Research Paper no. 25 2008–09
Australian Democrats: the passing of an era
Cathy Madden
Politics and Public Administration Section
27 March 2009
Contents
Executive Summary
- The Australian Democrats have been the longest surviving and
most successful minor party in federal politics. The party was
created as a ‘centre’ party.
- Two distinctive features of the party were: adherence to the
principle of parliamentary democracy and the ability of
parliamentary representatives to vote according to their
conscience.
- The use of the proportional representation voting system for
Senate elections allowed the party to gain greater electoral
support for Senate seats. The Democrats won seats at each Senate
election from 1977 to 2001.
- Support for the party mainly came from middle class,
urban-based, educated and younger voters who were disillusioned
with the major parties.
- The Democrats held the balance of power in the Senate either
solely or with other minor parties or independents from July 1981
to 2004. They were able to influence the legislative agenda.
- The party led the way in promoting women to leadership
positions.
- Many factors played a part in the decline of the Democrats.
Many commentators point to the Democrats support in the passing of
the Goods and Services Tax legislation in 1999 as a key factor.
Other issues relate to the turnover of parliamentary leaders, not
getting their message heard and the rise of the Australian
Greens.
- From 1 July 2008 no Democrats are represented in the Federal
Parliament.
|
Introduction
After 20 years,
we are entitled to say with confidence that we are here to stay
and, after 1996, we can say with equal confidence that our best is
yet to come.[1]
The Australian Democrats (Democrats) were the
longest surviving and most successful minor party in federal
politics. The Democrats appeared to gain a stable level of
representation during the 1980s and 1990s. However, the 2004
election saw a decisive change in the Democrats fortunes when the
party failed to win any Senate seats, an outcome repeated at the
2007 election. As a result the party has had no federal
parliamentary representation since 1 July 2008. The era of the
Democrats is significant as it marks a period in which the Senate
played a crucial role in the parliamentary system, confirming its
transformation from the ‘house of the living dead’ to a
house of review.[2]
This paper provides an overview of the
formation of the party, its level of electoral support and the
party’s upper house performance in the federal parliament. It
outlines some of the factors that may explain why voters who had
previously supported the Democrats became disenchanted with the
party.[3]
The party was formed in May 1977. The
Australian Democrat party had its genesis in two existing parties:
the Australia Party (formerly known as the Liberal Reform Group)
centred in Victoria and the New Liberal Movement based in South
Australia. Discussions had occurred between the two parties
about seeking an alliance if not amalgamation. The two groups found
a common basis for a new political movement, in the widespread
discontent with the two major parties following the constitutional
crisis of 1975.[4] In
the former Liberal Government Minister, Don Chipp, the two groups
found a leader and spokesman.
Don Chipp had entered the House of
Representatives in 1960 as the Liberal member for Higinbotham
(Vic), and was a minister in the Holt, Gorton, McMahon and interim
Fraser governments. After his dumping from ministerial office
following the 1975 election, a disillusioned Chipp resigned from
the Liberal Party. In his resignation speech, he spoke about his
disenchantment with party politics as they were practised in
Australia and the undue influence of pressure groups on the major
parties:
… I wonder whether the ordinary voter is
not becoming sick and tired of the vested interests which unduly
influence present political parties 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.[5]
Following a series of well attended and
successful public meetings to build party support, Don Chipp was
able to bring together disillusioned segments from the major
parties and other groupings: the party was born.
Don Chipp’s 1977 election campaign was
centred on a return to the political virtues of ‘honesty,
tolerance and compassion’. He described the new party as an
independent, incorruptible, middle-of-the-road
‘watchdog’ for the Senate. It was during the 1980
election campaign that Chipp voiced the famous catchcry of the
Democrats—that they would ‘keep the bastards
honest’.[6] The
‘bastards’ in this context were the major parties and,
more significantly, the government of the day.
The Democrats was founded as a
‘centre’ party between the Liberal Party and the Labor
Party. The party was presented as an alternative to the extremes of
right and left, and a party not ruled by vested interests.[7] Don Chipp articulated its
ideology as ‘no ideology’ if it meant a rigid adherence
to particular ideas or actions as was practiced by the major
parties.[8]
The Australian Democrats were in the vanguard
of environmentalism in Australia. From the early 1980s they were
unequivocally opposed to the building of the Franklin Dam in
Tasmania and they opposed the mining and export of uranium and the
development of nuclear power plants in Australia.
