Talk:Australian Democrats/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

earlier comments

Excised the following paragraph because it is hopelessly misleading:

The Australian Democrats are also the party that is most interested in allowing Australians human rights protections similar to those guaranteed in the USA constitution and also given by various means in most western European countries. The major political parties in Australia have for the most part actively opposed this, though the Australian Labor Party has occasionally swung the other way to some extent.

While it is true that the Democrats have more consistently supported treaties and Bill of Rights legislation, it's not true that other parties oppose human rights protections. Some in both major parties don't like particular human rights (for instance, some in the Liberal party aren't real keen on the rights of homosexuals, while some in the Labor side of politics don't mind squashing free speech if it expresses racist or sexist views), but, on the whole, Australia has signed most of the human rights treaties out there under one or other major party. As far as Bills of Rights, that got knocked down in a referendum the last time Labor tried it IIRC, and they're not keen to repeat the experience, and many in their party and most of the Liberal Party take the view that human rights are better protected by a democratically-elected parliament and an independent judiciary than constitutional amendments that may have ramifications far beyond what the framers or voters intended when they were imposed and may turn out to be counterproductive to more contemporary interpretations of human rights (for instance, consider the US first amendment, which many view as the right to have a murder rate many times higher than any other western society). I'm not necessarily agreeing with this viewpoint, but claiming that the major parties are anti-human rights is bollocks (though their recent efforts with regards to asylum-seekers might themselves deserve a bollocking IMHO) -- Robert Merkel

---

"consider the US first amendment, which many view as the right to have a murder rate many times higher" United_States_Constitution/Amendment_One I can't see how this could have much effect either way on the murder rate. Perhaps you mean the US second amendment? United_States_Constitution/Amendment_Two (Yes, that's still debateable, but it is popular outside the USA and to some extent inside it, to say that is part of the reason for the high murder rate.)

The last attempt at an Australian Bill of Rights was not knocked over by the people as you suggest, it was knocked over by the Liberal party, who first insisted on taking all the good bits out of it before the referendum was held, and then campaigned against it very strongly.

The most serious human rights problems in Australia are indefinite detention without trial, seizure of property without a warrant and with no possibility of judicial review, and the lack of any mechanism to investigate or punish police and other government officials when they murder law abiding citizens. Some sort of freedom of speech would also be nice. Both Labor and Liberal have systematically opposed any attempt to do something about this at both state and federal levels for the last ten years, and less systematically before that.

Look, we could debate Australia's human rights record and practice all day (I disagree strongly with some of your points) but the purpose of this talk page is to discuss how we can improve the article on the Democrats. Let's stick to that. --Robert Merkel

---

What political "persuasion" best covers the Democrats these days? Opinions apart from my own would be nice. I think that social democratic certainly covered it under Stott-Despoja, but what about under Bartlett, IMHO they seem to be tending back to the right. I'm just thinking aloud :-). Again, thoughts would be welcome - Aaron Hill 14:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Centrist would be what I'd call it. Ambivalenthysteria 04:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Democrats are now, as they were set up to be originally, a "small-l" liberal party - ie. fiscally, they're fairly non-interventionist, and socially they're progressive.

I don't think this justifies calling them "social democratic", although, truth be told, the aims and methods of social democracy (as opposed to democratic socialism, ie. reformism) are well-nigh identical to liberalism.

The period of dominance by figures such as Stott-Despoja and Kernot wasn't really in tune with the Democrat's core philosophy, as demonstrated by the rather large gulf that apparently exists between the younger membership of the party and its older membership.

What I think is the main distinguishing ground is the attitude towards trade unions (liberals gravitate more towards small buisiness than unions, and I think this is borne out by the Dems, who are suspicious of union influence). There's a subtle distinction in focus, as liberals tend to be openly individualistic, and social democratic rhetoric focuses more on "communitarianism". Again, I think this individual focus accurately reflects the Democrats.

And also to a large extent, affiliations these days are a matter of what you call yourself. I'm yet to find any Democrat anywhere actually categorising themselves as a "social democrat". - Lacrimosus 12:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"At the moment it looks unlikely that any of their Senators up for re-election this year will survive the vote."

