The Australian Democrats took it on the chin badly in the last election, and for the first time since 1967 an Australian Federal government will have a majority in the Senate as well as the House. I am a fan of strong third parties that hold the balance of power and stop truly repugnant legislation getting through the upper house. So what do I think the Australian democrats should do?

A Party of Review

I like the bicameral structure of government with the upper house having the designated role as a house of review and providing a democratic watchdog on excess from the Executive Council, Executive Cabinet and House of Representatives. Until Don Chip founded the Australian Democrats the federal Senate represented a rubber stamp for the party in government, or obstruction if the Senate had a majority of the opposite party.

Since 1977, the Australian Democrats have had a presence in the Senate, and after the 1980 election the Democrats achieved sufficient numbers to hold the balance of power. This party level innovation led to the Senate being a genuine house of review. In July this year the Liberal Party will take over as the majority in the Senate. The first time in twenty-four years a major party has held that power.

The Australian Democrats tried to expand their representation to the House of Representatives in the 1990 under Janine Haines. Judging by the electoral results - with gains in the Senate, but not in the House - the Australian voters preferred the Australian Democrats as a party of review in the upper houses around the country. The 2004 elections were not kind to the Australian Democrats. None of the Australian Democrat Senators were returned to the upper house.

So what should the Australian Democrats do in 2005?

Disclaimer

I am a perpetual third party voter, and the Australian Democrats have been beneficiaries of this several times. I believe that the major parties get too much encouragement as it is, so I have often voted in contrariness - or for the purposes of there being a strong and well represented third-party at the federal and state levels.

The Evil In The Federal Government

The current evil in the federal system is statism and anti-federalism. All parties at the federal level practice both these forms of politics. All the major parties seek the dissolution of the States as political entities. All the parties at the federal level are statist and use the monopoly on coercion a government has to interfere in individuals lives through legislation. Evil is a strong word, but the federal system is crying out for a party that is genuinely classic liberal.

The Australian Democrats are not right of centre, they are fighting for the left with Labor and the Greens. Labor is a bigger party, and the Greens are more extremist. The Australian Democrats are getting drowned out. For this reason, I believe they should return to their roots and become an economically liberal party that is socially progressive. I would also like to see a return to classic liberal principles, genuinely respecting federalism and dropping statist solutions.

As an example of the current statist policies of the Australian Democrats. The front page of the Australian Democrats has as its main issue;

Ban Smoking In Cars

Banning smoking in cars would cut down on bushfires, littering, car accidents and cancer, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Lyn Allison, said today. "Too many avoidable fires are started by butts discarded from cars," Senator Allison said. At least 4574 fires a year are caused by cigarettes and smoking materials.

I am a reformed smoker, and I can state quite simply that this is none of governments business. There is no way I would ever support or vote for this intrusion on peoples private space or their individual choices. Social change does not have to come through legislation and the monopoly on violence the government has.

An example of anti-federalism was contained in their policy previous to it being updated into the current pdf format . It involved the abolition of the states as political entities ;

(e) We strongly hold that the current three tiers of Government in Australia should be replaced by a more representative framework, where the States are replaced by Regional Governments and Local Councils are replaced by Community Councils that carry out the work of that regional framework

The federal government is the biggest problem in the current Australian political system. It needs its wings clipped first, so that the responsibilities the federal government has taken from the States are returned. One of the big ones is, the States right to tax. The GST is an anti-federalist piece of legislation. Governments are not supposed to tax for other governments.

Are the Democrats Screwed?

Not in my opinion. They may be a PR nightmare, but for the most part their policies remain the most reasonable and cogent for anyone interested in democracy first and factions second. The Australian Democrats' policies on accountability, democracy and political rights are very reasonable, and in my opinion necessary. For instance the Australian Democrats advocate for four and eight year fixed terms. I would rather that is three and six, but either way, fixed terms is very necessary and overdue.

In their Bill of Rights policy in which they want as Constitutional but recognize that Statutory is initially more achievable there is a small section on the addition of a Senate Committee;

Establish a Senate Rights and Freedoms Committee to scrutinise all legislation coming before the Senate. It will work closely with HREOC to ensure that the Senate is properly advised in its role as the final defender or freedom.

If I could deconstruct the current system I would have the Governor-General be the final defender of freedom . But in the current environment, it is the Senate that should take that role, however the Senate is overly subject to faction and party discipline. The Australian Government has been a static constitutional and statutory mess that has been subject to the whims of factional entrenchment. For this reason, I think that any innovation in the protection of political rights will have to come at the electoral or party level .