While the Australian Democrats thus had very
strong ‘green’ credentials they also encompassed a
broad range of policies and issues. As well as the protection of
the environment, the party stood for reconciliation with Indigenous
people, homosexual law reform, gender equality and
multiculturalism. The Democrats were also very supportive of the
public sector and of public education. On economic issues they
supported more equitable distribution of wealth and a progressive
taxation system.[9]
The Democrats established a practice of
participatory democracy unusual in Australian parties. The concept
was inherited from the Australia Party and was reflected in the new
party’s constitution. Party policies were developed with the
maximum participation of members, and determined by the direct and
equal say of the membership by means of a voluntary postal vote.
The leadership of the party was also decided by postal ballot.
Party members could also remove their party leaders, a spill
requiring only 100 signatures from members.
The Democrats found some aspects of direct
democracy difficult. Although the party aimed to involve the whole
membership in policy-making it was reported that in practice only
ten to 20 per cent of the members participated in the
decision-making process.[10] This method of collective decision-making was
criticised as being cumbersome and time-consuming. When quick
action was required, the limitations of the system were evident. In
1993 a streamlined approach was adopted whereby members voted on
the general principles and objectives of policy but the details
were left to those with a specific interest in the issue. This
method allowed the parliamentary representatives flexibility on how
to address issues.
Another guiding principle for the party,
conscience voting, was derived from the Liberal Movement. This
meant that members of the party could vote according to their
conscience when their views were in conflict with party policy. The
representatives were not bound to uphold party policies and
therefore not bound to vote as a bloc. A study of Senate divisions
from the period August 1981 to December 1996 found eighty occasions
when the Democrats did not vote as a bloc.[11] The possible negative impact of this
practice was demonstrated in the split vote by the seven
parliamentary representatives on the 1999 Goods and Services Tax
legislation, which led to major internal divisions.[12] However, one
significant constraint on their freedom to vote as they wished was
the pledge the Democrats made not to block Supply. The Democrats
had made the commitment not to block supply as a result of the 1975
Constitutional Crisis, which had been one of the factors leading to
the formation of the party.
Since contesting its first Commonwealth
election in 1977, the party won a Senate seat in each Senate
election until 2004. Due largely to the use of a proportional
representation voting system in the Senate it is easier to win
Senate seats than House of Representatives seats (discussed page
6). Although in the Senate the major party vote has been steadily
eroded since the introduction of proportional representation, their
average vote is still around 80 per cent.[13] There are only thus a limited number
of votes that the Democrats and other minor parties and
independents can hope to attract. While the Democrats were able to
elect senators at every Senate election between 1977 and 2001, on
only one occasion did the party come close to winning a seat in the
House of Representatives (Mayo, SA, 1998).
Table 1 shows the Democrats’ level of
electoral support from 1977 to 2007. It very clearly indicates that
the party had much greater support in Senate elections. While the
Democrats contested the majority of House of Representatives seats,
it was only at the 1996 and 1998 elections that they fielded a
candidate in all seats. The party’s highest point of
electoral support was achieved in 1990; their highest level of
representation of nine Senate representatives followed the 1998
election. Their lowest vote share came at the 1993, 2004 and 2007
elections.
The Democrat’s Senate vote peaked at
12.6 per cent at the 1990 election. Environmental politics was
crucial to the outcome of the 1990 election and it was argued that
concern for the environment might be linked to a weakening of ties
to the major parties. Commentators also indicated that the support
for the Democrats was largely a result of voter cynicism with the
major parties, in particular the incumbent Hawke Labor government
and its economic policies.[14]
The Democrats national vote collapsed at the
2004 election. The party faced a number of challenges, some brought
about by leadership changes and grassroots and parliamentary
members leaving the party. It was seen as the end of a longer-term
trend of voting for minor parties in the Senate as the Government
gained control of the Senate for the first time since 1981.[15] The downward
trend in their vote continued at the 2007 election when their
national vote fell to 1.3 per cent.
