Games powerful independents play

An illustration by Jon Kudelka.

IF you needed a reminder that the nation had been held hostage by a couple of power-hungry independents it arrived yesterday afternoon. For 17 days we waited for the independents to decide. And we waited. And waited.

They talked about national interest. They talked about rural Australia. They talked about stability in government.

Yesterday, after Bob Katter sided with the Coalition, Tony Windsor said they had made up their minds at 1.30am yesterday morning. But still we waited until 3pm to learn the identity of the government.

Windsor was mercifully brief. Fellow independent Rob Oakeshott was insufferably and embarrassingly long-winded, enjoying the moment far too much. After the two independents sided with the Gillard Labor government, Windsor came clean about why.

The member for New England admitted he sided with Labor because a Gillard government was less likely to go back to the polls.

When he was asked why Tony Abbott and the Coalition were likelier to go to the polls, he said: "Because I think they'd be more likely to win."

Get it? Windsor admitted he sided with the party that had less support from Australian voters. It's a novel theory of democracy, almost as brazen as Stalin's theory that it's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes.

Politics does not get more elitist than what happened yesterday. The independents use fine rhetoric of grassroots politics, respecting their constituents, supporting their electorates, improving our democracy.

Windsor and Oakeshott revealed that independents play raw politics just as toxic as either of the political parties that independents like to scorn. Their game has been one of self-interest clothed in the tricky language of stability and longevity.

Backing the party less popular with voters does not improve democracy. It diminishes and devalues democracy.

Yesterday, the member for Lyne dismissed the games that both sides of politics played in trying to woo the independents. "We've seen most of the tricks before, we know the game the day before it's going to happen," Oakeshott said.

Their holier than thou positioning is a pretence. Oakeshott and Windsor have been playing some pranks of their own.

There was always a sneaking suspicion that Windsor and Oakeshott were enjoying their moment in the sun far too much.

The transformation from irrelevant backbenchers to media tarts playing kingmakers was too quick.

Now we know that their singular focus on stability has been a singular focus on making sure they remain in the spotlight for as long as possible.

As revealed on this page yesterday, when previously their votes in parliament didn't matter, the independents floated in and out of the house. Oakeshott voted in only one-third of divisions and Windsor voted only half the time.

Now their votes matter. And, according to Windsor, he won't allow voters to take that new-found fame and power away from him any time soon. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the independents' patently undemocratic decision to side with the party least likely to win the next election.

Windsor and Oakeshott have consciously taken a position also at odds with the wishes of their own constituents.

As Newspoll revealed more than a week ago, most voters in Lyne and New England backed the formation of a Coalition government. As the election on August 21 revealed, only a fraction of voters in Lyne and New England sided with Labor in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Yet Windsor and Oakeshott told their constituents to take a hike. Apparently, those Australians who voted for them are not smart enough to be trusted. By siding with a Labor-Green alliance, apparently Windsor and Oakeshott know better.

The press conference made it clear that what they know has very little to do with national interest. What they know has a great deal to do with self-interest.

Although Oakeshott talked in sweeping terms about broadband, climate change and regional education, he knows one thing for certain: he will get a seat in executive government, a ministerial gift that an independent can only dream about.

He said that he reserved the right to vote against Labor in a vote of no confidence in exceptional circumstances such as "the obvious ones, maladministration, corruption, et cetera".

Perhaps the member for Lyne should consult a dictionary. Under maladministration he will find Labor's home insulation program, the schools building program, the green cars program and more.

Alas, Labor's flawed record of government mattered little. Stability, a one-word code for "I'm keeping my new power for as long as possible", has been the clincher all along.

Likewise, Windsor talked in grand terms about the national broadband network.

"You do it once, you do it right and you do it with fibre," he said.

Perhaps Windsor should check whether Australian taxpayers will end up wearing the cost of this $43 billion policy and whether Labor can be trusted to deliver real reform in an industry as fast-moving as the provision of internet services.

Of course, what mattered most to Windsor was what he told us: he believed he would get more time in government with Labor, a party less likely to go to an early election because it was less likely to win the next election.

Voters must surely be thinking one thing: bring on that next election. On that score, Tony Abbott should be clear that the election campaign has begun.

The last election was a sham, thanks to the independents. Windsor and Oakeshott now own the Gillard-Green government. They will be held accountable for their undemocratic decision today and the decisions made by Gillard and the Greens in the future.

There's no hiding now for the men dubbed by London's Daily Telegraph as the "haystack amigos".

They may end up missing the grey mist of anonymity.