Really? Is that based on a poll or is it just someones opinion? Borofkin 00:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's very much what the polls are looking like, Borofkin. The Democrats will be losing all Senate seats to either 1) extra Labor candidates or 2) Greens candidates. [1]

Ever since they sold out (thats how people view it) on the GST(Australia)in 1999 they just arnt the same, Meg Lees headed it, and yes they are going down hill Enlil Ninlil 04:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Borofkin, if you can find anyone outside of the Democrats themselves who seriously thinks they have any chance of retaining of their Senate seats, post evidence here. I've not seen a single commentator suggest that - indeed, the only reason they're giving Kate Reynolds in the SA Legislative Council any chance at all of holding her seat is because she could be considered distant from the party's federal troubles. Ambi 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that if they lose Reynolds on Saturday (Gilfillan would have been a bearable loss (had he stood)), even after they've rebranded themselves as the South Australian Democrats, then there's no hope for the party anywhere in Austalia (although Stott Despoja might be interesting if she stands (and a little birdy tells me she mightn't)). It's a shame really.--cj | talk 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

If there was ever a term that meant the opposite of a 'weasel word', it would be needed to describe what is used in this sentence:

"The left of the party was horrified by John Howard's policies, and wanted to undermine and block them whenever possible"

This statement isn't NPOV, though it's certainly not referenced - and should be. Finding a reference with substance would probably be impossible. But the statement could still be true. matturn 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pre 1990 history

What happened in the party before 1990? Also, the beginning of the history is written as if the party has been dissolved. matturn

The whole history section is crud - it completely ignores the founding of the party, their early success with the growth of green issues in the 1980s, their successes under Haines, the Haines/Vigor split in 1988, and the turmoil of the early 1990s. Things like the deregistering of the Tasmanian division are really a footnote in comparison to those events. Rebecca 06:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any books on the history of the Democrats? I have a few on the parties in South Australia that preceded them, but don't know of any others. Their decline is quite a pity. michael ^talk 07:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just taking a quick look through the National Library's search results, and I've had some results. "Keeping the bastards honest : the Australian Democrats’ first twenty years" by John Warhurst (1997) is one; " Let’s have a party! : an account of Australian Democrats in Queensland from 1977-1981" (1981) by a B. Floyd is another. I'm sure I've seen a couple of others in the ANU library, too - I'd check, but I'm back in Victoria at the moment. Many of the key figures have their own biographies, which should be useful: not only the party leaders, but other folk like John Siddons. The National Library also has bucketloads of party newsletters, periodicals, policy statements, speech transcripts, and interviews with many key people, some of which are open access. Rebecca 07:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A comprehensive history, in time, wouldn't go astray, and it would help end the media-created 'dead party' label that hangs over them. It certainly looks like there's the resources for it. michael ^talk 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice to do a bit of a group project cleaning this article up in general, and combining our respective resources. I couldn't do much until I get back to Canberra in early Feb, but I'd be happy to help after that time. Rebecca 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. I know of a few good sources, but I won't have access to them until I get back to Adelaide (whenever that may be).--cj | talk 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been working on this very issue but christmas and what not intervened and I return to find the Democrat's history widely discussed. Hopefully I will have something done soon but obviously people are welcome to add what would no doubt be something far superior to what I would come up with. --Roisterer 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is still of interest, I will attempt to write an early history of the Democrats (covering their beginnings, formation and first results) in the next week or so. michael ^talk 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested in picking this up again?--cj | talk 13:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I really should. Michael ^talk 13:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I was an active member and officebearer from 1980-1993 and have retained many records, journals, etc, with a view (one day {:-)) to compiling them and writing some historical monographs. It will be a huge task. However, I'm willing to assist in the short term with memories, published citations, etc. Will also be checking out some relevant articles. Cheers Bjenks 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Most successful elections

A recent edit says their most successful election was 1977? By what measure? According to this page http://fadar.aec.gov.au/_content/how/newsfiles/077/news77.htm they only won 2 seats in 1977, but they won 5 in 1984,[2] 1990,[3] and 1996 [4]. Rocksong 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see what measure s/he is using either. The Democrats' highest membership levels were during this period but that's not relevant to the point at hand. --Roisterer 09:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it neccesary to include Every elected representative?

