tion, Dr. Hewson lumbered himself withrnthe promise of just such a tax, and wasrntrounced by incumbent Paul Keating.rnTo Kim Beazley, who has led the LaborrnParty since Mr. Keating’s landslide defeatrnin March 1996, the Howard-Costellornfixation upon conjuring up extra taxesrnwas a godsend. Not that Mr. Beazley’srnteam had a conspicuous alternative onrndisplay; but then the Vision Thing’s absencernneither disturbed Mr. Beazley norrnantagonized his supporters, most ofrnwhom have understandably reckonedrnsince Labor’s 1996 debacle that the VisionrnThing was what finished Mr. Keatingrnoff. Mr. Beazley owes his very existencernas opposition leader to the fact thatrnmore ideologicallv driven candidates lostrntheir parliamentary seats in 1996, orrnelse —in the case of former Foreign MinisterrnGareth Evans—remained strandedrnin the Senate. (Though no legislation existsrnto prevent a senator from leading thernLiberal or Labor Parhes, convenfion hasrnforbidden it. The last senator to lead eitherrnparty was the Liberals’ Sir John Gorton,rnwho attained the prime ministry inrn1968.) By the fime Mr. Evans quit thernSenate and bustled into the House ofrnRepresentatives, he was in no position tornchallenge Mr. Beazley no matter howrnmuch he might have wanted to. Givenrnthe apparent Howard-Gostello deathrnwish, and the absence of a serious challengernfrom within his own party’s ranks,rnall VIr. Beazley needed to do was to dorn”nothing in particular,” and he “did itrnvery well.”rnUltimately, even doing nothing didrnnot quite suffice to propel his globosernframe over the finish line first. On everyrnissue except tax reform, the HowardrnGabinet was already carrying out whateverrnLabor wanted, and more. A visitor tornAustralia, if forced to endure governmentrnspokesmen’s utterances, wouldrnconclude that Labor still ruled. Therncriminalization of gun-owners is enthusiasticallyrndefended; the babbling aboutrnthe twin glories of multiculturalism andrnmass immigration continues; a renewedrnhigh-sounding, $185-million War onrnDrugs is waged, whatever cognitive dissonancesrnoccur between this policy andrnan unlimited intake of Asians; the endlessrnprovision—and, where necessary, judicialrninvention —of aboriginal “landrnrights” is still upheld, with not thernfaintest understanding that the aboriginalrnproblem is primarily a medical ratherrnthan a legal or real-estate matter, and thatrnany “aboriginal policy” which refuses tornconcentrate upon weaning aboriginesrnfrom alcohol is a cruel hoax. Moreover,rnLabor and the Liberals had made anrnelectoral pact by which every One Nationrncandidate would be placed last onrneach party’s voting ticket. In this, theyrnbenefited from aid by the left-wing AustralianrnDemocrats, represented in thernSenate ever since its foundation in 1977rnupon a policy platform that included,rnamong other novel delights, legalizingrnbestialit)’. In October 1997, the Democratsrnhad suffered a humiliating blow inrnthe defection of their charismatic ifrnmeretricious leader, Cheryl Kernot, tornLabor. Nevertheless, under Mrs. Kernot’srnsuccessor, Meg Lees, they overcamernthis tribulation, especially afterrnMrs. Lees distracted her party’s attentionrnfrom tax issues (on which it was divided)rnto emphasizing Mrs. Hanson’s boundlessrnSatanism (on which it was entirelyrnunited).rnWith Laborites, Liberals, the Democrats,rnand a new ethnic lobby calledrn”Unity: Say No To Hanson” havingrnformed an anti-One-Nation PopularrnFront, with only a handful of Nationalsrnopposing this front (and with even thosernNationals acting primarily throughrnfear of a pro-Hanson rural backlash), thernfederal election could never be thernpushover for One Nation that thernQueensland poll had been. Particularrnattention fell upon Mrs. Hanson’s ownrnQueensland electorate of Blair, less demographicallyrnsympathetic to her appealrnthan was her original seat of Oxley. Herrndoor-knocking campaigns proved a disappointment,rnadding to the problemsrnshe had already incurred from the dismissalrnof her confidante, Barbara Hazelton,rnin June. Mrs. Hazelton had spectacularlyrnfallen out with Mrs. Hanson’srnfriend, and alleged Svengali, David Oldfield,rnwho had helped restructure OnernNation to ensure unchallenged rule ofrnthe party bv a triuinvirate consisting ofrnMr. Oldfield, Mrs. Hanson, and Brisbanernbusinessman David Ettridge. Thisrnled to protests by the party’s rank-and-filernagainst so “undemocratic” an arrangement,rnthough it was uncertain how OnernNation could prosper as merely onernmore social club for believers in the Protocolsrnof the Elders ofZion, self-declaredrnUFO kidnap victims, conspiracy theoristsrnaflame with news of the Pope invadingrnSydney Harbor in a submarine, andrnother such heterodox scholars alreadyrnover-represented in One Nation’s membership.rnSo when the election results beganrntrickling in on the evening of October 3,rncertain factors were predictable, even ifrnMr. Howard’s own success was not. Mrs.rnHanson did badly in Blair, and withinrndays, she had conceded defeat. Less predictably,rnMr. Oldfield’s bid for a Senaternposition had been thwarted by preferencesrnfrom the Democrats as well asrnfrom the three biggest parties. (Parties’rnofficial preference decisions play, if anything,rna stronger part in the Senate’srncomposition than in that of the House ofrnRepresentatives. Only six percent of thernAustralian electorate bothers, when fillingrnout a Senate ballot form, to indicaternpreferences at all. The other 94 percentrnmerely mark one box to indicate one part}’.)rnHeather Hill, the One Nation candidaternwhose failure to gain a state seat hadrnbeen among the Queensland election’srnsurprises, succeeded in entering the Senate;rnbut after the party’s long-standingrndreams of obtaining enough Senaternstrength to block or geld whatever proimmigration,rnpro-multiculturalism, andrnpro-U.N. bills the House of Representativesrnserved up, it was a singularly discouragingrnperformance.rnWhile Labor won more than half ofrnthe popular vote, it wasted most of its ballot-rnbox success by scoring big swings inrnseats which it already controlled, ratherrnthan by prizing away marginal seatsrnwhich it needed to acquire. This disparity^rnenabled Mr. Howard to astonish himselfrnand almost evervone else by clingingrnto office, with a majority that at firstrnwas predicted to be only five seats, butrnlater emerged as 12. Labor offset its gainsrnin Western Australia (Mr. Beazley’srnhome state), Tasmania, Queensland,rnand South Australia by its failure to makerna significant impact in Victoria and, inrnparticular. New South Wales. GarethrnEvans, himself from Victoria, greetedrnthis loss with the announcement that,rnrather than endure another period inrnopposition, he would leave Parliamentrnand, as he elegantly put it, “get a life.”rnOnly the public outcry at the $2.4 millionrnretirement package to which Mr.rnEvans would thereby entitle himself,rnhowever much he earned subsequentiyrnin the private sector, made him relent.rnMeanwhile, amid Mr. Howard’s euphoriarn—he now hyperventilates aboutrnhaving been supplied with a “mandate”rnfor his tax reform, much as a death-rowrninmate handed the governor’s pardonrnmight suppose himself immortal —andrnMr. Beazley’s appropriate confidence ofrnFEBRUARY 1999/35rnrnrn