The Australian Democrats also advocate for a "Citizens Initiated Referenda". They recognize that the avenues available for an individual to influence the political process are limited and dominated by faction. Considering I have complete faith in the wisdom of the people and the statistical weight of popular opinion over-riding the minority interest of factions - I am fully in favour of this.

The Australian Democrats are in favour of Constitutional reform, with Republican doctrine as the basis. Their principles include an independent republic with an Australian Head of State. Recognition of the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders as original owners of the land. Inclusion of a bicameral federal parliament, and separation of powers.

It also includes the principle of recognising the necessity of protecting the natural land. I don't think this has anything to do with political rights and the process of government. This is a legislative or social issue, not a constitutional issue and probably why the Australian Democrats haven't reached wider acceptance with their increasingly left turn. The Greens represent this belief system better than the Australian Democrats do.

What would George Peponis do?

Simplify man, simplify! If the electorate wants a party of review give it to them. Reduce the non-essential policies that don't fit that meme to pop philosophies. On the non-essential and non-core areas let the other major factions do the fighting in that area, with or without your support. For instance, no point being militantly environmental when there is a faction dedicated to it. The Greens will undoubtedly lead that debate , and only require support if they are right or the Australian Democratic caucus supports it.

Another example is you can be for Free Trade, but with the caveat that there be no extra burden on Australian business with it, nor any disadvantage to Australian workers. Let the Liberal Party do the heavy lifting in the former and the Labor Party the latter. Both factions are supposedly dedicated to those policies - and if they aren't call them out on it - let popular opinion bend them that way.

For instance for the major policy groupings on the Australian Democrats policy page ;