Table 1: Federal elections,
1977–2007
| |
House of Representatives
|
Senate
|
| |
Percentage of vote
|
Percentage of vote
|
Seats won
|
|
1977
|
9.4
|
11.1
|
2
|
|
1980
|
6.6
|
9.3
|
3
|
|
1983*
|
5.0
|
9.6
|
5
|
|
1984
|
5.4
|
7.6
|
5
|
|
1987*
|
6.0
|
8.5
|
7
|
|
1990
|
11.3
|
12.6
|
5
|
|
1993
|
3.8
|
5.3
|
2
|
|
1996
|
6.8
|
10.8
|
5
|
|
1998
|
5.1
|
8.5
|
4
|
|
2001
|
5.4
|
7.2
|
4
|
|
2004
|
1.2
|
2.1
|
–
|
|
2007
|
0.7
|
1.3
|
–
|
* Note: election for full Senate after double
dissolution
Source: Australian Electoral Commission
The party had some success at State elections,
in particular in contests for State upper houses. From 1977 to 2006
the Democrats not only gained seats in various Legislative Councils
but also held the balance of power on a number of occasions. The
party held the balance of power in the upper houses in New South
Wales from 1988 to 1991, South Australia from 1979 for the
following two decades, and in Western Australia for one term
following the 1996 election. Unsurprisingly they were most
successful in the heartland of South Australia. Their best result
was in 1997 with 16.4 per cent in the Legislative Assembly and 16.7
per cent in the Legislative Council. The sole remaining Democrat
representative in 2008, Sandra Kanck, is in the South Australian
Legislative Council.
The Democrats also won a number of seats in
state lower houses, in South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian
Capital Territory. The party has never won any seats at Queensland
or Victorian state elections.
Table 2: Democrat state and
territory representation 1979–2008
|
State
|
House
|
Years
|
Representatives
|
|
NSW
|
Legislative Council
|
1981–1987
1988–96
1996–2007
|
1
2
1
|
|
South
Australia
|
Legislative Council
|
1979–85
|
2
|
| |
|
1985–1993
|
2
|
| |
|
1993–2002
|
3
|
| |
|
2003–2006
|
3
|
| |
|
2006–2010
|
1
|
| |
House of
Assembly
|
1977–82
|
1
|
|
Tasmania
|
House of
Assembly
|
1980–82
|
1
|
|
Australian Capital Territory
|
Legislative Assembly
|
2001–04
|
1
|
|
Western
Australia
|
Legislative Council
|
1996–2001
|
2
|
Source:
D. Jaensch, The politics of Australia, 2nd ed,
MacMillan, Melbourne, 1997, p. 312; relevant State electoral
websites
The party did not attract a distinctive social
or geographical base on which they could rely for electoral
support.[16] Ian
McAllister of the Australian National University has said that
typically about 50 per cent of the Democratic vote turned over at
each election, thereby making it difficult to define a typical
Democrat voter by characteristics such as socioeconomic status or
age.[17] However,
it would appear that the Democrats appealed to a middle-class,
predominately urban, educated, often younger voter. Janine Haines
described her party’s supporters as:
… people between the age of 25 and 40
who have children, aged parents; those on the way up the job
ladder, who care about equality across the board for women,
Aboriginals, migrants and who care about the environment in a much
broader way than saving a dam here or a tree there … Our
supporters are people who can think in
complexities—that’s why we are a minority party.
[18]
The initial strength of the Democrats has been
partly attributed to the extent to which some voters were alienated
from the major parties. It has been suggested that their durability
indicated a desire of voters to have a group in the Senate to put a
check on both major parties.[19] The party was seen as ‘third party
insurance’.[20] Clive Bean, of the Australian National
University, through the Australian Electoral Studies Survey
indicated that their support was seen more as a protest vote
against the major parties than support for the Democrat policies
themselves.[21]
Leadership was also an important factor in influencing voters as
indicated by the strong personal support for leaders such as Don
Chipp, Janine Haines and Cheryl Kernot. The party’s lowest
vote in 1993 corresponded with low national support for the leader,
John Coulter.[22]
From the early years there were indications
that the Democrats would never be more than a Senate party:
Each major party grouping has retained a solid
electoral support of around 40 per cent on which the Democrats had
made almost no impact; at present they give no indication that they
will ever be able to expand their electoral base beyond the
Senate.[23]
As mentioned earlier, the principal reason why
the Democrats won Senate seats, rather than national lower house
seats, was to do with the different electoral systems in use for
both Houses. To win a State Senate seat in a half-Senate election
requires far fewer votes than in preferential voting elections used
for House of Representatives seats—14.3 per cent of the vote,
rather than 50 per cent (plus one vote). This is of great
significance to the stronger minor parties.
Unlike the Nationals, the Democrats were not
able to achieve a geographically-concentrated support base,
resulting in the party not being able to win enough of the primary
vote in any region to gain a seat in the House of Representatives.
This was demonstrated in 1990 when party leader, Janine Haines,
gambled on her high popularity to contest the seat of Kingston
(SA). The attempt failed for although she polled 26 per cent of
first preferences, she did not make the final count. The closest
the Democrats came to winning a House of Representatives seat was
in 1998 in the seat of Mayo, South Australia. Singer John Schumann
ran against the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander
Downer, and was in the final count, gaining a two-candidate
preferred vote of 48.3 per cent after a first preference vote of
22.4 per cent.[24]
To have a realistic chance of winning a House of Representatives
seat, the Democrats’ vote probably needed to be in excess of
30 per cent.
