Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Bernardi – parallels in the ACT

By John Hargreaves - 13 February 2017 7

chamber

So now the fourth estate feeding frenzy is happening about Cory Bernardi, I wonder why all the hype.

He’s fitting into the shoes of that other famous South Australian, Don Chipp, who left the Libs (after being a high-profile minister) and founded the Australian Democrats. Remember that lot? Rather a long time in the candle light but burnt out nonetheless.

We even had a Democrat in the ACT Legislative Assembly for one term. Anyone remember Roslyn Dundas? Minor parties often have a short time in the sun.

The ACT’s early days were odd ones indeed. The plethora of minor single issue parties, whose life expectancy was in weeks, plagued the growing up of the Legislative Assembly. The No Self Government Party (which gained two members, one of whom was a minister), the Abolish Self Government Party (one member) the Residents Rally (a NIMBY group with a couple of members) had a flash in the pan appearance in politics, with the only successful member of that bunch being Michael Moore, who became an independent and later formed his own party.

In 1998, the Liberals won government with Carnell, Humphries, Kaine, Cornwell, Smyth, Hird and Stefaniak, leaving as the ALP Opposition Stanhope, Berry, Quinlan, Corbell, Wood and myself. The cross bench was Osborne and Rugendyke (independents), Tucker (Greens) and Moore (independent because he had shed the Residents Rally tag).

Now here’s the thing. Kaine had been a previous Chief Minister and had been ousted by Carnell. When they formed government in 1998, he was offered a minor portfolio and went to the backbench in disgust. Later in the term, he resigned from the Liberal Party and went to the cross bench.

Carnell et al were worried about a no-confidence motion in the Libs getting up and needed to have at least seven people on the government benches so they enticed Michael Moore to join the government in coalition (after his long list of demands were guaranteed) and so the Government had the one extra vote to stave off any challenge.

When Kaine resigned from the Libs, the outcry from Libs everywhere was for him to resign because he was elected as a Lib and if he wasn’t one then he should leave. Ring a bell with Bernardi and the calls for him to resign?

When Kaine formed his own party, the United Canberra Party, he lost the election in 2001.

In the rather stormy days of the next Assembly, Cross was given a rough time by the Libs and in the end, she resigned from the Libs and went to the crossbench. At the 2004 election, she ran against the Libs and was defeated.

The pattern here is that where an elected pollie leaves the party which spawned them and either forms another party or runs as an independent, the odds are high that they will be defeated at that election. Exceptions are always about and Bob Katter is one of them. Michael Moore shed the Residents Rally and formed the Michael Moore Independent Group with Helen Szuty and this group survived for one term. But the rule usually holds.

Bernardi’s chances of re-election are next to none. He’s banking on the rejection of the major parties and the presentation of radical right and left wing splinter groups, like Pauline Hanson or Jacqui Lambie, as his insurance policy.

Well, he should learn a lesson from the ACT, young as it is.

In the 1989 election, every loony in the world presented themselves and a bunch of non-major party candidates were elected. Only two survived the 1992 election – Michael Moore and Dennis Stevenson from the Abolish Self Government Party.

As an aside, it should be remembered that the election in 1989 was by the modified D’Hondt system of seats across the ACT, and was so until 1998 when the Hare-Clark system of electorates was introduced. And so, the bigger the electorate, the easier it is for minor groups of protest votes to get up.

The 1995 election saw two Greens (Tucker and Horodny) and two independents (Moore and Osborne) join the two major parties. But really Moore ran as a member of the Moore Independents and as such really represented a “party”.

The same result happened in 1998 with four people on the cross bench, one Green and three independents.

But in 2001, the cross bench started with only two members, each from a minor party, the Greens and the Democrats. They were joined later by Helen Cross who left the Libs. Moore had exited, Osborne and Rugendyke were defeated and the notion of “independent” was squashed, possibly forever. Howls at Cross to resign came from the Libs just as for Kaine and Bernardi.

In 2004, there were no independents under any guise. Labor had nine seats, the Libs had eight and the Greens had one. But by this stage the Greens were a recognised political force with a political infrastructure which was robust, not just an independent with a “party” tag to maximise the vote on preferential voting.

