia of promises to the electorate, made possible thanks to the economic boom that Australia is currently going through, resulting in overflowing coffers. In spite of his personal charisma, and despite the promise of billions of dollars to be poured into the school system, and giving those over 75 years of age free hospital treatment in private hospitals, voters remained unimpressed and unwooed. In fact, the swing of about two per cent went against him and his party.

It would appear that one major factor influencing the election was whether one was to put one's trust on the current veteran economic manager or on the untested younger challenger. Why change horses in midstream when the economy is doing so well? The average person is mainly interested in what is left in the monthly pay packet, irrespective of how precisely it got there. It is well known that the country's economy is more dependent on factors well outside the power of politicians to control. It is a cliché to remark that, in general, politicians spend money rather than generate it.

Another factor was fear: fear of increased interest rates, fear of increased private school fees, where a considerable number of voters, including Labour voters, send their children.

It is also interesting to note that global issues, including the war in Iraq where Mr Howard is seen as tamely obeying his master's voice in Washington, had very little impact on the election. Likewise, issues relating to globalisation, including the much debated pharmaceutical agreements with the US, had no effect whatsoever on the swinging voter.

It is of some interest also to comment on the election process itself. Compared with Malta, in Australia voting is compulsory. Voters turn up at the polling booth closest to their place of residence, state their name which is checked and then are given the voting papers. No special identity cards are required, delivered to the doors by policemen who would be far better employed catching criminals.

The 13 million voters scattered throughout this enormous continent have eight hours to cast their vote. At the polling stations one can see a long queue of voters moving fairly briskly into the voting rooms where one finds half a dozen tables each manned by a single person handing out voting papers.

In Malta of course, where paranoia reigns supreme, one table will be flanked by five or six officials ensuring that no irregularities take place. Within three hours of closing of voting, when in Malta television viewers would be regaled with pictures of the first box arriving at the counting rooms, the opposition was already conceding defeat! Absentee voting might still be trickling through, but obviously have no effect on the final result. In Malta, of course, we prefer to spend a not inconsiderable amount of taxpayer's money bringing expatriates back to Malta to cast their vote.

While systems between the two countries are not strictly comparable, one would hope for an improved efficiency which would depend on a higher degree of trust between the parties and a lessening of the paranoia that seems to rule the Maltese mentality at election time.