The preferential voting system has allowed the
Democrats a level of influence through the flow of preferences. The
Democrats’ preferences were sought by both major parties but
until the 1996 election the party had a policy of issuing two-sided
how-to-vote cards indicating alternative preference flows to both
the Coalition and Labor. Subsequently the party brokered deals,
primarily with the Greens and Labor, for preference flows. By the
2001 election the party negotiated Senate preferences with the
major parties, in particular Labor, in return for directing House
of Representatives preferences their way.
The Democrat Senate vote was consistently
stronger in some states (South Australia, Victoria and Queensland)
than others (Tasmania and Western Australia). This has been
reflected in the number of seats won at election for each state and
in the choice of leaders: four from South Australia (Haines,
Coulter, Lees, and Stott Despoja), three from Victoria (Chipp,
Powell and Allison) and two from Queensland (Kernot and Bartlett).
The following table indicates the level of support and Senate seats
won at state and territory level in federal elections from 1977 to
2001.[25]
Table 3: Senate elections
1977–2001
|
State/Territory
|
Average vote
|
Seats won
|
|
NSW
|
8.0
|
7
|
|
Vic
|
10.2
|
8
|
|
QLD
|
9.1
|
9
|
|
SA
|
11.3
|
10
|
|
WA
|
7.4
|
5
|
|
Tas
|
4.7
|
3
|
|
NT
|
4.2
|
0
|
|
ACT
|
11.5
|
0
|
Source: Australian Electoral Commission
The first Democrat to sit in the federal
Parliament was Janine Haines in December 1977. She had been
nominated by the South Australian Parliament to fill the casual
vacancy arising from Liberal Steele Hall’s resignation.
Appendix A provides a listing of the 26
Democrat Senators since 1977. The Democrats prided themselves on
their role in scrutinising every piece of legislation, moving
amendments, introducing private senators’ bills and
initiating many committee inquiries through a strengthened
committee system. Stanley Bach, in his study of the Australian
Senate, concluded of the Democrats that:
In some ways they have been the quintessential
minor party: ideologically moderate, positioned in policy terms
between the two political behemoths, particularly interested in
issues of process as well as policy, and sometimes able to
determine the outcomes by their choice of which of the major
parties to support as well as their own amendments to government
bills.[26]
Appendix B provides some indicative data on
the party’s contribution to the work of the Senate through
measures such as number of private members bills and voting in
Senate divisions 1999 to 2004.
At its first election, Don Chipp acknowledged
that the party would not be able to form a government but said its
chief objective was to win one Senate seat in each state. He said,
‘this would give us the balance of power, the balance of
commonsense, the balance of wisdom and the balance of reason in the
Senate’.[27]
With five Senate places following the 1980
election the party achieved its goal of gaining the balance of
power in the Senate. From July 1981 to 2004 the Democrats played a
critical role in the parliamentary environment by holding or
sharing with other minor parties or independents the balance of
power in the Senate.[28]
The Democrats held the balance of power with
Senator Harradine (Ind, Tas.) following the 1980 election. From
July 1983 to June 1993 the Democrats again held the balance of
power in their own right when they were able to carry or defeat any
question proposed by either the government or the opposition. The
party again shared the balance of power with the independents and
other minor parties following the 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2001 federal
elections.
Table 4 provides a breakdown of party
representation in the Senate from 1978 to 2008. For most of the
years the Democrats shared the balance of power, the government of
the day could carry any issue with the support of the Democrats.
The Democrats thus were able to influence government agendas and
press their own causes.
