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

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.