The Australian Democrats were mostly anti-sectional and anti-material (existing parties were seen to be dominated by sectional interests.) The Australian Democrats became a third political force representing middle of the road policies that owed no allegiance to any outside pressure group and they appealed to voters’ spirit and not their hip pocket. The Democrats talked the language of ‘soft sentiment’ (honesty, tolerance and compassion and they strongly believed in
no cynicism, sectional pork barrelling and polarising confrontation). (West 1980:343-4). The Australian Democrats were described as ‘a party of new ideas’ (Warhurst 1997:23).
In its policy papers, under its objectives, the Australian Democrats advised it was a party to be beholden to no group or groups in the community to serve the best interests of all Australians. The party also advised that its aim was to use its position as a party in the middle ground even- handed to capital and labour, to reconcile their real interests by encouraging industrial
democracy and all other forms of cooperation.
The new (as yet unnamed) party wasted no time in communicating with its newly found supporters. A ‘National Journal’ was commenced in June 1977. The first issue posed the question ‘what shall we be’ in other words what will be the name of the new party? The name was to put to a ballot in the third issue of the National Journal. In that first issue Don Chipp hinted ‘I like the name “Australian Democrats”’. In that issue the National Steering Committee members were named. They included Don Chipp, Robin Millhouse, John Siddons, Jack Evans, Colin Mason, ‘plus a representative from each Division’ (a State).
In the third issue of the National Journal some of the suggested names for the new party were published. They included, ‘Dinkum Democrats’, ‘Members Independent Democrats’,
‘Democratic Centralists’, ‘Peoples Participative Association’ and ‘The United Democrats Party’. That issue of the National Journal also included the ballot paper for members to vote upon the new name for the Party. Members could make their choice from 56 possible names!
The name finally chosen by the members in that ballot and announced in the fifth issue of the
National Journal in September 1977 was ‘The Australian Democrats’ which was the ‘interim’ name for the party.
In that first issue Don Chipp in an article titled ‘Getting into our stride’ commented about what was required in setting up a new party. The steering committee according to Chipp, set down an ‘interim constitution and adopt a ‘provisional name’ and ‘set down at least as thought
promoters, some bare bones of the kinds of policies which could arise from the principles I have talked about since resigning from the Liberal Party’.
Chipp went on to remind the new members that:-
A distinguishing feature of our party is that policies are determined and voted upon by you and other members, not dictated to you from some outside source. I ask you therefore . . . to work hard on policy. The doors are wide open for your ideas to come forward.
In his reminder Chipp was stating that the Australian Democrats would operate under a system of participative democracy – just as the Australia Party had done. Blackshield had pointed out that a big problem with participative democracy in the Australia Party was many people were apathetic and therefore did not both to vote on the various policies. Had Chipp and the
Australian Democrats learnt from the problems experienced by the Australia Party? This question will be addressed under the participatory democracy in the next chapter which addresses the demise of the Australian Democrats.
Chipp also suggested to the members as well as using the ‘bare bones’ policies that they also ‘get a hold of’ some Australia Party or New Liberal Movement policy material. This was a very smart idea in that way the former members of those two parties could feel a stronger ‘empathy’ with the new party. Chipp also counselled the members to be ‘forward looking in policy development’. Chipp spoke of a policy framework in which:-
Kindness, generosity and wisdom can compete on better than equal terms with the greed, materialism and mere cleverness which characterises so much of our present society. In the second issue of the National Journal, issued on the fourth July 1977, the reader was advised that the ‘provisional name of the new party was ‘The Australian Democrats’. Furthermore, the journal would be published ‘every three weeks’ which sounded very ambitious.
In that issue Chipp was able to report that ‘we are going like a rocket’. In just over eight weeks the party has 133 branches operating in five states and one territory. The party would be launched in Tasmania on 7 July and in the Northern Territory on 27 July. This would make the party truly national, operating in all states and territories. Chipp went on to advise that he was receiving ‘over 100 letters a week requesting details of membership’. He went on to state that:-
The media, both public and private have been magnificent in their co-operation and impeccable in their fairness.
Chipp went on encourage the members to build up the party’s finances, have preliminary discussions on ‘what we might do with preferences’ and consider ways to increase membership.
Finally, Chipp encouraged the members to respect differences in opinions. Chipp counselled the members:-
Diversity of view and personality can cause divisiveness among human beings – however, diversity can also be a source of enormous strength to the Australian Democrats because one of the most exhilarating and satisfactory experiences a human being can have is showing tolerance to a different view and being big enough to agree to disagree with another person and still maintain a close relationship. In doing this we all grow a little taller and with us the party grow to a greater strength.