Table 4: Party representation in
the Senate 1977–2008
|
Year
|
ALP
|
LIB/NP
|
AD
|
Greens
|
Others*
|
Total
|
|
July 1978
|
26
|
35
|
2
|
|
1
|
64
|
|
July 1981
|
27
|
31
|
5
|
|
1
|
64
|
|
March 1983
|
30
|
28
|
5
|
|
1
|
64
|
|
July 1985
|
34
|
33
|
7
|
|
2
|
76
|
|
July 1987
|
32
|
34
|
7
|
|
3
|
76
|
|
July 1990
|
32
|
34
|
8
|
1
|
1
|
76
|
|
July 1993
|
30
|
36
|
7
|
2
|
1
|
76
|
|
July 1996
|
29
|
37
|
7
|
2
|
1
|
76
|
|
July 1999
|
29
|
35
|
9
|
1
|
2
|
76
|
|
July 2002
|
28
|
35
|
8
|
2
|
3
|
76
|
|
July 2005
|
28
|
39
|
4
|
4
|
1
|
76
|
|
July 2008
|
32
|
37
|
0
|
5
|
2
|
76
|
*Others includes Independents, Nuclear
Disarmament, Family First, One Nation
Source: Parliamentary Library,
Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia,
31st edition, p. 420
The party was able and willing to discuss
policy with both major parties, and in some instances to offer
support for concessions. There were a number of significant
examples of the ability of the Democrats to use their strategic
position to great effect in the Senate. These included:
- helping to defeat the proposed increase of 2.5 per cent in
sales tax, reintroduction of higher education fees and the
abolition of dole payments to the spouses of strikers in the
1981–82 Budget
- helping to defeat the Hawke Government’s proposed
Australia Card in 1986
- forcing substantial amendments to the Keating
Government’s 1992–93 Budget, including more equitable
changes in taxation and Medicare
- helping the Howard Government pass the Workplace Relations Bill
1996 with 171 jointly sponsored amendments, and
- supporting the Howard Government to pass the Goods and Services
Tax (GST) legislation in 1999.
The Democrats used a variety of methods to
influence government policy and outcomes. These included informal
sounding out by government about a potential approach to an issue;
formal negotiation and agreement on an approach to an issue,
possibly including compromise of particular aspects of the issue;
use of the formal processes of the Senate such as committees and
debate on the floor of the chamber to effect an outcome or creating
publicity in order to utilise public opinion to influence the
government’s action.[29] As Senator Nick Minchin observed in a Senate
valedictory speech:
I think it can be said of the Democrats,
frankly, that they have been, if you assess their record over the
years, very responsible in the exercise of that great influence
… They have generally taken their balance of power role very
seriously and have practised to great effect one of the great arts
of politics: the art of compromise, which is required of us all
…[30]
These negotiations were often politically
risky, as was demonstrated by the compromise agreement reached to
pass the Workplace Relations Bill 1996 and then later the GST, and
at times attracted fierce opposition, principally from the
Opposition and the Greens.
The Democrats were at times ridiculed for
their stances and policies, accused of being on the fringe: former
Labor minister Senator Peter Walsh described them as the
‘fairies at the bottom of the garden’ party.[31] They were also often
accused of being obstructive by the government of the day when they
prided themselves on looking at each legislative measure on its
merits and acting as the ‘watchdog’ to improve
legislation. Prime Minister Howard accused them of obstructing the
government’s mandate.[32] In reality, though, very few Bills were rejected
in the Senate because of Democrat opposition: for the eleven years
1990–2001 only 45 of the 2066 government Bills passed by both
Houses were rejected by non-government parties and independents. In
most of these divisions the Democrats voted with the Opposition to
reject the Bills. On a few occasions the Opposition voted with the
Government to reject a Bill: to vote down private members Bills
introduced by the Democrats.
Table 5: Bills rejected in the Senate
1990–2001
|
Parliament
|
No. government bills passed by both Houses
|
No. government bills rejected by Senate or laid aside
because of Senate amendments
|
|
36th (1990–93)
|
599
|
4
(0.7%)
|
|
37th (1993–96)
|
484
|
11
(2.2%)
|
|
38th (1996–98)
|
406
|
13
(3.1%)
|
|
39th (1998–2001)
|
577
|
17
(2.9%)
|
Source: Department of the Senate, Business
of the Senate, 1990–2001
The Democrats continued to play a pivotal role
in the Senate until the 2004 election, when the Howard Coalition
Government won control of the Senate.
One of the objectives outlined in Don
Chipp’s policy launch in 1977 centred on restoring the Senate
as a ‘House of Review’.[33] The Democrats thereafter worked to
reform Senate procedures, with the aim of achieving greater levels
of equity, accountability and transparency. Some of their
achievements included:
- the practice of electing an Opposition senator as deputy
president of the Senate from August 1981
- strengthening the scrutiny function of the Senate committee
system in the following ways:
- being instrumental in establishing the Scrutiny of Bills
Committee in 1981
- increasing the number of references and legislation referred to
committees
- supporting changes to the committee structure in 1994, which
lead to six of the eight references committees being chaired by
Opposition senators and two by Democrat senators
- in 1986 the Macklin motion introduced the cut-off for
introducing bills into the Senate— any legislation received
after a specified deadline was to be automatically adjourned until
the next sitting of Parliament
- on the 20 June 2001 the Senate agreed to the Murray motion,
which was aimed at ensuring accountability to the Senate for
government contracts.
