Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Democrats - now known as the 'Others'

By Andrew Murray - posted Wednesday, 16 February 2005


Australian Democrats Senator John Cherry posted an article on On Line Opinion: "Where did all the Democrat voters go?" on the February 3, 2005. His views reflect part of his contribution to internal and external discussions on the future of the Party.

Without in any way attempting a critique of his piece, I think its deficiency is that it lacks sufficient historical context. I feel it is important to provide some historical perspectives to assist those opinion interchanges that the Cherry article provokes.

I have provided a two-decade historical graph covering Democrat leaders and polls. I have been providing this (periodically updated) for the Democrats for many years.

Advertisement

The graph stands alone, but for those who lack corporate memory, or who want an interpretation of this material here is a commentary on the graph, adapted from commentary made widely available to the Democrats (from last November) for use in their Future Directions Review.


Click graph to enlarge

Commentary on the Leaders Polls graph

The Democrats were formed from the Australia Party and the Liberal Movement, the former being more “left” of the latter. There is a view that these broad attachments continue as distinct philosophical divisions in the Party.

The Democrats have had 11 leaders in 27 years: a very short average leadership tenure. It is an accepted view that voters react favourably to stable longer-term leadership, and react unfavourably to the reverse. My thesis is that it is therefore no wonder the Democrats have struggled to fulfil their promise.

The Democrats constitution includes the right of members to choose their party leader. This is a core philosophical position, and distinguishes the Democrats from other political parties, but that well-intentioned provision has helped produce leadership churning and periodic instability, fatal for any political party’s relationship with voters.

For 13 years, from 1977 to 1990, the Australian Democrats had just two leaders: Don Chipp and Janine Haines, originally from the Liberal Party and the Liberal Movement respectively.

Advertisement

It is no coincidence that the greater Leader churning in the Democrats after 1990 followed a constitutional change that allowed Democrat members to effectively “recall” a leader.

In the next more than 14 years, from 1990 to 2005, the Democrats have had 9 leaders, (including a couple of interim leaders and the latest leader, Senator Lyn Allison). In the nine years the Coalition has been in power since 1996, the Liberals and the Greens have had one leader, the Nationals two, Labor three, and the Democrats six.

Voters need time to get to know Leaders. Voter support is affected by leader churning and a consequent perception of instability.

Without this 90's Democrats constitutional change Janet Powell would have led the Democrats into the 1993 election (probably with a similar result, given that she and John Coulter had similar “Australia Party” tendencies which were not well reacted to by voters) - although it is likely nothing would have stopped Cheryl Kernot getting into the leadership in due course.

Without that constitutional change it is also likely Meg Lees would have had a second election. Of the eleven leaders, only Don Chipp and Janine Haines have led the Democrats into election battle more than once. Even the most successful leader of all, Janine Haines, had to fight no less than four member-leadership ballots in a row before her first election, her challengers being from the Democrat Left.

The Democrats achieved 8.5 per cent in the Senate in that (Haines) 1987 election. To put that into perspective, Senator Lees got 8.48 per cent 11 years later in 1998, so it was not an extraordinary result. After that 1987 election Janine's polls and popularity soared as the public got interested in her and got used to her.

There is a lesson there - leaders need to be in harness for some time.

In the 1990 election, this remarkable woman delivered a 12.6 per cent Senate result, the highest the Democrats ever achieved, and 11.3 per cent in the House of Representatives, also by far the highest the Democrats ever received.

Again, to put that in perspective, just three years later in 1993, under then (Democrat Left) leaders Janet Powell and John Coulter, the House of Representatives Democrat vote had plunged from 11.3 per cent to 3.8 per cent.

The Democrats never recovered their high Haines polls, although strong campaigning leaders were able to lift the Party in an election - for instance, Senators Kernot and Lees did achieve much higher election percentages than the polls promised.

Main observations on the Leaders and Polls graph

The period when Janine Haines led the Democrats saw the highest public percentage support, both in polls and in the 1990 election. These heights were not accompanied by significant increases in the numbers of Senate or State Upper House seats. The critical mass was still too low.

In all other polling periods the Democrats have struggled to achieve sufficient public support to translate into seats, always polling in single figures. Unlike the similarly sized National Party, support was generally widespread and not concentrated. The Democrats even lacked enough regional strength to win lower house seats in their traditional stronghold of South Australia.

The Democrats peaked at a maximum of 15 incumbent federal, state and territory parliamentarians, and in 3 decades never gained representation in Queensland State, Northern Territory, or Victoria State parliaments.

Lack of sufficient regional strength has meant the Democrats have almost never been able to achieve lower house representation. With low parliamentary numbers they have nevertheless punched way above their weight and had (and still have) a very high national profile.

Cheryl Kernot’s defection to Labor was fatal to Democrat stability and strength, which was recovering after the debacle of the Powell/Coulter years.

It was a very public rejection of Democrat meaning and relevance. Her replacement, Senator Meg Lees, had to start again. Kernot's defection occurred four days after a South Australian election where the Democrats came second in two-party preferred terms in a high number of adjoining seats. Kernot did not campaign. Had she been committed to the campaign when she was at her peak, it is possible some of those seats would have fallen to the Democrats and created a “fortress” to build out from, including the likelihood of taking the Federal seat of Mayo in 1998.

Looking at the polls, leaders Cheryl Kernot and Meg Lees achieved election percentage results substantially higher than the polls, and their polls were overall more stable (within a band) than other Democrat leaders, including Chipp and Haines.

It is also clear from the graph that leaders from the “left” of the Democrat spectrum saw precipitous falls in Democrat polls.

Key dates in the Leaders and Polls graph

Chipp’s departure in May 86 saw the Democrats slump 2.5 percentage points.

August 87 to November 90 the Haines’ effect lifts the Democrats 7.5 percentage points.

In March 90 Haines loses her House of Representatives bid and retires.

Powell and Coulter lose all Haines' gains in a continuous slide over the next 3 years, and the Democrats never again achieve Haines’ heights in the polls.

Kernot coup in April 93 stops the slide.

Kernot's defection to Labor October 97 causes Democrat slump in the polls. Although new leader Lees recovered ground, a further percentage point remained lost.

As the graph shows and contrary to popular myth, the Democrats support for a modified GST during the 1998 election and the GST deal in 1999 did not cause a major collapse in Democrat polls, which remained above the levels following Kernot’s defection.

After a sustained period of attack, the Party votes out Lees in favour of Stott Despoja in March 2001. Stott Despoja briefly lifts the Democrats an encouraging 2 percentage points until September 2001 when a continuous downward slide begins.

In October 2002 Stott Despoja resigns as leader, down 3.5 percentage points, in the midst of party room and party discord, after conflict between the Democrats National Executive and Lees and after Lees resigns.

New leader Bartlett stabilises the fall but then creates a major behaviour scandal in December 2003 causing the Democrats to slump further to just 1 percentage point in the polls.

In the October 2004 election, for the first time in 11 consecutive federal elections, the Democrats win no Senate seats. Following that result some pollsters start to record the Democrats under “Others”.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Senator Andrew Murray is Taxation and Workplace Relations Spokesperson for the Australian Democrats and a Senator for Western Australia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Andrew Murray
Photo of Andrew Murray
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy