The festering conflict in the Australian Democrats has come to the surface again. The conflict arises out of political philosophy, organisational rules and personality clashes. The first two are long-running and only controllable if the last is absent. As soon as personality clashes arise in the party, the conflict over political philosophy and unstable organisational structure inevitably compound the problem.
On the question of political philosophy, the Democrats are the most democratic of Australia’s political parties. The membership has a huge say in policy. However, the parliamentary team which implements that policy has a large say in how the Democrats aims are best achieved. In doing that each Democrat senator puts her or his philosophic stamp on that. The Democrats generally take a small-l liberal approach on social issues. In that the party is general united. The so-called conscience issues do not cause the Democrats the strife they cause the major parties. The strife arises when the party deals with economic issues.
Unlike the Labor Party with its strong union links, the Democrats (or at least some of them) have a greater understanding of the needs of business, particularly small business. Moreover, they do not have the historic link back to a belief in state ownership and a greater role for the public sector. Unlike the Liberals, on the other hand, many Democrats do not automatically side with business, particularly when it might clash with individual rights. So there is a fair degree of support for individual economic liberty.
So the Democrats have come to grief over the big economic issues like the GST and the privatisation of Telstra. On both these issues the present leader Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, has been implacably opposed. The GST divided the Democrats as it went through the Parliament. There is nothing wrong with that, but that division, exacerbated by personal friction, has festered. The fact that it was ultimately a Democrat deal – steered by the then leader Meg Lees – that got the GST through has been pointed to as the reason for a decline in Democrat support and the lost of a senator at the last election. But others among Democrats blame the leadership of and the campaign run by Senator Stott Despoja.
And now the question of the privatisation of Telstra has arisen again. Senator Stott Despoja has again taken a position of implacable opposition. But not all in her party agree. Senator Aiden Ridgeway, for example, has taken a more mature approach. He said, “”I think any party that decides to lay their policies in concrete would have to be fools.” Senator Lees has pointed out that the Democrats could contribute to working out how the proceeds of a Telstra sale would be spent.
Instead of taking the constructive approach of Senator Ridgeway and Senator Lees, the Democrats have gone off on a destructive folly of laying a discipline charge against Senator Lees for public criticism of the leader. It is odd in a party that is supposed to encourage debate on issues rather than a doctrinaire party line.
Senator Stott Despoja, however, sees the Democrats as one day being one of two major parties, not just a minor party holding the legislative balance. But the latter seems a more realistic role. That being the case it is better for the Democrats to negotiate over legislation as it arrives in the chamber, not to take implacable positions beforehand.
That division of goals has been made worse by the personality friction and further worsened by the party rule that the parliamentary leader is elected by the broad membership – not just the parliamentary party. That rule can (and probably has) resulted in a position where the party leader enjoys majority support among the membership and is therefore secure, but does not have majority support in the party room – causing appalling friction and ill-discipline.
The Democrats must change the rules and reach consensus on their broad political aims or face extinction through division.