Surely we don't need to include everyone elected as a Democrat ever? Surely that is what Category:Australian Democrats politicians for. If anyone has any other ideas or oobbjections, I will remove the list. --Roisterer 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

10 of these people still don't have articles, and thus their names would be lost if the list were deleted. Until they get articles, I'd like to see the list stay. Rebecca 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, keep until they all have articles, however brief. Besides, it's not that many people, so it doesn't exceessively clutter the page. Rocksong 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the list should stay. It's not as if many more names will be added to the list ;-) Timeshift 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Janine Haines

Looking for a wider audience here... could some person/people respond to my comments at Talk:Janine Haines. Thanks. Peter Ballard 04:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrist?

They might have been centrist once, but I don't see how they could possibly be described as right of Labor anymore, by any measure. Peter Ballard 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Party_Infoboxes. I knew this would happen. Timeshift 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for demise?

It's widespread opinion (including of this article) that their position on GST lead to the Democrats demise. However they still won 4 Senate seats in the following 2001 federal election, the same number as they had won in the 1998 'GST Election'. so I would like to see some more evidence for this proposition. Polling figures perhaps? I would argue that their demise was caused more by their infighting during 2002. This was perhaps initiated by the split over GST position. This might seem petty but I believe that it is an important distinction for two reasons. 1. it could therefore be argued that Australians were happy with what the democrats did with the GST - contrary to media reporting. 2. That it was the parties inability to resolve the personal differences that it's structure allowed that lead to it's downfall rather than any particular policy position. More evidence would be required to support these assertions also. Pugsworth 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of demise, the DLP decide to make an appearance at the SA senate election, and they get more votes than the Democrats.[5] There's two relics that aren't coming back in a hurry. Timeshift (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"However, their departure will be counterbalanced by the commencement of newly elected Greens senators for W.A. and S.A.". This sentence in the 2007 election section seems a little editorial ... 203.17.70.161 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's lots of editorial and unsourced opinion in the article, especially on the reasons for their demise. But the sentence you mention is particularly POV, and I've removed it. On the wider topic: we need sourced opinions on the reasons for their demise. I'm sure some useful commentary will come out over the next few days. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Glancing at the articles on the various elections the big drop in terms of Senate % share was between 2001-2004, though a fall has been present at every election since 1996:

• 1977: 11.13 N/A
• 1980: 9.25 -1.88
• 1983: 9.57 +0.31
• 1984: 7.62 -2.32
• 1987: 8.47 +0.85
• 1990: 12.63 +4.15
• 1993: 5.31 -7.32
• 1996: 10.82 +5.51
• 1998: 8.45 -2.37
• 2001: 7.25 -1.20
• 2004: 2.09 -5.16
• 2007: 1.27 –0.82