• Accountability - No change. This section is fitting with the Australian Democrats being a "Party of Review" and "Keeping the Bastards Honest".
• Agriculture - Dump it. Follow the caucus on this, issue by issue. No need to announce or have it as a static policy. The Greens or Nationals will probably be all over this issue first.
• Attorney-General and Justice - Dump the parts "Domestic Human Rights" and "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Rights". Roll these both into a simple policy of non-discrimination against any minority. This can come under the political rights section. Rename this section "Justice".
• Children and Youth - Dump it. Follow the caucus on this from issue to issue. Have immigration included in a wider "political rights" section. The "Child Protection" system should be a state's rights issue.
• Communication - Simplify it to one paragraph. For instance; "The Australian Democrats are committed to supporting the quality and impartial broadcasting from the ABC and SBS. In telecommunications we support the market and private industry except in markets that become anti-competitive monopolies or where the lack of private industry penetration threatens the quality of life of Australians." This is a reasonable policy, but wide enough to allow wiggle room to keep or kill Telstra. The caucus can provide the feedback on that. I would split Telstra into two, one services and one infrastructure. I would also open up more of the spectrum for unlicensed public usage. Would enable innovation while cutting the advantage of rents from a monopoly.
• Defence - Simplify it to one paragraph. For instance; "The Australian Democrats are committed to the defence of Australia from outside coercion and interference. We will ensure the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is suitably funded to achieve that objective. We recognize the value of multi-national forces in securing peace and security. We do not support the use of the ADF in pre-emptive force on another nation-state unless the intelligence and case for war is irrefutable." Again this is a cogent and reasonable declaration of the right to defence, but without the violence of pre-emption. There is no need to have a PDF devoted to the War in Iraq as that paragraph makes it plainly obvious where the Australian Democrats stand.
• Disability - Ditch it. Follow the caucus on this, issue to issue.
• Education - I would bundle this into one PDF. It is a significant policy issue that it requires more than a paragraph. I would state general principles that the party recognizes that the most significant vector for social mobility is education. I would simplify the primary, secondary and tertiary education policies into, "Universal access to public higher and tertiary education". It must come with the recognition that the public schools welcome competition from the private sector, but that a wealthy and egalitarian society must make the distinction that there is a level of education that no person should be denied based on their ability to pay.
• Employment - Dump it. Support the major parties if they have rational and empirical policies on employment and in particular youth unemployment. If the policy works, claim it was your idea all along. If it fails blame Liberal and Labor for their inability to see beyond the faction system. I don't think the Australian Democrats policy position on this issue should be beyond seeking full employment for all Australians.
• Electoral Matters and Public Administration - Dumb title. Rename it "Democracy". Change the title of "Voting Rights of Prisoners" to "Voting Rights" and use it to bundle in any political and voting rights that are needed. Also add the policies from "Prime Minister and Cabinet" policy section. This one should be overloaded with policy as it is the Australian Democrats supposed speciality. Add another policy called "political rights" and bundle in all manner of anti-discriminatory policies. Also add a section "Independence of the Civil Service".
• Foreign Affairs - Condense it into one paragraph. Change the heading to "Foreign Policy". Something like; "The Australian Democrats recognize cultural and trade osmosis is the best means to ensure peace, prosperity and stability between nation-states." I would also add that the Australian Democrats will pursue an independent foreign policy that places Australian interests first and is subordinate to no other nation's interests.
• Health and Aging - Change the heading to "Health". Summarize it in a paragraph, namely that a wealthy and egalitarian society should ensure that there is a level of access to health that no-one should be denied.
• Immigration - Part of this needs to be bundled under rights. The indefinite detaining of refugees is inhumane and tyrannous. Rights extend to all under the jurisdiction of the government, part of their reason of being inviolable for the individual - no matter their citizenship. If they are human, they have political rights. I think the Pacific Solution is an abomination, not to mention unnecessarily expensive. I recall doing the sums in 2003 for it coming up with $48,000 per refugee in PNG/Nauru. It is cheaper to give them a work visa and even if they all end up on the dole the Pacific Solution is more expensive. I will let my personal distaste for existing Liberal Party policy interfere here and say, slam the Liberal Governments record on immigration. IMO we should be aiming to have an Australian population of between forty and sixty million within the next forty years. That will give us economic parity with nations such as the UK, France and Germany.
• Indigenous Affairs - I would rename this "Reconciliation". I would condense this into a paragraph that starts with, "The Australian Democrats recognize the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the original custodians of the land ...". I would also bundle in the reality that no Australian Republic would be complete without recognizing reconciliation.
• Industry, Small Business and Tourism - I would make this one heading called "Trade". And then issue a few paragraphs on how the Australian Democrats support open markets and free trade as the best means to create wealth and prosperity at home and overseas. I would also add the caveat that no free trade agreement is complete without labour standards. Comparative advantage should be based on skillsets and cost of living, not protectionism and government subsidy. I would also add that the Australian Democrats recognize small and medium business as the labour engines of the nation and will ensure that small and medium business is unencumbered by onerous regulation such as taxes, unless absolutely necessary. The GST would be first to go IMNSHO. The States can raise their own taxes. I would also prod the Liberal Party to match their rhetoric in these areas. If it works steal the glory, if it fails blame the Liberal Party ineptness.
• Information Technology Portfolio - Scrap it. Politics moves much slower than technology, it is best to let technological innovation to occur without legislative interference.
• Prime Minister and Cabinet - This would be included in the "Democracy" section. As a core competency of the Australian Democrats as a party of review it should be the largest policy section. This is definitely the Australian Democrats strength in their existing policies as well. Best to leverage that knowledge and rationality.
• Public Service - Scrap that section. Does nothing to describe who the Australian Democrats are. Put any information on the independence of the Civil Service into the "Democracy" section.
• Taxation, Finance and Corporate Affairs - Change the title to "Taxation". Offer no substantial policies but summarise the Australian Democrats stance into a paragraph describing the party's commitment to a just and equitable tax system that does not burden taxpayers. As a party of review there is no need to have a formal tax policy as you can always bash the Liberal and Labor parties as tax ogres. John Howard is presiding over the most taxatious Australian Government ever. The Liberals have also allowed bracket creep. Easy political pickings.
• Regional Development & Services - Unnecessary for a party of review and confusing to include. Dump it. Let the caucus decide policy on this from issue to issue.
• Territories and Local Government - Dump it. Let the primary focus of the party being upper houses at the federal and state level. Let local government candidates set the agenda here through local caucuses and speeches. This should not be a national or state policy.
• Transport - Dump it. Until the Australian Democrats become an opposition party at the State level there is no point hanging this out there. Let individual members build speeches on this that can be policy from moment to moment. Without a formal policy, the Australian Democrats are able to bash incompetence at the state level, especially in NSW.
• Women - This is moved to be part of the "Political Rights" section.
• Work and Family - Dump it. Let Labor pursue this, and if they don't push them too. So they seem at the forefront of it. If it works claim all credit and say it was the Democrats idea and Labor would have done nothing unless pushed. If it fails, blame Labor ineptness.
• Workplace Relations - Dump it. This is supposedly a Labor Party core competency. If they don't, hold a hot rod to their feet, but since the Australian Democrats are a party of review as their primary focus, there is no need to make a formal policy on it.

