The Gore Election

Al Gore may have seemed something of a historical curiosity to most Australians when he was in power. As Vice-President, he did not seem particularly remarkable beside the charismatic Clinton. He achieved minor notoriety for allegedly claiming to have 'invented the internet'. At that stage, it seemed far fetched he may play a defining role in an Australian election.

The first stanza of Gore's influence is now fairly well-known. Gore's Oscar/Noble Prize winning An Inconvenient Truth, not so much polemic as persuasive pleading, crystallised the mist of concern Australians have long felt on climate change. Suddenly the issue became mainstream and Howard's economic colossus was left stuck with feet of clay. There is a major revolt on from true liberal voters, so much so that Howard is launching all manner of warnings of the 'red-green menace'. Undoubtedly, Gore played a key role in turning climate change into a mainstream issue.

What has previously not been apparent is the relevance of the flipslide of Gore's career. The reason Gore got the time to pursue climate change is because he lost the 2000 election to Bush in highly controversial circumstances. The Florida outcome came about because of the closeness of the election.

If one reviews the polls here, at first glance it looks like a rout. Look closely and Labor's vote is staggered, ever so neatly to give it enough seats to construct a decent majority. Seats like Bennelong (margin 4.5%), Robertson (6.9%) and Leichhardt (11.1%) could all conceivably fall to Labor by about one percent. The closeness of these contests creates a question of legitimacy, and if legal grounds can be found to challenge that election, Liberals playing from the Republican playbook are sure to find them. In the regard, the conservatives best friend is section 44 of the Constitution.

Under section 44(iv) no person occupying 'an office of profit under the Crown' can nominate for election. The key time is the time of nomination. The only problem is precisely what that means.

We have already seen this with the furore over George Newhouse's slipshod nomination in Wentworth. According to the Herald Sun, 13 other Labor candidates may be ineligible. This begs two questions: firstly, assuming it is correct, why are so many candidates so bad at crucial paperwork and secondly is the Liberal party planning to go quietly into the night or quietly into the Court of Disputed Returns. I find it highly unlikely that these Labor candidates did not resign from their positions or that they held them without seeking legal advice on the nomination requirements.

It beggars belief that so many candidates, at least seven of whom are in very tightly contested seats, could have made invalid nominations. The Parliamentary Library has expressed concern that using these provisions in an 'unduly technical manner' leads to costly by-elections which only return the original winner.

Either this does not bode well for the propriety of Labor MPs or it does not suggest the Liberal party will be overly keen to accept the umpire's verdict.

Either way, Al Gore and the two heads of his political career may have a big bearing on the outcome of the election.