Of course raw federal figures don't always tell the full story as to whether or not an overall decline masks advances in some states or just how marginal some of the Senate seats were at key points (or even if the crucial difference for winning seats depended on changing preference deals). Timrollpickering (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment here is correct. For the Dems (and other minors), preferences are crucial--usually even more so than the first-pref tally. Your figures above confirm my own view that the high point of the Democrats (in terms of public approval) was during the leadership of Janine Haines, and that the demise really began in 1990-91 with the coup against Janet Powell. When a small membership is split by such events, it becomes harder to find candidates, organise campaigns, get the polling booths properly staffed, etc. The Democrats began as a substantial grassroot party and were driven (notably by Kernot and Lees) to become a top-down organisation with strutting chiefs and no indians. It is a natural law that such groups can't survive. Whatever the general voting public thought about the merits of GST becomes irrelevant when seen against the final shattering of internal party morale by senators' perceived treachery in ignoring established policy for pragmatic purposes. In my state of WA, the Democrats were unable to field a single H of R candidate in the recent federal election. Yet, on 6 Feb 1993, they contested 50 state seats and, the next month (13 March), every federal seat. Q.E.D. Btw, I disagree with Peter Ballard that reference to the equivalence of Democrats and Greens is 'editorial and unsourced opinion'. Former AD leader Janet Powell is but one of many genuine former Democrats who now work for the Greens, who place identical value on grassroot participation, compassion, sustainability, etc, as did the (original) Democrats. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was wrong (though I disagree), I said it was unsourced (which it was) and that it was opinion (which it was, because it is easy to mount an argument either way). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's very much easier to mount an argument that Democrats and Greens are like-minded than the contrary. That, of course, relates to the people themselves, not the historical or imputed ownership baggage of either group. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I see, the incoming Greens are pretty similar to the outgoing Democrats (e.g. Sarah Hanson-Young looks like a straight swap for Natasha Stott Despoja, at least policy-wise). Still, the origial contentious sentence ("However, their departure will be counterbalanced by the commencement of newly elected Greens senators for W.A. and S.A.") still reads like editorial opinion to me. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's some comments by Antony Green on his blog on this at: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/10/comparing-the-greens-and-australian-democrats.html

In particular this is telling:

I hold to the view that the Democrats can be classed as a transition party, like the old DLP. In couple of paragraphs I'm going to have to summarise a vast body of literatuire on voter behaviour and party allegiance, but here goes.

It is rare for people to change their political allegiances overnight. It takes time for people to re-align their inherited political views to the present day reality their life.

While a party called the DLP is still with us, its real life was from the 1950s to the 1970s. In that period it attracted support mainly from middle class Catholic voters whose inherited political allegiance was to Labor in an era when Catholics didn't vote Liberal. The DLP was spawned by the fight over Communist infiltration of the union movement. Over a two decade period, it appears many DLP voters shifted their underlying allegiances from Labor to Liberal, the DLP being the path of transition. Today there are many Catholic Liberal MPs, including people like Tony Abbott and Andrew Robb whose parents were DLP activists.

The Democrats had their roots in the small-l liberal wing of the Liberal Party. These were people interested in small-l liberal causes, but put off Labor by its working class roots. They were inspired by Whitlam's ideas, but put off by his government's handling of the economy, but unhappy with the way the government was put out of office. That is the origin of the one thing the Democrats always stood for, they were a party to ensure that no government ever again had its agenda destroyed by the Senate.

Over time, I think many Democrat voters became more comfortable with voting Labor. It also appears the Democrat supporters did not transmit their party loyalty to their children. Over a two decade period, the core Democrat vote just disappeared.

As my look at Senate voting showed, the Democrats also had a floating pool of undecided voters who voted Democrat. I think this pool disappeared after the GST vote, and especially after the nonsense on the party leadership in 2002. The party was made to look like a joke.

The Democrats were spawned by a period that rejected the 'winner takes all' philosophy that came out of the Senate battles over the Whitlam government. People have forgotten that era, and a wishy-washy middle ground party is less appealing today than voting for a party liike the Greens that stand for a stronger set of principles.

Different eras spawn different politics. The Democrats were partly a party of transition and partly a party of compromise over principle. The Greens are a very different party with a social base much easier to spot, but it is not a party of the middle, which is why it has not attracted the level of split voting the Democrats used to attract.

There's also the rise of other minor parties that changed the dynamics of third party voting from "balance of power/keep the bastards honest" to going to Canberra to do things. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever fantasies may invade voters' minds, it's not possible to "go to Canberra to do things" without a substantial presence in the Lower House. The lapse of Cheryl Kernot showed how right Chipp was in recognising {the limitation of) what is possible under the Australian constitution. It's history that the Greens over-reached in Europe, as the Dems did over here. Only time will show whether the Australian Greens can stride past the many traps that lie in wait for them. Bjenks (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Electoral fortunes

I give notice that I intend to embark on some ruthless editing of this section to remove a lot of woolliness, irrelevancy, apparent partisan POV, inconsistent style, etc, and generally make it more succinct and helpful. This will be in the context of my also continuing to expand and improve material on the party's early history, as previously discussed. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Leader?