The media and oppositions parties carry their own lens and spin, simplifying the message into a reasonable, yet repeatable phrase will carry more weight than a complex and comprehensive policy. The danger is the "Bush Conundrum" where you have a tightly disciplined campaign and then don't follow up on your rhetoric. Since the Australian Democrats are answerable to a caucus this might not be the same issue that it is with the American Republican Party.

In Summary

So the Australian Democrats message has been condensed into core competencies of;

• Accountability
• Justice
• Democracy
• Political Rights

And essential but shorter policies;

• Telecommunications
• Defence
• Education
• Foreign Policy
• Health
• Reconciliation
• Trade
• Taxation

This has condensed the Australian Democrats position into smaller more understandable language. What are the basic values of the Australian Democrats? Easy peasy - Accountability, Justice, Democracy and Political Rights.

So what should the Australian Democrats slogan be? "Keep the Bastards Honest" should never die. It should be re-used over and over. The meme of "The Party of Review" should also be firmly established. But what could be a wider slogan;

Ensuring freedom and liberty,
Defending and strengthening democracy,
Guaranteeing political rights and justice for all.

Nice rhetoric, but eminently achievable for the Australian Democrats and fitting with the popular perception of their party and its role in government. Until the Australian Democrats make headway in the lower houses, there is no need to cast themselves as anything other than a centre right party that is the party of review, the party of democracy and the party of political rights.

cam

South Australian politics was dominated by malapportionment until the courageous stand by Steele Hall, who partially amended the electoral boundaries through legislation despite it meaning certain defeat for his government and majority party in the South Australian Assembly. Dis-content with the overly conservative leaning of the Liberal and Country League (LCL), he split off into a separate Liberal faction in the Liberal Movement. Ironically this centre-right faction was absorbed into the Liberal Party at the same time as the Australian Democrats came into being. South Australia has been an important core of support for the Democrats since.

Malapportionment

In 1915, South Australia had malapportioned districts which was tempered by multiple member districts. This frayed the factional outcomes of the malapportionment. In 1932 a system was implemented with thirty-nine single member electorates. These were heavily weighted toward the rural areas. Andrew Parking writes;

thirty-nine single member electorates were instituted, with a guarantee that country seats would out-number city seats on a two-to-one ratio.

It comes as no surprise that after this there was static oscillation of changes in government. The LCL held control of the Executive Council in South Australia from 1933 through to 1965 with Thomas Playford holding the Premier position from 1938 until 1965. A total of twenty-seven years. There were several times that the Playford government was returned to power with a majority of seats, but with a minority of raw votes.

The Legislative Council in South Australia was just as entrenched with malapportionment, long terms and property qualifications which remained until the 1970s. Up until the 1960s descendants of members of the landed gentry from the 1800s were in the Council. It was the closest thing Australia had to a House of Lords.

The Council was weighted toward rural representation and contained an LCL majority for many years even when the Assembly had gone to Labor with a majority. In 1965 Labor won fifty-four percent of the preferred vote but only won four seats in the Legislative Council to the LCLs sixteen.

Raymond Steele Hall

Premier Steele Hall assumed minority government for the LCL in 1968 from the government of Don Dunstan. Hall increased the number in the Assembly to forty-seven and reduced some of the malapportionment inherent in the South Australian system through legislation. He did this knowing it was electoral suicide for his government.

The bill passed the Assembly with unanimous support. There was sufficient popular support that the aristocratic Legislative Council could not oppose or thwart it. Hall unsurprisingly lost the next election to Don Dunstan, who through on-going pressure managed to remove the malapportionment. This did not stop the Labor Government of John Bannon achieving a majority of seats but only forty percent of the first preferential vote.

South Australia today has an independent Electoral Commission which has a mandate by legislation and referendum to draw boundaries that ensure the party with the majority of votes has a majority of seats. The Commission trys to make as many marginal seats as possible which does not always lead to an equitable outcome but is a huge improvement of the malapportionment of 1932.

The malapportionment led to the entrenchment of minority rural interests over majority urban and suburban interests. With the static nature of the Legislative Council in South Australia and the LCLs control of it, this led to a friction between the factions inside the Liberal and Country League. In 1973, several Liberals jumped ship and ran for election as the Liberal Movement. Steele Hall was amongst them.

After the election the LCL renamed itself the Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division), with many of the Liberal Movement members joining the Liberal Party. The friction between the rural and urban members of the LCL remained for many years in the Liberal Party. Meanwhile in the South Australian Assembly the Liberal Movement remained with elected members.