The significance of the Democrat’s role
has been later acknowledged by a Rudd Government spokesperson:
It is worth noting that the Democrat’s
contribution to the Senate and Australian politics was inextricably
linked to the development of the role of the Senate; they went hand
in hand. It was when the Democrats emerged as a third force in
Australian politics and held the balance of power in the Senate
that the role of the Senate and the role of the parliament
changed.[34]
The party was able to attract a range of
talented members from a diversity of backgrounds. The party led the
way in promoting women to leadership positions, as well as
contributing to a number of other significant political
milestones:
- in 1987 Janine Haines became the first female leader of a
political party in Australia. Since then the party has been led by
several women: Janet Powell (1990–91), Cheryl Kernot
(1993–97), Meg Lees (1997–01), Natasha Stott Despoja
(2001–02) and Lyn Allison (2004–08)
- on her appointment to fill a casual vacancy in 1996 Senator
Stott Despoja (SA), aged 26, was the youngest female senator to sit
in Parliament
- Brian Greig (WA) was the first openly gay member of
Parliament
- the election in 1998 of Aden Ridgeway (NSW), later deputy
leader to Senator Stott Despoja, who was only the second Indigenous
representative in the Commonwealth Parliament.
The demise of the Democrats had been predicted
on a number of occasions. As early as 1986 political scientist Max
Teichmann questioned the direction and viability of the party
following the retirement of Don Chipp.[35] Nevertheless, the party survived and
at times flourished, until its failure to win any seats at the 2004
and 2007 Senate elections. When the remaining four Democrat
Senators, Lyn Allison, Andrew Murray, Andrew Bartlett and Natasha
Stott Despoja finished their terms on 30 June 2008, this marked the
end of the Democrats in the Federal Parliament.
Why did this happen? Many factors have been
put forward as playing a part in their decline. The GST deal,
leadership difficulties, public disagreements between parliamentary
representatives, resignations and defections, a battle for control
between the parliamentarians and the party machine and the rise of
the Greens all played a part. There is probably no one single cause
but a combination of these interrelated factors.
Some party insiders and commentators pointed
to the GST, and Senator Lees’ decision to support its passage
after winning concessions for food, as the primary factor in the
decline of the party.[36] This decision resulted in a split in the parliamentary
party vote and apparent conflict between the membership and their
parliamentary representatives, calling into question the two
guiding principles of participatory democracy and freedom of
conscience.[37] The
party president, Michael Macklin, had to call for unity and blamed
the party structure for the discontent amongst grass root
members.[38] The
party unrest ultimately led to a leadership ballot. Although Lees
was endorsed as leader in December 1999, dissatisfaction of members
continued, resulting in another ballot in March 2001, this time won
by Senator Stott Despoja.
Leadership turnover is cited as another major
factor. In the first fourteen years of the Democrats there were two
leaders, in the subsequent seventeen years there were nine (see
Appendix D). The defection of Cheryl Kernot to the Labor Party in
1997 left the party in a leadership vacuum and has been described
as the flash point for the subsequent leadership issues.[39] The unusually public,
and at time divisive, battle between Senator Lees and Senator Stott
Despoja over leadership and the direction of the party led to
destabilisation of the party. As Geoffrey Hawker of Macquarie
University observed, ‘leadership changes in the past in the
Democrats have presaged sharp policy turns…What was seen as
the radical environmentalism of Powell and Coulter, for example,
was replaced by economic and industrial emphasis of the Kernot
years, and then by the deal-making of Lees’.[40]
The aftermath of the GST deal and the changes
of leaders highlighted the dilemma for the Democrats between being
a Senate watchdog and being the policy-makers and policy leaders.