Is Lyn Allison still the leader? Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. She will cease to be the federal parliamentary leader at midnight on 30 June. At that time, her 2007 electoral defeat takes effect and there will be no senator left to either lead or be led. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Sandra Kanck? Would she be considered the leader at that point?

Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue she's the defacto leader of the SA Democrats. Not the Australian Democrats. Timeshift (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly correct. Kanck could, no doubt, style herself as the SA state parliamentary leader (though I don't think even she would be crass enough to do so). Most parliaments don't allow the formalisation of a party of one --or usually anything less than five-- though there's nothing to stop her having the party affiliation in name and in public. Remember, too, that even the AD federal "leader" acts only in the parliamentary sphere, though she also has an ex-officio seat on the party's national executive. At least in my day (pre-1994) each state elected its own executive council (with a president), and members elected certain national executive officers (including a national president). It has been a long-standing furphy, originally created by the media for their own obvious benefit, that the AD Senate leader is the overall leader of the party and a single-source oracle for all that is important. That is, of course, absolute crap in a party held together by genuine participatory democracy--as the Democrats were set up to be. Don Chipp used to tell the press proudly that he had only one vote in the party's policy and admin structures--equal to that of any other member. That idea, of course, was something very foreign to the likes of some of the "leaders" who followed him. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Prime Minister translated from Latin means "first among equals"... the AD Senate leader is the leader of the AD, though going to that person as an all authoritative source is another story. Timeshift (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

". . .the AD Senate leader is the leader of the AD" —No, I think you've not quite got the point. It's not correct that the ADs (as a national party) will be leaderless on 1 July, as you seem to infer. Also, had Janine made it to the HofR in 1990, there were arrangements in place for her to resume the leadership under the new title of "Federal Parliamentary Leader". Don't forget that, in 1991, Janet Powell was ousted in three successive ways--(1) by the Senate party room, (2) by the national management body and (3) by a membership ballot, following a great deal of orchestrated bad publicity. The sort of 'leadership' demanded by journalists just does not work under participatory democracy. The pretence had to be kept up to suit popular notions and, importantly, the Senate administration which provides valuable extra staffing and other facilities to the 'leader'. Bob Brown will be getting that now. But don't try telling any members of The Greens (WA) that he is their 'leader' in anything but an informal sense!! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, do either the Dems or Greens not vote as a party much? When the media want to know what the Greens think on an issue, Bob Brown would be the first to talk to. That is just the way modern politics works. It doesn't mean he leads and controls them, but he/she is in a sense the defacto leader in the Senate and by default in the public. And i'm not saying the AD will be leaderless in a defacto sense, but they will be in a parliamentary sense. Timeshift (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Democrat senators unquestionably exercised a 'conscience vote' in the days of Chipp and Haines. I believe Kernot established a 'party vote' principle, and that was about the time I and many others quit the party for various reasons. I can't speak about later years nor about the Greens generally. I know for a fact that Bob Brown has been taken to task and made to apologise for making an ex cathedra statement on a matter which had not been determined by the grassroots membership. In such a case, he was able to speak for himself but not for the party. That is indeed how Chipp saw his position (and constantly restated it--rightly so, since the views of the press and "the way modern politics works" were completely irrelevant to the passionately held principles of a strong new party determined to empower its membership in all important decision-making). Cheers again, Bjenks (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Right down to electing their own leader hey? Timeshift (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'Leaders', delegates and managers in various fields of endeavour, yes, but hopefully no-one corresponding to Mugabe, (;-) Bjenks (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully disagree. I believe that Sandra Kanck is the new leader of the Australian Democrats - because she is the only Australian Democrats parliamentarian left so by default she is the leader of the party. And if she not leader, well Lyn Allison is definitely not leader - therefore no one's name should be there CatonB (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Democrats Party President John McLaren be considered leader, now that the party is no longer represented in parliament? It's a bit peculiar to me for a state-level M.P (Sandra K.) to be considered leader of the national pary, by virtue of being the only elected rep. in Aust. Mrodowicz (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The change i've just made shouldn't be an issue to anyone - let's move on to more important things now. Timeshift (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't quite cut it for me though. If we look at how the party template is used for other parties, leaders are stated, regardless of whether there is parliamentary representation (which is not really relevant to party leadership). I too would want to move on to other things, but I think that if we can't agree on whether there is a party leader or not, we should just leave a blank space next to leader. Mrodowicz (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mrodowicz (talk) is, of course, perfectly right. The one legitimate national 'leader' of the Democrats qua political party is the (annually elected) national president, whoever that happens to be. Fussy demands that the leader has to be a federal parliamentarian are obviously pointless when there ain't any such people—but that does not mean that the party has yet disappeared as a federal entity. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dems to run in Mayo by-election

