Senator JANET POWELL on the prospects for a political alternative
Why is it that almost a quarter of Australians are now regularly saying that they will not vote for the major parties?
In the past decade, and especially the past 2-3 years, a dramatic shift has occurred in the voting patterns in this country, which has had a long tradition of strong two-party voter allegiance. But more and more people are breaking away, and, in spite of electoral systems in lower houses of parliament which discriminate against them (except in Tasmania), they are finally having their "maverick" candidates elected.
In upper houses, with proportional representation, the first bridgeheads were established — most notably by the Australian Democrats in 1977 with subsequent balance of power in the Senate after the 1980 election. Significant Democrat presence was also felt in the South Australian and New South Wales upper houses through the 1980s — including the balance of power.
NSW two elections ago returned seven Independents in the lower house. But it was only after the last NSW election, when the number of Independents actually fell, that they found themselves in balance of power, and the spotlight was turned on the phenomenon in NSW.
The only government in Australia presently with full control of the parliament is in Queensland, which has only one house. Tasmania has a largely conservative "independent" upper house and has had an immediately preceding period of balance of power in the lower house held by the Green Independents, all five of whom are still there following the change of government.
Western Australia has an opposition-controlled upper house and Independents on the edge of a slim government majority in the lower house. South Australia has a Democrat balance of power in the upper house and three Independents in the lower house. Victoria (which is the only mainland bicameral parliament without proportional representation in the upper house) has an opposition-controlled upper house and a slim government majority in the lower house. Two Independents sit in that parliament, both having resigned from their parties after their election. NSW has Independents holding the balance of power in both houses.
The federal parliament now has two Independents in the government-controlled House of Representatives — Phil Cleary and Ted Mack — and there is a Democrat balance of power in the Senate with three additional Independents, making up 10 on the cross-benches.
If the present public polls are translated into votes, the upcoming round of elections will create an even stronger presence of Independent/non-major party candidates in Victoria on October 3 and in other states (WA, Qld and SA are all due soon) and in next year's federal election.
Perhaps the single most significant factor in the public's move away from the major parties is their sense of alienation from politicians and governments. People want politicians who are in touch with the real world, with the daily lives of ordinary people. The increasing adherence over the past decade by both major parties to the heartless doctrine of economic rationalism has made a major contribution to their loss of support — particularly as the consequences of the free market ideology, tough monetary policy and the high interest rate regime have had their impact.
The extended period of high interest rates squeezed home owners and small business. At the same time,
they saw the high-flying entrepreneurs make a major contribution to the foreign debt and financial institutions founder, taking hard-earned savings of "little people" with them, in the wake of gung-ho financial deregulation.
And now, neither major party is prepared to budge from its policy of tariff removal even in the face of the despair of over a million unemployed.
Of course some individual MPs do understand and care about the pain and frustration being felt in the community. But the rigidity of the party system buries most attempts to divert the party from the course set by those at the top.
Not surprisingly, the feeling is that the parties cannot seem to put people first. Families whose teenage children face a future of despair, whose breadwinners have lost their jobs or live in fear of doing so, whose graduate children are driving taxis or doing voluntary community work, cannot get excited about "good news" headlines telling of a 0.5% drop in interest rates, a record low inflation rate or an improvement in the balance of payments.
Why, then, have the people not turned naturally to the Australian Democrats as an alternative? In 1977 the Democrats were formed as a new, independent, third force in Australian politics. Into the 1980s they were the parliamentary expression of the desire for an alternative. But it has become clear in recent years that the Democrats alone could not harness the growing dissident vote.
Two major reasons can be advanced for this failure.
First, the party's electoral success in achieving the balance of power, exercising it responsibly for a decade and gradually increasing its numbers in the Senate has given the impression that the Democrats are "just another political party" — especially to young people who
cannot recall a time when the Democrats weren't a presence in the federal parliament.
Commentators said at the time that events surrounding the change of leadership in 1991 confirmed the view that, for many people, the Democrats were just like other parties.
Secondly, the party has taken the position that other like-minded groups and aspirants should join the Democrats rather than the party moving outward itself to become part of a wider movement. Like the old parties, it is not hearing what the community is saying. An overriding sense of self-satisfaction leads to avoiding the message of the voters that "the product doesn't suit us". In this situation, the product obviously needs to undergo some change — particularly in its relationships with others in the like-minded group.
Observers also point to a problem with the profile of the Democrats. At the best of times, it is always difficult for a minority group to achieve media coverage, and this has been a constant problem for most of the first 15 years of the party's existence. A further problem which is often articulated is one of "image" — which is difficult to define at any time, and not always under the control of any party.
Quite clearly, however, the community is demanding politicians who will strongly voice their fears and frustrations, and give priority for action to address them. For two-thirds or more of those rejecting the major parties, the Democrats are not satisfying their need.
Other small parties are, so far, only regional in their impact — the conservative Fred Nile's Call to Australia Party being the most notable example.
Registration as political parties has also occurred where loosely knit groups have wished to avail
themselves of the advantages which it brings — such as a position "above the line" on the ballot paper for a federal election or a "party" name on ballot papers. In general, such groups tend to be seen as a body of aligned, like-minded candidates who are in close touch with their community base, and not as formal political parties.
Events since my resignation from the Democrats have confirmed my belief that the Green and left forces which are dispersed in the community will be driven together in election campaigns. The public is in favour of this. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made.
Structure is important, and a degree of centralisation is necessary for strategic reasons. I am not deterred by a concerted and centralised political campaign. But a centralised structure can also be dominated by a few people, as it came to be in the Democrats.
The more structured organisation of the Green parties on a national basis is also an advantage in this process, though as the Tasmanian Greens example shows, Green and independent parliamentarians will begin to work more closely together only after their different support bases have been consolidated behind them. In Tasmania, the individual power structures were kept intact in the process of forming a statewide Green party. In the Democrats the reverse was expected: a party structure was organised and they expected a political base to come behind it.
Electoral success will give a boost to the process of coming together of a Green and left political alternative. But we will also need trust and tolerance, a determination to focus on the important issues and agreement to disagree on peripheral issues.
Individual independents like Phil Cleary and Ted
Mack will no doubt be joined by other non-major party candidates after the next federal election campaign, during which they may well find themselves networking with like-minded groups and individuals. In the Senate after the next election the number of cross-bench Senators will increase from the present 10 (three Independents, seven Democrats) to at least 12 (six or seven Democrats and five or six Independents, with the Harradine Tasmanian seat swinging).
The protest being voiced in the polls and falling party membership is real and soundly based. Even the electoral system, which favours the old parties, will not protect them from further breakthroughs for Independents who are listening to the voters, who do know what they are experiencing and who care enough to say that the Australian economy must function in the interests of the Australian people — not grind them into the ground so that "the numbers" will look good on multinational corporate balance sheets.