2008 saw a cleaner three way split, with Labor having seven, the Libs six and the Greens four. Again, a rejection of independents in favour of the major parties with the distribution among the parties being the only issue.

2012 saw a redistribution of the proportions with Labor and the Libs having eight each and Rattenbury from the Greens going with Labor, in exchange for a ministry.

So, while it may be the case elsewhere in the country perhaps, that there is an embracement of anti-establishment groupings and high profile individuals, it is not the case here.

I suggest that the voting patterns here should be looked at by those rebels and those for whom destiny beckons to greatness, and one can see the brevity of the time in the sun or near the candle.

Bernardi will go the way of Don Chipp, Trevor Kaine and Helen Cross, the fringe parties will go the way of the No Self Government Party, the Abolish Self Government Party and the Residents Rally, and the country will be governed by a distribution between Labor, the LNP and the Greens, with the odd mosquito giving them grief.

Whaddya think?

Is John Hargreaves right that Cory Bernardi will, like former ACT politicians who quit a major party to run as independents or set up a minor party, lose his seat in Parliament at the next election?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
7 Responses to
Bernardi – parallels in the ACT
1
bikhet 9:45 am
13 Feb 17
#

I could vote yes, because I believe most people vote for the party rather than the person, unless that person is exceptional. I could also vote no though, as I believe that there’s a lot of dissatisfaction with the major parties – but I don’t believe Bernardi is the person (or typifies the people) to take advantage of that dissatisfaction. Hanson is more likely to do so.

Good history of politics in the ACT though. A lot of it happened before I got here and so provides interesting background.

Report this comment

2
Mysteryman 10:42 am
13 Feb 17
#

If Bernardi was a member of the House of Reps, then your prediction might be right, John. I could see it would be difficult for him to find a majority of voters in an electorate of roughly 100,000 people. But as a Senator the entire state of SA is his electorate. I think it would be much easier for him to find the required number of votes across the entire state – similar to how the Greens manage to get so many elected to the Senate despite being a fringe group with extreme views.

Report this comment

3
Chris Mordd Richards 1:52 pm
13 Feb 17
#

Mysteryman said :

similar to how the Greens manage to get so many elected to the Senate despite being a fringe group with extreme views.

Your statement contradicts itself, if they are a fringe group, then they woudn’t have so many Senate seats. At least admit they have moved beyond the fringe a while ago, you can’t have your insult cake and eat it too. One Nation are more of a fringe group with extreme views atm, but after the WA and QLD election you will have to call them more than just that as well most likely.

Report this comment

4
HenryBG 3:45 pm
13 Feb 17
#

I’d like to offer two perspectives on John’s thesis:

1. The first assembly in the ACT consisted of just 9 (out of 17) seats being held by members of the “major parties”, including such dubious propositions as Ellnor Grassby and Paul Whalan. Many of these “major party” candidates were people of little to no community significance, the lesson being that being a member of a “major party” seems often to mitigate in favour of any candidate who has little else to offer. Contrast the “major party” nobodies with the likes of Michael Moore with his extremely high level of grass roots community support. Exceptions to this of course, being solid community members such as Liberal Trevor Kaine, who served us well.

2. The Democrats are touched on fleetingly, but far more attention should have been paid to their example: Arising in South Australia, in 1977 The Democrats obtained 2 seats in the Australian Senate. By 1980, their message had spread nationwide and this had increased to 5, given them the balance of power in the Senate. For the next 25 years, they consistently achieved over 10% of the vote, with up to 9 Federal Senators in Canberra, mostly retaining the balance of power over that time while also putting a lot of pressure on a dozen or so Parliamentary spots, in one election coming in second place in 6 of them.

If Cory Bernardi is able to put similar pressure on Australian elections for the next 25 years, we’re in for a lot of pain.

Luckily, I’m with John, although for a slightly different reason: whereas he predicts a flash-in-the-pan effect with a rapid dwindling of interest taking place, I believe interest in Cory Bernardi will be consistent and persistent, and likely to outlast Bernardi’s own interest in running a fringe political group.

I believe Bernardi’s ability to garner votes will be limited: his natural political support consists of a fringe of cranky pensioners which is evenly – and thinly – spread out all across Australia, as opposed to the strong local support in South Australia that helped propel Don Chipp into the national political consciousness. Don Chipp was also a well-regarded and energetic progressive who was moving with the values of the changing times. I probably can’t really spell out the precise ways in which this contrasts with Cory Bernardi, but I’m sure the reader can fill in the gaps for themselves.