Meg Lees, on becoming leader, had signalled a change in direction
to one where the Democrats would seek to have a broader input into
the legislative process.[41] This dichotomy between the centre party policy
‘to keep the bastards honest’, and the drive to call
for more left-wing policies and be an active ‘partner’
in government, produced tensions within the party and possibly led
to voter disillusionment.[42]
Others point to the inability of the party to
clearly articulate what it stood for in a more competitive
political arena, and to get their message heard.[43] From the early days of
representation the Democrats argued that the media did not give
them the same level of attention as the major parties. A Saulwick
poll commissioned by the Democrats in 2004 confirmed the view that
the Democrats had a serious ‘brand recognition’
problem.[44] Their
work in the Senate, their policies and platform were not
publicised. It was only at times of leadership tensions or party
disagreements that the media paid attention.[45]
The party faced increased competition for
seats due to the rise of the Australian Greens. As the Australian
Greens nominated more candidates across the country, some voters
seemingly abandoned the Democrats, preferring the single issue
party’s environmental stance. At the 1996 election the Greens
won one seat from the Democrats. At the last two federal elections
the Greens increased their vote share, possibly at the expense of
the Democrats. At the 2004 election the Greens won two seats, in
Western Australia and Tasmania respectively. The party attracted a
swing of 2.7 per cent for a vote of 7.7 per cent. They were able to
build on this support at the 2007 election, winning three seats and
a vote of 9.0 per cent. [46]
The achievements of the Democrats have been
numerous and include: a role in keeping governments accountable
(the crucial check on the government of the day), scrutinising and
improving legislation, improving parliamentary procedure in the
Senate, opening up the political arena to greater competition,
party recognition of women and the practice of participatory
democracy.[47]
Senator Murray in his valedictory speech said:
I suspect history will judge the 26 [Democrat
Senators] well and not just for remarkable policy and advocacy
consistency and constancy but because, as parliamentarians and
legislators, we have left a much bigger mark … in the
conventions and culture of the Senate, in legislation and not
least in having so many of our causes eventually accepted as good
policy, such as accountability, environmental and social justice
fields.[48]
Senator Allison remarked that the party had
blazed a trail for other smaller parties and acknowledged the
unusual feature of the party in recognising the value of enabling
ordinary members to contribute to key decisions.[49]
The achievements of the Democrats have been
recognised by others in the Parliament:
… their [Democrats] commitment to
improving standards of public behaviour, (keeping the bastards
honest) and improving the quality of parliamentary review of the
administration while being a team player in the Senate has meant
that they have played a generally constructive role in promoting
changes to procedures to strengthen the scrutiny of legislation and
to improve committee work.[50]
A similar theme has been echoed by
commentators who indicate regret at the passing of the Democrats
and their role in improving Australian parliamentary
politics.[51]
Following its electoral decline in the
2001 Senate elections the Democrats faced many challenges. In
particular, they suffered a membership slump and possible financial
ruin after receiving reduced public funding due to the decline in
their vote. By 2008 Senator Lyn Allison, the outgoing parliamentary
leader, confirmed that the Democrats were in talks with fringe
groups, such as the Climate Change Coalition in a bid for electoral
survival. She indicated that despite the loss of support she
believed a new centre-left party could rise from the ashes.[52]
From July 2008 the Democrats have one
remaining parliamentary representative in the South Australian
Parliament[53]. It
has been argued that the success and longevity of the party was
largely due to the parliamentary representatives: it was they who
provided the identity; it was they who developed policy and
communicated it to the electorate and they who provided a prop for
the wider party organisation.[54] As political scientist Wayne Errington has
pointed out it is very difficult to run a party organisation when
you do not have the advantage of incumbency.[55]
Despite this, some party members are
maintaining a positive outlook with its longest-serving Senator,
Natasha Stott Despoja, saying ‘I hope we can be rejuvenated
and that one day you will have Democrats again in the houses of
parliament, including the federal parliament’.[56]
|
Name
|
State
|
Period of service
|
Reason
|
|
Allison,
Lyn
|
Vic.
|
1.7.1996–30.6.2008
|
Defeated
|
|
Bartlett, Andrew
|
QLD
|
30.10.1997*–30.6.2008
|
Defeated
|
|
Bell,
Robert
|
Tas.
|
7.3.1990–30.6.1996
|
Defeated
|
|
Bourne,
Vicki
|
NSW
|
1.7.1990–30.6.2002
|
Defeated
|
|
Cherry,
John
|
QLD
|
31.7.2001*–30.6.2005
|
Defeated
|
|
Chipp,
Don
|
Vic
|
1.7.1978–18.8.1986
|
Resigned
|
|
Coulter,
John
|
SA
|
11.7.1987–20.11.1995
|
Resigned
|
|
Evans,
John
|
WA
|
5.3.1983–30.6.1985
|
Defeated
|
|
Greig,
Brian
|
WA
|
1.7.1999–30.6.2005
|
Defeated
|
|
Haines,
Janine
|
SA
|
14.12.1977*–30.6.1978; 1.7.1981–1.3.1990
|
Term
expired; Resigned
|
|
Jenkins,
Jean
|
WA
|
11.7.1987–30.6.1990
|
Defeated
|
|
Kernot,
Cheryl
|
QLD
|
1.7.1990–15.10.1997
|
Resigned
|
|
Lees,
Meg
|
SA
|
4.4.1990*–30.6.2005
|
IND from
July 2002; Australian Progressive Alliance from April 2003;
Defeated
|
|
Macklin,
Michael
|
QLD
|
1.7.1981–30.6.1990
|
Retired
|
|
McLean,
Paul
|
NSW
|
11.7.1987–23.8.1991
|
Resigned
|
|
Mason,
Colin
|
NSW
|
1.7.1978–5.6.1987
|
Retired
|
|
Murray,
Andrew
|
WA
|
1.7.1996–30.6.2008
|
Term
expired
|
|
Powell,
Janet*
|
Vic.