However, Forell (1994:41) defines a political party as:-
Not merely a group of like-minded members of Parliament. It is an organisation of people of broadly similar ideas or interests, whose aim is to gain political power
In his encouragement, Chipp seems to be far too simplistic and idealistic. Conflict and strong differences of opinion are inevitable in a political party. The challenge that Chipp ignored in his
comments was that it is important to keep any such conflicts within the party and not relayed to the press. Secondly, party members have to show strong support for the party. A party member might not get all that they want in a policy area, but with strategies such as ‘win win
negotiating’ they can achieve a good outcome.
In the third issue of the National Journal, the Editor reminded members that as a ‘centre party’:-
Because we are even handed to capital and labour, neither the trade unions nor big business are going to pay us to look after their interests. Money will be a perineal problem. . . . for the immediate future we are going to have to (a) put a lot of our time and energies into money raising (b) keep digging into our own pockets.
The editor was highlighting a significant problem for minor parties, namely; money. The DLP also had money problems in terms of fighting elections and employing office and field staff as well as rental of office space. At least for the Australian Democrats the problem was lessened with the payment from the public purse for each first preference vote when the party polled greater than four per cent. The editor also advised the members that on 30 July 1977, the Australian Democrats were truly a national organisation with over 5,000 members.
In the fifth issue of the National Journal dated 5 September 1977, the party structure was explored. The structure was portrayed in the following diagram.
The national steering committee explained that it did not want ‘filters’ for the exchange of ideas between groups of the party. Therefore, in the opinion of the National Steering Committee ‘any
member may have direct contact with either state or national executive or any other body established by these executives.’ A branch is ‘the focal point of getting people together to discuss policies campaigning and other responsibilities contained in the constitution. Branches are not precluded from putting motions to either the National or State Executives should they so desire.
The model shown above may look good on paper, but in practice it would have some annoying problems. Under that model a branch of the Australian Democrats could communicate with the National Executive and bypass the State Executive. Would the National Executive or the Branch ‘copy’ the State Executive into any communications? From the above diagram, it seems keeping the State Executive ‘in the loop’ is not a requirement. The model is about ‘the
exchange of ideas between groups in the party’, therefore it would seem an individual member of the party would have to at least go through their branch in order to communicate with the State and Federal executives and any subcommittees of those two bodies.
In the sixth edition of the National Journal dated 26 September 1977, the editor excitedly reported the election of Robin Millhouse to the South Australian Parliament for the Legislative Assembly electorate of Mitcham. Millhouse had originally entered the SA Parliament in 1955 as an LCL member holding the safe LCL electorate of Mitcham. He became Attorney-General and Minister for Social Welfare in Steele Hall’s government. In 1973 Millhouse joined the Liberal Movement. But while other break away members, such as Steele Hall later re-joined the Liberal Party, Millhouse formed ‘The New Liberal Movement’ which along with the Australia Party, formed the Australian Democrats. Millhouse with his vast parliamentary and ministerial experience was like Chipp a valuable acquisition for the Australian Democrats.
In the eighth issue of the journal dated 14 November 1977, Don Chipp commented on the forthcoming Federal election on December 10. Chipp claimed the only thing the party lacked was money- ‘because of our principles of honesty.’ Chipp also commented that:-
The old parties are at it again, fighting, name calling, smearing and remaking those false promises which they have broken time and time again. We must walk taller than they do. In making that comment Chipp appears to be very sanctimonious. The old parties, being the two major parties and the National Party, would be fighting in terms of alternative policies and name calling in terms of highlighting any perceived weaknesses in the other party’s policies. In fact, the same fate could await the Democrats in an election, when that party’s policies are being debated and when the Democrats debate or analyse the policies of the other parties. As for ‘false promises’, ‘broken time and time again’, all parties in government make promises that in government they cannot keep for some reason or other, such as the economic conditions not being conducive to the policy in question. In making those remarks Chipp is merely attempting to appeal to the average person in the street who was prejudiced against politicians.
That election saw the election of Don Chipp to the Senate for Victoria and Colin Mason in the Senate for New South Wales. They took their places in the Senate on 1 July 1978. However, in South Australia, with the retirement of Steele Hall from the Senate and his election to the House of Representatives as a Liberal, Janine Haines was nominated by the South Australian
Parliament to take Steele Hall’s place in the Senate. Hall was a Liberal Movement Senator, as the Liberal Movement was a part of the make-up of the Australian Democrats. The new Senator was chosen from that party. Haines sat in the Senate until 30 June 1978. She returned to the Senate as a Democrat senator in July 1981 for a six-year term.
In the first issue of the National Journal for 1978 issued on 13 February, Chipp encouraged the members to:-
Work hard to quickly erase the debts we had to incur, to obtain new members, to look forward to a bright and indeed glorious future, and to firmly consolidate the marvellous foothold we have gained.