The Australian Democrats

The Australian Democrats formed in 1977. Don Chip was a Liberal member of the House of Representatives when he was approached by members of the Australian Party and the New Liberal Movement. They sought a new party based on a popular caucus and party leadership responsive to the members of the party. The split in 1973 of the Liberal Movement from the LCL handed the Australian Democrats immediate successes. Andrew Parking writes;

... the residue of the Liberal Movement gave the [Australian Democrat] party 'a ready-made constituency in South Australia' which has remained at the core of the party's national strength ever since. The remaining Liberal Movement member (Robin Millhouse) in the House of Assembly relabelled himself a Democrat and was re-elected twice in that capacity.

Millhouse won re-election for the seat in 1977 and 1979, becoming the first Australian Democrat Member of Parliament. The Democrats held on to the seat in 1982 after Millhouse was appointed to the Supreme Court. Like the Metherill-Greiner affair in NSW, Millhouse being appointed to the Supreme Court was a blatant attempt by the Liberal Government of David Tonkin to return the seat to be a safe liberal one. Which it had been before the Liberal Movement split. The Liberals won the seat back from the Democrats in the following general election.

Given the woes of the Australia Democrats in the last election with their either concrete or perceived left-wards lean. It is probably a good time for the Australian Democrats to peer into their own history for their past popularity. The Democrats started their life as a centre faction strongly focused on the integrity of the democratic process. The party's appeal in South Australia in the 1980s is a good example of where the Australian Democrats need to return, not only for the health of their own party, but for the health of pluralist democracy in Australia.

cam

"Keeping The Bastards Honest", a book edited by John Warhurst on the Australian Democrats, has some interesting graphs which correlate party popularity with the popularity of the party leader. It points towards the Australian electorate voting on Presidential lines.

The book is a bit old, and only discusses the first twenty years of the Australian Democrats, effectively ending in 1996, so hasn't any data on the post-Kernot Democrats. The Democrats up to 1996 had several popular and high profile leaders, Don Chipp, Janine Haines and Cheryl Kernot. Clive Bean argues that his has been a considerable part of the electoral success of the Democrats.

The table above shows the party leaders, rated by voters on a scale of one to ten. It also shows the popularity of the Democrats side by side with the Democratic leadership, and the leaders of the two major parties. Clive Bean writes;

... for it is often how popular the leader is relative to the party's current popularity that is crucial in assessing whether a leader is an electoral asset or liability.

Chipp was more popular than both major party leaders - and the Democrat party, which translated into electoral success for the Democrats, however he was on the nose by the mid-80s. Hanes replaced him, but the electoral collapse in 1993 co-incided with the leadership of Janet Powell and John Coulter. Bean writes;

Calculations from other analyses [of the 1993 election results] suggest that the leadership factor probably accounted for at least 2 percent of the Democrats' fall of 7.5 percent in the House of Representatives election and possibly twice that.

So Bean is saying an unpopular leader can account for a 25% to 50% drop in party popularity and consequent electoral results. This places the Pittwater by-election in some perspective. John Brogden was the Liberal Party leader, and was ousted by internal divisions and disunity.

The Liberal Party went into the Pittwater by-election without any established leader, and with party disunity the mass-media story of the previous months. The Liberal Party suffered a 25% swing against them, leading to an Independent winning a safe Liberal seat with the primary vote.

The next graph shows the Democrats' leadership rating against their vote in the House of Representatives.

It appears that Australia has had a voting system where the electorate votes along Presidential style lines for quite a while. Major and minor parties are unduly reliant upon popular and stable leadership. While these graphs show the electoral vote going up and down with the popularity of the Democrats leaders, it doesn't explain why the leaders are popular.

The Australian Democrats are the most interesting Australian political party of modern times and are celebrating their thirtieth birthday. It is a good time to look at the resignation speech by Don Chipp [pdf] where he pondered in parliament whether there wasn't room for a 'third political force' in Australian politics.

He spends the first part of the speech defending himself against charges of rebellion and irrationalism. He lays his claim that his decision to resign from the Liberal Party was rational and deliberate; not an emotional one.

The next part of the speech outlines his grievances against the current governance of Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal Cabinet. Chipp had a pretty pure form of liberalism that was based heavily on deliberation. Under Chipp's liberalism polarisation for the 'sake of it' destroys the deliberative component of liberal democracy and causes inferior and often unjust outcomes.

