This chapter has defined minor parties as parties that have less support and representation than the established major parties and have not largely participated in government. Although minor parties are smaller they can grow and an analysis of voting figures over a number of federal elections shows support for minor parties is increasing, now rising to 23.23 per cent of the House of Representative vote in 2016 and 35.03 per cent for the Senate.
These parties do not just ‘spring up’ but rather a number of contextual factors affect their rise. These factors include the cartelisation of the major parties. As a result of this cartelisation with its movement towards big business, big unions and the like, major party members feel their party no longer listens to them and they join a newly formed minor party that caters for or listens to their needs and or ideas.
Many minor parties, in their formation, identify a need or even needs that present as being neglected. This identification can take place through the work of a social groups or groups concerned about an issue. Social group activity and not the split from another party saw the rise of the Australian Greens. The DLP came into being through the third major split in the
Australian Labor Party, with the underlying issue being the feeling that the ALP was not anti- Communist enough.
The Australian Democrats was the product of the merger of two existing but fading minor parties, the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement which both split from the Liberal Party. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party was formed as a result of dissatisfaction with the major parties’ immigration and Aboriginal policies. An additional area of dissatisfaction was the movement of the major parties in adopting globalisation and economic policies that emphasised ‘market forces’ with minimal or no government intervention. The cartelisation thesis had at least some role in the formation of One Nation, with One Nation members feeling deserted by the major parties, some of the One Nation members were former members of either of the major parties, ALP, Liberal or National. The current Katter Australia Party presents as another One Nation party, but minus the Aboriginal and immigration issues. An analysis of the Katter Australia Party is beyond the scope of this thesis.
All of these parties were commenced and indeed enhanced by high profile leadership. Former members of the ALP were involved in the formation and leadership of the DLP. The well- known and modern thinking Don Chipp was the first leader of the Australian Democrats, while Bob Brown was a household name in Tasmania, the foundation state of the Australian Green movement. Pauline Hanson quickly gained publicity and recognition through being an outspoken disendorsed liberal candidate and a humble fish and chip shop operator.
This chapter has also shown that a favourable electoral system coupled with effective second preference trading strategies and compulsory voting has helped minor parties. ‘Sitting out’ the election is not an option for an Australian voter, they have to vote and they have to allocate preferences which can and do make a difference to the final result in lower house electorates. An examination of the recent changes to the voting method for the Australian Senate is beyond the scope of this thesis.
A number of factors can lead to the demise of a minor political party. These factors include a lack of relevance in the party’s policies. This lack of relevant policies coupled with image problems causes the party to appear as anachronistic and out of touch.
Leadership including the transition to a new party leader, is a major cause of the demise of a minor party. A leader is very much the ‘public face’ or principal spokesperson of the party. A leader also has to keep the party united and take a main role in the resolution of conflict. A change of leadership is a major event for a minor party. From the circumstances that brought about the leadership change to the transitioning of the party to the new leader, conflict and disunity can arise and destabilise the party.
Most if not all minor parties have experienced money problems. Most minor parties that cross the representation threshold are able to win the required percentage of first preference votes to receive public funding for each first preference vote. Problems have arisen in parties prior to the introduction of that funding, the DLP was a prime example. With the availability of public funding money problems arise for the minor party contesting its first election as public funding is provided on the basis of prior results and not potential ones. Likewise, the party fails to qualify for any public funding because it is in decline and fails to have candidates elected or its candidates are elected in the Senate on low first preferences votes and large numbers of preferences. That was the position the Australian Democrats found themselves in throughout their demise.
A party can also resort to other forms of funding such as donations, ‘silver circles’ and other forms of raffles. In fact, some parties have been able to set up arrangements with such businesses as travel agencies and insurance brokers to receive commissions from business provided by party members and supporters.
The role of the media is another impact on the success or failure of a minor party. Minor parties are successful when they can gain the attention of the media for the promotion of their policies and activities. However, a minor party does not want to attract the media over matters of disunity and other adverse situations.
Finally, this chapter analysed Pedersen’s typology of the lifespans of minor parties and made improvements to the typology in order to make it more applicable to Australian conditions with compulsory voting and the balance of power held by minor parties in the Senate.