In the second issue of the National Journal for 1978 the editor warned members that
Our biggest enemy is . . . ourselves. If we indulge in any petty internal arguments about the less important things we will not achieve our fantastic potential. . . . we have no executive and no person who can impose policy on our members. The members have the ultimate say.
The editor then went on to point out the distinction between, ‘the policy formulation function’ of the party, and ‘the administrating campaigning function’ of the party.
The editor made a very timely point which is applicable to all parties. These two functions are quite distinct. In other parties ‘participative democracy’ is displayed in annual party state conferences to formulate policy which is presented to the State conference by way of motions carried at meetings of the respective party’s branches and electoral councils.
In fact, the Democrats put this forward as the ‘legislative function’ of the party, ‘through an organic system based on the principle of direct democracy’. The responsibilities of this function are:-
Election of an executive;
Purpose and constitution;
Policies;
Strategy in relation to other parties (e.g. preferences);
Major decisions affecting finance; and
Selection of candidates
The party saw the executive function as not policy decisions but administration and campaigning to win elections. These functions can also involve branches of the party. Administration includes:-
Recruitment of new members;
Co-ordination;
Finance; and
Communications (within the party and to the public).
This division of responsibilities is a very good breakup and division of responsibilities in any political party. In fact, the Chapter on the fall of One Nation will show that One Nation suffered much embarrassment about ‘printing money’ and cheap loans when the officer responsible for administration, barged into the policy debate, making a very poorly thought out public contribution.
Siddons put forward the view that people join a Branch of the Australian Democrats for a variety of reasons, for example:-
- To stand up and be counted; - To have a say in running the party; - As a protest against the older parties; - To support the leader;
- Because they believe in a third force; - To be a candidate;
- To help their fellow man;
- Participate in Australian politics; and - Promote democratic ideals.
Siddons finally warned members of the party that new members ‘come to us with high hopes – don’t disillusion them!
The reasons Siddons gave would be the reasons any active member would want to join a political party. However, a member of a major party would not join ‘because they believe in a third force’! Many people join a political party by paying their annual membership fee and that is the extent of their involvement with the party. Siddons’ comment that new members come to the Australian Democrats with high hopes and not to disillusion them is very important. Some of the new members would have joined the Democrats because they were disillusioned by party politics in general or with a particular party they had previously supported.
A key source of disillusionment among the traditional parties would be if party members were treated as a handy source of labour to address envelopes or hand out how-to-vote cards, rather than contribute to policy debates and formulation. The Democrats strong emphasis on participatory democracy would give new members an involvement in policy formulation and debate as well as voting on the parliamentary leaders. However, in other parties branch
meetings and state conferences of the party should give members the chance to contribute to and debate policies of the party.
Chipp in this early stage was really steering and guiding the party very closely and had a strong formative influence on the fledgling party.
Participatory Democracy
Like the Australia Party, the Australian Democrats adopted a participative democracy structure, which ultimately created problems for the party. These problems will be discussed in the next chapter.
Drawing from the participatory foundations of its forerunner the Australia party, the Australian Democrats embraced the ideals of consensus, rational debate, and citizen participation in political decision making (Gauja 2005:73).
Policy formulation by the Australian Democrats under participative democracy was a complex process with many stages. The overriding purpose was to give every member of the Party the opportunity of an equal and direct say in determining policy. The process utilised the following steps.
State divisions were asked to nominate ‘national policy conveners’ for the 26 or so policy areas. These conveners would have knowledge in the policy area.
The national policy conveners were then selected with a wide a national scatter as possible. These conveners assembled a working group of 5 to 7 people and engaged in intense discussion and research in the policy area, taking into account contributions and suggestions from other members of the party. They then prepared a draft policy paper of around 2500 words.
The draft policy paper was then published in the Democrats monthly National Journal
for comment and discussion by members. These contributions were all published. Even members of other political parties, relevant associations appropriate to the subject matter and interested citizens were invited to criticise and comment on the drafts.
After an appropriate time, usually three months the policy was then put to the direct postal vote of members. They were asked to approve or reject the general approach policy paper and to then approve or reject each policy item including all those which party members had suggested in the discussion, to choose between alternative suggestions where these have come forward, and to approve or reject changes of
wording. Two thirds of those voting must have approved before a policy paper or policy item is adopted.
Finally, the policy papers were rewritten to accord with the results of the ballot. Siddons the national president advised that while other parties are combinations of state organisations, the Democrats from the beginning have been organised on in Australia wide basis. The policies presented have been formulated with the help of contributions from members in all parts of Australia.
He went on to advise that the vital democratic principle of the Australian Democrats is the right of every member to have a direct an equal say in all the legislative affairs of the party-policies, Constitution, office bearers, allocation of preferences, selection of candidates. These are unique