Mayo by-election, 2008. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Theoretical" balance of power

During the Hawke and Keating Labor Governments (1983-96), the Democrats held a theoretical balance of power in the Senate: the numbers were such that they could team with Labor to pass legislation, or team with the Coalition to block legislation on occasions when the Coalition decided to oppose a government bill.

What does theoretical mean here? I'd have thought it was an actual balance of power. A balance of power is in itself a kind of theoretical concept, because it only applies in practice when it comes to a vote. Not sure if that's very clear; but calling it a theoretical balance of power doesn't sit well with me either. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably just a matter of understanding. Some elements of the press (I love this new term,'churnalists!) want us to understand Senate minority groups, even individuals like Xenophon etc, as ACTUAL holders of greater power than other senators, justifying the view with a 'balance of power' argument. The reality is that the Labor and Liberal whips work very hard to prevent any situation in which the cross-benchers actually get to control the outcome or any part thereof. So, on a day-to-day basis, the 'balance of power' is quite hypothetical. At present, the Greens and independents can indeed help the government or opposition to win a division IF they are all in the chamber, IF all vote together and IF the government and opposition vote against each other. (They most often vote together, but the press won't tell us this.) Of course, the government has the actual power to frame the proposition, and to withhold, amend or withdraw it if necessary to avoid a defeat. Once in a blue moon (eg, the infamous GST) the government can realise on the generally meaningless 'balance of power'. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: In today's Herald-Sun, Laurie Oakes talks to the Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans. "The frustration of governments about not being able to get their legislation through is exaggerated," [Evans] told me yesterday. "If you look at the period when the Howard government didn't have a majority in the Senate you'll find about half a dozen key bills rejected out of 150 to 200 a year passed." QED, eh? The article is well worth reading by anyone who wants to learn how the Senate really works. Btw, we urgently need a WP article on Harry Evans—he's a helluva important Australian. Bjenks (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the rejected bills are usually much more contentious. The Howard government also only had to rely on the support of the Democrats, the self-styled centrist 'balance of power' party whose aim (disregarding beliefs/wanted amendments) was not to be obstructionist to the government of the day. Any government that has to rely on two parties (arguably non-balance of power parties) plus an independent is bound to run in to trouble. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Think on another Harry Evans quote in the same article:

In an article in a law journal a few years ago, he argued that "modern political parties are a radical negation of Parliament as an institution". He described them as "organisations designed to prevent parliamentary government from working". Yesterday, Evans said: "It's obvious that party discipline in Australia is far, far tighter than it is in any other place. It's just part of the Australian political culture." He sees a Senate in which neither major party has the numbers as the antidote.

I couldn't agree more. Bjenks (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created an article for Harry Evans - my pleasure Dodgyville (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, much needed! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Young Australian Democrats content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- Bjenks (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I see that the YAD article still has virtually no content after being in existence for two years. In view of its diminishing notability, along with that of its parent party, I propose merging it into a section of the AD article. Bjenks (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's one sentence, and it's unlikely to be extended anytime soon. Go for it. Rebecca (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2