Fraser's authoritarian and conservative style of governance also alienates Chipp's liberal principles. However Chipp sees no grace in the Labor Party who suffer from similar authoritarian leanings and incapability of governing well.

It is interesting to note that the current Australian Democratic party have been pretty faithful to Chipp's liberalism, especially in Senate parliamentary performance. The current crop of Democrat Senators are liberal, pluralist and deliberative in the Senate.

The policies that Chipp argues for in his resignation speech have also remained pretty consistent in the Australian Democrats history. Given that the Australian Democrats have a direct voting method from all their party members on policy, that is pretty significant.

Don Chipp's Resignation Speech, 1977.

I wish to announce to the House that I have resigned from the Liberal Party of Australia as from today. I believe I have conformed with the courtesies demanded of such a decision. I have informed you, sir, the Leader of my Party, the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, the Victorian State President of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Chairman of the Hotham Electoral committee of the Liberal Party. It naturally follows that I shall not be presenting myself as a candidate for the Liberal Party of Australia at the new House of Representatives election.

I shall continue to represent the Division of Hotham in this House for the duration of this parliament or until such earlier time as circumstances may demand. Although I am proud of the high personal vote I receive from the electors of Hotham, I recognize that I am hereby virtue of my former membership of the Liberal Party and therefore believe it is proper that I should generally give my vote in support of the Government in the business before the House and in the conduct of the business of the House.

However, I will exercise the right - which is already held by all members of the Liberal Party - to vote against the Government on any issue which a member believes to be not in the best interests of the country or his constituents. I extend my gratitude to the many friends and members of the Liberal Party in Hotham who have loyally supported me over the years and given me the privilege of serving in the House.

I hope that my friends and colleagues in the Parliamentary Liberal Party will understand my reasons in taking this decision and that the personal friendships and relationships that I have made and enjoyed over the years will not be impaired by my action. I note in passing that not withstanding the tag of 'rebel' that some people have chosen to put upon me, I have never exercised that right of voting against my Party in my 16 years in this place. In fact, I think it is fair to me to place on record that during the 15 month term of this Government, I have been publicly critical of its decisions on only five occasions. These were:

1. The 25% cut in overseas aid;

2. The abolition of the Australian Assistance Plan which I, with the full authority of the Joint Parties had previously commended to this House as being one of the most exciting and progressive social reforms ever undertaken;

3. The proposed abolition of the financial benefits for pensioners;

4. The original breach of the promise to index pensions; and

5. The decision to devalue the currency and once that decision was taken, the refusal to lower the tariffs so as to contain the inflationary effects of that move.

When these give public criticisms a repute against the dozens of times I have publicly supported the Government even on occasions when I did not agree with it, I believe the tag of 'rebel' is probably unfair.There have in fact been a great number of issues with which I have strongly disagreed and on most of which I have been invited by the media to criticize my Party.

I have refrained from that criticism in the interests of Party unity and with a view to assisting the Government in overcoming the massive problems it faces, many of which were inherited from the results of the gross mal-administration of the Labor Party's terms in office.

However the number of significant Government actions which conflict with my own views are now so many that I feel that my continual membership of the Liberal Party, as it is now led, managed and structured, would be incompatible with my beliefs and would constitute an act of hypocrisy.

Inevitably, some people will impugn on my action and ascribe to it the motive that I am taking this course because I am not in the cabinet. To that I simply state without argument that under no circumstances could I, or would I, serve as minister under the present leadership.

Members of the House would know that one reaches a decision such as this - after giving 16 years of one's life to it - not without a great deal of deep thought and troubled deliberation; but as one who at least in latter years has tried to pursue a course of true liberalism I find I can no longer do that within the confines of the Party. In these circumstances I believe the only honourable thing to do is to resign. For the record I simply state my areas of contention without debating them.

I cannot agree with the Government's current economic policy. Particularly, I am concerned with its failure to honour the promise to the private sector to give it stable and definite future guidelines to allow it to plan and invest for the future. I believe the private businessman, especially the small businessman, who employs the bulk of the workforce of this country, is more confused, more in the dark about the future,and less confident that he was 15 months ago. This seems to be strange behaviour for a Party that champions the cause of free enterprise.

I am very critical of the lack of consultation between the Government and the Trade Union movement. It would be cruel and unfair to ask the worker to be the sole bearer of the cost of reducing inflation; but wages are too high and taxes are too high to provide incentives for increased productivity by both workers and management. Interest rates are devastating especially to the young, and yet no attempt at real, sensible and sensitive discussion between the Prime Minister and the President of the A.C.T.U. has been made.