|
26.8.1986–30.6.1993
|
IND from
July 1992; Defeated
|
|
Ridgeway, Aden
|
NSW
|
1.7.1999–30.6.2005
|
Defeated
|
|
Sanders,
Norman
|
Tas.
|
1.7.1985–1.3.1990
|
Resigned
|
|
Siddons,
John
|
Vic.
|
1.7.1981–4.2.1983; 1.7.1985–5.6.1987
|
IND from
Nov 1986; Unite Australia Party from March 1987; Defeated
|
|
Sowada,
Karin
|
NSW
|
29.8.1991*–30.6.1993
|
Defeated
|
|
Spindler, Sid
|
Vic.
|
1.7.1990–30.6.1996
|
Retired
|
|
Stott
Despoja, Natasha
|
SA
|
29.11.1995*–30.6.2008
|
Term
expired
|
|
Vigor,
David
|
SA
|
1.12.1984–5.6.1987
|
Unite
Australia Party from June 1987; Defeated
|
|
Woodley,
John
|
QLD
|
1.7.1993–27.7.2001
|
Resigned
|
*selected under section 15 of the Constitution
Source: Parliamentary Library,
Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia,
31st edition, Canberra, 2008
|
Senator
|
No. bills introduced by senator as sole
sponsor
|
No. bills in which senator was a
co-sponsor
|
Total
|
|
Allison
|
38
|
7
|
45
|
|
Bartlett
|
33
|
6
|
39
|
|
Bourne
|
40
|
2
|
42
|
|
Chipp
|
16
|
|
16
|
|
Coulter
|
12
|
|
12
|
| Evans# |
15
|
|
15
|
|
Haines
|
13
|
|
13
|
|
Kernot
|
48
|
|
48
|
|
Lees
|
10
|
|
10
|
| Macklin |
79
|
|
79
|
|
Murray
|
20
|
6
|
26
|
|
Powell*
|
10
|
|
10
|
|
Stott Despoja
|
26
|
9
|
35
|
Source: Department of the Senate,
Business of the Senate, 1977–2008
#The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill
(no.5) 1984 introduced by Senator Evans became law, Act no. 115 of
1984.
*The Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition)
Bill 1989 introduced by Senator Powell became law, Act no.181 of
1989.
| |
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
|
Vote with the Government
|
28
|
13
|
10
|
12
|
16
|
13
|
|
Vote against the Government
|
79
|
40
|
37
|
68
|
85
|
67
|
|
Vote with the Opposition
|
56
|
21
|
12
|
28
|
48
|
22
|
|
Vote against the Opposition
|
51
|
32
|
35
|
52
|
53
|
48
|
|
Did not vote
|
10
|
3
|
2
|
–
|
–
|
–
|
|
Total divisions
|
117
|
56
|
49
|
80
|
101
|
80
|
Source: Department of the Senate, Business
of the Senate, 1999–2004
|
Name
|
Period of service
|
|
Senator D. Chipp
|
1.7.1978–18.8.1986
|
|
Senator J. Haines
|
18.8.1986–24.3.1990
|
|
Senator M. Macklin
|
24.3.1990–30.6.1990
|
|
Senator J. Powell
|
1.7.1990–19.8.1991
|
|
Senator J. Coulter
|
19.8.1991–2.10.1991
|
|
Senator J. Coulter
|
3.10.1991–30.4.1993
|
|
Senator C. Kernot
|
30.4.1993–15.10.1997
|
|
Senator M. Lees
|
15.10.1997–6.4.2001
|
|
Senator N. Stott Despoja
|
6.4.2001–21.8.2002
|
|
Senator B. Grieg (interim)
|
22.8.2002–5.10.2002
|
|
Senator A. Bartlett
|
5.10.2002–13.12.2004
|
|
Senator L. Allison
|
13.12.04–30.6.2008
|
For copyright reasons some linked items are only
available to members of Parliament.