Report this comment

5
Chris Mordd Richards 7:38 pm
13 Feb 17
#

HenryBG said :

I’d like to offer two perspectives on John’s thesis:

1. The first assembly in the ACT consisted of just 9 (out of 17) seats being held by members of the “major parties”, including such dubious propositions as Ellnor Grassby and Paul Whalan. Many of these “major party” candidates were people of little to no community significance, the lesson being that being a member of a “major party” seems often to mitigate in favour of any candidate who has little else to offer. Contrast the “major party” nobodies with the likes of Michael Moore with his extremely high level of grass roots community support. Exceptions to this of course, being solid community members such as Liberal Trevor Kaine, who served us well.

2. The Democrats are touched on fleetingly, but far more attention should have been paid to their example: Arising in South Australia, in 1977 The Democrats obtained 2 seats in the Australian Senate. By 1980, their message had spread nationwide and this had increased to 5, given them the balance of power in the Senate. For the next 25 years, they consistently achieved over 10% of the vote, with up to 9 Federal Senators in Canberra, mostly retaining the balance of power over that time while also putting a lot of pressure on a dozen or so Parliamentary spots, in one election coming in second place in 6 of them.

If Cory Bernardi is able to put similar pressure on Australian elections for the next 25 years, we’re in for a lot of pain.

Luckily, I’m with John, although for a slightly different reason: whereas he predicts a flash-in-the-pan effect with a rapid dwindling of interest taking place, I believe interest in Cory Bernardi will be consistent and persistent, and likely to outlast Bernardi’s own interest in running a fringe political group.

I believe Bernardi’s ability to garner votes will be limited: his natural political support consists of a fringe of cranky pensioners which is evenly – and thinly – spread out all across Australia, as opposed to the strong local support in South Australia that helped propel Don Chipp into the national political consciousness. Don Chipp was also a well-regarded and energetic progressive who was moving with the values of the changing times. I probably can’t really spell out the precise ways in which this contrasts with Cory Bernardi, but I’m sure the reader can fill in the gaps for themselves.

+1, a thoughtful analysis of the Democrats aspect to this.

Report this comment

6
Mysteryman 6:50 pm
14 Feb 17
#

Chris Mordd Richards said :

Mysteryman said :

similar to how the Greens manage to get so many elected to the Senate despite being a fringe group with extreme views.

Your statement contradicts itself, if they are a fringe group, then they woudn’t have so many Senate seats. At least admit they have moved beyond the fringe a while ago, you can’t have your insult cake and eat it too. One Nation are more of a fringe group with extreme views atm, but after the WA and QLD election you will have to call them more than just that as well most likely.

No, my statement doesn’t contradict itself. It makes my point perfectly – groups like the Greens that don’t have the mainstream appeal to get seats in the House of Reps (the seat of Melbourne being the rare exception) are still able to take advantage of the quirks of the Senate voting system to win Senate seats. One Nation is another great example of this.

You just don’t like the implication that the Greens are a fringe group. But they are.

Report this comment

7
HenryBG 7:16 am
15 Feb 17
#

Mysteryman said :

Chris Mordd Richards said :

Mysteryman said :

similar to how the Greens manage to get so many elected to the Senate despite being a fringe group with extreme views.

Your statement contradicts itself, if they are a fringe group, then they woudn’t have so many Senate seats. At least admit they have moved beyond the fringe a while ago, you can’t have your insult cake and eat it too. One Nation are more of a fringe group with extreme views atm, but after the WA and QLD election you will have to call them more than just that as well most likely.

No, my statement doesn’t contradict itself. It makes my point perfectly – groups like the Greens that don’t have the mainstream appeal to get seats in the House of Reps (the seat of Melbourne being the rare exception) are still able to take advantage of the quirks of the Senate voting system to win Senate seats. One Nation is another great example of this.

You just don’t like the implication that the Greens are a fringe group. But they are.

Proportional representation isn’t a “quirk”.

The Greens would be less of a fringe group if they purged all the marxists who have infiltrated their ranks and diverted the Party from its core purpose.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site