In fact the Prime Minister has refused to enter such discussions instead while the economy continues to slump, these two leaders seem to be continued in a public slanging match while the economy continues to deteriorate and the responsible blue and white collar Australian workers and management suffer. I confess to a very deep concern about the intransigence of the Prime Minister in bringing in the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation at this - a time of remarkable industrial peace and at a time when it is being vigorously opposed by both employees and employers alike.

I have been grossly disappointed with the attitude of the Government on uranium mining. Not withstanding the repeated requests by the Fox report for a full parliamentary debate we have had two hours only on it and it is now off the notice paper. I am grateful to the Leader of the House forgiving, mean understanding, this morning that the matter will be restored to the notice paper. The last straw on this issue was the action of the Deputy Prime Minister in launching a pro-uranium book simultaneously with a statement by the Ambassador of Japan advocating the mining of Australian uranium.

The breach of our promise to continue the Australian Assistance Plan; wage indexation; the value of the currency; the Social Welfare Commission; increased research on solar energy are matters which have disturbed me greatly. Further, an incredible attitude towards Timor, an overt and capricious provocation of Russia, an almost pathetic reliance on the non-proliferation treaty which the Fox Report described as giving only an 'illusion of protection'; the absence of strong cabinet action to overcome the bureaucratic bungling and red tape affecting human beings seeking refuge from Indo-China are some other matters which have left me deeply concerned.

On the other hand, I draw no comfort from the current attitudes and policies of the ALP although the state of the world economy contributed in some way to Australia's economic problems during its three years of office its mismanagement of the economy resulting in the unique situation of causing unemployment to increase simultaneously with inflation was near catastrophic. I would be a little encouraged if I believed that it has learned some lessons from its errors but that does not seem to be the case.

It is still motivated by events of the past, still obsessed with its socialist ideas and a hatred of private enterprise, and dominated by the shadowy faces in the trade union movement. In opposition its performance has been little short of ludicrous in questioning and probing the Government on the real issues that affect the country.

I draw no comfort at all from the public opinion polls which indicate a Labor Government is possible - if not probably - in the near future. I find it almost unbelievable that the leader of the opposition a man who led his Party to its most humiliating defeat in history just 15 months ago - now ranks about equally in popularity and respect with the Prime Minister. Does this mean that the people of Australia hold both men and both parties in relatively low esteem?

In conclusion may I say that I have become disenchanted with party politics as they are practiced in this country and with the pressure groups which have an undue influence on the major parties. The National Country Party properly represents the interests of a small sectional group - some of the rural community - but improperly in my view, and unduly, influences national policies quite out of proportion to the small group it represents.

The Labor Party is dominated by the vested interests of trade unions. The Liberal Party, although properly concerned with the vital role of private enterprise seems too preoccupied with the wants of what is euphemistically known as 'big business' to the sacrifice and detriment of medium and small-size businesses who form the back bone of our industrial and commercial sectors.

The parties seem to polarize on almost every issue, sometimes seemingly just for the sake of it, and I wonder whether the ordinary voter is not becoming sick and tired of the vested interests which unduly influence the present political patterns and yearn for the emergence of a third political force, representing the middle of the road policies which would owe allegiance to no outside pressure group.

Perhaps it maybe the right time to test that proposition. That move will have to come from those people in Australia who believe in the encouragement of free enterprise, who believe it has not had a 'fair go' from interfering Governments who regularly change, without warning, the conditions under which they operate.

It must come from people who believe in true justice for the workforce and compassion for those in need but who believe that actions must be taken to prevent social problems from occurring rather than trying to cure them and hide them once they have arrived.

But above all, it may come from those people who are disgusted with those politicians and political parties who indulge mainly in cheap political point scoring in the endless pursuit of votes at any price and from people who want their parliament to identify the real and significant problems of the future and to take action now which will make the country a good, safe and sound place for future generations.

In 1981 Senator Colin Mason outlined the governing philosophy of the Australian Democrats as a minority party holding the balance of power in the Senate. This is the early Democrats philosophy which was guided by Chipp's belief of keeping the bastards honest. Later Democrat balances of power saw voting down money bills as being within their scope of power.

From Mason's speech on the budget;

I understand that the Australian Labor Party has suggested such a tax. It is an interesting proposition. To continue the story of the legal complexities, yesterday afternoon we received sales tax measures which impose a tax of 2 1/2 per cent, to apply from 1 January, on items hitherto exempt. This time the package contained no Bills which amended the exemption and classification schedules. We are now advised that that legislation falls in the area of legislation that the Senate cannot amend but may be subject only to the making of a request to the House of Representatives.

At that stage, we re-examined the pledges made by the Australian Democrats senators in connection with Supply when they went before the people of this country and sought election to this place-as indeed the people did elect them. I should clarify, for the sake of those who may not know, that these pledges by Australian Democrats candidates were statutory declarations. We naturally regard them as being of the utmost importance and significance. The significant sections of the text reads:

That I personally subscribe to and endorse without reservation of any kind, the publicly announced policy of the Australian Democrats, as stated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, the Honourable Senator D. L. Chipp, that the Australian Democrats, if gaining a position of 'balance power' in the Senate, would not use their voting numbers in such a way as to cause the blocking of supply or money Bills in a manner which would prevent the majority party in the House of Representatives from governing.

That for all purposes and without reservation of any kind, I hereby declare that if elected to the Senate, I shall not cast my vote as a Senator in a manner which would be contrary to the policy of the Australian Democrats as stated in paragraph 3 hereof and thus shall never during my tenure as a Senator, contribute to or cause a situation which, through blocking of supply or money Bills might bring down the Government.

Our conclusion has been that to reject and amend the Bills does not legally and directly affect the pledge that we took never to block Supply. That is a fact, and we concede it to the Labor Party, but-it is an important but-a strong case may be made that it offends the spirit of that pledge and, with honourable senators' permission, we will be the judges of that. We are the only people who will be the judges of it. We need no assistance from outside to make up our minds.

There is no direct link for the speech, but it is from 26 August, 1981 Senate Hansard' "Speech: BUDGET 1981-82 > Mason Sen C.V.J.; Senator Robert Ray; Senator Sibraa; Senator Walsh; Senator Tate; Senator Harradine; Senator Ryan; The DEPUTY PRESIDENT"

One of the differences between the Greens and Democrats is over the blocking of supply. The Democrats will not block it where the Greens will under extreme circumstances.

Andrew Bartlett replied to an incorrect comment of mine on larvatus prodeo:

and just to correct Cam when he said "The Democrats initially had a policy of not blocking supply. They realised soon that it was their main bargaining power however when holding the balance of power."

The Democrats have always maintained a policy of not blocking supply - this has not changed. I reiterated it as a key pledge just a couple of months ago. The Democrats have never been in a position to bargain with supply anyway, as no Opposition has ever threatened to oppose supply since 1975.

I should note that "supply" is not what it used to be - the majority of Commonwealth spending is now via standing appropriations, which is not touched by supply Bills (usually defined as the Appropriation Bills). It would still make life very difficult for a government were supply to be blocked, but not to the same scale as 1975 - at least administratively, the effect on the markets may be a rather different matter in today's deregulated world.

Interesting to hear that supply isn't what it used to be. This suggests that what happened in 1975 doesn't have the same constitutional weight as some would give it in modern political practice.

So we have Labor with a comfortable majority in the lower House and we have potentially the Greens with five seats in the upper House almost holding the balance of power. We will see if the Greens are as responsible in the Senate toward good governance as the Australian Democrats were.

The tragedy of this election has been the removal of the Australian Democrats from national politics. They were by far Australia's most liberal and republican party. Their Senators were also the Senate's best performers staying diligently within the liberal democratic tradition of parliament. Something that the major parties often do not bother with.

The polls for Labor had been flat within statistical variance for a long time. The other issue was that the government had been flaying about like a chook with its head cut off. It did not inspire confidence.

It is fashionable to say people are stupid and voters are dumb, but Australians are one of the most sophisticated and highly educated electorates in human history. Australian democracy tends to get it right. The Howard Government was no longer conducting itself in a manner consistent with good governance.

Good governance gets rewarded by Australian voters; bad governance gets punished. The Howard Government deserved to be thrown out embarrassingly. We will see how the Rudd Government conducts itself.

Update

Overseas sites such as Andrew Sullivan, Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo are interpreting the result through the prism of Howard's relationship with Bush. That is a mistake in my opinion.

Andrew Bartlett commenting on John Quiggin's site:

And whilst I agree a unanimous vote is very desirable, I don't agree that Nelson should seek to expul and withdraw endorsement of any Liberal who votes against an aoplogy. We need less instances of parliamentarians being forced to vote for things they are fundamentally opposed to, not more. Unanimity is desirable, but not at the price of forced and fake agreement ...

The Australian Democrats were our most republican and liberal politicians.